[Closed] General expense

So far today I have had some sugar puffs with milk,glass of juice and several cups of tea.
Milk was a quid for two pints, cereal £1.50 a box (third off in sainsburys ) and waitrose essential grapefruit juice at about £1.80 a carton

Yeah, and how many bowls of cereal do you get from a box? 10? (15p/serving)
2 pints = 5 bowls of cereal (20p serving)
Juice = 5 big glasses from 1l and you can get grapefruit juice a LOT cheper than that! 3 for £2.50 at Tesco IIRC. (17p a serving)

52p for your breakfast..... 🙂

52p x 7 = £3.64, so over a third of your weeks budget gone on (arguably) the cheapest and simplest meal of the day! 😆

Yeah, and how many bowls of cereal do you get from a box? 10?

I don't intend to spend a tenner a week on food, but it is hard to believe anyone can eat three meals day with a balanced fruit and veg diet for that amount

No point keeping on about the person you know who eats one water biscuit a fortnight, this is about general household outgoings and how they have risen in price

Waitrose own grapefruit juice is £1 a litre and my nearest Tesco was doing it 3 for £2.80 the pink grapefruit juice is dearer about £1.80 litre from Waitrose.

tesco chocosnaps = 1.74 for 600g, reccomending serving size = 30g
skimmed milk for breakfast = 4pints(2.272ltrs) for 1.49, reccomended amount to use with chochsnaps = 125ml

cereal = 20 portions for £1.74
milk for cereal = £18.176 portions for 1.49

so even if you went over the recommended portion size and got 18 portions out of a box you're looking at a total breakfast cost of 18p per day for breakfast. (well.... 17.9444444444444444444444p to be exact) so thats £1.26 a week on breakfast 🙂

as i mentioned in an earlier post, you can make the choice to have smaller portions, that will effect your food budget dramatically.

you can make the choice to [s]have smaller portions[/s] [b]not eat Tesco ChocoSugarCrapSnaps[/b], that will [s]effect your food budget[/s][b] improve your diet[/b] dramatically.

lol i'm not the one eating chocosnaps, mrsconsequence is 😀 and i think we've already established earlier on that she had accepted a restricted diet was inevitable when eating for 10pounds a week 8)

It's this one, very nice too at 3 for £4.50 [url= http://www.waitrose.com/shop/ProductView-10317-10001-10690-Waitrose+pink+grapefruit+juice ]Juice[/url]
Should add my nearest tesco is six miles away and not about to waste all that petrol going up there when I can walk to Waitrose in five minutes. What I save in fuel means I can buy the juice I like, their free range scotch eggs are rather tasty too

I just spent £4.90 on a baguette and a piece of Victoria sponge.

Add to that the muesli, 2 bananas and 50g of nuts I've also eaten I guess I shouldn't be eating again until Wednesday 🙁

Suppose it depends on what you mean by mutationally very good

I mean not a great variety of fruit and veg in there as well as your pulses and grains. I just think you'd be dropping too far and relying on the bulk to fill you rather than a good nutritional balance to sustain you healthily.

Spending more on food =/= better nutrition - of course.

Waitrose is my nearest supermarket and it's about 6 miles away 🙂 with an ASDA next door. I find the veg better in ASDA than Waitrose.

"There is more chance of Elvis landing on Mars than a housing market crash," says John Wriglesworth at the Wriglesworth Consultancy. "No, there's more chance of finding a rose tree in the desert. We're nowhere near a property crash."

From an article in the Telegraph in 04. I got flamed on both STW and BM at the time for describing the property market as a bubble dspite the fact that other articles in the Telegraph at the same time in the same paper supported the view.

It's a bull-bear issue and you'll always find someone to sell you prices rising (and a house to go with it) and someone to point out that boom and bust will continue for as long as supply is limited and demand is dependent on interest rates and the ability to borrow.

I spend about [b]£90-100 a week on food for one[/b] and do not consider myself to be particularly extravagant.

😆

No; really??

Eating out ramps costs up proper steeply, and such incredibly poor value relatively. Nice though.

A tenner a week is mental though. What on Earth do you eat? No meat, I assume.

£25-40 a week here, just for little me, and I shop at LiDLs quite a bit for basics, Waitrose for other bits, the odd butchers, y'know. Works out ok.

Dunno how I'd survive on tenner a week though....

"There is more chance of Elvis landing on Mars than a housing market crash," says John Wriglesworth at the Wriglesworth Consultancy. "No, there's more chance of finding a rose tree in the desert. We're nowhere near a property crash."

From an article in the Telegraph in 04.

Probably spend about £30 a week on myself and a bit more when I need crap like toothpaste, bog rolls and the like.

Like to see your shopping list if your spending £100 a week for yourself.

she had accepted a restricted diet was inevitable when eating for 10pounds a week

Shiz not fayt though is she tenner a week on food.

nope, not fat at all.

she's not living on a tenner a week anymore... probably about 20 a week if you consider its between 35 and 50 a week for the two of us and 10pounds of that is mineral water and the delivery cost. we're all extravagant and stuff nowadays 8) splashing the cash about like its going out of fashion innit.

£10 a week for mineral water? 😯 A filter jug would be cheaper shirley?

10pahnds = 4-6quid for delivery of said shopping and the rest on mineral water (many many litres - the tap water in reading is disgusting!!!)

[b]We were then sold the dream that houses would continue to rise and rise[/b]

Lolz. People will make up anything to support their world view aye.

While no one in a particular political party mapped this dream out, it simply evolved into what we have now.

I do dismiss the idea that we were "sold a dream".

There's a few people in denial here. The British people [i]were[/i] sold the dream that house prices would continue to rise and rise. They were positively encouraged to invest in bricks and mortar on the grounds that it represented extremely sound investment.

Lenders were even prepared to lend well over 100% of the cost of a home, assured as they were that house prices would continue to rise and rise.

As a consequence people mortgaged themselves up to the eyeballs, in the belief that it was a fail-safe investment which had the potential to reap huge rewards.

And this dream was [i]positively[/i] sold to the electorate by political parties. Starting in the mid seventies by the then leader of the Opposition Margaret Thatcher, right up to the last general election by New Labour.

Labour manifesto 2010 :

[i]"Owning your own home is the aspiration of most families.

We will widen home ownership: over 160,000 households have been supported into ownership through government action since 1997."[/i]

And the dream hasn't just turned sour in the UK, across the sea in the USA more than one in four American home-owners have also seen their dream turn into a nightmare :

[url= http://novrealty.com/news/real-estate/us/28-of-us-homeowners-now-in-negative-equity-8368/ ]28% of US Homeowners Now in Negative Equity[/url]

£70 a week, if our shopping is more than £80 for two weeks my backside squeaks!! We're trying to save for a holiday too and seem to be spending more money than usual. My car is having bits in having work as that's cheaper by £10 and a lot of hassle than me doing it myself and got stung for gas, electric and water bills. Petrol is ridiculous at £60 a tank from empty [206!!] hence looking for a more economical car [more expense]. I do private work on the side too to get a bit of extra pay but that money is usually swollowed up by some financial issue like car going wrong, cats etc etc

phil - can't believe the water in Reading is worse than at home?

indeed CG - its like watching milk come out the taps its so damn cloudy! home isnt as bad as that but even at home tap water doesnt appeal to me at all!

How much do you spend on cat food, cat liiter, vet's bills and so on, Taff? A dog is more expensive and has a similar environmental impact to a Porsche Cayenne according to a local news report. As for a horse, a small car is cheaper yet I've seen a lady pleading poverty and complaining about the vet's bills for her horse in the same paragraph.

They were positively encouraged to invest in bricks and mortar on the grounds that it represented extremely sound investment

It is, in the long term. All the 120% mortgage stuff is clearly silly tho.

And why do we have scorn poured on us for thinking it's important to want to own a home?

phil - that sounds grim! Even though I use a filter jug, when I've boiled the kettle it still looks a bit cloudy.

And why do we have scorn poured on us for thinking it's important to want to own a home?

molgrips - I actually question the wisdom of this, even though I'm guilty.

used to eat for £5 a week at uni. when i had to. wasn't good though. and it normally wasn't when i had any thinking or moving to do (summer hols between loans)

2kg of pasta
1 bulb of garlic
small bit of cheese.
the balance on pick and mix

1 meal a day.

one day pasta/ garlic
one day pasta/ cheese
one day pasta/ garlic and cheese

pick and mix when i wanted to cry.

other than going to work, where i would see what was available for less than 50p in the staff shop (my mate once bought dog food by accident!!), i would lay in the garden for 10+ hours a day.

got skinny and a good tan!

So you are convinced property is a good investment in the long term, Molgrips. Assuming a constantly growing economy it might be but can you be sure the economy will continue to grow as oil and other resources run out? A response to poverty is cost cutting which will IMO lead to more people under one roof and a decline in demand for property. Population growth is dependent on immigration and people feeling rich enough to have kids. Take a look at Spain if you want to see what happens to house (mainly flat) prices when poverty reduces demand to buy or let, and the desire to start a family.

Thomthumb......used to eat for £5 a week at uni

I bought a house because the mortgage is cheaper than rent. If it is worth 50 p at the end of 25 years I will still have saved money over renting. I dont think owning property is a great and noble goal but renting would need to be cheaper to tempt me tbh.

I once had only 2 kg of rice and a bottle of tomato sauce and was working 12 hour days when travelling- was working a week in hand. Took me about 10 years to eat rice again.

molgrips - I actually question the wisdom of this, even though I'm guilty.

Advantages to ownership:

1) after 25 years of paying you end up with a very valuable asset
2) you can modify it
3) your landlord's not going to kick you out
4) no landlord to be an arse if you chip the walls etc
5) no random intrusions

Disadvantages

1) harder to move
2) deposit needed
3) more commitment (see 1, harder to move to a cheaper place)

hanging thread thingy bump

My parents first house was £4,000. Now they are sitting on a quarter of a million. Not too stupid was it?

Your parents lived through a period of more or less constant population and economic growth, Molgrips. People getting constantly richer and more of them fighting over a housing stock limited by green-belt policy.

Inflation adjusted that price rise roughly equates to the increase in what people can borrow over the period. From 4 x the man's earnings over 25 years in the sixties based on a wage slip to over 5 x self-declared combined income over 30 years now.

Anything that limits home buyers' ability to borrow will impact property prices. The other factor is buying to rent. When people can't afford high rents they live at home longer or share accomodation thus reducing demand. landlords have trouble renting out and put property onto the market increasing supply.

Your parents lived through a period of more or less constant population and economic growth, Molgrips

As for inflation - a fair point, but compare with renting. If they'd rented, SOMEONE ELSE would be sitting on a quarter of a million... And that's the key point.

When they die my kids will benefit from a decent chunk of financial security. When my grandparents died I got nothing.

They were positively encouraged to invest in bricks and mortar on the grounds that it represented extremely sound investment

[b]It is, in the long term[/b].

No it isn't - if you're stuck with negative equity, your financial circumstances change, and your home is repossessed. In those circumstances it is an extremely bad investment.

It seems to me that you've been sold the very dream which you claimed no one had been sold, ie, you refuse to accept that investing in property can be anything other than a good investment.

I'm not saying your parents made a bad decision, Molgrips, they had every reason to believe society would get richer in their lifetime. I'm saying that you can't expect the same gains going forward because I don't believe Mr Average is going to get richer - inflation adjusted of course. If inflation does take off your mortgage repayments will suddenly be much higher than renting as interest rates will rise and house prices will decline.

Taking out a mortgage is a risk, a bet if you want, on low interest rates. I've chosen to wait till there has been enough in the bank as I feared periods such as mid to late sevenities when servicing mortgage interest became a major issue for many.

In my own case I started saving money for the first time in 1992. I didn't buy as interest rates were high and property prices falling in real terms. Other asset classes were also doing very well so saving was a good option. I bought when I had the cash in 94, 95, 99 and 2000 but sold one in 04 and have spectated since.

No it isn't - if you're stuck with negative equity, your financial circumstances change, and your home is repossessed. In those circumstances it is an extremely bad investment

Of course - but I said in the long term. Like 10 years or more. If you're in negative equity and you sit tight you'll come out ahead before too long. Provided you can pay the mortgage of course, but that's a different issue regarding personal budgeting.

I don't think I have been SOLD a dream.. I made a decision based on the options at the time.

I can't see what's so good about renting. You never see your rent money again, and you have to live with whatever crap the landlord forces you to deal with.

Advantages to ownership:
3) your landlord's not going to kick you out

the real owner (the bank) can kick you out if you fail to keep up with repayments.
according to this graph somebody who purchased at the 1988 peak would have waited until 2002 until prices rose again to those 88 levels and possibly faced repossession or the inability to move/sell.
I know people who purchased at the last peak with 100% interest only mortgages who are in deep sh*te. for every property millionaire there is somebody who wasn't so lucky.
the up/down rollercoaster looks like it's only heading one way at the moment.

[img] [/img]

the real owner (the bank) can kick you out if you fail to keep up with repayments.

Likewise landlords, afaik.

I'm in a bit of negative equity, it just stops me from moving. Can still afford the mortgage same as before.

for every property millionaire there is somebody who wasn't so lucky

I reckon that the majority of homeowners are still stitting on a big fat chunk of equity.

I'm renting, off the bank. If I keep up my repayments for 30 years, they'll give me a house. If I don't, I get nothing, kind of like if I'd been renting from a Landlord...

To me the value isn't important, it's the ownership at the end.

There are markets that have suffered inflation-adjusted, long-term downtrends. Check out a Nikkei chart or house prices in any area that has lost its economic reason to be. How is the UK going to generate wealth when North Sea oil and gas have gone and Frankfurt is the financial hub in Europe?

How is the UK going to generate wealth when North Sea oil and gas have gone and Frankfurt is the financial hub in Europe?

with debt.

When they die my kids will benefit from a decent chunk of financial security. When my grandparents died I got nothing.

Why is this so important to people/parents? Is it actually overriding the purpose of buying?

I'm just looking at this from the perspective of someone who's done the house-owning thing for decades and now wondering if it was actually worth doing.

[i]When they die my kids will benefit from a decent chunk of financial security. When my grandparents died I got nothing[/i]

Assuming that the property doesn't need to be sold to cover their health care costs.