Is it moral to do up your house?

Wanderer78

pgj2015 wrote:

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.

A person can be able bodied, yet struggle to engage in the working world, for largely psychological reasons, the average person, including me, would not be able to see what these psychological reasons are without proper assessments, sadly many of these assessments are largely unavailable to proportions of society, in particular the long term unemployed

pgj2015

Wanderer78 wrote: »

A person can be able bodied, yet struggle to engage in the working world, for largely psychological reasons, the average person, including me, would not be able to see what these psychological reasons are without proper assessments, sadly many of these assessments are largely unavailable to proportions of society, in particular the long term unemployed

Look the average people living in hotels are not unemployed because of psychological reasons, dont kid yourself. last im going to say on the subject.

Wanderer78

pgj2015 wrote:

Look the average people living in hotels are not unemployed because of psychological reasons, dont kid yourself. last im going to say on the subject.

I'd be interested to hear your evaluation of such situations, what methods of research etc you used? I'm not kidding myself, I take this subject matter extremely seriously, as it seems little or nothing is being done to address these people's actual needs, particularly psychologically

Wanderer78

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?

It’s pretty well accepted that the vast majority of long term unemployed are doing so by choice and are scroungers simple as that.

Strumms

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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?

I’m very much enjoying life

I don’t spend a couple of quid on the lottery hoping to win, expecting to win but if it happens it’s going to mean a seriously nice, relaxing, happy, work free life for me and some loved ones with great experiences, comforts and different levels of enjoyment.

Im happy minus the millions but the resources to enable even greater choices in life would make me and my loved ones even happier.

jmayo

There are two different things here.

Firstly it is not immoral to spend your money, or the money you borrow and will repay (notice I mentioned as some in the past thought they didn't need to bother repaying their property related debts), on doing up your home.

You can spend your money or the money you will repay any way you damn like so long as it is not hurting others.

The second thing here is reference to an RTE program.
The ex RTE guy may have a point about that, because it has really become a vehicle for a so called architect who always seems to basically come up with the same thing, a square box of some sort that can be shoved onto the existing property some how.
Anytime I have had to watch it, it is nearly always the same mullarkey, it is formulaic at this stage.
Have a bit of argy bargy with owners over something they want and he doesn't, architect not around so builders do something that gets him in a hump, throw in a bit of open plan, fancy stove/fireplace, coloured kitchen, blah blah.
Rinse and repeat.

I suppose what else would you expect of RTE.

Charley Enough Thesis

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.

Not against putting some money into an investment but whats the point of the money really if you aren’t using it to enjoy life part of which is having your house done up the way you want it.

ArrBee

tonycascarino wrote: »

All I see outside of Dublin especially as I go further down the country is people having the big house no matter what job they work in. Rubbish man or Doctor, they all have the same big house. It amazes me how it is done. They can't all have the money for it. I reckon the banks own half of them and the people inside can't afford the mortgage but are paying a specific type of rent back. From the outside it looks like the people inside still own the house. There is still a definite trying to keep up with the Joneses attitude down the country that hasn't gone away since the Celtic Tiger era.

often times those "big houses down the country" have cost no more than the "pokey apartment in the city" and is a choice that each of us have.

I dont see the point of choosing to live in a city, having all the benefits that go with that, and complaining about the downside of having less land available.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Princess Scarce Juicer wrote: »

Not against putting some money into an investment but whats the point of the money really if you aren’t using it to enjoy life part of which is having your house done up the way you want it.

Well, research finds that a worryingly large proportion of Irish people are unprepared for and mostly clueless about retirement. Forty-three percent of 35 to 54-year-olds say that they are "not at all" prepared for retirement.

It appears to me that many Irish people squander money on cars, holidays, and doing up their houses at the expense of less visible—but ultimately more important—financial priorities.

ArrBee

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

...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.

Are you suggesting that certain streets be designated as homeless person streets where you shouldn't be allowed to walk a dog? Or is it more a case of sharing the street but have dog walking during certain hours and homelessness during other hours?

Perhaps there could be other groups that we could segregate that to allow societies sensibilities to remain in check.


I must say that your reasoning that others' motivation must be "a desire to look rich in a small community" a bit of a leap.
The fact is there are many different people in the world with different aspirations and motivations. some will be motivated like you say, by appearance, but I wouldn't say that about the majority.

Wanderer78

Charley Enough Thesis wrote: »

Well, research finds that a worryingly large proportion of Irish people are unprepared for and mostly clueless about retirement. Forty-three percent of 35 to 54-year-olds say that they are "not at all" prepared for retirement.

It appears to me that many Irish people squander money on cars, holidays, and doing up their houses at the expense of less visible—but ultimately more important—financial priorities.

its seems like to me, many squander their money simply trying to get access to one of their most needed necessities, housing and accommodation, and it also seems to me, project asset price inflation is failing to address this need

Raconteuse

Woke Hogan wrote: »

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.

Do you have any self awareness? All you do is bully people yet you pretend I don't offer opinions (obviously you know i offer plenty) and have the cheek just to zone in on me criticising an extremely stupid comment when literally all you do is criticise people.

The arrogance is amazing.

Ush1

Ush1 wrote: »

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

Jaysus.

I'm going to use two words that I've never said on this website and I promise I will never say again. Slum mentality.

The reality is that the people who can probably afford gold taps are those who are least interested in them. When it comes to money, over-compensation is a huge and a very real phenomenon.

There's a family I know who live in an old Georgian house. They're flat broke, but they have a lovely place. During a wedding a few years back, one of the guests was wandering around the front yard a bit stumped. "you have such a lovely home" she said to the owner, "but you've planted all these trees around it -- nobody can see it from the road". She meant well, she must have thought she was giving helpful feedback; but she just didn't get it.

I bet she was equally stumped about the lack of ostentatious gold taps.

Andrewf20

Fionn1952 wrote: »

This attitude is bizarrely prevalent, seems to be a spillover from the old, 'american dream' propaganda. It doesn't hold up to any sort of scrutiny whatsoever though.

I don't work half as hard as my partner and spent my college years touring with a band and showing up when absolutely necessary. I earn considerably more.

In fact, the only proper blood, sweat and tears job I ever had in my life was the worst paying one I ever had.

Unfortunately this attitude is often needed in a consumerist professional 1st world society, certainly if you want to afford a house and live in a decent area close to jobs. I would consider your situation fairly exceptional and are just 1 example. Generally a decent salary is got through college qualifications and working up the ladder. Alot of people I know fit this pattern.

American corporate culture is in Ireland for sure and I am not a fan - I work in an american multinational myself (ive worked in the USA also a number of times) and people earn good money in certain rolls but they do take on alot of stress and hardship. But people stay in these rolls, perhaps because they feel there is no realistic alternative or because the hardship is worth it when they are able to afford nice things.

Ush1

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Jaysus.

I'm going to use two words that I've never said on this website and I promise I will never say again. Slum mentality.

The reality is that the people who can probably afford gold taps are those who are least interested in them. When it comes to money, over-compensation is a huge and a very real phenomenon.

There's a family I know who live in an old Georgian house. They're flat broke, but they have a lovely place. During a wedding a few years back, one of the guests was wandering around the front yard a bit stumped. "you have such a lovely home" she said to the owner, "but you've planted all these trees around it -- nobody can see it from the road". She meant well, she must have thought she was giving helpful feedback; but she just didn't get it.

I bet she was equally stumped about the lack of ostentatious gold taps.

A slum mentality is thinking you know what wealthier people than you should spend their money on.

stoneill

It's a sh1te program anyway.

anewme

Loved the program and they were a sound out couple. Best of luck to them. It was a fabulous job.


If they want to spend that money on a bath THEY LIKE, that's their own business.

Have only a very small townhouse, but recently decided to do it up.

Got a mix of stuff from IKEA to BT's to vintage second hand shops to designer stuff. I enjoyed doing it for the most part and it was great seeing it all come together.

Found sourcing and trusting trades people was the hardest bit for me but was lucky enough to meet some great ones (and not so great ones) along the way.

My one recommendation is to get an interior design consultant, even as a one off consultation if you are doing a larger project, it can only be a few hundred euro, but well spent.

Wouldnt be entertaining the view, that I shouldnt do up my house because theres homeless people.

ceadaoin.

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 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.

but most people on this thread aren't talking about "ostentatious" stuff at all. Just doing up their homes in whatever fashion suits their budget, whether thats a few hundred or a few grand or more. You can still do that and have all the other stuff you mention (or even not if you dont want to) and not have to feel guilty about it.

Is a show on rte about irish people doing up their houses really glorifying ostentatious wealth? Is it on the level of the Kardashians etc? I doubt it

Ifevera wiztherewas

You know the original question, is it moral to do up your house, is such a stupid question to begin with. While we're at it are we just going to hand our houses over to charities? Where do you draw the line with this nonsense? People doing up their houses isn't a problem for this country.

ArrBee

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Is a show on rte about irish people doing up their houses really glorifying ostentatious wealth? Is it on the level of the Kardashians etc? I doubt it

*it is if I can't do it too*

mariaalice

Rural areas the house often built pre-2000 or so, just before labor and building became very expensive plus with big family and close community, its amazing how many have brother, cousins, neighbors working in some aspect of the building trade it a different market that Dublin.

Doing up your house has nothing to do with morality.

Fionn1952

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Unfortunately this attitude is often needed in a consumerist professional 1st world society, certainly if you want to afford a house and live in a decent area close to jobs. I would consider your situation fairly exceptional and are just 1 example. Generally a decent salary is got through college qualifications and working up the ladder. Alot of people I know fit this pattern.

American corporate culture is in Ireland for sure and I am not a fan - I work in an american multinational myself (ive worked in the USA also a number of times) and people earn good money in certain rolls but they do take on alot of stress and hardship. But people stay in these rolls, perhaps because they feel there is no realistic alternative or because the hardship is worth it when they are able to afford nice things.

I'm not suggesting there's zero correlation between hard work and success, just that it is a far from absolute correlation. It's a very short step from the American mentality to, 'You're poor? You should've just worked harder'.

There are a huge number of factors that decide how wealthy you end up in life. Hard work is often one of them, but it isn't absolute. The world isn't fair.

HorrorScope

Ifevera wiztherewas wrote: »

You know the original question, is it moral to do up your house, is such a stupid question to begin with. While we're at it are we just going to hand our houses over to charities? Where do you draw the line with this nonsense? People doing up their houses isn't a problem for this country.

There’s a mentality in a subset of the country at the moment that nothing good can ever happen again until “de homeless crisis” is sorted. Every single thing revolves around “de homeless” in their eyes - government funding for projects would be better diverted to “de homeless”, people who work hard and pay their own way should reel in their spending cos of “de homeless” etc etc. Its ****ing tiring at this stage.

anewme

It’s really just bad old fashioned begrudgery.

For Forks Sake

HorrorScope wrote: »

There’s a mentality in a subset of the country at the moment that nothing good can ever happen again until “de homeless crisis” is sorted. Every single thing revolves around “de homeless” in their eyes - government funding for projects would be better diverted to “de homeless”, people who work hard and pay their own way should reel in their spending cos of “de homeless” etc etc. Its ****ing tiring at this stage.

Those bleating the most about "de homeless" (not you) are the ones least likely to do anything to help those in need.

Ush1

Ush1 wrote: »

A slum mentality is thinking you know what wealthier people than you should spend their money on.

Maybe I'm misusing the term, but Google isn't of much help. My understanding has always been that it refers to over-compensation, ie to people who pursue an exaggerated or ostentatious display of wealth, assuming that it will look impressive. In fact, it looks a bit tragic, and it always looks tacky.

As a teenager I worked in a restaurant where some rich Americans would come and order a 300 bottle of whiskey. Then they'd ask for a Pepsi as a mixer. That's of the same mentality. Trying to look "rich" but everyone knows you're wasting resources and are probably a bit of an eejit.

Maybe I'm using the term incorrectly, but that's how it's always been used in my experience, and that's how I understand it.

It's not a term I like, because it can sound derisive towards people who have worked hard to improve their situation. Anyone who makes a success of their lives deserves huge respect, but there are better ways of being successful than boasting about how rich you are, or how rich you want to be.

AudreyHepburn

What exactly is immoral about spending your money that you worked hard to earn on what you want?

I hate this mentality that says that because some are struggling we all must.

Begrudgery and bitterness will not help your situation if you are struggling.

Ifevera wiztherewas

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

Maybe I'm misusing the term, but Google isn't of much help. My understanding has always been that it refers to over-compensation, ie to people who pursue an exaggerated or ostentatious display of wealth, assuming that it will look impressive. In fact, it looks a bit tragic, and it always looks tacky.

How about if, rather than an ostentatious display of wealth, it was to create more space for their kids ie. add a playroom etc.?

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

It's not a term I like, because it can sound derisive towards people who have worked hard to improve their situation. Anyone who makes a success of their lives deserves huge respect, but there are better ways of being successful than boasting about how rich you are, or how rich you want to be.

How about if, rather than an ostentatious display of wealth, it was to create more space for their kids ie. add a playroom etc.?

anewme

It does not have to be always about kids or making space or making excuses as to why you like what you like or spend money on it.

In a bizarre twist for an originally working class west Dub, I've chosen to now surround myself with original paintings by emerging artists and antique furniture.

I love hunting round for a bargain, but it's more about finding what works in the space.

It's not about boasting how rich you am or how much money you have, its when you turn the key in that lock and you know you are home.

CosmicFool

I've never read such nonsense. I'd say he's bored now and wants to be back in the spotlighy and just came up with this ****e.

Hobosan

Suckers!

I'm having my house professionally wrecked in order to survive the Communist purge.

Also learning torture techniques so I'll have employment afterwards.

Doesn't anyone else plan for old age anymore?

Ush1

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Maybe I'm misusing the term, but Google isn't of much help. My understanding has always been that it refers to over-compensation, ie to people who pursue an exaggerated or ostentatious display of wealth, assuming that it will look impressive. In fact, it looks a bit tragic, and it always looks tacky.

As a teenager I worked in a restaurant where some rich Americans would come and order a 300 bottle of whiskey. Then they'd ask for a Pepsi as a mixer. That's of the same mentality. Trying to look "rich" but everyone knows you're wasting resources and are probably a bit of an eejit.

Maybe I'm using the term incorrectly, but that's how it's always been used in my experience, and that's how I understand it.

It's not a term I like, because it can sound derisive towards people who have worked hard to improve their situation. Anyone who makes a success of their lives deserves huge respect, but there are better ways of being successful than boasting about how rich you are, or how rich you want to be.

Some people like expensive things AND have better taste than you.

But who cares? It's a ridiculous, reductive argument.

tdf7187

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

What exactly is immoral about spending your money that you worked hard to earn on what you want?

I hate this mentality that says that because some are struggling we all must.

Begrudgery and bitterness will not help your situation if you are struggling.

It's interesting that we've reached the stage in end stage capitalism that some relatively mild critiques of a property porn programme are put down to 'begrudgery and bitterness' and the false assertion is made that the critic stated that it is immoral to do up your house. It's as though the current dynamic is that are no other acceptable values to the glorification of displays of wealth (incidentally, some of the wealth statistically is going to be ill-gotten. As the old saying goes, in every fortune begins a crime.)

During the previous property bubble, anyone who predicted it was going to end in tears was told to shut up and/or kill themselves.

The current bubble - and it is a bubble - will also end in tears, and unfortunately I'm not going to shut up or kill myself, and I hope that the former RTE employee falsely quoted in the OP doesn't either. So, hey, clutch your pearls.

Ifevera wiztherewas

Ifevera wiztherewas wrote: »

How about if, rather than an ostentatious display of wealth, it was to create more space for their kids ie. add a playroom etc.?

I don't think it's helpful to micromanage people's homes for them.

This is a bit like parenting. Even if you wanted to, it will never be possible (or desirable) to tell people what they cannot do.

Im just suggesting that we don't celebrate ostentatious behaviour. I'm suggesting that, as a society, we might take the view that wasting money is a horrible trait. This is the one thing that socialists have in common with capitalists, wasting resources is the worst inefficiency of them all.

We can't really intervene to stop it. But any system that encourages it is destined to fail.

Ruraldweller56

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't think it's helpful to micromanage people's homes for them.

This is a bit like parenting. Even if you wanted to, it will never be possible (or desirable) to tell people what they cannot do.

Im just suggesting that we don't celebrate ostentatious behaviour. I'm suggesting that, as a society, we might take the view that wasting money is a horrible trait. This is the one thing that socialists have in common with capitalists, wasting resources is the worst inefficiency of them all.

We can't really intervene to stop it. But any system that encourages it is destined to fail.

Seriously?

anewme

anewme wrote: »

In a bizarre twist for an originally working class west Dub, I've chosen to now surround myself with original paintings by emerging artists and antique furniture.

I don't think it should matter whether your favourite art is emerging, or you're hanging Rembrandts in an ante-chamber. That's not the point at all.

The oppsosite of being tacky is being true to your own values and your own tastes. Being yourself, on the other hand, is a rare opportunity -- At last, you can get rid of everyone else without feeling guilty! So fill your life with your own tastes and your own unique personality, and don't try to look smarter or richer or more interesting than anyone else. Be you, it's the most interesting thing you'll ever be!

anewme

Well it really does matter if its emerging art. It'affordable.

Everyones definition of tacky is different.

For example, someone I know got one of those 'glitter walls" done, it wouldn't be my choice, but she loves it and it's her taste and that's all that matters.

Some tastes are just more blingy than others,

anewme

Hobosan wrote: »

Suckers!

I'm having my house professionally wrecked in order to survive the Communist purge.

Also learning torture techniques so I'll have employment afterwards.

Doesn't anyone else plan for old age anymore?

I have this thing called a pension that I pay into each month. Many others do as well. We know right well there will be no hold baths on the state pension.

I'd say the couple on the program do as well.

You can spend money on your home, your holidays, whatever you want and still plan for retirement.

Orderofchaos

Guess his own morals prevented him from speaking up about this very important issue years ago???
Paychecks stopped coming in now???

tdf7187

tdf7187 wrote: »

.

The current bubble - and it is a bubble - will also end in tears, and unfortunately I'm not going to shut up or kill myself, and I hope that the former RTE employee falsely quoted in the OP doesn't either. So, hey, clutch your pearls.

There is absolutely no comparison between the boom and now, there is no bubble now it’s just a controlled improvement in the economy.

Stark

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't think it's helpful to micromanage people's homes for them.

This is a bit like parenting. Even if you wanted to, it will never be possible (or desirable) to tell people what they cannot do.

Im just suggesting that we don't celebrate ostentatious behaviour. I'm suggesting that, as a society, we might take the view that wasting money is a horrible trait. This is the one thing that socialists have in common with capitalists, wasting resources is the worst inefficiency of them all.

We can't really intervene to stop it. But any system that encourages it is destined to fail.

"I don't want to control how people spend their money. But I kind of do".

tdf7187 wrote:

It's interesting that we've reached the stage in end stage capitalism

Fear not though, we are at end stage capitalism now. The revolution is upon us. Their wealth shall be our wealth.

anewme

anewme wrote: »

Well it really does matter if its emerging art. It'affordable.

Everyones definition of tacky is different.

For example, someone I know got one of those 'glitter walls" done, it wouldn't be my choice, but she loves it and it's her taste and that's all that matters.

Some tastes are just more blingy than others,

Maybe we're all using different definitions of "bling".

Whether you want to decorate your home with golden glitter or muted canvasses of beige, it shouldn't matter to anyone.

If I referred to bling, I was only talking about yer man on "Room To Improve" who didn't know what he wanted, but kept saying he wanted to "look rich"

All I'm saying is there no such thing as looking rich. You can be unique, or different, or creative, or traditional, or adventurous - and all of those things are super - but "looking rich" probably means looking a bit tacky. If you are setting out to look rich, you'll look like a bit of an eejit, in all likelihood.

Ruraldweller56

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Maybe we're all using different definitions of "bling".

Whether you want to decorate your home with golden glitter or muted canvasses of beige, it shouldn't matter to anyone.

If I referred to bling, I was only talking about yer man on "Room To Improve" who didn't know what he wanted, but kept saying he wanted to "look rich"

All I'm saying is there no such thing as looking rich. You can be unique, or different, or creative, or traditional, or adventurous - and all of those things are super - but "looking rich" probably means looking a bit tacky. If you are setting out to look rich, you'll look like a bit of an eejit, in all likelihood.

I like to be rich. I remember asking my Mrs parents for a few bob during the recession for a few pints. I was, actually working at this stage.

Bad times. But it happened.

These days I've a gold Breitling and a rolex that I paid for upfront.

Turn your life around. Spend money on what YOU WANT

Ruraldweller56

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Maybe we're all using different definitions of "bling".

Whether you want to decorate your home with golden glitter or muted canvasses of beige, it shouldn't matter to anyone.

If I referred to bling, I was only talking about yer man on "Room To Improve" who didn't know what he wanted, but kept saying he wanted to "look rich"

All I'm saying is there no such thing as looking rich. You can be unique, or different, or creative, or traditional, or adventurous - and all of those things are super - but "looking rich" probably means looking a bit tacky. If you are setting out to look rich, you'll look like a bit of an eejit, in all likelihood.

Take up fishing. Go mountain walking. Do Carpentry in the shed and learn Irish. Be the best Tyrant Named Matthew you can be. Start going back to mass and get involved in prayer groups

You'll be a better person. And you'll thank me for it. But I won't want any thanks.

I'll have brought you back from the brink. That's the only thanks I'll want.

Ruraldweller56

I know my ****

EmmetSpiceland

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

I know my ****

It smells like bull****.

Greentopia

I loved Room to Improve when it first started as he always worked within realistic budgets and you had clients who were ordinary people in ordinary jobs who had €150-200,000 to do up their homes.

This series has seen Google execs and the CEO of a company who think nothing of spending 4 to €500,000 on having gold taps, 15k baths and play rooms.
I think it's lost how relatable it was (though I loved the Joe and Mary episode), and wish he'd get back to realistic budgets.

Of course it's not immoral to do up your home but I think it's a mistake to present such ostentatious wealth as something to be emulated, is a waste of resources and rubbing people's noses in it a bit.

Grand Designs have managed to balance showing very expensive properties with people on budgets as low as €30k building e.g. earth ship homes from tires and all eco-friendly renewable materials. Would be nice to see RTI provide some balance like this and recognise the current movements away from ostentation and bling and towards zero waste, sourcing vintage, second hand and eco friendly with thoughtful and responsible purchases and materials used.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm going to use two words that I've never said on this website and I promise I will never say again. Slum mentality.

The reality is that the people who can probably afford gold taps are those who are least interested in them. When it comes to money, over-compensation is a huge and a very real phenomenon.

There's a family I know who live in an old Georgian house. They're flat broke, but they have a lovely place. During a wedding a few years back, one of the guests was wandering around the front yard a bit stumped. "you have such a lovely home" she said to the owner, "but you've planted all these trees around it -- nobody can see it from the road". She meant well, she must have thought she was giving helpful feedback; but she just didn't get it.

I bet she was equally stumped about the lack of ostentatious gold taps.

I think it's the difference between new and old money. That guy Nigel who wanted the gold taps and kept talking about wanting to "look rich" is clearly the former.

Anyone I've ever met who comes from generational wealth is far less likely to want to display it in such a tacky way.

I know a few old money types-mostly from the UK who moved here and to look at them you wouldn't think they own a bean, while they have a few million sitting in their bank accounts. Not a gold tap between them needless to say.

They didn't get and keep their wealth by buying 15k bathtubs.

I remember an episode where a family from Dublin wanted to have a huge TV in their sitting room, which Dermot in disgust said would make the place look like a bookies -a good example of working class folk who came into a bit of money and wanted to show it in a way they thought signified status to their peers.

Then I thought of watching an interview with Stephen Fry a few years ago who was brought up in a country house in Norfolk and who's parents wouldn't even have any kind of tv in the house considering it low culture and a distraction.

I'm doing a few improvements to my own house at the moment but no gold taps. Even if I had the kind of money to spend on that I think it looks crass and tasteless and neither my partner nor friends would be impressed by conspicuous displays of wealth like that, so I'll keep my money for structural work that actually adds value to my house and the rest in my savings account.

ToddyDoody

You know humanity does have real problems.The auld mind might need broadening.

beggars_bush

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

What exactly is immoral about spending your money that you worked hard to earn on what you want?

I hate this mentality that says that because some are struggling we all must.

Begrudgery and bitterness will not help your situation if you are struggling.

There's not much solidarity in that though, brother. Or sister

Yamanoto

Gold coloured taps apparently make a bloke an ostentatious twat

Imelda Marcos-style walk in wardrobe, however, is now a standard & reasonable expectation