Poll of the Day > Would You Rather No 38

(+) Yeah! (+)

Rich and poor sorts.
---

Being homeless and only being able to spend your money five times a year negates any advantages that has. It'd be hard not to starve, since it's not like you could even buy groceries in bulk if you're homeless.

The second option gives you a home, albeit without water or electricity. You could buy food at least, though.
---

A roof over my head is better than being homeless.
---

I'd be homeless and super rich. Just buy a nice RV and be on the road. Five times a year just pull out 20k to live off of.
---

DiduXD posted...

Be homeless forever but be super rich and only able to use your money five times a year

So basically I'd be able to rent a hotel room for a year, rent or buy storage space, superload with items, and then buy plenty of objects which I could trade/resell for other things? Kinda sounds like the better option, especially since you could stock up on gift cards, etc.

DiduXD posted...

Be in a mansion forever but be super poor and only be able to use your money on things less than $20

So you wouldn't be able to pay your property and vehicle taxes?
---

The homeless option

I could prepay for a year at a hotel.
---

It's not even a choice. The first one is so much better. Go live in a nice hotel and pay for the year or however long you want. That takes care of daily living. Other than that you just need to arrange for someone to buy things for you and then pay off the debt every couple months.
---

Pay for a year round hotel and a years supply of catered food problem solved.
---

Definitely the second option. Most meals cost under $20 anyway, and I could buy a bunch of $15 amazon gift cards individually then order whatever else I need on amazon.

davrick posted...

Definitely the second option. Most meals cost under $20 anyway, and I could buy a bunch of $15 amazon gift cards individually then order whatever else I need on amazon.

You're forgetting that you're *also* super poor in the second example. You can't be super poor and have unlimited access to twenties.
---

Zeus posted...

davrick posted...

Definitely the second option. Most meals cost under $20 anyway, and I could buy a bunch of $15 amazon gift cards individually then order whatever else I need on amazon.

You're forgetting that you're *also* super poor in the second example. You can't be super poor and have unlimited access to twenties.

Maybe. But the topic also makes no sense. Why would you be homeless if you're super rich? Also, are we allowed to actually take out cash, or would we have to use card and only be able to buy stuff instead of taking out cash? Can we actually rent a hotel room for a year? Would that still be considered homeless?
---

Rent out the mansion, easy. I'll live in the poolhouse.

have your housemates pay for the groceries and bills.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Maybe. But the topic also makes no sense. Why would you be homeless if you're super rich?

Because it's money on conditional terms? That's kinda how trusts operate.
---

You could just pay for a year long cruise, every year, all your food and living is taken care off that way, and you get to travel around the world. Then your mega rich, so get a huge credit card and just pay it off 4 times a year (every 3 months). Best of all worlds.
---

Homeless super rich, live in a van full of hookers, blow and wads of cash.
---

Various people posted...

Just buy a nice RV and be on the road.
...
So basically I'd be able to rent a hotel room for a year,
...
could prepay for a year at a hotel.
...
Go live in a nice hotel
...
Pay for a year round hotel
...
You could just pay for a year long cruise
...
live in a van full of hookers

I'm pretty sure these would all mean you're not homeless.
---

Blaqthourne posted...

I'm pretty sure these would all mean you're not homeless.

Depends on what definition of "homeless" you're using - there are several.

If we're being strict with our definition of homeless, I'd just buy a storage yard and set up one or more of the containers as a makeshift home - that *does* fit pretty much every definition of "homeless", since it's not a proper home or area deemed suitable for human habitation. The rest of the storage yard could be used to store all my various belongings. Paying for utilities would be a challenge, unless they would let me pay one lump sum at the start of the year (alternatively, if we're being cheeky with the definition, I'll pay someone $100k - or whatever the approximate amount owed is, plus a slight bonus - at the start of the year to pay my bills for me), and you'd have to be careful not to get busted by the cops (since, depending on where you live, what your doing may violate zoning and housing ordinances), but other than that you're golden.

Honestly, without exploiting loopholes like that, these situations are both almost unlivable. Being unable to spend your money more than 5x in a year makes paying any sort of basic bills almost impossible, with groceries being the biggest issue. Your money would buy you almost nothing worthwhile if you can't buy storage to keep things in, so you'd effectively be poor and homeless, given that your money is almost worthless with those restrictions.

The mansion scenario is almost as bad - you have very little money (the OP doesn't say exactly how much), so you presumably are going to have trouble making ends meet as it is, even before the restriction (and that's with the generous assumption that the various bills associated with your house - property taxes, utilities, and the like - are paid for, because those will cost significantly more than your $20 payment limit). And that $20 limit makes shopping for basic items like groceries difficult-to-impossible. And you'd better hope your home never needs repairs, because you'll never be able to pay for them. Worse, your home would basically preclude you from taking advantage of most forms of charity or social security you would otherwise be entitled to to help offset your lack of money.
---

Ill be rich and live in a van down by the river
---

With that attitude, you'll be living in a van... down by... the river.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

A roof over my head is better than being homeless.

---

Blaqthourne posted...

Various people posted...

Just buy a nice RV and be on the road.
...
So basically I'd be able to rent a hotel room for a year,
...
could prepay for a year at a hotel.
...
Go live in a nice hotel
...
Pay for a year round hotel
...
You could just pay for a year long cruise
...
live in a van full of hookers

I'm pretty sure these would all mean you're not homeless.

A hotel isn't a home, unless you own the place or something. Homeless means you don't have a residence. And somebody stuck living in an RV -- ie, their car -- is pretty clearly homeless by most definitions.

darkknight109 posted...

If we're being strict with our definition of homeless, I'd just buy a storage yard and set up one or more of the containers as a makeshift home - that *does* fit pretty much every definition of "homeless", since it's not a proper home or area deemed suitable for human habitation. The rest of the storage yard could be used to store all my various belongings. Paying for utilities would be a challenge, unless they would let me pay one lump sum at the start of the year (alternatively, if we're being cheeky with the definition, I'll pay someone $100k - or whatever the approximate amount owed is, plus a slight bonus - at the start of the year to pay my bills for me), and you'd have to be careful not to get busted by the cops (since, depending on where you live, what your doing may violate zoning and housing ordinances), but other than that you're golden.

But then you'd own a residence. If you can have a formal mailing address (rather than mailing to another party who delivers it to you), you're kinda not homeless.

darkknight109 posted...

Honestly, without exploiting loopholes like that, these situations are both almost unlivable. Being unable to spend your money more than 5x in a year makes paying any sort of basic bills almost impossible, with groceries being the biggest issue. Your money would buy you almost nothing worthwhile if you can't buy storage to keep things in, so you'd effectively be poor and homeless, given that your money is almost worthless with those restrictions.

Gift cards aren't really a loophole, though. That's a legit spending of money on the cards. Taking out a credit card and letting the balance run, on the other hand, *is* something of a loophole although it does fit the context just fine because if you're limited to pulling your money from a fund then you would only be pulling from the fund to pay your card at intervals.
---

Zeus posted...

But then you'd own a residence. If you can have a formal mailing address (rather than mailing to another party who delivers it to you), you're kinda not homeless.

A shipping container doesn't have a mailing address and doesn't meet any legal definition of "a residence".

Zeus posted...

Gift cards aren't really a loophole, though.

Sure they are - it goes against the spirit of the question, which is "you're only supposed to be able to spend money five times a year."

I mean, if you're going that route, why not just hire a butler who will buy things for you, on the understanding that you're paying him an exceptionally generous salary (on an annual basis) with the understanding that he will cover all your expenses? Less restrictive than the gift card and still meets the letter of the original proposal, if not the spirit.
---