Your $101M Acquisition

[Jenna]

Two Chicks at the same time.

To do what? Visit the jobless in your area and coach them on how to set up their own small business?

My faith teaches me "to do these things in secret, and the Father rewards openly." (or something like that)... besides nobody else's business what I do with the money that is given to me unless they give it to me for a specific purpose.

My sentiments would mirror your own.

Money has usually meant power. Power is neither good nor bad. But enough money gives you enough power to choose. That's why I chose to keep just enough to get myself without worry of deep debt and donate what is left. Don't want that much power, don't need it and ain't gonna be able to KEEP it no how because there'll always be somebody with more than little ole' me. Kinda depressing huh? To me it's accepting at the moment how things are. In the mean time I get a nice feeling with the idea of being able to help others.

Just as there is always someone with more than little ol' you, there is always someone with less. I think we learn to rationalise our position on the scale. Unfortunately I think for most of us, we rationalise it down to never having enough and always wanting more.

Orange Tic tacs, Chewing gum and Chiclets....Lots of orange tic tacs, chewing gum and chiclets … or possibly corner the Pez market

Tic tacs, chewing gum and Chiclets could very well be set to this song

and which I should think you would not know ha. Sing now! "Tic tacs, chewing gum and Chiclets!" And so XS, when you cornered the Pez market would you redistribute Pez to those poor and deprived of Pez?

An individual spending his money on cars or other luxuries does so because he wishes to and at his expense. These needy kids, hospitals that seem to be permanently on fire, etc, didn't have the money in the first place and have no claim to it at all. Another person's need does not become my burden. If the world worked liek that we would all be forced to pay alms to those a step or two lower on the financial ladder, because they want that money.

Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you? If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, why is it an immoral indulgence in your stomach, but a moral goal for you to achieve in the stomach of others? Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it? Does virtue consist of serving vice? Is the moral purpose of those who are good, self-immolation for the sake of those who are evil?

Whatever the value involved, it is your lack of it that gives you a claim upon those who don’t lack it. It is your need that gives you a claim to rewards. If you are able to satisfy your need, your ability annuls your right to satisfy it. But a need you are unable to satisfy gives you first right to the lives of mankind. - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

I appreciate your point of view completely. Personally I think it actually is moral to serve the happiness of others because that is ultimately in the greater good for us all. Were you or your family to suffer destitution after some financial incident or hardship perhaps you would welcome the assistance of others who stood to gain nothing from so doing, no? Enjoyment of our own lives is part of any accepted self-interest theory of living. It is of course your right to accumulate wealth and use it as you see fit and yet I do not think it should be at the expense of others. That is why I think $100M is obscene in terms of equitability when put in the hands of one individual who could never possibly justify a need for it. Humanity needs altruists. I simply wish the each of us did not rely upon others to be those altruists.

THe cost of actually bringing a full scale production transmutation facility on line could reach billions, but a proof-of-principle prototype could be done for $100 million-and LANSCE is the only facility in the world where a prototype could be accomplished. It hasn't happened already because no one thinks it's important enough-we're already doing transmutation at LANSCE for medical isotopes. There are hazards and problems inherent in the process that would have to be addressed.

It wasn't my idea, but it's a damn good one.

I very much like this idea. You have not stumbled upon any Einstein-defying faster than light particles up there? Now that really *would* be something. That reminds me... I am late for work!

It's the nature of things-though, I have to add that if you start squandering $100M on Lambos, you're gonna go broke pretty quick. On the other hand, in spite of all the horror stories, there are a lot of people who have won large amounts of money in lotteries and just gone on living their lives at a somewhat higher standard, and without ever having to worry about money again. My point of view-handed down from my father, and his father and grandfather before him-is that there's really only so much money you can spend for yourself on stuff-everything else is just showing off, or being silly, or something. At a certain point, the realization comes for most that money is power, and one should really use that money to do good for others.

But that's my point of view, and everyone else can do as they like-no skin off my back.

I agree wholeheartedly. I think being so "stuff" orientated can be a burden to happiness. Giving without need for the validation of thanks can be quite uplifting I think.

I was a very small part of local program a few years ago. Money was raised (like $20,000) not very much and was then given away. People wrote in what they would do with the money (it was given out in $1,000.00 'grants'). The idea was that the money would benefit others and they would benefit by helping others. Many video taped their helping of others and the reactions of those receiving the gifts. For some it was dropping off bags of groceries at poorer neighbors homes, for others it was small home/auto repairs. Many of the videos were very touching and what is interesting is that they provided the momentum for others to also get into the act of giving and helping. Just as fear and hate are contagious so is hope.



Can't imagine doing this with the kind of money talked about in the thread but could see everyone in the thread give some thought and a put a couple of hundred dollars to a neighbors need. The high of giving and helping is just like the endorphin high runners get, except it can last for weeks or months and by reliving-recounting the giving the high returns. It does not take much. In Tim Sanders book 'Today We Are Rich' he tells of a day when his grandmother who he was living with gave a traveling man some work. The man worked hard all day and Tim watched and talked to the man learning some lessons (read the book it is worth it) at the end of the day his grandmother paid the man the money due, gave a bit extra and to Tim's surprise a pair of her deceased husbands shoes. As the man walked off with his new shoes his grandmother told Tim, "today we are rich". The lesson being no matter how 'poor' you are you can always find somebody a little worse off and give them a hand. In doing so you enrich your own life. I agree with the lesson.

I agree absolutely Brian, I think wealth and poverty are not discrete and but part of a scale. I think the key to understanding our behaviour and reaction to giving is in my opinion that we possibly tend to always put ourselves towards the 'poor' end of that scale. I think that is human nature harking from the days when we walked the plains and food was scarce. For us, it is not that way now. Unfortunately for many, nothing has changed.

 

[Omar B]

I appreciate your point of view completely. Personally I think it actually is moral to serve the happiness of others because that is ultimately in the greater good for us all. Were you or your family to suffer destitution after some financial incident or hardship perhaps you would welcome the assistance of others who stood to gain nothing from so doing, no? Enjoyment of our own lives is part of any accepted self-interest theory of living. It is of course your right to accumulate wealth and use it as you see fit and yet I do not think it should be at the expense of others. That is why I think $100M is obscene in terms of equitability when put in the hands of one individual who could never possibly justify a need for it. Humanity needs altruists. I simply wish the each of us did not rely upon others to be those altruists.

Wait, "It is of course your right to accumulate wealth and use it as you see fit and yet I do not think it should be at the expense of others." You present two ideas in one sentence that are diametrically opposite. It is my goal to make as much money as I can. No, my making money is not at the expence of anyone. My paycheck does not mean someone else goes hungry, I'm not a pirate, it's not plunder, the money in my pocket is not seized from anyone else and therefore my earnings are not at the expense of anyone. It's my due reward for what I do.

Your point as to why you think that sum is immoral is still unmade. That money did not belong to the needy before and still does not belong to them now. If I wish to give some of it away it's my choice, not a moral objective just because somebody else needs it. There are guys out there not getting laid, isn't it moral for chicks to go out, find these guys and bang them all? They have something in abundance these guys want it's their duty to share right, it's immoral to have something someone else wants and not give it up simply because it's yours and you choose not to.

Why is it every time someone does well, everyone else jumps on the "it's at somebody else's expence" thing. My earnings are mine by right because of my work, just like a prize won would be mine, not at the expense of anyone else (because going into a lottery you know the odds and you freely participate).

I think its aboslutly immoral to serve the happyness of others, unless of course that is what makes you happy. As I said in an earlier post, why is it immoral to feed yourself, but moral to feed someone else. If followed to it's extremes we would all be no more than useless parasites feeding on the person one rung up the social ladder. Self sacrifice? How about rational self interest?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Better buy a warehouse and a security guard.

nah I will be giving it all away to promote tooth decay... then I'm off to dental school with the last million

Tic tacs, chewing gum and Chiclets could very well be set to this song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JrfMsfnVbw and which I should think you would not know ha. Sing now! "Tic tacs, chewing gum and Chiclets!" And so XS, when you cornered the Pez market would you redistribute Pez to those poor and deprived of Pez?

Yup...see above

 

[MA-Caver]

nah I will be giving it all away to promote tooth decay... then I'm off to dental school with the last million



Yup...see above

Sneaky... :asian:

Wait, "It is of course your right to accumulate wealth and use it as you see fit and yet I do not think it should be at the expense of others." You present two ideas in one sentence that are diametrically opposite. It is my goal to make as much money as I can. No, my making money is not at the expence of anyone. My paycheck does not mean someone else goes hungry, I'm not a pirate, it's not plunder, the money in my pocket is not seized from anyone else and therefore my earnings are not at the expense of anyone. It's my due reward for what I do.

Your point as to why you think that sum is immoral is still unmade. That money did not belong to the needy before and still does not belong to them now. If I wish to give some of it away it's my choice, not a moral objective just because somebody else needs it. There are guys out there not getting laid, isn't it moral for chicks to go out, find these guys and bang them all? They have something in abundance these guys want it's their duty to share right, it's immoral to have something someone else wants and not give it up simply because it's yours and you choose not to.

Why is it every time someone does well, everyone else jumps on the "it's at somebody else's expence" thing. My earnings are mine by right because of my work, just like a prize won would be mine, not at the expense of anyone else (because going into a lottery you know the odds and you freely participate).

I think its aboslutly immoral to serve the happyness of others, unless of course that is what makes you happy. As I said in an earlier post, why is it immoral to feed yourself, but moral to feed someone else. If followed to it's extremes we would all be no more than useless parasites feeding on the person one rung up the social ladder. Self sacrifice? How about rational self interest?

When I work, I work for the purpose of earning money to get my needs met. Food, rent, sex, music, movies... whatever! It's my money I worked and sweated for it and paid taxes on it and so ... it's mine.
I go to the store and buy a lottery scratch off ticket and win ... lets say $1000.00 then the money is mine to do with as I wish, no? Especially if I used money from my work-earned income. The $1,000 is a bonus. If it's more like say $100,000.00 (beginning to doubt those cards actually exist ) then it's still same principal isn't it? Winning an obscene amount... same idea.
The money from the lotteries is supposedly from the sales of "losing tickets" and a portion of that (at least in Tennessee) has gone to create education scholarships (2 billion dollars --so far, according to Tennessee lottery figures). So a portion is being used for something good.
So I win an obscene amount it's all from part of the left-over ticket sales... which they ironically tax when a person wins. The only morality that would play into the whole scenario is what one does (or not do) with the obscene amount. Be greedy and end up blowing it all for self or giving a substantial portion of it away. It's a matter of view point isn't it?

 

[Omar B]

Yup. All perspective. It's taxed on all sides, so the money is already serving some altruistic goal. Would I commit more of my money after it's been taxed? How about those people who all plopped down that money fully knowing that odds are they would not win? What of their money? How come the specters of charity don't show their face for the $1? It's a matter of my choice when it comes to money.

 

[granfire]

An individual spending his money on cars or other luxuries does so because he wishes to and at his expense. These needy kids, hospitals that seem to be permanently on fire, etc, didn't have the money in the first place and have no claim to it at all. Another person's need does not become my burden. If the world worked liek that we would all be forced to pay alms to those a step or two lower on the financial ladder, because they want that money.

Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you? If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, why is it an immoral indulgence in your stomach, but a moral goal for you to achieve in the stomach of others? Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it? Does virtue consist of serving vice? Is the moral purpose of those who are good, self-immolation for the sake of those who are evil?

Whatever the value involved, it is your lack of it that gives you a claim upon those who don’t lack it. It is your need that gives you a claim to rewards. If you are able to satisfy your need, your ability annuls your right to satisfy it. But a need you are unable to satisfy gives you first right to the lives of mankind. - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

LOL, I think she is a poor example tho.

I pondered a bit.
Then I pondered a bit more.
Then I think I came up with what I would want to spend the money on
Not gaining (much) for myself:

The local library needs more stuff.
Especially in the YA section.
(school libraries can always need more stuff, too)
The band needs more stuff. (I am a closet band geek, though I can't play the kazoo)
Sheet music is insanely expensive!

and if done right, I think between the 2/3 major causes, I can burn 100 million easy, just in the books store alone...

 

[Flying Crane]

I've got a list of charities I'd like to hand a great big wad of cash. As well as a list of family and friends who could all use a boost to get thru some difficult times.

 

[Jenna]

Wait, "It is of course your right to accumulate wealth and use it as you see fit and yet I do not think it should be at the expense of others." You present two ideas in one sentence that are diametrically opposite.

I do not think so. This is basic economic redistribution of wealth. Should you choose to exercise your right to accumulate wealth then yes somewhere you are depriving others (perhaps thousands of them depending upon how much wealth you have acquired) of that wealth as it is redistributed to you (accepting that there is a finite amount of wealth in the system). Obviously redistribution is generally done through our taxation systems from rich to poor though in the case of a lottery win it is most often redistributed from the least able to afford it. However, economics lecture aside, I seek only to make a point *in this lottery case*, and that is, $100M is a morally obscene amount to reside in the hands of one sole benefactor when that money could be so much more equitably distributed among those in greater need of it. That is my only point to make and it is tangential to the original question I think.

Maybe it would be ok if I asked a question directly? If so, imagine by some means you figured a method or found employment that enabled you to grow your earnings (and therefore wealth) by an exponent factor, can you say at what amount of accumulated wealth you would stop working?

When I work, I work for the purpose of earning money to get my needs met. Food, rent, sex, music, movies... whatever! It's my money I worked and sweated for it and paid taxes on it and so ... it's mine.
I go to the store and buy a lottery scratch off ticket and win ... lets say $1000.00 then the money is mine to do with as I wish, no? Especially if I used money from my work-earned income. The $1,000 is a bonus. If it's more like say $100,000.00 (beginning to doubt those cards actually exist ) then it's still same principal isn't it? Winning an obscene amount... same idea.
The money from the lotteries is supposedly from the sales of "losing tickets" and a portion of that (at least in Tennessee) has gone to create education scholarships (2 billion dollars --so far, according to Tennessee lottery figures). So a portion is being used for something good.
So I win an obscene amount it's all from part of the left-over ticket sales... which they ironically tax when a person wins. The only morality that would play into the whole scenario is what one does (or not do) with the obscene amount. Be greedy and end up blowing it all for self or giving a substantial portion of it away. It's a matter of view point isn't it?

Exactly so. The amount is not obscene per se. It is as you say, what happens to that winning amount after it is won.

What disgusts me is the fact that $100M could provide one individual a repugnantly excessive lifestyle. That very lifestyle (that few of us would turn down) would be at the expense of giving 100 people a million dollar lifestyle or 1000 people a $100,000 lifestyle or 50 million people a bowl of rice.

Anyways I think this is veering a little off-subject now for me

 

[Steve]

I don't know whether I'd start a fund or just donate to a fund, but it would be something along the lines of the Ronald McDonald house. $100million dollars could go a long way toward housing families with sick children while they're in treatment away from home.

 

[Jenna]

LOL, I think she is a poor example tho.

I pondered a bit.
Then I pondered a bit more.
Then I think I came up with what I would want to spend the money on
Not gaining (much) for myself:

The local library needs more stuff.
Especially in the YA section.
(school libraries can always need more stuff, too)
The band needs more stuff. (I am a closet band geek, though I can't play the kazoo)
Sheet music is insanely expensive!

and if done right, I think between the 2/3 major causes, I can burn 100 million easy, just in the books store alone...

Well you can keep $1M. I would hope you could entertain yourself for long enough with that no? Sheet music is expensive and but that is what .torrent is for yes? Yes, $100M would build and fit out your own string of libraries. If you are serious, there is a very worthy notion in giving away books for free! I think I should very much like to visit your $100M library chain when it is completed. I wonder what is your preference when it comes to lit?

I've got a list of charities I'd like to hand a great big wad of cash. As well as a list of family and friends who could all use a boost to get thru some difficult times.

Would you hand your chosen charities the cash directly? I would worry that amount would find its way into deep pockets and poorly written accounts of the bureaucrats! Keep the purse strings tight my friend! Would you ever give anonymously, even to family members? I often wonder how much is about helping those we love and how much (in the case of super-wealthy foundation-owning philanthropists) is about self-gratification. I think I am too cynical though. Remember Michael, if you ever 1. do the lottery and 2. win, that 1. I am your friend and 2. I need money

I don't know whether I'd start a fund or just donate to a fund, but it would be something along the lines of the Ronald McDonald house. $100million dollars could go a long way toward housing families with sick children while they're in treatment away from home.

I like the idea too Steve of helping local families. Man that really would be so greatly appreciated at a time of such dire stress. I like the humanity in that!

 

[elder999]

An individual spending his money on cars or other luxuries does so because he wishes to and at his expense. These needy kids, hospitals that seem to be permanently on fire, etc, didn't have the money in the first place and have no claim to it at all.

I would presume, that as fellow human beings, they do have a claim to one's heart.

I know that's the case with me.

Another person's need does not become my burden. If the world worked liek that we would all be forced to pay alms to those a step or two lower on the financial ladder, because they want that money.

THe world is like that. Another person's need is my burden. I am my brothers' keeper, to the extent that I am able to without undercutting my own needs.

All those hypothetical cars? Desire-not need. Sometimes not even desire, really, though they were in my case.....:lol:
\

Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own?

It's not immoral to serve your own happiness-this is one of the fundamental problems with her philosophy, though. Of course, odds are good that she had Asperger's, and so lacked a degree of empathy, and simply could not comprehend giving for others, thus:

If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you? If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, why is it an immoral indulgence in your stomach, but a moral goal for you to achieve in the stomach of others? Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it? Does virtue consist of serving vice? Is the moral purpose of those who are good, self-immolation for the sake of those who are evil?

Whatever the value involved, it is your lack of it that gives you a claim upon those who don’t lack it. It is your need that gives you a claim to rewards. If you are able to satisfy your need, your ability annuls your right to satisfy it. But a need you are unable to satisfy gives you first right to the lives of mankind. - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

She demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what it is to give, simply for the sake of giving. More to the point, her life offers numerous examples of where her having decided that the satisfaction of one's own desires is the highest moral good led to some really bad decisions that were hardly "moral" at all.

No, gran, not a good example. Merely a good writer.

For myself, I simply cannot understand how one cannot give, or feel obligated to. It has a lot to do with how I was raised, but I have to point out that it also has a lot to do with having all of my needs met, and an examination of the "wealthy" bears this out: they not only all give to various chariities, but also seem to largely support an increase in income tax on our own tax bracket.

 

[Flying Crane]

Would you hand your chosen charities the cash directly? I would worry that amount would find its way into deep pockets and poorly written accounts of the bureaucrats! Keep the purse strings tight my friend! Would you ever give anonymously, even to family members? I often wonder how much is about helping those we love and how much (in the case of super-wealthy foundation-owning philanthropists) is about self-gratification. I think I am too cynical though. Remember Michael, if you ever 1. do the lottery and 2. win, that 1. I am your friend and 2. I need money

My list of charities is made up of some small organizations that are doing important work, but largely fly under the radar. They struggle and fight battles that nobody else sees as important, but I support what they do. I'll write a check tho, and not hand over the cash.

As far as the self-gratification issue: I dunno, but I see your point and I see the potential. the way I see it, any lotto winnings are unexpected funds, a pure bonus, and when the numbers are that big there's no reason to be stingy with those who are important in one's life. You're on the list, kid.

 

[Omar B]

I do not think so. This is basic economic redistribution of wealth. Should you choose to exercise your right to accumulate wealth then yes somewhere you are depriving others (perhaps thousands of them depending upon how much wealth you have acquired) of that wealth as it is redistributed to you (accepting that there is a finite amount of wealth in the system). Obviously redistribution is generally done through our taxation systems from rich to poor though in the case of a lottery win it is most often redistributed from the least able to afford it. However, economics lecture aside, I seek only to make a point *in this lottery case*, and that is, $100M is a morally obscene amount to reside in the hands of one sole benefactor when that money could be so much more equitably distributed among those in greater need of it. That is my only point to make and it is tangential to the original question I think.

That would mean you believe that money is a finite resource which it is not. Value is not finite at all, more value is created all the time. How is one person being rich by earning it or winning it depriving anyone? You still have not made that point you keep asserting, I can only think you truly do believe money/value is finite and those who earn it do so at the expense of others. Expense is a measure of value and since that person never had said value (in this case the alms you think I should be handing) my having it is not at their expense. A person cannot be deprived of somethign they never had. A person dieing of starvation does not die because I had breakfast, my stomach is not full at his expense. It's a shame he died, but it has nothing to do with me ... unless I choose to become involved in some way, not by some altruistic "I gotta help" stuff, but because I chose to do so.

You have still not said why it is immoral for a person to have that sort of money, only that they shouldn't. The person who holds the money should decide, it's their money and their choice. This is not some Miss America interview question where the girl always says "I would save the world." It makes for a great clip but in reality, need does not create duty. Because I A and another person makes Z does not mean that I must give him so we would both land somewhere in the middle.

 

[granfire]

Well you can keep $1M. I would hope you could entertain yourself for long enough with that no? Sheet music is expensive and but that is what .torrent is for yes? Yes, $100M would build and fit out your own string of libraries. If you are serious, there is a very worthy notion in giving away books for free! I think I should very much like to visit your $100M library chain when it is completed. I wonder what is your preference when it comes to lit?

Young adult lit. (and Manga) ^_^

I like to deal with people on hand I get along with. Meaning the library branches (by city) I have dealt with and found the staff to be personable. (the one I am going to currently could use some comfortable lounging chairs, too...)

As for sheet music....I suppose torrent is nice, but you have to pay royalties if you want to be able to perform them
(I would also try to establish a 'Schulwerk' music program in elementary schools. Music is very important!)

 

[Cryozombie]

To do what? Visit the jobless in your area and coach them on how to set up their own small business?

No that's what Id do with my Million. I quoted the wrong line.

 

[David43515]

Have to hurry to class, so I can`t delve too deeply into the discussion yet. As for Jenna`s original question: If I`m allowed to keep 1 million and have to give the rest away, I`d set up a couple of trusts that give scholorships to train people in hands on work in skilled trades like cabinetmaking and other fine woodworkin, cooking, etc. Then I`d have another that gives low interest loans to those wanting to start their own businesses. Teaching people to fish as it were.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I noticed last night that our Euro Lottery jackpot prize has gone over 100 million and which I think is obscene for one person to win. Anyway, here is a somewhat banal and but still interesting hypothetical I was pondering...

Say you win (or otherwise acquire) $101M. That $101M is subject to the condition that you can keep only $1M yourself. One way or the other you must oversee the use of the remaining $100M and but it cannot be used to acquire anything further for yourself.

What will you choose to do with this $100M?

Thank you.

I would put the 1 million Euro ($1,435,800USD) into bonds so I would not loose the base and live off the annual interest alone.

The rest of the 100 Million Euro would be fun to spend.
I have ideas from time to time. One is to buy enough into the company I work for now so I could make some management changes and let certain people go.

I also thought about a Cancer research as my mother dies of Adrenal Cancer.

I also could use it to run for office as it would nto be for me it would be for the "PEOPLE". Ok even I cannot keep a straight face in writing on that one.

There are lots of people I know that 50,000 to 100,000 would put them in a place where they woudl ahve to work but they coudl live in a less dangerous neighborhood, or live in better conditions as they would not have to work so hard to cover bills. It would be a personal list of people I knew who would benefit small amounts at a time.

 

[MA-Caver]

There are lots of people I know that 50,000 to 100,000 would put them in a place where they woudl ahve to work but they coudl live in a less dangerous neighborhood, or live in better conditions as they would not have to work so hard to cover bills. It would be a personal list of people I knew who would benefit small amounts at a time.

My new best friend.

 

[Xue Sheng]

There are lots of people I know that 50,000 to 100,000 would put them in a place where they woudl ahve to work but they coudl live in a less dangerous neighborhood, or live in better conditions as they would not have to work so hard to cover bills. It would be a personal list of people I knew who would benefit small amounts at a time.

Ok, I never told you this before... but I live in a very bad neighborhood... simply too many chipmunks... and don't get me started on the carpenter bees... can you give a fellow MAist a hand :uhyeah:

 

[Xue Sheng]

I noticed last night that our Euro Lottery jackpot prize has gone over 100 million and which I think is obscene for one person to win. Anyway, here is a somewhat banal and but still interesting hypothetical I was pondering...

Say you win (or otherwise acquire) $101M. That $101M is subject to the condition that you can keep only $1M yourself. One way or the other you must oversee the use of the remaining $100M and but it cannot be used to acquire anything further for yourself.

What will you choose to do with this $100M?

Thank you.

OK a serious post on the topic.

Jenna ironically the day you posted this I was driving past a daycare center that appears to need a roof and I was actually thinking if I had “Trump money” (Donald Trump) I would go buy them a new roof. There are also multiple groups that help and protect children I would give money too as well. I would also make donations to school systems in my area.

I am pretty sure I could go through $100 million fairly easily... However in my state it would not be $101millioin, it would be taxed because lord knows the government needs their share