Why were the Weasleys poor?

[Steve]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Wolfie!" <wuff at ...> wrote:
>
> This thought just struck me.
> 
> Their Dad had a top position in the "force",
> which surely must have paid reasonably well.
> 
> Yes, they were a large family, but then...
> No electricity or gas bills, and one seldom
> used car.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Wolfie!
>

bboyminn:

Well, here's the thing, the Weasley's aren't poor, they are just
normal. I mean can you honestly say that you or any other person in
this group can and would give your kids each and every little thing
their hearts desired? Can you spell 'spoiled rotten'?

The Weasleys are working class like many of the working class people I
live with in small town America. They are able to provide for the
basic needs of their families, and they are able to do so nicely, but
excess and extravagances are kept to an absolute minimum. They have
money, they just don't have money to burn.

Have you ever seen a Weasley go hungry? I don't think so. Mrs. Weasley
seems to serve up a huge feast at every meal. Just feeding that brood
must cost a fortune. 

Everyone in the Weasley family has every thing the /need/; food,
shelter, clothing, education, etc. Just because Ron can't have
everything he /wants/ doesn't mean he is poor. Remember the most of
Ron's griping about being poor is in response to either Harry or Draco
who, relatively speaking are rich by comparison. 

So, the real problem in not that the Weasleys seem poor, but that they
are not rich and therefore able to endulge every extravagant whim of
their children. From a moral and ethical perspective, that is, from
the perspective of building healthy, humain, ethical children, it is
better to be slightly poor than to be extravagantly rich. 

Just one man's perspective.

Steve/bboyminn