Paging the current and ex USA ex-pats

I'd be too busy having a ball to notice any triviality.
I'm sure it's the best place in the world to be super rich. OTOH it just
isn't a place you would want to be on your uppers. Or even on "median
income" for that matter.

When we went out to Sonoma a few years ago to buy the Porsche 356 we met
lovely people who were not at all shallow. you couldn't fault them. Nor were
they in any way inward looking, indeed their entire business focus was
outside the US, mostly Asia.

 

Well indeedy

 

I loved being at the Oracle HQ. Cool buildings and a great canteen.

 

I couldn't have a ball when people were so shallow.

I'd agree with the uppers or median income bit. I've no desire to be
'super rich' but if I was I think I'd prefer to live in Europe than
the US.

Well, it's something that's been increasingly irritating me when I
visit the US; the materialistic approach/conspicuous consumption etc.

 

My wife claims that the £700 a month isn't enough to feed a family these
days. Basic overheads for my house are about about £16K, that's
mortgage, gas, electric, insurance and council tax. That leaves £263.50
a month if you're on £25K. Not much left for discretionary spending,
doubt if you'd be able to feed your family either. At least you can
always look at motorbikes in the street.

 

How big is this family?

I spend about 150 quid a month on groceries, including all the non-food
shit.

 

I'd have thought the best place in the world to be super rich is "the
world".

 

On 13/04/2011 10:38, Stephen wrote:
snip

I've always considered that to be one of the more important traits of
being American.

 

That would be existing rather than living then unless it's net
otherwise after tax etc that's only around £19K I am not sure that
would actually cover my running costs.

 

If she is having income issues, just tell her to up the rates she charges
to her punters and STFU.

 

Running costs tend to match income. It's amazing how little you can
live on when you have to. But yeah, it is more existing than living.

 

Don't forget the 50 quid or so with the Colonel.

 

That comes under religious expenses.

 

Looking at the last full month, we spent ~£400 on food (inc eating out)
and £320 on fixed outgoings (council tax, utilities etc.)

That's for two of us.

 

If it's feed, clothe, drive around then I don't think it's out of
order.

Actually I don't think 700 quid on food is excessive; it's less than
25 quid a day. Assuming 3 people then 8 quid a head per day.

 

I think that £8 per person per day is quite a lot.

I mean, *every* day?

 

Fackorf! OK, so we don't eat breakfast and lunch at home, so it's
probably a bit less than that for food (at home) alone, but what about
the drinks? I mean, no-one could reasonably be expected to go without
wine and beer, could they?

 

If they were children, then yes, probably.

Mind you, these are scottish children, so they probably have a bottle of
Buckfast for breakfast.

 

FFS, one can eat reasonably well on less than half that per day.
Too many jars, tins and ready-made meals is the expensive problem.

 

Well, possibly. I thought the 700 quid figure was someone's child
maintenance or whatever it's caused so I just questioned whether it
was just food.

I can't go through a supermarket- and this is Morrisons- without
spending 50-60 quid and that's now; without feeding children. Of
course this will include a couple of bottles of wine and other stuff.

When the kids were at home it was significantly more than that. At
least a couple of hundred quid a week.

I can accept it's possible to live on less. I don't feel it's
desirable and I remain of the mind that it's not excessive.

I don't think I do eat like Marco. I eat well, but I don't believe I
eat excessively.

And I don't think I'm that abnormal.

Then again, food matters to me.

Still, if you want to eat like Wayne Rooney...