Your standard lottery winning scenario, with a twist!!
- Thread starter MammothBlade
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That's easy, I'd accept.
Somewhere, some time ago, I read that most people (in Britain, at least) earn and pay out around £1M or less in a lifetime. The average working person. In a lifetime.
So £3M is already 3 times that, you just need to be smart with the money, and not waste it on stupid things like flashy cars, big mansions, and snobbish butlers.
So, yes, I'd accept, and use a small amount of it, under £100k, to sort my life out, and then live off the rest. Probably with my dad. Well, probably definitely. I wouldn't just abandon him, and he wouldn't abandon me.
We know how to live sensibly. I've had my bad times with money and spending, but I've gotten a lot better.
Somewhere, some time ago, I read that most people (in Britain, at least) earn and pay out around £1M or less in a lifetime. The average working person. In a lifetime.
So £3M is already 3 times that, you just need to be smart with the money, and not waste it on stupid things like flashy cars, big mansions, and snobbish butlers.
So, yes, I'd accept, and use a small amount of it, under £100k, to sort my life out, and then live off the rest. Probably with my dad. Well, probably definitely. I wouldn't just abandon him, and he wouldn't abandon me.
We know how to live sensibly. I've had my bad times with money and spending, but I've gotten a lot better.
I'd accept. I have a good idea of what I'd do. If I can live comfortably at the start, then it's for the best. I'll find a nice rural(but not too remote) house for £400-800k, and stick to that (library and study MANDATORY). Maybe get a summer cottage too. I wouldn't want the initial housing budget to go above £1 million.
The rest (at least £20,000 a year) is enough to live off reasonably for a very long time provided I don't spend too lavishly on holidays or luxury cars.
As for family, I'd keep them under my wing. My sister would get the family house instead of me, she'd have a good start.
I'd still want to travel and write and learn, to do something productive with my life. I think such a situation would help me focus on my aspirations without any distractions.
The rest (at least £20,000 a year) is enough to live off reasonably for a very long time provided I don't spend too lavishly on holidays or luxury cars.
As for family, I'd keep them under my wing. My sister would get the family house instead of me, she'd have a good start.
I'd still want to travel and write and learn, to do something productive with my life. I think such a situation would help me focus on my aspirations without any distractions.
i'd take it, i hate working anyway XD.
and if his math is right, that's more then I'd ever needQuinadin said:
Well, let's see. I'm 20 now, and I'll assume I live to about 90. That's 70 years, which equates to about $68,500 per year for the rest of my life, without having to work. Not bad.
However, assuming I can get a job right out of college and work for 30 years... Average starting salary for my field is right at $89,000 a year. Obviously the starting salary would be lower, but just using the average salary for computations gives $2,670,000 before taxes.
So, just looking at the base numbers, it seems that taking the offer would be the best option, assuming the lottery money automatically adjusted for inflation.
Of course, if the "no interest" clause prevents adjustment of funds for inflation, then you might be better off in the long run working and investing in the stock market. Still, I could live on $5,700 a month, so I'd probably take the money.
However, assuming I can get a job right out of college and work for 30 years... Average starting salary for my field is right at $89,000 a year. Obviously the starting salary would be lower, but just using the average salary for computations gives $2,670,000 before taxes.
So, just looking at the base numbers, it seems that taking the offer would be the best option, assuming the lottery money automatically adjusted for inflation.
Of course, if the "no interest" clause prevents adjustment of funds for inflation, then you might be better off in the long run working and investing in the stock market. Still, I could live on $5,700 a month, so I'd probably take the money.
yeah, I'd take it. Buy a computer for a couple of thousand dollars and continue living the way I do now. Studying and going to the gym, If I die I am going to heaven anyway so I don't really care about dying.
assuming an average inflation of 4%, 50 years down the line its worth 0.14 of what it is today. It would take more planning and effort than I care for to budget to take this into account and avoid living my last years in relative poverty. (if I divided it equally, then my share in year 50 is only worth about £8,000 in today's money, significantly below what someone working 40 hours a week at minimum wage would earn).
so no, I wouldn't take it.
so no, I wouldn't take it.
50 years from now, you'd probably be retired anyway.ClockworkPenguin said:
Smart, but let's assume a lack of inflation, or that the money retains a constant time-value of its current x1.
Hire elite assassins to take out the elite assassins that would be coming to kill you, then sabotage the lottery company that now cannot get you with the elite assassins.
Or you could keep 1 dollar, give the rest of the money to your family members, and even do it at an old age in case that does break the rules.
Or you could spend the money on an identity change and be able to escape the elite assassins with a new house, car, face, etc.
Or you could build a deathtrap of a house with no window so the elite assassins can't get you.
NAILED IT!
Or you could just invest it wisely in something after buying enough solid assets like a house to keep you alive.
Or you could keep 1 dollar, give the rest of the money to your family members, and even do it at an old age in case that does break the rules.
Or you could spend the money on an identity change and be able to escape the elite assassins with a new house, car, face, etc.
Or you could build a deathtrap of a house with no window so the elite assassins can't get you.
NAILED IT!
Or you could just invest it wisely in something after buying enough solid assets like a house to keep you alive.
I was assuming pensions where also banned under the 'no income for life' rule.MammothBlade said:
Assuming no inflation then its appealing. Provided I stick to a vague budget and don't get stupid I could live very comfortably and work for vocation, not necessity. However, I'm still put off by the death clause.
No, I will not accept. I'd have to live like a poor man in order to not run out of money during my lifetime so its not worth it.
I would decline. 3 Million is a lot, but it can disappear quicker than you think, especially if you have a family or if the currency depreciates quickly or you have very expensive medical conditions. In your scenario, you'd need to be sure that the 3 million lasts your whole life. I'm not sure it will.
I'd rather take my chances and just live a normal life.
I'd rather take my chances and just live a normal life.