Current Events > Would you rather receive $1,000 every single day for an entire year...

(+) Yeah! (+)

IMPORTANT DETAILS

-With both options, you're not allowed to have any other source of income whatsoever until the respective time periods have passed. So for option A, you can work again and make your own money after the year is over, but for option B, you're basically on a fixed yearly income of 100k for a decade.

-In both options, you're allowed to keep whatever leftover money you didn't spend after the respective time periods have passed. Oh, and none of the money is taxed; you get to keep every penny.
---

So $365000 total vs $1000000 total. Hmmmm
---

1000 bucks a day for a year is only 365k lmao
---

Is this a topic for people bad at math?
---

lol what
---

catboy0_0 posted...

1000 bucks a day for a year is only 365k lmao

Indeed. The appeal is that you're making more money in a shorter time (it would take person B over 3 years to reach the same amount person A will make in a year), and that you'll regain control of how you make money much sooner.
---

the0rebirth posted...

a million bucks in my bank account with access to 100,000 a year

the0rebirth posted...

you're basically on a fixed yearly income of 100k for a decade.

so which is it? I think you need to scrap this topic and start over it's a mess
---

mattnd2007 posted...

Is this a topic for people bad at math?

Option A focuses more on immediate gratification. Option B focuses on long-term stability with a cap. Some people might find the idea of making 365k in a year (and then doing their own thing for money, which includes potentially making much more) more appealing than being limited to 100k annually for an entire decade.
---

I think we can figure out that he means both as the same thing.

The only right choice is the million. I mean, obviously.
---

catboy0_0 posted...

the0rebirth posted...

a million bucks in my bank account with access to 100,000 a year

the0rebirth posted...

you're basically on a fixed yearly income of 100k for a decade.

so which is it? I think you need to scrap this topic and start over it's a mess

What are you confused by? With option B, you have one million dollars in your bank account, but you're only allowed to access up to 100k of it on a yearly basis.
---

$273.97 a day for life, (assuming you invest and keep your money increasing or something), or $1000 a day for a year.

Seems like a pretty simple choice here.
---

GregShmedley posted...

catboy0_0 posted...

the0rebirth posted...

a million bucks in my bank account with access to 100,000 a year

the0rebirth posted...

you're basically on a fixed yearly income of 100k for a decade.

so which is it? I think you need to scrap this topic and start over it's a mess

What arent you understanding?

I misread the "100k a decade" as "100k per decade" because no one would pick the first option unless they are afraid they'd blow it all
---

Guide posted...

I think we can figure out that he means both as the same thing.

They're really not though.

Unless you're putting the cash in a cookie jar I guess.
---

DevsBro posted...

Guide posted...

I think we can figure out that he means both as the same thing.

They're really not though.

Unless you're putting the cash in a cookie jar I guess.

I mean the quotes in catboy's post, not the poll options.
---

I'd probably make more money with the first option since I can work after a year, but not having to work for 10 years sounds pretty dope so I'd prolly go with the 2nd option.
---

Guide posted...

DevsBro posted...

Guide posted...

I think we can figure out that he means both as the same thing.

They're really not though.

Unless you're putting the cash in a cookie jar I guess.

I mean the quotes in catboy's post, not the poll options.

yeah I misread because I couldn't understand how anyone in their right mind would pick $1000 a day for a year vs $100k all at once per year for a decade
---

If you were given the 365k immediately as a lump sum, you'd need about 10.7% growth per year for it reach a million in 10 years.
---

Not that 100k annually isn't really good money, but I just don't like the idea of being unable to control my income for literally 10 years. What if an opportunity arises where I could make even more money? I'm stuck with the bare minimum of a 6-figure salary. A year is no time these days; I'd rather just make 365k and then do whatever I want for more money.
---

superman 2000 posted...

Not that 100k annually isn't really good money, but I just don't like the idea of being unable to control my income for literally 10 years. What if an opportunity arises where I could make even more money? I'm stuck with the bare minimum of a 6-figure salary. A year is no time these days; I'd rather just make 365k and then do whatever I want for more money.

there are very few opportunities in this world that let you triple your money without extreme risk
---

It's basically like lottery lump sum vs annuity but the lump sum is also delayed. The only way to take the daily money would be if you desperately needed more than 100k in a year but could also wait 101+ days for it.

^_^ yeah. a little embarrassing on my part though
---

catboy0_0 posted...

superman 2000 posted...

Not that 100k annually isn't really good money, but I just don't like the idea of being unable to control my income for literally 10 years. What if an opportunity arises where I could make even more money? I'm stuck with the bare minimum of a 6-figure salary. A year is no time these days; I'd rather just make 365k and then do whatever I want for more money.

there are very few opportunities in this world that let you triple your money without extreme risk

I mean, what if an opportunity comes by that would allow me to make more than 100k a year? If I choose option B, I have to ignore all of those opportunities for 10 years. At least with option A, my fixed income will be over in 12 months and I'll be free to do whatever I want again. Since you can't have any other source of income with either option, I'd rather just get it over with and make some really nice cash in the process.
---

Most people barely make a million in their entire working career. You better be a six figure earner if you're choosing the first option lmao
---

The advantages I sought to convey with option A were regaining financial freedom much sooner while still making a considerable amount of money, and having access to more money in a shorter amount of time (365k after one year vs. 365k after 3+ years). I suppose those weren't good enough advantages, though, as indicated by the poll results.
---

sylverlolol posted...

Most people barely make a million in their entire working career. You better be a six figure earner if you're choosing the first option lmao

This might be where I miscalculated most. The average person--who makes around 50k annually, at least in America--probably isn't going to mind being "limited" to twice that amount.
---

Feel free to keep commenting, guys, but I think I'm going to redo this topic later to make it a bit less of a no-brainer.
---

yeah I mean, 100k a year is basically a high paying job for no work
---

Option A.

Explain to bosses the case. Work for free in order to not get fired.

Live on what I make now plus a bit, save rest.
At end of year, buy 300,000 dollars in shares.
---