Is it moral to do up your house?

Leg End Reject

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Tyrant, I'm not sure you're serious at this stage, but why the hell would anyone worry about how their spending habits are perceived?

Would you burn a fiver in front of a homeless man? I'm not asking if you'd desire to do so, I'm asking whether you'd even dare seem such a cnut in public?

I wouldn't. Maybe that answers the question but maybe it doesn't.

Leave aside the stupidity of burning money, I think most people would mortified to be seen doing such a thing.

Leg End Reject

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Would you burn a fiver in front of a homeless man? I'm not asking if you'd desire to do so, I'm asking whether you'd even dare seem such a cnut in public?

I wouldn't. Maybe that answers the question but maybe it doesn't.

Leave aside the stupidity of burning money, I think most people would mortified to be seen doing such a thing.

Renovating your house, or spending money, isn't the same as burning money in front of a homeless person.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Ostentatious houses aren't necessarily a sign of wealth. All too often those who live in them are drowning in debt. Put your money into good investments, not home improvement.

Leg End Reject

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Renovating your house, or spending money, isn't the same as burning money in front of a homeless person.

Putting a golden calf on your lawn isn't the same as adding a third bedroom for your fifth child, so renovation doesn't always mean burning money, of course not

We're speaking at sixes and sevens here. Can we just clarify a couple of points...

Do you not agree that some displays of wealth (like burning a fiver) can seem over the top, ostentatious, or even insulting?

Which is worse, spending 10k on a bathtub that looks like an ashtray, or burning a fiver in front of a homeless person? I know that there are worse and better options along the whole scale of human choices, but just humour me, please.

JupiterKid

There are horrendous inequalities in the housing system in Ireland and the housing crisis is impacting on our economy and society in many very negative ways but I just cannot see how people wanting to refurbish and upgrade their homes and spending their hard earned money to achieve that aim is something to be open to criticism.

This journalist does, however, have a point with respect to overly crass and ostentatious home “improvements” that seem to indicate more money by the homeowners than sense. I think it’s more the proliferation of TV shows about property and aspects of property and not home renovations per se that are the focus of his attack.

And the trend towards more and more property porn TV shows where the objective is to use housing as an investment vehicle to enrich their owners in the property market “game/ladder” rather than seeing dwellings as a basic social necessity must surely grate with those in temporary emergency accommodation, paying more than half their incomes on exorbitant rents or living in their parental home long after they should have moved out - and priced out of the housing market.

A game where there are “winners” and “losers.” Housing should never be left to the whims of market forces alone - a proper society ensures all households are adequately housed.

Wayne Jarvis

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Do you not agree that some displays of wealth (like burning a fiver) can seem over the top, ostentatious, or even insulting?

Which is worse, spending 10k on a bathtub that looks like an ashtray, or burning a fiver in front of a homeless person? I know that there are worse and better options along the whole scale of human choices, but just humour me, please.

I haven't seen this show, I don't know any of the people involved and didn't even read the article which as far as I am concerned makes me uniquely qualified to give my expert take on things.


Burning money in front of a homeless person would of course be a horrible thing to do as you acknowledge yourself. Agreeing to be on a tv show in which you spend 10k on a bath is not a horrible thing to do in my opinion. It's about intent. Is it over the top and ostentatious? Yes probably it is. Were they intending to be insulting? Do you think they were doing that on camera purposefully to rub it in to people with less money than them? It would take some level of sociopath to behave that way I think, the same kind of sociopath who would stand in front of a homeless person and burn money.
Variations of shows like these have been on TV for decades now, poor or working class people don't go on them, probably because it's not glamourous enough in the eyes of TV executives. There has always been homeless people, it's very likely there always will be too and it's very likely shows like this will always be on TV.

Leg End Reject

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Putting a golden calf on your lawn isn't the same as adding a third bedroom for your fifth child, so renovation doesn't always mean burning money, of course not

We're speaking at sixes and sevens here. Can we just clarify a couple of points...

Do you not agree that some displays of wealth (like burning a fiver) can seem over the top, ostentatious, or even insulting?

Which is worse, spending 10k on a bathtub that looks like an ashtray, or burning a fiver in front of a homeless person? I know that there are worse and better options along the whole scale of human choices, but just humour me, please.

If I want something, and can afford it, I really don't care how it looks. I work so I can buy things.

um7y1h83ge06nx

These good old left leaning liberal types, turning out to be the most miserable thought police imaginable, the Soviets would be proud of them.

nkl12xtw5goz70

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Or they should provide a range of programming that their audience and license payers actually want to watch? Plenty of people like property shows like this

Well, it all depends on how you see the purpose of RTE. Is it there to create public service broadcasting that commercial channels won't provide, or to produce fluffy popular entertainment to bring in advertising?

There are plenty of these shows on other channels already, so using taxpayers' money to produce more of the same is wasteful, in my view.

Charley Enough Thesis

Charley Enough Thesis wrote: »

Well, it all depends on how you see the purpose of RTE. Is it there to create public service broadcasting that commercial channels won't provide, or to produce fluffy popular entertainment to bring in advertising?

There are plenty of these shows on other channels already, so using taxpayers' money to produce more of the same is wasteful, in my view.

It’s one of the best shows on rte and is very very popular so it is using a lot of tax payers money the way they want it myself included.

What sort of program would you suggest instead?

Feisar

I done up our house recently. Had bought a rented house that had never got a face lift. So now it's trible glazed, Smeg cooker, quartz worktops and sexsay timber floors. Now I took time off work and worked 14 hour days, my Dad and brother-in-law burst there bollox with me to.
However I'm reminded of this scene:

Leg End Reject

Leg End Reject wrote: »

If I want something, and can afford it, I really don't care how it looks. I work so I can buy things.

I think I'm already labouring the fiver analogy; but I will plough on, one last time. If it gave you genuine, real enjoyment to burn fivers in front of a large crowd of homeless people (lets assume, for dramatic effect, they are pleading with you not to do it), would you do it anyway?

Surely at some point you'd think "I do actually care that this looks awful" or "I see how this display of inequality might be upsetting". Maybe such a needless display of wealth might cause policymakers to reflect that there needs to be a greater redistribution of resources, and it would be worthwhile not to burn your fiver for that reason alone.

Guy Person wrote: »

I haven't seen this show, I don't know any of the people involved and didn't even read the article which as far as I am concerned makes me uniquely qualified to give my expert take on things.

Burning money in front of a homeless person would of course be a horrible thing to do as you acknowledge yourself. Agreeing to be on a tv show in which you spend 10k on a bath is not a horrible thing to do in my opinion. It's about intent. Is it over the top and ostentatious? Yes probably it is. Were they intending to be insulting? Do you think they were doing that on camera purposefully to rub it in to people with less money than them? It would take some level of sociopath to behave that way I think, the same kind of sociopath who would stand in front of a homeless person and burn money.

But the person on the other side of your lit fiver doesn't care whether you're burning it for principle or to be ostentatious. To them, the result is the same, regardless of what you meant. There is a finite quantity of resources, and you've just wasted some -- nobody cares whether it was for your amusement or as a political statement. People will inevitably be fairly pissed off.

Leg End Reject

I don't burn fivers, whether there's a homeless person to witness it or not.

Someone spending their own money on things they want is not comparable to burning fivers in front of a homeless person.

Wayne Jarvis

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But the person on the other side of your lit fiver doesn't care whether you're burning it for principle or to be ostentatious. To them, the result is the same, regardless of what you meant. There is a finite quantity of resources, and you've just wasted some -- nobody cares whether it was for your amusement or as a political statement. People will inevitably be fairly pissed off.

Why did you add that last line into my post you quoted?


Anyway if we were all to think like that then who would do anything for fear of upsetting someone? If I bought a 2019 BMW tomorrow it wouldn't be for any other reasons than I wanted one and I work very hard in life and feel I should have what I want if I can do so. If you got pissed off at me for buying that car I wouldn't feel bad about it as that was not my intention, my intention was to treat myself to what I felt I deserved. Likewise if I bought a 2000 Micra for €1000 you might feel pissed off because you can't afford that and think I was showing off buying that too. There will always be people who have more than you do and there will always be people who have less than you, I consider neither of those things when I spend my money on whatever I please (mostly cake).

JupiterKid

This may be a little bit Off Topic but one thing I really like about Holland - where my sister lives with her family and has pretty much become a second home to me as I travel over and stay here a lot - is the culture of appearing modest.

There is of course plenty of wealth and money in Holland and has been for centuries - the Dutch built their country and economy on international trade in the 17th century - but flashing the cash in a vulgar and crass manner and being overly ostentatious with your wealth is a social faux pax in Holland. Wealthy Dutch tend to be more discreet in their wealth.

Ireland could learn a few things from this aspect of Dutch culture...

Wayne Jarvis

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I don't burn fivers, whether there's a homeless person to witness it or not.

You really should just once, it makes you feel like one of those rich people on TV who light cigars with burned money.






Obviously you will massively regret doing it and feel stupid afterwards but that 2 second feeling of literally having money to burn is almost worth it.

The chan chan man

A man who cleans his house, expects a visitor.

Stark

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I think I'm already labouring the fiver analogy; but I will plough on, one last time.

Yes you are.

It's a bull**** analogy. You're trying to equate standing in front of a homeless person and openly taunting them with spending your hard earned cash on whatever you fancy. The two are in no way morally equivalent.

Sorry comrade, but the world has long ago woken up to the deceptive ploy that was vilifying the ability to acquire wealth and spend wealth.

Likelihood was, the person who spent 10k on the bathtub already paid 50% tax on the money they earned to pay for the bathtub and a further 23% in VAT on the purchase. Tax that was redistributed in part on social welfare, emergency accommodation for homeless people and the like.

Seems the only remaining issue is most people wouldn't value a bathtub enough to spend 10k on it but obviously these people did and that's their prerogative. Same as some people will prefer to pay over the odds for a car, or others will prefer to pay over the odds for a nice coat or whatever. Things will have different value to different people.

Leg End Reject

Guy Person wrote: »

You really should just once, it makes you feel like one of those rich people on TV who light cigars with burned money.






Obviously you will massively regret doing it and feel stupid afterwards but that 2 second feeling of literally having money to burn is almost worth it.

I wipe my arse with fivers though ...

But I'm now reformed, I'm going to give my house to a homeless person and give them fivers to burn for heat.

Raconteuse

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

For me, the bottom line is that if someone treated animals the way we treat one another, that person would be in Portlaoise prison.

We don't even need to relate it to animal welfare -- most farmers would take your hand off for a wandering beast or sheep at the top of the road with nobody to claim it. It has economic value. As for vagrant humans, their personhood isn't cash-convertible, they're pretty much deemed worthless.

Every case of destitution and addiction and mental health disorder among the homeless is an individual emergency. It is a catastrophe for that person, but we are fairly blasé to have them endure conditions that we wouldn't leave a dog or a farm animal in. Nevermind. Nice gold taps, Dympna. I love your glass bath. A steal at twice the price.

Too many people end up with more money than they know what to do with. The way we've organised society is warped, but I think most people prefer not to think about it. If you think about it too much, it's really depressing.

On that cheery thought, I'm off for a fag. I'm a hypocrite too, spending 70 quid a week playing dice with lung cancer instead of putting my money where my mouth is. Again, most of us avoid examining our behaviour too closely.

Anyone else hate this "we" bollox?

It actually means "everyone else but me".

Wayne Jarvis

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I wipe my arse with fivers though ...

Can they still be used as legal tender? (Possibly a question for the Etiquette thread)

Leg End Reject

Guy Person wrote: »

Can they still be used as legal tender? (Possible a question for the Etiquette thread)

Yes, if someone is prepared to handle them ...

HeidiHeidi

Stark wrote: »

Yes you are.

It's a bull**** analogy. You're trying to equate standing in front of a homeless person and openly taunting them with spending your hard earned cash on whatever you fancy. The two are in no way morally equivalent.

Sorry comrade, but the world has long ago woken up to the deceptive ploy that was vilifying the ability to acquire wealth and spend wealth.

Likelihood was, the person who spent 10k on the bathtub already paid 50% tax on the money they earned to pay for the bathtub and a further 23% in VAT on the purchase. Tax that was redistributed in part on social welfare, emergency accommodation for homeless people and the like.

Seems the only remaining issue is most people wouldn't value a bathtub enough to spend 10k on it but obviously these people did and that's their prerogative. Same as some people will prefer to pay over the odds for a car, or others will prefer to pay over the odds for a nice coat or whatever. Things will have different value to different people.

Hear hear

Feisar

JupiterKid wrote: »

This may be a little bit Off Topic but one thing I really like about Holland - where my sister lives with her family and has pretty much become a second home to me as I travel over and stay here a lot - is the culture of appearing modest.

There is of course plenty of wealth and money in Holland and has been for centuries - the Dutch built their country and economy on international trade in the 17th century - but flashing the cash in a vulgar and crass manner and being overly ostentatious with your wealth is a social faux pax in Holland. Wealthy Dutch tend to be more discreet in their wealth.

Ireland could learn a few things from this aspect of Dutch culture...

The Dutch get a bad rep but are the soundest cnuts going.

JupiterKid

The nastiness, bitterness and crass smug attitude to the serious inequities in wealth and opportunities in our society (or is that economy?) by some on these threads and forums never ceases to depress me...

branie2

Just ignore him

Strumms

yabadabado wrote: »

I wonder was he ashamed picking up his 90k per year from RTE when he is nothing more than a talentless hack.

That’s the bigger question......^

And he is critical of a program where people might enjoy getting ideas and inspiration for their own home or just enjoying it full stop.

By his reasoning too they should put a ban on.....

Football... fellas earning 50-100 grand a week

Holiday programs... not everybody can afford a holiday

Winning Streak... rubbing 3 stars, shît loads of cash AND holidays in peoples faces

Stark

Stark wrote: »

Yes you are.
It's a bull**** analogy. You're trying to equate standing in front of a homeless person and openly taunting them with spending your hard earned cash on whatever you fancy. The two are in no way morally equivalent.

Sorry comrade, but the world has long ago woken up to the deceptive ploy that was vilifying the ability to acquire wealth and spend wealth.

It's not a bullshít analogy. in this discussion, when you boil it down to its core, we're discussing displays of unnecessary wealth in a society where the ordinary person can readily observe stark inequalities. People walk their over-bred dogs on the same streets where humans sit with their hands out looking for loose change, or they go on television advertising a desire to look "rich" (I am quoting) in a small community, as we are, where 3,000 children are homeless.

By any measure, that's an unnecessary display of wealth.

The State already appropriates wealth that it deems to be excessive and/ or unequal. I'm not suggesting that the State goes any further. I'm suggesting that we adapt our social conventions a little bit to match what the State is already doing.

Therefore, burning fivers is socially unacceptable -- so too should it be socially unacceptable to behave in any way which promotes 'bling' or "looking rich"

Raconteuse wrote: »

Anyone else hate this "we" bollox?

It actually means "everyone else but me".

I literally gave an example of myself wasting money stupidly and selfishly. We means we. I think we all spend money on things that we don't need, probably don't even want, and I'm suggesting that we could all be a little more responsible and empathic.

Guy Person

Guy Person wrote: »

Why did you add that last line into my post you quoted?

Just a typo, was trying to multiquote on a phone at the time. Edited now.

whisky_galore

Charley Enough Thesis wrote: »

Ostentatious houses aren't necessarily a sign of wealth. All too often those who live in them are drowning in debt. Put your money into good investments, not home improvement.

I've driven past a good few dick waving statement homes, construction stalled since the crash, probably never to be restarted. Concrete going green, no windows etc. What people want houses the size of a small hotel for I'll never know. Cut your cloth to measure.

Strumms

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Therefore, burning fivers is socially unacceptable -- so too should it be socially unacceptable to behave in any way which promotes 'bling' or "looking rich"


I literally gave an example of myself wasting money stupidly and selfishly. We means we. I think we all spend money on things that we don't need, probably don't even want, and I'm suggesting that we could all be a little more responsible and empathic.

Looking rich though or bling is subjective -

If I win the Euromillions or hit the jackpot in business I’d look after friends and family, two charities I’ve had a relationship with and probably a few more in addition and so on..... then... I’d like a place in the South of France, a Mercedes AMG, possibly a Ferrari too fûck it. I’m not going to apologize for living life and enjoying life.

I’ve been in the South of France, sat at a cafe in Monte Carlo, watched as the traffic lights beside me turn green and the cars literally bumper to bumper... AMG, Ferrari, Lamborghini... not a car show or rally that’s reality and life there.... I didn’t think, ‘flash bastard’ or ‘why is he not driving a Mondeo and fûcking his dosh at poor people’ I was thinking ‘good on him, good for him’ for all probability that dude might be contributing handsomely to charitable organizations AND enjoying life in style, comfort and enjoying the fruits of success, I’d never begrudge it or anyone.

Strumms

Strumms wrote: »

Looking rich though or bling is subjective -

If I win the Euromillions or hit the jackpot in business I’d look after friends and family, two charities I’ve had a relationship with and probably a few more in addition and so on..... then... I’d like a place in the South of France, a Mercedes AMG, possibly a Ferrari too fûck it. I’m not going to apologize for living life and enjoying life.

Are you not already enjoying life? Maybe not. Everyone thinks socialists are pessimists, when actually we're the ones suggesting that life might be better under different conditions.

The probability of winning the lottery in Ireland is roughly equivalent to the probability of being struck by lightening in Germany. Are those the kinds of chances you fancy for happiness? Is that the kind of trade-off you're comfortable with? Is that really the best you can imagine?

JupiterKid

For those posters who have reacted angrily the the posts on this thread questioning the glorification of ostentatious wealth on television, I would highly recommend a read of the book Affluenza by Oliver James.

In the book, James posits that the West has become a "hyper-consumerist and hyper-materialist" world, where aspects of life that bring contentment and peace of mind such as family ties, spirituality, community and participation are ignored in favour of the relentless drive to have more, acquire more and is a vicious circle.

Wanderer78

JupiterKid wrote:

For those posters who have reacted angrily the the posts on this thread questioning the glorification of ostentatious wealth on television, I would highly recomment a read of the book Affluenza by Oliver James.

Sounds like an interesting book, but it's fairly obvious where we have gone to, you d have to wonder, have we opened Pandora's box

Ush1

There's only such a thing as "unnecessary wealth" to those who don't have it.

daheff

Lucca Some Sagittarius wrote: »

But what about the homeless?

they dont have a telly to watch it on... so not offensive to them

JohnnyFlash

Raconteuse wrote: »

Anyone else hate this "we" bollox?

It actually means "everyone else but me".

It’s turn of phrase, dear. No need to be so literal about everything.

pgj2015

maybe the homeless people living in hotels might watch the show. get inspired and get a job so they can have a nice house?

Wanderer78

pgj2015 wrote:

maybe the homeless people living in hotels might watch the show. get inspired and get a job so they can have a nice house?

Fcuking hell, there really are absolute arseholes on this site

Keyzer

I'm sick and tired of this "perpetually offended" culture we and the rest of the globe seem to be living in.

• If someone want's to do up their house, its absolutely nobody else's business.
• If they want to spend a fortune doing so, its absolutely nobody else's business.
• If they want to buy a car for a million quid, its absolutely nobody else's business.
• If they want to burn their money in the back garden, its absolutely nobody else's business.

Honestly, why are people getting so "offended" by a tv show?

If you don't like room to improve, turn the fúcking program off.

BeerWolf

He makes €90k a year. He should be donating half of that to charity.

Disgusting!

Woke Hogan

Raconteuse wrote: »

Anyone else hate this "we" bollox?

It actually means "everyone else but me".

Do you ever offer any opinions on this website? All I've ever seen you do is criticise people for speaking too generally or for not being civil enough by your own lofty standards. You can bring some ideas to the table as well every once in a while, stop treating this like a magazine.

Keyzer

lola85 wrote: »

Jesus I despair for these type of people.

We’re seeing the mollycoddled, offended at everything generation of brats coming through.

Wouldn’t last 2 mins in the real world.

Problem is, they will be the "real world" in another generation.

pgj2015

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Fcuking hell, there really are absolute arseholes on this site

really? most of these homeless people in hotels are lazy spongers with no work ethic who have no jobs but keep having kids, they should be inspired by these tv shows and aspire to live in houses like the ones on Bannons tv show.

Wanderer78

Keyzer wrote:

Problem is, they will be the "real world" in another generation.

These people already exist, they live in the exact same world as all the rest of us, the only world we know of

Wanderer78

pgj2015 wrote:

really? most of these homeless people in hotels are lazy spongers with no work ethic who have no jobs but keep having kids, they should be inspired by these tv shows and aspire to live in houses like the ones on Bannons tv show.

You really should look into the root causes of long term unemployment, it's rather lazy not to

pgj2015

Wanderer78 wrote: »

You really should look into the root causes of long term unemployment, it's rather lazy not to

there is a job for everyone out there at the moment, I have business owners asking me daily do I know anyone who will work for them. I have informed some unemployed people of these jobs, some are delighted with them, the lazy ones refuse the job.

Peatys

JupiterKid wrote: »

The nastiness, bitterness and crass smug attitude to the serious inequities in wealth and opportunities in our society (or is that economy?) by some on these threads and forums never ceases to depress me...

Try being from Dublin while reading after hours.. not long before you realise how many people you've never met hate you. Mods are fingers in ears
lalalala clicks keep the servers running lalalala

Wanderer78

pgj2015 wrote:

there is a job for everyone out there at the moment, I have business owners asking me daily do I know anyone who will work for them. I have informed some unemployed people of these jobs, some are delighted with them, the lazy ones refuse the job.

So you ve decided that their main reasons is laziness, what is your criteria for this decision, did you do a full evaluation of their psychological situation and any possible child care needs they may have?

pgj2015

Wanderer78 wrote: »

So you ve decided that their main reasons is laziness, what is your criteria for this decision, did you do a full evaluation of their psychological situation and any possible child care needs they may have?

why else would an able bodied person not want to work? and its no excuse if you would get more on the dole than by working, if you choose not working over working and you are a fit healthy person, you are lazy.