What Do People Spend Money on That You Think Is Stupid and Extravagant?

jellykingdom on 19/12/2018 - 11:27
Last edited 19/12/2018 - 11:41 by 1 other user

Hard one to word correctly in the title…

I have seen a few examples lately of silly and over-the-top things that people pay loads of money for, and it honestly makes me a little angry that people waste money on such nonsense.

My list includes (they're mostly vanity related I notice):
- $1000 sneakers
- $20 pairs of socks
- Butler's pantries - so now you have a 'Good' kitchen, and an 'Actual' kitchen… (mod: language)
- $2000 iphones

I'm certainly guilty of wasting money from time to time, on clothes or booze or furniture etc, and I make a decent living so this isn't a whinge about "Why do people have money and not me??". I am just absolutely gobsmacked sometimes at the stuff people spend their money on….and yes it is their money to waste obviously

What's on your list of "WTF Expenses"?

General Discussion

Comments

  • Nugs on 19/12/2018 - 11:27
    +22

    eneloops
    .

    but really;
    phones
    new cars
    weddings
    .

      • GG57 on 19/12/2018 - 11:44
        +38

        Tricky one.
        Holidays (overseas or not) can be:
        - overly expensive and wasteful, or
        - lower cost and perhaps not so luxurious, or
        - lower cost and still reasonably luxurious.

        But regardless, holidays to me are all about the experiences, so the cost is not so much a focus for me.

        • stanstho on 22/12/2018 - 19:44
          +6

          I've been to about 10 countries in the last few years and haven't spent more than $500 on any one return ticket and generally pay about $20 a night for hostels (admittedly outside of Asia we're talking $30-40 a night).

          I drive a $400 car, sleep on a $199 salvos mattress on my used Ikea bed frame and live modestly on my casual work whilst I study. My parents don't support me at all beyond a meal or two when I visit home some weekends.

          International travel is a huge priority in my life. Most of the time it's not extravagant at all, sharing a room with 4-8 people, standing in lines and customs queues, catching rides in the backs of utes and shaving in aeroplane bathrooms. Most of the time my bed isn't even big enough (im tall) to fit me.

          But I adore the experiences, the sense of adventure, the friends I make on hostel rooftops. I'd only call it extravagant if you're doing fancy "spa resort" style trips.

      • jellykingdom on 19/12/2018 - 11:55
        +17

        Yeah i don't consider an overseas holiday to be a waste!

        I spose it depends what you do, i'd consider a Contiki tour to be a waste if you just spend the whole time drunk/sleeping/hungover

        • chuckles89 on 19/12/2018 - 13:22
          +1

          is considered a waste if you go overseas if you go back to the same country every year?

        • Scrooge McDuck on 19/12/2018 - 13:24
          +15

          Some think going outside is a waste.

        • cybapete on 19/12/2018 - 19:07
          +1

          i went on a cruise and there were some people there who spent the entire time either in bed, in a bar or in the casino
          it's their life but i wonder why bother cruising you can do all of that at home (okay casino might involve some travel but pokies are everywhere)

        • nikey2k27 on 19/12/2018 - 23:23
          +1

          Contiki Tour went was 28 as it was all i could afford had good time learn some much about my self and it was fun to watch 18 year old grow up

        • Dr Prepper on 20/12/2018 - 10:20
          +1

          I agree with CG57 and Jellykingdom.

          A Staycation in Sydney eating out , local shopping plus groceries, paying for power during peak air con season & decent activities for a family of 5 was more expensive for 4 weeks living in our own house than 4 weeks in an apartment overseas after we used points from bonus hacks to GTFO of Sydney and for accommodation.

          …And an overseas holiday is a lifetime memory for kids.

      • slipperypete on 20/12/2018 - 14:53
        +3

        it's a pretty well accepted fact that people on their deathbeds view and reminisce on experiences as something meaningful and a worthwhile accomplishment. It is very rare that they do the same for material objects they have accumulated

        • ozbjunkie on 20/12/2018 - 20:05
          +1

          Yeah I'll never forget my 1v5 clutch ace after the plant in r6 siege.

      • OzzyOzbourne on 20/12/2018 - 15:16

        Often cheaper than Australia if you are flying

    • [Deactivated] on 19/12/2018 - 11:47
      +1

      I agree with you and have purchased all 3 in the last 12 months.

      I was not a huge fan of a wedding but it was a really great day and I don't regret the $25k I spent. Most of that was not our money it was $12k her parents, $5k mine, the rest was us. If it all came out of my pocket I would probably feel a bit differently. We didn't go into debt for our wedding.

      • lyl-Lychee on 19/12/2018 - 19:42
        +1

        Your guests would have paid a fair chunk of the contribution back into the wishing well/presents.

        • [Deactivated] on 19/12/2018 - 21:49

          About 20%.

          I could get a minium wage job and work the number of hours I put in for my wedding and make more money.

      • HKS on 20/12/2018 - 09:12
        +8

        25k wow. thats a lot of snags in bread.

    • Scrooge McDuck on 19/12/2018 - 13:27
      +22

      eneloops
      .

      but really;
      phones
      new cars
      weddings
      .

      Your line
      width
      suggests
      that you
      need a
      new phone!

    • kaleidoscope on 20/12/2018 - 10:08
      +4

      plural on wedding?

  • fossilfuel on 19/12/2018 - 11:34
    +18

    Glasses. I don't understand how someone can fork out $200+ for a pair of raybans. They look like every other style.

    • AdosHouse on 19/12/2018 - 11:44
      +1

      Geez you'd really hate me. Pair of regular Raybans for driving when I have contact lenses in. And a pair of $700 prescription Oakleys for driving when I'm wearing glasses.

      • payton on 19/12/2018 - 11:46
        +6

        I call my contact lenses "HDR lenses" coz the world does seem brighter, with deeper blacks and saturated colours with them on
        :D

        • AdosHouse on 19/12/2018 - 11:48
          +1

          I can't see why they would increase colour. Do you normally wear glasses? I'd be more inclined to believe your glasses are cutting light a little bit.

          • payton on 19/12/2018 - 11:49
            +4

            @AdosHouse: I'm short sighted, but cant be bothered with glasses as they slide down my nose, the lens gets dust on them (requiring cleaning/sprays few times per day)
            With contacts its just cleaning once a day. My vision seems a tad duller (colour wise) without them

            • mattyman on 20/12/2018 - 10:30

              @payton: I know what you mean. I think the contact lenses make a difference being actually on your eye and not ~1cm away from it. Clarity and definition seems better which can make individual colours stand out more rather than morphing with all of the other coloured blobs that make up what we see.

          • altomic on 19/12/2018 - 12:25
            +6

            @AdosHouse:

            I can't see why they would increase colour.

            then you probably need glasses

        • buwa99 on 19/12/2018 - 20:38
          +1

          I am waiting for Ray Trace lenses

      • fossilfuel on 19/12/2018 - 11:50

        I really don't. I just don't get why people would spend that much on glasses.

        I wear 6 month contacts, have prescription glasses and polarised sunglasses. I bought them each for ~$20-25 whenever I or family goes overseas. They work fine so I can't imagine forking out that amount of money for designer glasses.

        • AdosHouse on 19/12/2018 - 12:46
          +7

          Just a joke, and I can gladly say I did not pay full price.

          Raybans I got from Otticanet for about $140.

          The Oakleys I was proud of how I got them. So I got sucker punched at work and it bent my regular glasses $600 for strong Oakley frames, and transition lenses. So work paid for them. Now OPSM had a buy one get one 50% off deal. So I got an invoice for my replacement glasses for work. Now the replacements were the cheaper of the 2 pairs, so I got 50% off them as credit for the Sunglasses. So it is $200 for the Oakley frame and $500 for the genuine Oakley lenses. So $700 minus $300 credit. Then I am with Navy Health so I get 20% off lenses at OPSM, so another $100 off, now $300. I had $150 left in private health optical, so down to $150 left to pay. And that is how I got $700 of genuine Oakley prescription sunglasses for $150.

          • Scrooge McDuck on 19/12/2018 - 13:36
            +11

            @AdosHouse: Can you see a punch coming now?

            • AdosHouse on 19/12/2018 - 15:23

              @Scrooge McDuck: Not when the run at me from behind and roundhouse me in the side of the head.

              • Scrooge McDuck on 19/12/2018 - 15:34

                @AdosHouse: First it was a sucker punch now it's a roundhouse.

                .

                .

                .

                THINK QUICK! 👊

                • AdosHouse on 19/12/2018 - 15:39

                  @Scrooge McDuck: Yes a sucker punch because he ran at me from behind when I was dealing with someone else. Roundhouse was the type of swing. It caught me in the side of the head, hit on the glasses arm, and bent them and sent them flying.

          • [Deactivated] on 23/12/2018 - 00:07
            +1

            @AdosHouse: Yeah, but they are Oakleys. This would have been an awesome story in 1996.

            • AdosHouse on 23/12/2018 - 00:31

              @[Deactivated]: Is there something wrong with Oakley prescription lenses?

              • [Deactivated] on 23/12/2018 - 01:31
                +1

                @AdosHouse: No, I'm sure they are fine. But only complete bogans wear Oakleys in 2018.

                • Speckled Jim on 23/12/2018 - 10:23

                  @[Deactivated]: I've worn the same Oakley Whisker frames daily since 2012. Best damn frames I've seen or used.

                • AdosHouse on 23/12/2018 - 11:33

                  @[Deactivated]: That is an interesting statement.

                  Lets see I used to drive a Commodore but it was in great shape, every panel the same colour, no loud exhaust, and well maintained, now I drive an Elantra.
                  I can string a sentence together without using the word (profanity) as every second word.
                  I care about how I dress and I won't go into public without a shirt or shoes on.
                  I almost never drink alcohol, and have never touched a drug in my life.
                  I have a calm personality and don't feel the need to fight someone for even the perceived notion of a threat or insult

                  I think I am closer to the opposite of a bogan.

                  So if you choose a quality brand you are a bogan? I work in a pub in a low socio-economic area, and most people I would peg as bogans wear cheap shit sunnies. Except the dealers, they wear brands.

                  • [Deactivated] on 23/12/2018 - 12:11
                    +1

                    @AdosHouse: Err you drove a Commadore and now drive a Hyundai. You wear Oakleys. Cases closed.

                    • AdosHouse on 23/12/2018 - 12:24

                      @[Deactivated]: LOL, I drove a Commodore, the most popular model car in Australian history, now drive one of the top 3 brands in Australia, while wearing a quality brand sunglasses, and that is all it takes to be a bogan? Geez standards have taken a slide.

                      • [Deactivated] on 23/12/2018 - 12:45

                        @AdosHouse: Come on buddy, this is set in concrete. Bogans drive Commodores. Their wives drive Hyundais.

                  • Irate Monk on 28/12/2018 - 10:12

                    @AdosHouse:

                    I care about how I dress and I won't go into public without a shirt or shoes

                    Why not appear with both on?

                    • AdosHouse on 28/12/2018 - 11:20

                      @Irate Monk: Woah woah woah, calm down there you British Aristocrat.

                      • try2bhelpful on 28/12/2018 - 12:15

                        @AdosHouse: Sorry, but you can't get into Costco unless you have both a shirt and shoes. The fact that they needed to put a sign up was hilarious.

                        • AdosHouse on 28/12/2018 - 12:23
                          +1

                          @try2bhelpful: Lucky I dont shop at Costco :)

                          But yeah it's funny they have to put up a sign. In saying that, I work at a pub and I get people that call up and ask if they can get into the venue without shoes, so…….

                          • try2bhelpful on 28/12/2018 - 12:29

                            @AdosHouse: The fact that they ring to ask is hilarious. Maybe you need to provide shoes/shirts at the door, in various sizes; similar to fine dining places where you can borrow jackets to dine with them.

                            • AdosHouse on 28/12/2018 - 13:13

                              @try2bhelpful: Sometimes it is very hard not to give sarcastic answers on the phone.

        • tomleonhart on 20/12/2018 - 06:54
          +2

          I didn’t understand why people spent money on sunglasses either.. that until I decided to have LASIK surgery.

          The day after my surgery, my eyes were so sensitive and I needed a new pair of sunglasses(my old pair has prescription).

          Bought a pair of Rayban and still couldn’t open my eyes outdoor, walked in the day later and exchanged them for a pair of Maui Jim, the difference was day and night. Never gone back to cheap polarised sunnies again. I only have 1 pairs of eyes, got to protect it as much as I can :-)

          • sillyguy on 20/12/2018 - 17:37

            @tomleonhart: I was waiting for someone to say Maui Jim!

            They’re awesome and really worth the money.

        • inherentchoice on 21/12/2018 - 09:57

          I previously just used cheap sunnies, but my $200 pair that I wear now is so worth it IMHO. Colours are very noticably more vivid plus it has a higher safety factor as I wear them while riding a motorcycle with the visor up. They did break but I sent them back for warranty. Was so pleased to get them back repaired after wearing the cheap ones for a month.

          Sunnies are also a fashion thing. It's absolutely fine to have some nice things during our short time in this world. It's like the difference between a nice hotel or a cheapo backwater hotel that's not nice at all.

    • jellykingdom on 19/12/2018 - 11:54
      +2

      I keep either losing or sitting on mine by accident, so i tend to just buy polarised chemist glasses

      • greater mimic on 19/12/2018 - 17:47
        +1

        a couple brands that do stylish cheap polarised sunnies are the cancer council and glarefoil. no idea why someone would buy raybans when these exist

        • locosam on 19/12/2018 - 20:42
          +2

          Because of high quality glass lenses (not all models though).
          Makes a big difference.
          Not necessarily only raybans though, Serengeti and other brands that offer high quality glass lenses are fine too.
          Style is secondary.
          Although, you only need one pair every few years.
          I also found they hold up to dropping and scratches a bit better than the plastic types (like oakley)

          • try2bhelpful on 28/12/2018 - 12:30

            @locosam: Serengetis are great - will never go back to normal sun glasses again.

        • shiningstars on 21/12/2018 - 18:05

          50% off at DJ
          https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/426551

      • Chandler on 20/12/2018 - 09:41

        Same here - $5-10 pair of tinted safety glasses.

        Functional, offers extra safety for mowing etc, less likely to break if I sit on them etc, and even if they do (or I lose them, etc) only $5-10 lost.

        I wouldn't mind a nice pair of sunnies, but given my history with them I'd be too worried about losing/breaking them.

    • nomoneynoproblems on 19/12/2018 - 12:50
      +4

      Resident tight arse here, so I can have a shot at this one. I haven't spent that much on my raybans but the reason I fork out for branded sunnies is because the lenses and styles. Shitty brand glasses can actually damage your eyes.

      • AdosHouse on 19/12/2018 - 12:51

        Read my reply to fossilfuel a couple above this, I did not pay full price.

      • Spam Service on 20/12/2018 - 08:05
        +3

        Shitty brand glasses can actually damage your eyes.

        That's a bit of a false dichotomy though. You don't need to buy rayban/oakleys to get decent lenses, you just need to buy ones that comply to Australian standards - which you can get for $20 from the cancer council.

    • 87percent on 19/12/2018 - 13:36
      +1

      I was having a discussion about glasses with a couple of friends. One of us, who isn't particularly rich, buys $1000 glasses every couple of years. He doesn't claim them on private health or anything. Needless to say, I was shocked. Mine are $25 from clearly and I got that back on my private health!

    • DarthAntz on 19/12/2018 - 15:58

      My wife and i have 12 pairs of sunglasses. Aliexpress is very kind to our style. total cost for all 12 pairs is around $70AUD. i consider it enough for the next 10 years. I wouldnt dream of $200 on a single pair.

      • Cliche Guevara on 20/12/2018 - 13:28
        +5

        You'll want to check these meet Australian Standards. Some "sun"glasses are actually just fashion glasses with no UV rating on the lens. They do more damage than good if worn outside as sunglasses.

        • DarthAntz on 20/12/2018 - 13:52

          ive had sunglasses that fit your description before. you can definitely feel with a short amount of time that they are not protecting your eyes at all. anyone anywhere can put those rates and specs on a pair of sunglasses for sale. some are better/more compliant than others. i always read the reviews.

          • minotaurian on 23/12/2018 - 00:00
            +1

            @DarthAntz: Uv is invisible, wearing sunglasses thinking they block all wavelengths of UVA and UVB even when they are not can lead to a false sense of security. Then you will pay with your health 20 years later. I can't take this risk and at the same time if I get problem I don't want the public system to fix my issues… I only wear muai Jim's, makos and serengedis that have met with auz/nz standards

      • woody007 on 24/12/2018 - 15:58
        +2

        12 pairs of sunglasses.

        -for driving alone
        -for driving with the mrs
        -walking the dog
        -mowing the lawn
        -making dinner
        -having a shower
        -taking a shit
        -at work
        -go shopping
        -get a haircut
        -using the computer
        -at the beach

    • All Blacks NZ on 19/12/2018 - 20:29

      Totally agree. I bought a pair of Cancer Council for about $50 and they are very good glasses.

    • Jamie007 on 19/12/2018 - 23:05
      +2

      They may look like every other style (more like every other style looks like them) but they don't feel the same. Cheap copies feel light, loose and plasticy. Ray Bans are solid and weighty. Nor do they last the same. Ray Bans last forever. I'll have the one pair of Ray Bans for years (only ever replaced them after being lost, I've never had a pair break or scratch) while my partner will go through three or four pairs of cheap ones a year.

      • captaincabinets on 20/12/2018 - 09:43
        +1

        Lol 'last forever'. You may be the exception but I don't know anyone who doesn't lose / damage their sunnies after a year or so.

        • Jamie007 on 20/12/2018 - 13:28

          My Ray Bans tend to see a lot of use and abuse and I have never been broken a single pair or ever had a lens get scratched. Been wearing Wayfarers for prob 25 years now. Only ever replaced a pair if they've gotten lost or stolen. I've maybe bought five or six pairs ever.

      • Doooozy on 23/12/2018 - 21:21
        +1

        I've had my prescription Ray-Ban glasses for over four years now. Wear them everyday and have put them through a bit of beating, they are still holding up strong.

    • unelectric on 20/12/2018 - 10:06
      +3

      Must-watch for anyone interested in branded glasses

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDdq2rIqAlM

      • FimpBARGAIN on 20/12/2018 - 14:11
        +1

        Thank you for posting this.
        I now understand why the quality of the oakley eyeglasses I was buying every 1-2 years from OPSM was dropping but the prices were getting higher and higher.

        I now buy only from online (vision direct) and pay for a designer brand with thin/light lenses and try to stay in the rebate amount from NIB.
        So pair I got this year were $323 delivered vs the last pair I bought in store which were almost $900! <- ten years or so ago mind you…
        And I even sent back a pair after a year (oakley once again) as I was convinced they were knock-offs. Nope, just crap build quality. They gave me a discount on my next pair (not oakley btw)

        I think bricks&mortar glasses shops are a massive rip-off, happy to pay the optometrist for their work but always walk out with the script I paid for (including PD dimension)

    • MLeeder on 20/12/2018 - 17:43
      +3

      Besides from looks, you pay more for quality - RayBans won't rust or break as easy along with all the other benefits.
      I do agree with you, I have only ever bought one pair of expensive RayBans and that was an accident because I forgot about exchange rates haha.

    • This Guy on 20/12/2018 - 22:50
      +2

      Clarity

      The $200+ sunglasses I have bought have improved my vision, especially at 500 metres plus where the increased contrast/reduced glare makes object discrimination easier. They improve my eyesight, not limit it.

      Durability

      My $200+ sunnies resist scratches unlike my $10-$50 sunnies.

      Use

      At a guess I would have used my latest pare of $200+ sunnies for more than 100,000km, compared to less than 1000km for every cheap pair I have ever bought. This is due to clarity and resistance to lens damage.

      Don't get me wrong, I haven't paid $200+ for sunnies. I doubt most $200+ sunnies will be as good as the pairs I have bought due to 'industry treads.' And if cheap glasses work for you, I agree that buying expensive glasses would be silly.

    • j05h on 20/12/2018 - 23:41

      Unfortunately some people don’t have a lot of choice with glasses. My lenses are usually about $250 each, then add frames. They are a special order from Zeiss in Germany and take weeks to get here. The joys of bad vision!

    • baldur on 21/12/2018 - 22:19

      What alternative brands would you recommend at lower costs?

    • morgs640 on 23/12/2018 - 20:37

      Knock around glasses. $5 USD a pair and good quality, get the premiums for 15 or even less on sale. As good quality as any brand name.

  • [Deactivated] on 19/12/2018 - 11:41
    +96

    “I spent half my money on gambling, alcohol and wild women. The other half I wasted.” - WC Fields

    My view is that people should spend their money on what they want and others should mind their own business.

    • Scrooge McDuck on 19/12/2018 - 13:48
      +21

      Not when they're falling victim to scams or addiction and at risk of having to mooch off taxpayers… or already there.

      Blowing welfare payments on drugs, gambling and alcohol is not OK!

      • pegaxs on 19/12/2018 - 14:00

        Added to that that this is not “their” money…

        • idonotknowwhy on 19/12/2018 - 16:05
          +9

          I have to disagree with you on that one.
          Provided they meet the eligibility criteria; once somebody receives a centerlink payment, the money belongs to them. They can go and spend it drinking and gambling at the pub if they choose to, or they can save it, invest it, whatever. None of our business.

          • Scrooge McDuck on 19/12/2018 - 16:19
            +11

            @idonotknowwhy: It is our business since we finance it. In the case of Newstart, that's to provide them with the means to get back on their feet. Not to be squandered and depended upon indefinitely.

            • buwa99 on 19/12/2018 - 20:43
              +5

              @Scrooge McDuck: It all goes back in to the economy gets taxed and goes round and round again. Then some more is printed and the money you have is worth less anyway. You think gambling and alcohol isn't taxed?

            • This Guy on 20/12/2018 - 23:26
              +3

              @Scrooge McDuck:

              Newstart (is) to provide (Austalian's) with the means to get back on their feet

              Yes, that is how it is sold to Johny Taxpayer.

              Newstart was easy to cheat as welfare payments are an order of magnitude cheaper than incarceration.

              Cheating welfare can have far fewer social issues than theft or sale of illegal products and/or services.

              Newstart is not designed to get people back on their feet or give them a fair go. Newstart is designed to antagonise tax payers to stop them from drawing it when needed with silly rules and social stigma.

              I would much rather pay my share of $8,200 per year per unemployed person ($10 billion cash payments across 1.2 million unemployed Australians), than the average $390/day just for a cell and the social issues of people using serious crime to fund their lifestyle instead.

              • payton on 21/12/2018 - 00:05
                +2

                @This Guy:

                Newstart is designed to antagonise tax payers to stop them from drawing it when needed with silly rules and social stigma.

                I didn't feel any stigma at all when I was literally broke with $50 to my name, and needed Newstart. Its not like the Centrelink officer blew a trumpet (and shouted "another dole bludger!") when they approved my payment every fortnight.

                I used it to get back on my feet and got a job. Not because I feel bad about using Newstart, but because I like being paid more money more often.

                Most taxpayers would have contributed more to Newstart (taxes) compared to amount drawn, so why would anyone feel guilty if they genuinely needed help.

                • This Guy on 21/12/2018 - 00:18
                  +2

                  @payton: Good!

                  I am sorry if I offended you. My argument was an extreme to counter the "mooch off taxpayers" mindset.

                  I know my reply was extremely cynical. I used it as I have never seen 'welfare helps people' influence a person who wrote, 'Blowing welfare payments on drugs, gambling and alcohol is not OK!'

            • abb on 21/12/2018 - 15:00
              -1

              @Scrooge McDuck: I bought a TV at Harvey Norman. Does that mean I'm entitled to instruct Gerry Harvey on how to spend his money?

              • Scrooge McDuck on 21/12/2018 - 15:42
                +1

                @abb: No, that's a false analogy. Newstart recipients don't supply taxpayers with anything in return for the payments.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join