Martin Lewis: Is it time to ban unnecessary Christmas presents?

• We’ve disconnected from why we give gifts. The expectation of presents isn’t culturally exclusive to the West, anthropologists refer to it as ‘ceremonial gift exchange’. Most common are gifts upon marriage or coming-of-age ceremonies and indeed, to my logic, this makes social and financial sense, as in effect it’s a form of prudent banking. For example, when someone is young and starting out in married life, others give cash or gifts to them as a start-up fund, which is a net inflow of goods. As people age and tend to get more financially stable, they then give gifts to newlyweds, effectively paying the system back. Yet Christmas gift-giving outside the immediate family doesn’t work that way; rather than focusing cash where it’s used, we simply swap presents, so there’s no net movement of funds or goods.
  
  
• It creates an unfair obligation on others. At this point, many fervent gift givers will be spluttering over their wrapping paper. Their counter-argument, of course, is the pure joy of giving gifts; many thrive on this, and it can be hugely pleasurable. Yet it’s important to think about the people getting the goodies. Generosity could actually be hurting the recipients, not helping. By giving a gift to someone, or their children, you create an obligation on them to do the same, whether they can afford to do so or not. If that obligation is something they will struggle to fulfil, then you’re actually letting them down.
  
  
• It mis-prioritises our finances. Christmas gifts are often a ‘zero-sum’ game, where often people just give gifts of similar values to each other. It’s worth examining what this means in a dispassionate practical sense: 

Yet the problem here is Sharon’s loaded and Violet’s skint. Without the gift-giving obligation, would Violet have really chosen to spend her hard-earned £20 for a necklace?

Instead, perhaps she’d have bought food for her children, paid some bills, or put the money towards replacing worn out shoes.

In other words, Violet’s financial priorities have been skewed because of gift-swapping. She would’ve been better off if they had agreed not to give in the first place.