Poll of the Day > WWYD? $100 Bucks A Day or $10,000 Bucks A Week...

(+) Yeah! (+)

100/day for life. Because I expect to live another 40-50 years. For a much older person, take the 10k a week for a year if you are 70+

36500/year x10 years = 365000 (x20 years = 730000)

10k x 52 weeks = 520000

So for the first 14 years or so the 2nd deal is the better one, but then the 100/day per life becomes better slightly after year 14..

Hmmm... It would take about 14 years for the $100 a day to catch up to the amount of money you'd get for that $10,000 a week for a year. So, I'd probably take that. Especially being older. If I was really young, and didn't need to use much money during my daily life, I'd probably do $100 a day for the rest of my life. But for where I am now, $10,000 a week for a year sounds much better...

carlde21 posted...

take the 10k a week for a year if you are 70+

I'd say it's fine even for people a little younger, tbh... Maybe even 50. I'd take it even at 32. It's do me more good than the $100 a year, tbh...
---

$100 a day. Ive got pretty low upkeep I think Id be set.

---

$100 a day, I'll never have to worry about things like not having enough money for food or gas until pay day again.

---

Does the 100 dollars a day recalculate for inflation?

Anyways the 10k a week makes more sense since you can get the money into investments sooner and grow it faster

---

I'll take the guaranteed income for life.

---

Yeah 500k in a year > 36k a year for life, even if your freaking 18 heh. I mean, if you could start as a baby and have it add up till your 18, that would be different, otherwise go with the fast cash since you can do alot with 500k, not to mention investing it to make more cash etc over time.

$100/day is $3k a month, basically a pretty low salary, so you wouldn't have to work at all, but you wouldn't be living large etc. Honestly in many places just rent costs about that much.

Now, $560k in your first year could let you buy a home or two depending on the area, and accumulate money over time before selling it, invest your money (get around 10% a year if done right..though it's harder post covid), and you would STILL have 50k/year (while not touching the principle).

That is actually more free money to spend per year then the 100$ a day (almost double), and you still have the base money there if needed (or if a good investment opportunity arises like a property you can buy worth 800k, but being short sold for 300k (cash only).

Same with expensive cars at auctions etc, with cash you can often get great returns with minimum effort.

It's pretty easy to get a 20% or so return on active cash investements per year (IE buying mobile homes and flipping em, houses later on, cars earlier etc), and you can actually get much more if your lucky.

So yeah, give me the 10k per week please.

---

Just for kicks and giggles, if you started out getting the $100/day as a baby, by the time you turned 20 that would be 36kx20 or about 700k total AND you would still have $100/day (or 36k per year) after that.

In such a case it would make way more sense to go that way (or if it's retroactive and you get 100$ a day you have lived already as well).


---

10k easy, unless the $100 adjusts for inflation it might be OK but until I hear otherwise I wouldn't even consider it

---

I considered going with the $10K but I am not gonna spend $100 bucks everyday so I'll just take the $100.

Getting the smaller lump sum would let you invest it, which could yield a higher long-term return.

---

$10k a week would clear our remaining mortgage pretty quickly and the rest I would just dump into investments.

10K a week please!! I would be able to move out of my sister and brother-in-laws house sooner, and into a place behind where I work.

---

Joshs Name posted...

10k easy, unless the $100 adjusts for inflation it might be OK but until I hear otherwise I wouldn't even consider it

Eh, not sure if it should but if you invest it wisely, then it should be able to keep up (in Crypto, for example)

$100 a day for life would let me retire for the rest of my life as long as I stayed a minimalist, and I guess if I wanted to do anything that costed money like traveling I would just pick up a part time job or save.

---

These are both a drip in the bucket of what I currently make. I don't like free money.

---

Judgmenl posted...

These are both a drip in the bucket of what I currently make. I don't like free money.

You make more than $10,000 a week?

Also, can I ask why you don't like free money?
---

10k/Week for a year. It gets more benefit of compounding interest earlier and is less affected by inflation.

---

I like how everyone who looks at the 10k/week for a year as basically a lump sum.

If you take that lump sum and it grows a very conservative 7% return a year (market averages 10% return a year), you're still gaining more than the daily payment from your return. If you take that return and reinvest for 10 years, you're getting $200/day.

---

Definitely taking the 10k. Granted it free money either way, so it's not like I'm losing out, but I could die before the $100 evens out to the 10k.

---

party_animal07 posted...

Definitely taking the 10k. Granted it free money either way, so it's not like I'm losing out, but I could die before the $100 evens out to the 10k.

you could die before even getting the first check for 10k

just nothing

---

eating4fun posted...

I like how everyone who looks at the 10k/week for a year as basically a lump sum.

If you take that lump sum and it grows a very conservative 7% return a year (market averages 10% return a year), you're still gaining more than the daily payment from your return. If you take that return and reinvest for 10 years, you're getting $200/day.

if I take the $100 a day I can start buying el pollo Loco and weed, immediately

i dont need more than that

---

eating4fun posted...

I like how everyone who looks at the 10k/week for a year as basically a lump sum.

If you take that lump sum and it grows a very conservative 7% return a year (market averages 10% return a year), you're still gaining more than the daily payment from your return. If you take that return and reinvest for 10 years, you're getting $200/day.

You could also lose it all and I'll be making that $100 daily still

---

$100 a day

---

Is it taxed? Is it adjusted for inflation? Is it adjusted to your current home country or if the us somehow goes belly up in 10 years will I just start getting scrap paper? And if they stay strong will I have to pay to get it converted to my countries currency?Leaning towards the 100/day. The 10k/week could potentially be more profitable, but there is something to be said about the lesser hassle of a guaranteed income for the rest of your life.

Potentially even without adjusting for inflation, but that makes it trickier. In 40 years would I like to get an extra maybe 10k a year that times money for doing nothing or hope that investments I made 39 years ago panned out well.

---

I feel like more than half of all investment plans fail, too much unforeseen shit can happen

---

Over the course of 30 years, you'll make a little over a million with the $100 a day. With the 10k a week, you could make a little over three million with a modest 6% interest in something like an index fund. Also, without knowing if inflation is being considered, the "lump sum" option is always going to be better.

---

In the last 10 years the dow has trippled in value, so investing money back in 2010, you would have trippled it by 2020.

So if you invested 560k back in 2010 it would have gained about 1.2 millionin the 10 years or 120k a year.

Even if you took out the full $100/day each year from the investments that is still only 36k a year or 360k all together, while you wouldn't have as much invested, you would still more then double your initial 560k by 2020 (having over 1 mill in investments at that point), and that is WITH the 100$/day being used as well.

So yeah, in every single way the 10k/week is better.

---

wolfy42 posted...

$100/day is $3k a month, basically a pretty low salary, so you wouldn't have to work at all, but you wouldn't be living large etc. Honestly in many places just rent costs about that much.

lol? I don't know what the exact percentages are but that is more than a significant portion of the nation make a month.

eating4fun posted...

I like how everyone who looks at the 10k/week for a year as basically a lump sum.

If you take that lump sum and it grows a very conservative 7% return a year (market averages 10% return a year), you're still gaining more than the daily payment from your return. If you take that return and reinvest for 10 years, you're getting $200/day.

The $10,000 weekly would help to get a house (and other stuff I want) much faster Also, harder for me to waste as much as fast With $100, Id have a much harder time saving it

MeadCore posted...

you could die before even getting the first check for 10k

just nothing

You could. Thats true. But you still have a better of collecting more from the $10,000. Even if you live only for a week, youd make $10,000 compared to $700. Its easier to make it through a year than it is to make it through 14 of them, tbh Plus, if things go well, the hundred a day wont really matter in the future as much
---

I the the $100 a day and I want it in nickels

---

MeadCore posted...

you could die before even getting the first check for 10k

just nothing

That's the point. I'd rather have a lot now than later. $600 ( if I were to die on day 6)isn't making a significant difference in my life, but 10k certainly would.

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

lol? I don't know what the exact percentages are but that is more than a significant portion of the nation make a month.

I did say salary, not wage. It's about as low of a salary as your gonna get in general (hardly ever see a salary under 30k, especially now adays).

Pretty much it's all hourly under that at this point, even 25$/hr *40 hours a week is almost 50k a year. Mc Donalds was hiring at a starting wage of $18 a few months ago lol......literally making more then 30k working for MC D's as your first job at 16 or 17 now adays.

---

The 2nd option is basically a lump sum of $520K.

First option takes 14.25 years to equal that. But for over 13 years, that $520K can be collecting interest/returns, so in reality it's probably more like 20 years to break even.

And that's just when it equals out. First option was better for two decades prior to that, so I'd say you'd need to be collecting that $100/day for at least 30 years to truly feel like you came out ahead.

Futhermore...I'd rather have the money when I'm young and healthy, what good does it do you when you're old and bed-ridden.

So...my rough analysis comes down to:

If you're under 40 and in good health, take the 1st option, you'll presumably live and be healthy long enough for it to surpass the up front payout.
Otherwise, take the 2nd option.
And really, 2nd option still is attractive if you're really young. Like, fuck would it be nice to have gotten my forever house in cash at 25, instead of wasting well past $100K in rent all this time...

The second option sounds way better when you factor in the ability to invest it.

---

funkyfritter posted...

The second option sounds way better when you factor in the ability to invest it.

Yeah. You can invest much more earlier on... I feel the $10,000 seems to almost always be better...
---

people acting as if investments never lose money
---

everyone pick the $100 and demand it in nickels

I have an idea

---

You can take the 520k youll make with the second option, put the the money in the bank and interest alone would yield you close to 100 a day.

---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

people acting as if investments never lose money

If you're reasonably conservative with your investments, you can all but guarantee that you'll see a net gain in the long run, even if you lose some money here and there. I don't think anyone's talking about going out and buying $520k in bitcoin and hoping for the best; a 5-8% return is generally reliable enough to be the basis for a long-term financial plan (and if it isn't, the market's pretty screwed and we've got bigger issues to worry about than a hypothetical free money prize).

Joshs Name posted...

10k easy, unless the $100 adjusts for inflation it might be OK but until I hear otherwise I wouldn't even consider it

Yeah, if there's no adjustment for inflation, this is an easy choice. By that 14-year equivalency point, that $100 will be worth notably less than the $10k plan would have been , given that the $10k plan can be invested to counteract inflation (even more reliably than investing it with the intent of turning a small profit).

---

Cant really retire off of either

---