This is a discussion that seems to come up every year between my wife and I.
As our extended family grew larger, the families decided it was best to simply pick a name out of a hat and buy one large gift for a person instead of buying multiple small gifts for everyone. It sure makes it easier to buy one gift than to run around and buy for 20 different people.
So lets say the gift amount was $200.
Who should benefit from the savings if one was able to buy the $200 item on sale?
Do you consider the savings to be compensation because you spent all that time looking for sales, researching, clipping coupons, etc?
Would you then simply take the savings and continue shopping so that you spend the full $200?
Would you call it a day and consider your work done?
I wouldn’t fight about it. Whoever has taken responsibility for taking care of the gift purchasing should get to deal with it. To me it sounds like a power struggle (brought up by the person not doing the work).
Maybe it is just my past experience, but this is the type of “discussion” my ex (who left the actual work to me) would bring up when he was not doing any of the heavy lifting. Carry on.
Is this what you are asking? You’ve decided to spend $200 on a gift…you go shopping and find something on sale for $150 (worth $200 or more). Should the one that did the shopping “benefit” from the $50 (i.e. spend on him/herself) or continue shopping?
I guess I choose “Would you call it a day and consider your work done”. I don’t feel an obligation to spend the entire $200 and any savings is just money we didn’t spend (plus we don’t look at money as “his” or “hers” only “ours” so I can’t imagine someone having some kind of claim on it).
If the agreement is that you can spend up to $200, you are done. If the agreement is that you must spend $200, value means nothing to the argument. You need to get an additional gift to make up for the difference, or better yet, tell the relative that you got the gift on sale, and the savings was donated to their favorite charity. Another factor to the equation is financial ability. It would be odd if the financially sound family member actually spends less because they got a good deal and the struggling family member spends the entire amount. In my mind, not fair. As far as the person who did the work getting the benefit of the savings, that sounds very childish to me and not the mindset of an adult. Just my opinion.
Our family does this sort of thing with our in-laws, and with a $100 limit. I usually end up getting them $100 gift card, which often means I’ll get another $10 or $20 of bonus gift cards, which I will usually pass along to them as well.
But each family’s economic situation is different. Our 4 sets of in-laws are all doing much better off financially than we are, since they are all double-income families. One of my in-laws families is much much wealthier than all the rest of us, both earning at least double what my DH earns. They take extravagant vacations, buy fancy cars for my 2 lazy nephews, and complain constantly about how little FA and how little merit aid they get.
This year, we pulled their names out of the hat. We will be getting them a $100 gift card, which, when I bought it over the weekend, I got a $20 coupon. Instead of passing this along to them, since it expires before Xmas, I decided to make a $20 contribution to our local food pantry. I will make them some homemade fudge to go with it.
When H was younger the siblings and parents would do Kris Kringle gifts. As they got married, their spouses were also included. At some point, we decided that this was totally not working because (1) everyone bought for the MIL and FIL ANYWAYS, so someone always ended up with MIL or FIL as Kris Kringle AND their regular gift. (2) MIL/FIL bought for everyone and thus ALWAYS had regular gift plus their Kris Kringles. (3) People were not supposed to get their own spouses, but it happened from time to time (4) People were always trying to return things they didn’t like, which was sometimes difficult if it had been purchased on the other side of the country and shipped, thus potentially incurring the cost to ship it BACK. (5) No $ amount was specified, so some people spent a lot more than others. (6) Some people gave gift cards, which is like money, so what’s the point? Adults? Really?
Overall, it just became a PITA, so we all stopped that. Everyone in the family is wealthy enough to buy their own stuffs and get what they want.
We still get things for the nieces and nephews, and I try to spend about equally on them, even if I get things on sale (just buy MORE stuff!).
So is the question in relation to the relatives? (I.e. does $200 mean you MUST spend $200?) or in relation to the couple (i.e. “our budget was $200 but I saved money shopping so what should I do with it”?)
I answered the latter, but if it is the former, I think clarification as to what the actual agreement it. If it’s “about $200” or “no more than $200” I’d say you are done. If it’s “at least $200” then I’d buy something else.
If one considers a gift from a closeout retailer (heck, or Macy’s) may have listed on its tag at time of purchase, “retails for/valued at” whatever-amount, when one really only pays a small fraction of that, the question of the gift-giving must start from the question of ‘are we purchasing for the idea that we will have put time and thought to the gift, and purchasing a gift of quality and value?’
One could purchase the supposedly expensive gift which the eye clearly says is not of much value or quality, or one could work harder for a nice gift.
I say a gift which shows the time and intention to please are ‘wrapped up’ in the gift, the job is done, and the purchaser can go have a nice lunch, or whatever. The gift receiver receives graciously, and says Thank You.
If the price amount is $200, then the giver should have spent around $200. The expectation should be that the receiver will want to return the gift and that the amount spent should be what the amount you were suppose to spend.
No buying a $200 gift for $100 and calling it a day. The recipient will always find out that you only spent $100 when they spent $200 and they will be annoyed.
If you got a great deal and found something for 1/2 price you need to buy something else to make it to the price you were supposed to spend on the gift.
I’d say the spoils go to the smart shopper, otherwise you could quibble forever. A $200 gift is a $200 gift, no matter what you paid on a given day. Would you pass on the right $200 gift if the shipping or tax brought it over $200?
And I’d jump on a $250 gift on sale for $200, if I thought it was a good gift, so the receivers would also benefit from my smart shopping, over time
We did this for a time in my family, but for reasons already mentioned, we abandoned it. FWIW, if the limit is $200, I think you spend close to that, at least. No fair spending only $100 if it was reduced from $200, IMO. Nowadays, is anything really full price? I think it’s best to be generous and give close to the full monetary limit.
I think it’s more about the thought than the dollar amount. We don’t draw names and we don’t have a dollar limit, but H and I do set our own limits when we Christmas shop. If I find something perfect for the recipient that’s below that but isn’t a cheap cop-out, then that’s what I get. The escape room experience I got for my two older kids last year was on sale, but I knew they’d love it and jump on it, and they did. I didn’t feel the need to spend the rest of my budget just because. H exchanges a small gift with each of his siblings. This year he found a Funko Pop figure of one of the voices his brother has done for a cartoon (brother is an actor). It’s not available in stores and it was a special purchase from Ebay so no returning. And it’s cool-how many people can point to a figure and say “That was my character in X show”? Does he feel the need to run out and spend more money because it wasn’t his whole budget? No.
I’m not surprised that some people think so, but I’ve never known a family that tallies up what was spent and goes down to the penny to make budget, much less research where things were bought so that they know if the “correct” amount was spent on them. Sheesh. Just throw money at people in that case.
"And I’d jump on a $250 gift on sale for $200, if I thought it was a good gift, so the receivers would also benefit from my smart shopping, over time "
Not really, because YOU spent $200. That’s the whole point. The point is to spend $200 each. If you can get something more for somebody through smart shopping, great. Why not err on the side of generosity? Isn’t that what gift giving is all about? Is it really that difficult to find the best prices given internet searches these days?
I guess I don’t get the thought process of the giver keeping the savings. If you don’t want to spend the $200 on the person’s gift and don’t want to be generous, why are they on your gift list at all and why did you agree to spending $200? I’d be happy to give someone I care about enough to buy them a gift more instead of less.
If I bought a restaurant gift card and they offered an extra $25 for each $100 purchased, I’d include the extra with the gift, for example.
I half agree with you @doschicos . If I got extra gift cards with a purchase, I’d include them in the gift. But if I find the “perfect” gift for $79 instead of $100 or for $200 when I “should” be spending $250, I’m not going to go out and spend exactly the amount I’m saving for some self-imposed rule about cost. If it’s something I know my giftee will love, I call that a win, whatever was spent. For me and mine, it’s always been about a gift the recipient will enjoy, not about dollars and cents.
Looking back over the years, the best gifts I’ve received and those I’ve given with the best receptions were never about money. I buy gifts to make people happy, not to spend tit for tat.
I’d go for a more expensive item and spend $200, or if I got a $200 for less I’d buy something small to make up the difference. This is a gift we’re talking about, I’d err on the side of generosity.
