There’s been a discussion on Christian personal finance books on The Simple Dollar.

As a matter of interest, Trent, who writes the Simple Dollar ,happens to be a Christian, if pushed I’d guess he was a liberal to conservative Christian. Of course, since that’s fairly mainstream American (especially in Iowa) as far as I’m concerned it’s the fringes that are having the polite and well-mannered interesting discussion on that particular post And the fringes are me (the atheist), glblguy and mbhunter (born again Christians - I think, and great bloggers).

is there something wrong with Christian personal finance books?

The issue at hand was why I don’t like Christian personal finance books, and my original statement is that I would like them a lot better if they didn’t:

1 assume that I was a Christian

2 assume that Christianity was self-evident

Actually, I think this about all religions (because I am a non-believer) and all media. I think it’s interesting that none of the Christian personal finance bloggers write stuff that I despise. None of them assume that the casual passer by on their blog *is* Christian - although they may state that only Christians are likely to be interested in a specific post - and as a result, they don’t generally assume that Christianity is self-evident. Once you’ve admitted that there are non-Christians, you have to admit that the whole thing doesn’t make sense to some people (even if you then think that they are misguided).

what makes a personal finance book good?

Now, broadening it out away from matters of religion, it got me thinking about what I look for in a personal finance book. I’ve found that where the worldview is completely at odds with mine, and it’s one that I can have problems respecting, I don’t find the book helpful. If it’s not helpful, then for me that defeats the object of a personal finance book. This rules out The Secret, amongst other contenders.

Another thing that I look for when I’m browsing in a bookshop are a good writing style. If it’s not easy to follow, then frankly I haven’t got the time. There are plenty of sources of information on personal finance that are a pleasure to read; I see no reason to waste my time on something filled with poor English.

At this point in my personal finance thinking, I don’t really need a book on the basics. I’m (strictly in a personal finance sense) well read enough that I know how to find any information that I’m looking for on the internet. What engages me more, is the sort of extended riff on a theme or idea. Books like Your Money or Your Life appeal because they are coherent, and different presentations on what money means in the personal context.

I also don’t need books primarily aimed at someone who is at a different life stage to me. Books of frugal money saving tips may be very useful, but if the majority of advice is aimed at people with spare time on their hands, or with children, then it’s not going to appeal to this family of one.

Overall I want a personal finance book that changes me - by altering my views, or perceptions or calling me to action. I don’t need my existing ideas confirmed unaltered - not that the book would be wrong, you understand, just that it would be waste of time reading it.

On the other hand I have to start from where I am, and so, to an extent, does the book. If it disagrees with my strongly held core personal finance assumptions then it had better have a stellar argument for that. If it disagrees with my strongly held core personal values of tolerance, fairness and equality, then it’s going to be kicked to the curb.

tell me about your favourite personal finance books

My requirements are vague and woolly - I know exactly what I’m looking for but struggle to describe it. What do you think about personal finance books? Where do they fit when there’s so much information readily available on the web, tv or radio? Do you have any suggested personal finance books that fit my requirements? Do you have any other books that maybe aren’t what I’m looking for, but could be just the thing for someone else? Let us all know in the comments.

Also, as usual on any personal finance blog or forum when the topic is ever mentioned, a few people have made frugal wedding-y type suggestions. Typically people say something like “you don’t have to have a big fancy party to get married, you can just go to a Justice of the Peace and do it small and quiet”. Methinks that in this particular example someone who has spent $3k on wedding bands might actually really want the big wedding.

the wedding example

Weddings are amazing things. They are important rites of passage and are always connected both to the couple getting married and the culture around them. I am middle class and English and there are certain things that I expect from a traditional or conventional wedding, including special invitations, bride in a white dress, attractive location, sit down meal with alcohol. I’ve previously worked out that a traditional English wedding costs in the region of £13k and up.

You might come from a different background to me and have a different view of what a conventional wedding looks like, but I bet there’s still something that you can judge every wedding against as more, or less conventional.

When it comes to getting married frugally, tips essentially fall into two categories:

1. ways to be conventional more cheaply
2. ways to not be conventional that save money

Naturally, where you place a particular tip depends on your idea of what conventional is. For example, I would say that having a fork buffet would be within conventional but possibly cheaper, whereas (for me) self-catering a wedding is not  conventional. Similarly, for me eloping or having a very small wedding are not traditional, having one bridesmaid* would be traditional but cheaper.

*In England it is legal requirement to have two witnesses at a marriage ceremony, traditionally one is the bridesmaid and the other the best man - even if they’re not dressed in fancy clothes, that’s basically who the witnesses are going to be.

There’s nothing wrong with either way of saving money, but which one you pick for the most part will depend on a lot of things about you and your family that have nothing to do with your budget. If I was getting married, I could be deeply unconventional about say, the colour of my dress (which clearly would be purple), but a wedding is all about the ceremony and the big party - there would have to be really unusual circumstances for me to consider a quick registry office thing.

things other than weddings

What’s true about weddings is true about lots of things. Whenever you’re looking to cut costs, there are two ways of approaching things:

1. do what everyone else does, but cheaper
2. be different, in a way that saves money

Both are equally valid and acceptable but have completely different results and require different mindsets.

I use both where I can - or at least I try to consider both - but in this sort of thing I can be fairly conventional. I tend to trim money from the standard expenses wherever I can rather than really going for the jugular and asking if I should reconsider more fundamentally.

An example of this, is probably my phone and internet use. I have a phone line, a mobile phone and a broadband internet package. I shop around to get the best deal on these, but I rarely really revisit whether I need all three, or whether or not there might be a completely different solution to the problems of staying in contact with people important to me, and blogging. Most of my purchasing decisions are like this.

The only one thing I’m doing at the moment where I think I really am being different, is in my lack of a car. The transport problems I face on a regular basis are getting to and from work, running errands, and travelling to see friends and family. Since I can do all of those without a car (although it is more hassle) I just don’t own a car. A fundamentally different attitude is required.

What about you? Where do you think you are being unconventional in a way that saves money? Where do you just do the standard stuff but cheaper? Let me know in the comments.

I’m not a great goals person. They don’t motivate me all that well. It’s quite funny, because I’m not very good at routine tasks, either. I hate the laundry because it’s never done. Although I have a rich mental life, I’m not very good at imagining that my life will change. When I had a boyfriend I couldn’t imagine what it would be like to be single, I’ve been single for a couple of years and I can’t picture how I’d ever have time for a relationship.

One of the things that’s interesting about my current life, is that I’m in my late twenties and I’m at the stage where people around me start settling down. People move in together, get married and have children – and they’re happy doing so.

I live in a provincial city, and whilst it’s a nice place, I never quite imagined settling down here – when I was a teenager, I always thought I’d live in London. Since I started to travel, I’ve wanted to live in Toronto, New York, Sydney, Boston, Amsterdam, and Wellington – and those are just the semi-practical ones. I really like big, busy, bustling and expensive cities.

I occasionally worry that life is passing me by. I still feel like I’m not really old enough to get married and have children, even though if I did have kids I’d actually be older than average. It’s not that I want these things, just that they’re what most of my contemporaries are going to be spending the next twenty to twenty-five years doing. Other than finding some childfree friends, what am I going to do instead?

When life gets like this, I look at my values and what makes me happy. Blogging makes happy. As does travel and music. I get quite a bit of fulfillment from my day job, and I have some awesome friends. I like my house, and I am definitely stuck here for the next few years as I’m about £10k in negative equity. Which means that nice little pipe dream about living somewhere more exciting is on indefinite hold. And aside from that, I’m actually sort of as close to living the dream as it’s reasonable to be at this stage in my life. Certainly, everything that is under my control is ok or better.

What then, should my financial direction be for the next year or more? Should I save up for five years and then maybe sell up and emigrate? (Watch out Canadians – Toronto is probably my best intersection of interest, location and visa possibilities.) Or should I focus on fulfilling some of my smaller ambitions – spending more on travel, or music, or both?

All of this introspection is only worthwhile because I have a good job, no consumer debt and can save more than I earn. I don’t have limitless possibilities, but it’s not all that bad. Of course, there’s definitely a risk that the house could bankrupt me. And any one of a number of things could happen in the next year to derail my cosy little existence.

I’m not financially independent, but I’m almost financially stable and it’s a great comfort. Of course, I don’t need to make any decisions yet – I’m planning on putting the spare money away automagically and deciding later on – but it’s something I’m bearing in mind. What is it exactly, that I want to do with the rest of my life?

I’m not sure why, but that’s never worked for me.

goals

The thing about saving towards a goal is that it needs to be of a certain size. One that is neither too easy, nor too hard. It also has to be something that you really want.

I’d love to travel overland from London to Singapore over 4-6 months. I reckon it would cost me in the region of £7k-£10k plus expenses in the UK of around £3k-£5k. Which is sort of doable if I really try singlemindedly for 3-5 years.

Only, I don’t want to give up my job, blog, house or oboe for 4-6 months. Nor do I want to cut back on the fun that I do have. I’d love to do it, but I don’t want it enough to sacrifice for as long as that.

sacrifice

I’m rubbish at this too. I’m not too bad at keeping to a generous budget, but if I have to really cut back a lot, I can’t keep it up for long. Like crash dieting, in the long run it seems to make things worse.

Mostly, I actually feel like I don’t have that much to sacrifice. I keep relatively well to an allowance, I don’t normally have a penchant for wild impulse buys. Undoubtedly my money leaks in small ways, but for me, right now, life is too short. As long as I spend less than I earn and save/invest the difference I’m ok.

the plonkee way?

I kind of half-heartedly motivate myself. I’m tired all the time. I really like everything that I do, it’s just that I spend too much time at work. In an ideal world, I’d only work 3 or 4 days a week.

The plan (formulated a year ago, more or less) is to maintain my income at around the level it currently is (inflation adjusted) and get payrises/promotions at work until I’m in a position to be able to only work 4 days a week.

This means being happy with the amount that I currently live on as a more or less permanent thing. So, I need to make sure that I spend (within my budget) on the things that I want to do because I’m not all that likely to find a magic way to afford them in the future either.

It means working for a promotion. (Another one). I’m earning around 15% less than I need to be to make the 4 day week thing work.

It’s a goal of sorts, but the whole point for me is that it isn’t one that I need to wave in front of myself to stop me buying. It’s got to be much, much more integrated than that. It means being happy with now and not waiting for the future, because the future’s going to look much the same but with more sleep and fun stuff.

It means working out how to live my ideal life with the budget I have now. Since travel is important to me, I’m taking regular budget trips abroad. I’m going to comedy clubs, meeting friends for drinks, and wearing clothes that suit me.

Now, is just as important as the future. That’s what motivates me.

Imagine, just for a moment, that you find yourself on a desert island with just you and four or five of your closest friends and relatives - the people you care about the most in this world. The only people around are the people that care about you.

On this island, you can have whatever house you want and the items you want to have. But you’re just on this island with just the people that care about you. No one else will see you. Judge you. Draw conclusions about you.

Now, am I the only person in the world that thinks that the people who I care most about would in fact judge me?

For example, I would almost certainly include my brothers and sisters in this list of people but if they lived nearby and came round more often, I’d be forced to tidy up the house a lot more. Frankly, I’m lazy and my house can descend into virtual squalour really easily. I don’t want them to see that (they know I’m lazy). And heaven forbid if someone invited my mother.

Similarly, even though my closest friends would love me anyway I don’t think they’d be too impressed with my diet, which has far too much junk food in it.

Maybe, I’m really saying that I’m ashamed of these things and think that I should change. Probably. But I don’t care enough to actually do so. For me, life is too short. I tidy up when people come round, and when I cook for others it’s pretty good. People that love you anyway, will still try to improve you.

Yes, I’m keeping up appearances for the outside world, even my nearest and dearest. What’s the problem with that?

and the kind of feminist I am?…

I feel a little bit sad inside every time a woman mentions their name change after marriage. I don’t understand the obsession with comingled finances and shared bank accounts - an option, maybe but the be all and end all?

Whilst stay at home parenting suits many people, why is the assumption that it’s the mother not challenged enough? Why do some women still aspire to nothing more than a nice home and kids, when men would be laughed out of the room for the same thing?

I don’t want kids. I don’t particularly like kids. So I really hate the way that’s touted as every woman’s manifest destiny, when a significant minority of women never have children.

Yes, before anyone asks, I’m single, and yes I’d rather remain single than put up with a bloke that wanted me to change my reasonable opinions on any of these things.

here’s something I really hated when I heard it

My latest, favourite example? Believe it or not, a friend of mine is a non-conformist minister. When he was interviewed for his first job in 2003 whilst still in seminary, he mentioned that he had just got engaged and would be married by the time he took up the post. Which is, probably reasonable. Less so is that one of the subsequent questions was about whether his wife to be would continue working after they were married. I mean, is there some kind of timewarp where mid 2003 turned into 1953? How is this ok?

and all this has what to do with money?

There’s going to be a personal finance point in here somewhere. Aah, yes, here it is. If you’re a woman, you should cultivate feminist tendencies where money is concerned. Nearly all *less feminist* choices that you can make, mean that you lose out on money.

Women can’t afford to lose out on money. Having a longer lifespan is a good thing, but it does mean that you need more for retirement. No marriage ever ends happily, neither divorce nor death are good things. But one or t’other is inevitable. Which is why you might want your own credit score, your own bank account, your name on the mortgage and the deeds, or the lease. If you have children you need insurance - on both partners.

Sensible personal finance women, be a feminist. It’ll save you money in the long run.

Men should also follow the same sort of advice.

I have an excuse though. At work we get free (instant) coffee and tea, and I don’t like tea. Of course, that’s a simplification. After complaints, there’s now a choice of coffees, you can have Fairtrade caffeinated coffee, Nescafe caffeinated coffee or Nescafe decaffeinated coffee. I’m not a big fan of Nestle, and I do like to trade fair so I drink the Fairtrade caffeinated coffee.

what was wrong with Nestle?

Does anyone remember The Mark Thomas Comedy Project, where the comedian campaigned against various unethical practices and did a stand-up show about the experiences? That’s what put me onto the idea that Nescafe are one of the least ethical companies for their gross marketing of formula milk in the third world. This is formula milk without necessarily having instructions that people can understand, and suggesting in advertising that it is somehow better than breast milk. Not cool.

so is baby feeding that simple?

These days, the situation is somewhat more nuanced, as many public health issues are. The complications are caused by the HIV/Aids epidemic. Breast feeding is better than bottle feeding, unless the mother is HIV+. In that case, not passing on the virus through breast milk is more important than the nutritional benefits of breast milk (all formula milk is safe to use as directed), and of course in some areas of the developing world HIV/Aids is endemic, particularly amongst people of childbearing age.

Think it’s sorted? Wait a minute. Although the risk of an infant catching HIV through breast milk is approximately %, there’s another hitch. Formula milk is expensive and not everyone can afford it. It requires clean water, which not everyone has access to (certainly not clean enough to give a newborn). Where everyone breastfeeds, mothers who bottlefeed can be stigmatised and mixed feeding is more dangerous than breastfeeding. The instructions are not always clear enough for people to understand, or may be in a foreign language. For a significant number of mothers and children, the risk of contracting HIV through breastmilk is less important in the survival of the child than the risk that they will be malnourished or get sick by being given poorly prepared formula.

So the final answer for mothers of new babies is that you should breastfeed, unless you are HIV+ in which case you should bottle feed, unless you can’t safely/easily make up formula milk over the first 6-12 months, in which case you should breastfeed. Can you see the catchy slogan now?

and what does this have to do with personal finance?

Like I said, public health issues are nuanced. Much like personal finance issues. There’s never a single right answer that suits everybody in every circumstance all the time. Sure, you should live within your means, but that’s like saying that you should feed your baby - not big on the practical details. And for everything else, from whether you should pay off debts before saving, to how much you should contribute to kids college, to how much money you’ll need in retirement, the only simple true answer is, it depends. Because personal finance, is well, personal.

Most of my peers are like me (funnily enough) non-religious graduates, these are not people who balk at *living in sin*. But, this means that the people getting married now are having first weddings of the conventional variety. In England that means in either a C of E church, hotel or stately home, in the early afternoon with a sit-down three course meal for around 70 people with wine, followed by an evening do - disco, buffet and cash bar - for around 120 to 150. You can add to that a professional photographer, white wedding dress for the bride, morning suits for the groom and any ushers, flowers, three tiered cake, etc, etc.

I believe that the average cost of a wedding in the UK is in the £20k region (about $40k US). I’ve always thought that was a lot of money, but actually you can see how it adds up. Standard-ish prices in my area (outside London) for the things mentioned are:

• wedding breakfast - £5,000
• evening reception - £2,000
• rings - £2000
• photographer - £1,200
• flowers - £1,000
• cars - £500
• wedding dress - £500
• church - £300
• suits - £300
• cake - £250
• stationery - £250
• legal costs - £100

That’s well over £13k and I bet I haven’t nearly thought of everything. Plus there’s a fancy honeymoon. Actually the honeymoon is often the first thing that falls by the wayside when people are trying to cut costs. And people do cut back on the amounts that they spend, but mostly on the smaller things like making their own invitations, or non-professional flowers. But a traditional English wedding reception is just in the £7k range and upwards. That’s how much food, alcohol and pretty buildings cost.

So, how do people pay for it? I know my friends and they aren’t rolling in money. They have the same sorts of income that I do and I’m not sure that I could save up those sums over the course of one or two years which seems to be the typical length of an engagement. I do my best, but I’ve consistently found that it takes me about 3 years to save £6k, and given conversations that we’ve had about credit card debts, my friends and acquantainces are not all *sensible personal finance* people. I suspect that some of the money may be going on credit cards (yes, you’re right a wedding is a poor excuse for consumer debt). But I think more of it is being contributed by parents.

That I’m not a fan of. Maybe it’s because I’m a little bit unconventional. I don’t think that getting married is an achievement - certainly a very nice thing for the couple but not an achievement. I also don’t think that grown adults who moved out of home more than a couple of years ago who have good incomes should be accepting money from their parents to pay for a big party. Now, I understand that it’s a little difficult to refuse an unsolicited gifts, but expecting a contribution is definitely beyond the pale.

People who have these (very nice) conventional weddings often expect their parents to contribute probably because there’s no way they could afford a *standard* wedding otherwise. But I think that if you’re grown up enough to get married, you’re grown up enough to pay for it yourself, and to be satisfied with a wedding that you can afford yourselves. Of course people may find it difficult/impossible to refuse a no strings gift from their parents, but why use that to upgrade the experience? Why not save money to put towards something else?

Honestly it’s not me being bitter, and thinking that people shouldn’t get married at all. I’m always delighted when my friends get married and excited to send a card and gift, and to go if I’m invited. I just wish that spending less money on them was the norm.

But it got me thinking about whether anyone could become rich. I’d say it’s the general consensus that with sufficient drive and focus, anyone sufficiently dedicated who is reading this blog could accumulate a million pounds. You’d need to put the power of compound earnings to work and so it couldn’t be done overnight. But if it’s what you really want to do, it’s not that hard - simply spend a sufficient amount less than you earn, invest the remainder and keep going for at least 10 years.

Really, most things are within the reach of most people, if they set them up as their only goal. The trick is in trying to balance competing goals. I want to travel, and have a nice house, and not worry about money on a day to day level, and wear decent clothes and save and invest a good proportion of my income. I don’t have the single-minded focus needed to accumulate a large pile of money, or pay off my mortgage within a few years.

If you have a goal that’s going to take more than 2 years to reach, I think that it’s extremely difficult to focus solely on it for the duration. To give yourself the best chance you need to make it as automatic as possible, and to allow yourself other pleasures in the mean time. There’s only so long that you can put the rest of your life on hold.

It’s much better to acknowledge these sorts of limitations, than pretend that they don’t exist. If you don’t then you won’t stay on the wagon. Instead be realistic. Cut back on things that you don’t care about, invest energy in things that make you happy. Keep your eyes on your goal, but allow other good things into your peripheral vision.

With access to the right drugs, HIV has become a manageable chronic illness rather than a fatal disease. It’s kind of like Type I Diabetes now, although if you stop taking insulin you’ll die much more quickly - if you stop taking HIV medication then there’s a variable amount of time before you develop Aids, after which you’ve probably got 9 to 12 months.

As with diabetes there can be serious complications, in the case of HIV these can be from the effects of the virus itself, and the side-effects of the anti-retrovirals required to keep it at bay. But treatment has added 13 years to average life expectancies of HIV+ people already, without treatment 10 years after the point of infection was your expected lifespan.

cost of treatment

In addition to increasing life expectancy, the cost of treating HIV+ patients has also been revised upwards. It’s been estimated at $618k over a lifetime, which sounds like a lot of money to me, but apparently it’s about the same as the lifetime cost of treating heart disease. In the UK, treatment for HIV is free on the NHS to legal residents (no prescription charges), which is good because even with standard costs, all those drugs would work out expensive.

planning for a brighter future

I’m sure you’re all pleased about this, but what does it have to do with personal finance?

Well, I’m sure you remember that diagnosis of HIV+ status used to be a death sentence. If you know you’ve only got a few years to live, you plan things differently. And just like every cloud has a silver lining, I’m convinced that every piece of great news has it’s own downsides. The downside of realising that your life expectancy has seriously increased is that it means that you’ve got a future - one which will require money. You’ll have to plan for retirement after all.

I’m a firm believer in expecting the best, but planning for the worst, the implications of this are often counter-intuitive. If you have a reduced life expectancy then you should plan for the worst - which is that you’ll die early, but on the other hand as far as your finances are concerned the worst case is actually that you live longer than expected and run out of money.

For people struggling with infertility who decide to go for IVF treatment, the worst outcome personally is probably that they spend thousands on cycles and still end up without a successful pregnancy. But, as far as budgeting goes, the worst (most expensive) outcome is that you spend thousands on cycles and end up with a successful pregnancy with twins or more. Because they are expensive. Really expensive.

You may as well set some money aside to prepare for the expense of things going better than expected. If they don’t, the money can be used for other purposes - if you can’t think of anything, I can give you a list of suitable charities. Naturally, you should balance this against the pulls on your money. But sometimes planning for the worst, actually means planning for the best as well.