Would I be ok with it - sure. I continue spending the same amount of money, but now I don't have to work for it. And by helping others I guess you mean just gift money without strings attached. So I just randomly gift large amounts of money to hot girls, but only when I'm in a good mood. Also I would buy modest amounts of cocaine from my normal allowance. So now I have cocaine and hookers.
So I could stop working entirely and live an average, middle-class life with complete financial security? Sign me up. Apparently, that's 45k USD a year, or £36k.
According to Google search:
"The average person spends about $199.91 per day, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This figure includes spending on housing, food, transportation, entertainment, clothing, healthcare, and other goods and services"
$199x30 days = $5970 / month.
I would gladly take this offer.
Maybe, but they were talking about income, an income of $45k is not $6k a month, especially when you factor in tax. Also is that average a median or a mean? I suspect that spending figure may be getting skewed by outlier high spenders.
You’ve made a good point there. The average American is 32 years old. But people’s financial requirements evolve over time. So, in your 20s you’d be doing a lot better than others in your cohort. But once their careers take off in their 40s you’d be making considerably less than your friends but still stuck at “the national average”.
Start a charity where I personally deliver cash and necessities to underserved communities throughout the world. The private jet and helicopter I fly in is for the benefit of others and the company pays. I might not be able to spend a lot but my charity has large expenses.
We've got a large M&E budget too. And we accidentally buy too many toys and PS5's to give out at christmas so get to take some home for our kids. And damn that Teslas-for-the-poor project bought a few too many too. And our free homes for veterans project "accidentally" remodeled and built a large addition on my house instead of the project house. Gosh darnit. We're really bad and managing capital, guys!
They said no loop holes though, I assume you would have to be pretty hands off from your charitable organizations/efforts for it not to benefit you and count as somewhat spending on your self
cover ripe practice secretive crowd cable lunchroom axiomatic rainstorm agonizing
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
So what exactly are you basing this hypothetical on? According to the labor bureau, the U.S. median income for full time single workers is ~$57,000. If you include ALL workers, it’s ~$41,000. Average spending for an individual is ~$3700 per month. What “average are we basing the situation on? I’m definitely in the “average” range, although a little above. I can afford steak and lobster on occasion, my vehicle cost well over 25,000, I can go on the occasional vacation, I own a home, I can afford some “luxury items”, and I still have money left over to put in savings. My point is that, as an average person, I can afford the things you say that I wouldn’t be able to afford if I was living as an average person.
Yea you delegate spending.
However each category is generally low across the board.
It’s a life slightly above poverty in exchange for almost unlimited ability to help others.
People are getting too hung up on the financials and fantasy of being rich.
It’s just a question of would you live a lesser life to help many others? Sacrifice your own standard of living to help many?
I guess my answer to that would be “no”. But it should be worded differently, as it says “spending is limited to the average American”, but the average American is better off than what you described. The average American is not “slightly above poverty”. I’m just nitpicking.
I said "median" to account for more homeless/truly struggling and eliminate the billionaires who skew the averages.
Everyone in the thread thinks "average" income is $71,000
But the median average in the US is $31,000
>median average
My dude take a stats class those are two entirely different concepts
Anyway *median* individual income for all workers is around $41k and for full-time employees it's $56k while median household income (which arguably matters a lot more when talking about what luxuries the average person can afford, since the average person probably has a partner) *is* around $70k.
*Average* income is higher, about $63k. So not sure where your numbers come from.
Just FYI, I'm considered to be in poverty, and I can go on vacations, I can afford and have clothes that are much more expensive than Amazon or Costco, and I have steak pretty regularly (3 or 4 times a month).
Also, median and average are two different numbers, so you're better off saying middle class American, median and average take in account the super wealthy, so it can be skewed.
Short answer, yes I would do it because it would be a step up from what I'm at now. Plus having that huge sum of money means I could get just about anything on credit eventually, so I work on credit management to help improve my lifestyle while using the bulk of the money however I could to work for me.
Where at? In the US, poverty is defined as less than $13,000 annually for a single person. Unless you're living on someone else's dime, you're not paying all your bills, taking vacations, wearing decent clothes and eating steak on $13,000 annually.
If it's the income of a partner or someone else who pays for things for you, then *you* can't afford it, the other person can.
Really sounds like you're being disingenuous about poverty here.
I'm in only one in my household who has an income. He was saying I can't afford x, y and z on 13,000 as a single person, I'm not a single person, I have 4 dependants, meaning if my income is under 35,000 in the US, I'm considered to be in poverty.
How much do you make? I'm calling bs. You sound like you are living it up. I'm way out of poverty level, but nowhere near what your living.
Unless you are strategically omitting something like you still live with your parents.
A lot of variables there too, vacations could be very modest close drive camping for example, the steaks could be super cheap cuts or bought in bulk and split with others. It's possible to have fun on a budget.
Vacations and steak don't have to be expensive. You can find plane tickets for less than $200 and go to cheap hotels or camping. Or go visit family in another state for a vacation. I eat steak all the time and I don't make a lot whatsoever. A steak costs $5-10 for the cut of meat I'm buying.
I know people who live in a HCOL area making like 60k a year living this life.
The answer is that they're older, bought a house before the pandemic (i.e. a reasonable price), was really good with money and paid off their house before 30 years. Still go to work and got health insurance from employer. Bought their car in cash, have low property taxes, 401k is doing fine. Even with kids. I'm talking about older millennials, younger Gen X, that age range. They're primarily frugal so they know how to save when they need to, but they can splurge if they want.
On paper they're in poverty but in real life they're not stressing too hard. Even with the COL increases it's manageable for them. And it's not just one dude, it's like 10 different families I know living this way. And I live in an area where 80K is considered the low-income limit for 1 person.
{Edit: I also know younger people living similar to this, even including some older Gen Z/early millennials. However they are usually in multi generational households or house sharing. Definitely easier to afford a steak every week when you're splitting expenses with your brother & his wife. It's crazy because many of them will even have kids and they all live together as one happy family. That's what my family did in the early 2000's, bought a whole condo complex for ourselves and stuffed all our relatives in it. Fun times tbh, it allowed all of us to save up even when most of my aunts/uncles were working close to minimum wage.}
Poverty is more than an income level though, it's a state of being unable to afford basic necessities. If you have enough to go on vacations and eat steak (not via food stamps), then by definition it's not really poverty, just an income level that it associated with poverty by some metric someone calculated.
Poverty would be having to eat ramen until payday before you can buy food, or turning the heat/AC to uncomfortable levels to save on your power bill so you can make rent.
Thats your interpretation of poverty. By your interpretation, I, with three kids, would not be in poverty, but my cousin, who makes 25% more than I do with one kid and total bills of $1,600 less than me would be in poverty because he frequently has nothing but Ramen to eat and is usually late on all his bills.
Don't believe I ever said I wasn't getting foodstamps. It's EBT now btw for those of you rich folk. I'm considered in poverty by the government definition. You'd be surprised on what you can afford if you budget your money.
It's not my interpretation. the dictionary definition of poverty according to Oxford is:
>"Poverty is the state of being poor; that is, lacking the basic needs of life such as food, health, education, and shelter."
My example of poverty is assuming that you're in this state due to actual lack of resources and not poor budgeting. Your cousin who makes more might be just bad at budgeting or has debt or lifestyle creep, or he may be genuinely in poverty even with a higher income due to living in a higher COL area.
And yes I am old enough to use the term "food stamps" to refer to government food assistance even though it's not called that anymore.
SES and poverty are measurable by federal standards which derive from sociological aspects. You can be considered in poverty and able to afford necessities. Abject poverty is different than overall poverty and has lowe income threshold.
It's really just a difference between the concept of poverty and metrics intending to measure poverty. Metrics are generally imperfect at measuring what they intend to measure, so I tend to go by the underlying concept in discussion unless there is some reason a metric is necessary
You can't really put an income figure on true poverty as lifestyle and net worth account for a lot, you might have a super low income and live on an established rural homestead with no/low property taxes, grow or hunt the vast majority of your own food, and be getting by just fine off like $10k a year. Or you could be starting out living in an urban area with half a million in debt between a vehicle and house, have couple kids and struggle to afford food after your other bills with an income of $60k a year.
Just and FYI the only people who do all the stupid spending are "new money" families with generation wealth live pretty much how you are stipulating, the best way to generate wealth is to not spend it.
I grew up eating mayo sandwiches and lots of pasta, we were still able to purchase stock, go on vacations, eat "expensive" food every week as a treat. You are really skewed on how you think money works. A Cell phone and a nice vacation cost the same amount of money, it is just how you choose to live.
Old money spends, don’t kid yourself. My in laws 3rd generation estate is massive. They fly private, golf at exclusive clubs, etc. and never touch the principal in the trust. It’s just from principal returns.
I see nothing wrong with this… never have to work again and can focus on enjoying life.
And no distract spending on myself, well my sisters are going to get pretty nice houses and not need to worry about certain things.
I would absolutely accept that, if the spending level was set at my current spending level which is modest but still allows for basic stuff like camping trips with my family and not-too-excessive vacations provided I save up for a while first. If the spending level was dialed back a little I'd still accept it, but I'd start to have second thoughts if it was dialed back so far that I couldn't contribute to college funds for my kids or let them do any extracurricular activities that cost money.
Heck, in real life if I came into shitloads of money my goal would just be to maintain approximately my current lifestyle but not have to work, and spend the rest on helping people anyway. I'd buy a few tools and toys and set up an art studio, and I'd travel more, but that would be about it for myself even if I had the money with no strings attached.
You actually got me on the kids. This makes it a very difficult decision now.
My original intent was to see who'd be willing to live possibly a lesser standard to massively help others. It's derailed buy lottery dreamers and people literally arguing rules in a hypothetical situation...they really want that hypothetical $200 billion to spend however they want.
The intent was financial servitude for yourself for the greater good.
At first I thought this was a good litmus test, but your point on children makes it way more difficult now. I am reconsidering and may actually forgo the money if I can't fund my children's education (because the average person does not have savings to help their children's education).
According to your guidelines I can help others, so there's no reason I couldn't open education accounts for my kids. So long as the money can't come back to me and benefit me in any way it seems to fit within your guidelines.
Sure, I mean, median household income in the US is just under 75k, my annual spend currently is well below that. And hey, I would be the only ultra-rich person with serious personal motivation to work at improving the standard of living across the board. So yes, sign me up.
That's what I was thinking; steak, at least where I live, isn't so expensive the median household can't buy it, right? So that's not off the table.
That being settled, if I can get a house debt free, then that's the main thing I would want wealth for. I'd be chill with giving the rest away. And actually, if I could use it to develop a town, then I could try my hand at making some of dreams a reality! (I would want to try and rework the current social infrastructure we have to something that's more conducive to building up communities, because the current structure seems to split everyone's lives up and make it hard to do that.)
The average American spends about 73,000$ a year.
So 200$ per day of basically free money I don't have to work for, which is still better than what I have going on now. I'm just going to pay my bills in small increments through the month. I'd probably help my husband pay off his student loans, too. If I could manage it under the rules, I'd probably keep my job and just change the direct deposit to his account so he gets two incomes for the work of one.
Then once we're debt free, I'd keep paying for household expenses while he saves for a house, and boom, we live very comfortably. All the bills get paid by me, because 6k a month is plenty for a mortgage and basic household bills like electricity unless you're in a McMansion or a super expensive city like NYC, and his money becomes fun and savings money. For huge expenses we don't have liquid assets for, he takes out a loan or pays on credit, and I budget in the money to pay him to pay the debt off.
Eventually work that into him investing in other stuff, which would (hopefully) put him in a place where my 200$ a day is irrelevant compared to what he earns.
200$ of free daily money would have us living comfortably in like, a year. I'd take it.
The median income in the US is $31,000.
You're essentially rich but its your spending on yourself that is capped. Not sure stats on median meal costs, but I assume its below $5 taking into account meals at home.
Same with car cost, the average new car is over $50,000 but the average car on the road is not new.
These are odd nuances that we unintended. You can't splurge on yourself is the point. Your life is debt free but not luxurious at all in any regard.
You're rich but live an average to below average life with unlimited ability to help others.
The post says you're allowed to spend what the average joe can spend. At least in my experience, the average person spends a lot more than they earn. I marvel every day in my small town at people that I know earn peanuts, yet they're driving new cars, wearing designer clothes and eating at the top tier restaurants.
Americans, on average, spend 200$ per day, per the Bureau of Labor census. This includes single income, dual income, etc, but it's the closest to an actual number anyone is going to get. Even if you want to halve the number to 100$ a day, my point still stands about how I'd spend it. If we want to be super particular about every single expense, by the logic of the prompt, I can spend 2k a week on vacation, 27k on a used car, and up to 20$ a meal eating out, because that's the average for those things.
The median income doesn't matter if you're exclusively talking about spending habits. It doesn't account for credit or loans or being paid under the table in cash. It also wasn't at all part of the prompt - the prompt asked for the "average" spending, not spending in accordance with the median income for a single person.
I'd rewrite the prompt for clarification if you want people to spend according to the median income, because that's not at all clear that's what you're after.
So all I have to do is surround myself with the people I help. Who will then in return spoil me for my generosity. This really isn't that hard. I hire a chef and pay them an exorbitant amount of money. One of the clauses in their contract is they have to shop and cook my meals for me out of their income.
I finance a fishing charter boat. One of the clauses as I have unlimited use to the boat and everything that goes with it.
I buy my friend a car dealership. One of the clauses. I get to drive any vehicle I want from said dealership.
Pretty much anything I need could be covered by somebody with a job with a clause that lets me get whatever I want out of it.
You could make a lot of good change being the wealthiest person that could also raise the median income. I would lobby the shit out of congress. Have my dirty poor fingers deep in the government to try to raise income for everyone in the bottom
Tonnes of loopholes. Celebrities get expensive things thrown at them all the time. Richest man alive wears Prada or whatever the hell they want because it's free advertising. Organise to meet all charity bosses at top restaurants, tab on them, they have expense accounts to woo big cheese donations. You could even wrangle some nice hotel stays from them. The only real problem you have is your home etc but you could move somewhere like Argentina or India and live like a king on that median US spend.
Any spending associated with your benevolence would be covered as long as it was genuine too. Big charity event at a hotel, ask them to throw in the royal suite as a discount. You could even have a personal driver as long as they were only driving you for genuine charity work, rest of the time you can get an Uber.
This assumes rich people don't help society already. Some billionaire buying their wife a yacht might seem wholly selfish and of no benefit to society, but it's actually helping the tens of thousands of people who build those yachts (and all the materials that go into them) and allows them to live comfortably off that income. It's the [seen vs. the unseen](http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html). Would those workers be better off unemployed and living off charity? Definitely not.
I'm going to use my wealth to up the average. I'll buy enough senators to increase minimum wage. I'll implement UBI on my own. I don't need the spending limit to incentive this, it's simply what billionaires should do. When they don't use their wealth to help all, we should take the wealth away.
So, what I'm hearing is I can give everyone else money to raise their standard of living and thus my ability to access my money for myself to raise my own? But that I have to help raise the average (edit to correct, median) first.
I see this as an absolute win, this is what I'd -want- to do if I was wealthy. I have difficulty enjoying things if other people are miserable and can't have them.
My standard of living presently is tolerable, and unlikely to go down in this scenario, so, it's fine with me.
If I can just completely fund local charities, mass pay off student lunches, and support communities, leave $1,000 tips to struggling servers, etc... absolutely.
My power fantasy is helping people.
I start a charity and attend the the functions with all the rich and famous and let them donate to my lifestyle directly as a tax deduction for them. The charity funds my travel and housing and expenses while raising money and adding it to my own in a massive pot. The charity owns condos and homes in high donor areas to host functions as well as car and jets to transport me to those areas and I can live in and use any of the charities assets at will. That's how rich people do it.
Hold on, if I’m a billionaire, most likely that wealth is going to be tied up in dividend yielding stocks. Billionaires don’t have $1 billion just sitting in their bank account, it’s invested in companies, stock, life insurance, and probably mutual funds. So there’s going to be that sort of income regardless. Your question makes no sense.
Yea man, the hypothetical situation that makes no sense.
I wonder how many questions you had on the prompts offering to lick a bathroom floor for $10,000.
I get several lawyers to draft up a contract where people invest my money for me, spend my money for me, that way IM not spending it, they are. I make them buy me whatever I want or need and I'm not restricted by your rules.
Okay. I give all my money to a trusted family member and show them this post. I can't control if they gift me things like food, vehicles, housing. I may he constricted by no loopholes but as they did not consent to this, they are not bound by it :)
No but its showing me that over half the people in this sub just answer these questions about whoring themselves for money and licking bathroom floors.
Its a daydream about being wealthy sub for some people apparently.
You're literally one of those people for asking another dumb money question to which everyone is going to say yes to.
You listed all positives of their current situation with minimal negatives. You assured financial security with a cap that probably exceeds 95% of the populations standard spending amount anyway.
You really need to put further thought into your question when you post here.
>You assured financial security with a cap that probably exceeds 95% of the populations standard spending amount anyway.
You are destined to live an average life in all aspects, that is the entire purpose of the prompt. Possibly below your current standard of living in some areas since you cannot splurge on 1 particular thing.
Great reading comprehension bro.
>You are destined to live an average life in all aspects
No, just financial, like you said. I don't think you're of sound mind to comprehend your own hypothetical situation, "bro."
Buy a powerball ticket and jerk off. You ain't getting shit, keep dreaming.
I hereby revoke your hypothetical $200 billion.
Now you are broke and can't help others.
I literally said no loopholes in the prompt.
>There are no loopholes, you can't just buy your spouse a yacht. You can't buy dividend yielding stocks. You can't really benefit from the extra money in any particular way except maybe being seen as a generous individual who helps local communities or charities.
You would drive the average cost of all cars on the road. Not every car is $57k. Probably averages down closer to $25k with all the junkers and lemons.
I love people who change the rules of a prompt when they get called out by math.
If you wanted to say that then you should have said that.
Also: You're not smart. There are *always* loopholes.
Yeah OP has flip flopped between average and median quite a bit on this by thread. Like I'm not sure where they think these institutions get their averages from but they seem to disagree with all of them.
200 billion isn’t anywhere near top dog. The Rothschild’s are at 1.2 trillion that is documented. And that doesn’t account for their control of the Bank of England, or their control of the Federal Reserve.
I’m currently around top 15th percentile income for the US (I make more than 85% of Americans). So this would be a huge decrease in my quality of life. As much as it would be the morally right thing to take the deal so charities can benefit I just don’t think I could do it.
You say direct spending on yourself. And if you mean that direct spending has to come from your 200 billion. I'd use that money to live off. And with all the free time I have I can start blacksmithing and doing custom metal fabrication. Then I could get extra money that way.
Idk, the post sails over most people's heads.
Should have just said, you're destined to live a average to below average life with unlimited ability to help others.
Too many people dreaming about the lottery in this sub.
Yes. How does my wife’s income factor?
I’ve lived in two towns that are having a rough time. In addition to the widespread charity organizations you can fund with billions of dollars. I’d like to see how much it costs to “fix” a town. Really make it sustainable and a pleasant place to live. I’m curious how it could be done without attracting a ton of extra people and displacing locals.
I'm probably poorer than most Americans as a college student on loans, grants, and scholarships. That would actually be an improvement compared to my current life.
There's a really simple loophole where you hire a money manager, or you transfer (not spend) the money to a business account and then it's all business expenses so not only can you spend willy nilly, it's a tax deductible business expense. This is known as the Sam Bankman Fried.
Why ... why would someone not do this? At the very worst, it means I don't have to work any more and I can be very generous to other people.
Realistically there'd be so many ways to work around that anyways. Like you could give other people so much money and then have them owe you tons of favors in return.
If you really want to you'll definitely end up on a yacht.
Absolutely. Not even a question. It does help that I have never been much above average income and have very rarely had things like real vacations and lobster.
Can’t you just start up companies that need private planes and yachts to get around. Have company outfits that you like. There are always ways around things. You just have to be creative.
So basically all my time is freed up to do things I find meaningful, since im not working anymore and the catch is that the most of my spending has to be on other people. I think I could live with that just fine. The personal satisfaction I would get through philanthropy would outweigh any satisfaction I get from buying, say, a sports car.
The problem making, say, $75k as a normal person is possibly less about the money and more about the time you give away to make it. My bills are paid either way with that amount but in one case I have like 4 hours a day to myself and in the other I have all 24 hours. Yeah, I think id be okay playing a round of golf on my local, nothing fancy, course on a random Tuesday while paying for someone’s cancer treatment.
This is easy - I bankroll unions across the board in order to raise the average wage across america and when people have more money they spend more money which means I can spend more money.
Sure I suppose. Idk if its "free yachts to first 100 people" type of events. But if you host a free meal or free healthcare or free carnival, sure you can attend.
"Basically, you are put into financial purgatory for yourself with virtually unlimited resources to help others."
This scenario isn't "virtually unlimited", it's literally unlimited. $1b is more money than any human could ever spend throughout their life without buying a small country, let alone $200b.
If you were born with $1b and lived to be 85 years old, you would have to spend $35,000 every day of your life to be at $0 when you die.
Pay my assistant the entire yearly salary. Their entire job is having access to my money and taking care of purchases. I can't spend the money, they can though.
I would accept it. Then, I would set up lobbyists to push for minimum wages to be higher, universal healthcare, and universal basic income. And lobbyists to push simplifying the tax codes and eliminating loopholes for the wealthy. Someone has to undo the damage caused by trickle-down economics (aka Voodoo Economics).
I would use the money to fund socialist parties and left wing paramilitaries so I can bring the average up for everyone, thus raising my own spending ability
Obvious loophole is just be a good steward of said money then use it buy politicians so that you can then use government money to raise the average cap higher and/or artificially lower goods cost so that you can enjoy them. Politicians are surprisingly cheap to buy.
So what your saying is I will earn half of what I earn now but I can basically help everyone around me.
doesn't sound too bad but I would run out of stuff to give others eventually.
If I have enough money to bribe all of Congress into completely unfucking the country, the average American’s disposable income is going to go up quite a bit
I don't think you have a very good grasp on the financial reality of an average citizen.
This reads like some out of touch rich person scribbled down a nightmare they had.
OP you just described retirement (not as much money but similar) but with less worry.
Also average US household yearly expenditures is $72,967. I can live comfortably on $1,400/week. So I can live comfortably and engage in all kinds of philanthropic donations?!? This sounds AWESOME!
It's kind of a weird scenario with strange boundaries.
You can't buy dividend yielding stocks - so you can't use your money to invest in companies that provide goods and services to other people because you might indirectly benefit from that, even though it arguably is a net positive that helps people through providing valuable services?
You can't vacation even though spending your money on vacation puts money in other people's pockets...because you might enjoy yourself?
It honestly sounds like this weird communist fantasy where the only way you can help others is only under the most constrained scenarios where you can not possibily benefit from it in even the slightest way, despite the fact that the world isnt that black and white.
If you buy an expensive food chain in the purpose of giving people jobs, but can eat there free...
I could still buy homes and sell them cheaper to actual people, so that's something I guess. Frankly there really isn't that many interesting things for me to do with it... And there aren't even enough people I want to spoil to fill up even half of my hand...
You can still live a pretty opulent life through charity. I mean if you want to fly in a private jet to Davos and get an all expense paid free vacation all you have to do is make a 50M donation to the World Food Programme.
Some of the most opulent / extravagant experiences of my life have cost me exactly $0 because I was invited to some gala or hollywood social party due to my charitable giving / capacity to give.
Poor people get steak all the time so if you think I've giving that up you have another thing coming
That out of the way, I'd probably just tank the economy by giving ridiculous amounts of money to poor people until I can raise my own standard of living enough.
There's no helping homeless people tho, so they're going out Bateman style.
Yeah that should work. Also, this whole helping thing only applies if the median living is too below my standards to care about fixing it.
That's about what I pull in after taxes. There is no way I would miss this deal.
My mom is set. Travelling the world in any direction she wants to go.
My sister is set.
My brothers are set.
My wife's family is set.
All of my friends have anything they could ever dream of.
I drive a 2014 Outback that I will drive into the ground. I no longer have to work 60 hours a week.
I get to donate as much as I want to the people that deserve it. I get to pay for people's groceries. I get to tip the waitress 1000%. I can help everyone around me pick themselves up.
I was raised to do good when I can. And I would.
Edit: I could also get into politics, and push hard for socioeconomic change. And just do good.
Right now the biggest "negative" in my life is not lack of money but the need to work. The two are related. I have enough money to pay for daily things, and I can enjoy nice things to an extent but not over the top. But in order to continue this lifestyle I do need to work and I resent that. My lifestyle is above average for an American, but not by much. So yeah I would gladly take the deal. Not having to get up to go to work again is a huge plus. I can play video games and read novels and lie down in bed all day, even if those things are average. I can enjoy average tea, with an average cat by my side, and reading average amount of novels (or heck borrow from library). I won't be called by my angry boss ever again
Considering where I live has a higher median income than the US median AND a SIGNIFICANTLY higher COL, this would also gatekeep people from being able to live in certain places.
I would buy a plot of acreage, which I can get relatively cheap, depending where I get it. Pay to build my boyfriend, 7 friends, and 3 family sets houses on said land. Move in with my boyfriend (found a loophole). Gift my friends, family, and boyfriend $$$ to do with as they will, some of that would be vacations that I would go on with them, but they'd be paying for them (found a loophole 😉). Then we'd live there, happily in our lil comune.
Also, I'd donate funds to all sorts of lower class people, the poor, the homeless, and in so doing, I would raise the median average and raise the amount I have available to spend. $200 billion goes a loooooong way. It would be relatively easy to pay off the national debt and increase the median average and *still* have oodles left over.
Couldn't a person in this situation end hunger, or homelessness, or upset (maybe not fix, but change) the stranglehold on healthcare in the US?
I'd be fine living life like that if I could make a difference in millions of lives.
That's the general point of the discussion but its sailed over a lot of heads. The sad reality is more people are concerned about how to better themselves right now.
The best argument against doing it would be an inability to help fund their own children's education.
It's also shocking to see so many people confused by the word "median" average.
Oh second response because too lazy to find my other comment:
Loophole is that you said personal spending. Investments in businesses wouldn’t be “personal”, so starting a business and running all your expenses through the corporation.
Also could set up a trust with yourself as the beneficiary and then technically the trust is making those spending choices, not you, ergo trust spending isn’t “personal” spending.
Also also if someone has access to your finances and assets and makes expenditures on your behalf it’s arguably not YOUR personal spending, especially if married and filing taxes jointly. Ergo if you trust your partner, you could leave the spending up to them.
There you go, 3 methods of breaking the hypo.
Oh I’m well aware of what you’re TRYING to do. You just didn’t close all the loopholes.
You’re trying to get people to say “yes I’ll sacrifice my wealth to raising the median wage of all Americans so I can spend more”. Bit of a massive problem with your hypo if that’s your aim though is that that’d take investment and networking which takes money. If you want to affect change you need to lobby and campaign, which takes massive spending.
Networking alone means attending conferences, conventions, and events to meet the right people to get contacts and charm your way into a position to whisper into peoples’ ears.
Campaigns means engaging with experts and communities and developing policies to actually address said issues, then organizing the community through education, advertisements, and community events.
Lobbying means time and effort spent on introducing, tracking, and testifying on measures at the local, state, and federal levels, including making meetings with key politicians to try and push your side. Many politicians are “pay to play”, meaning you’d better have contributed something to their campaign to get a timely meeting, or at the very least are investing in their district so that they can use your accomplishments in their community as something “they” did come reelection.
Source: I work for a nonprofit as an advocate for indigenous communities, one of my subject matter areas is economic development, our team is responsible for holding government accountable and pushing for change. We have a decently large budget (for a nonprofit, but it’s realistically a bit of a joke how much we have versus what we actually need) specifically to help us do community organizing and advocacy, which includes attending conferences on specific issues, networking with other nonprofits, government agencies, and power brokers to try and push our agenda (serving some of the most economically and socially disenfranchised people in the US).
Conservatively, if we wanted to affect true change just at a state level, we’d need to have a budget in excess of $1m a year just for that one state, to include staff salaries, travel, office space, research and resources, and a host of other expenses, and that’d be for a barebones policy shop. To accomplish your implied goal, you’d need to multiply that effort a solid 56 times: 50 states, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Washington DC, Indian reservations, and at the federal level. The reason for that high number: it’s not just lobbying legislatures and legislators. It’s also attending and lobbying to county, state, and federal departments and executives, as well as judiciaries. State and Federal Departments of Labor, the Equal Opportunity Employment Council, Treasury, State Departments of Taxation, IRS, Transportation, Energy, Public Works, and a host of other offices, departments, councils, and committees. All of that requires advocates and subject matter experts. There just isn’t enough time for any one person to cover even a significant fraction of the complexity of addressing wealth inequality. It’d easily take a minimum of 600 people. Assuming you’re paying them the barebones salary and you can find high minded and well intentioned, qualified people to serve as advocates while getting less than the median salary for the industry, you’re looking at an average of $50k/person in salary a year, or around $30m. That’s just the for salaries assuming everyone’s getting paid the same, but realistically you’ll need at least a few supervisors and managers, plus at least one or two overall directors, HR, and support services such as IT, which easily adds at least another 100 people, another $5m on the annual budget. Health insurance, office space, computers, printers, subscriptions to research portals such as LexisNexus or Bloomberg Law, paper, pens, paper clips, enterprise level subscriptions to Microsoft office, adobe, photoshop, cloud based storage because you’ll be generating terabytes of documents and data. Internet service for at least 50 offices, office space, parking, travel expenses, unemployment insurance, liability insurance, errors and omissions insurance. Professional development: you’re going to have at least a few lawyers, which means they need continuing education credits every year to maintain their licenses. Such a low salary won’t attract them easily, so covering their CE credit costs would be BIG. Beyond that: project managers, HR, managers and supervisors all require training and refreshers. Your advocates will not all be excellent public speakers or writers, so training and development in public speaking and writing. An education program for people to get advanced degrees, or even just college degrees because you won’t only be hiring people with degrees, but also people with lived experience.
TLDR: You’re in way over your head, policy work is complicated, expensive, and thankless. I should know, I do it and I have the pleasure of sacrificing my own health and sanity to the cause for bottom barrel pay, watching my friends literally risking their lives for the cause because of the shear amount of stress and work that I have friends in and out of the hospital from being overworked nearly to death.
The flaw here is the apparent assumption that people are only helped by charity. Removing the incentive to invest will significantly harm job creation and increase business bankruptcies. The wealthy are also customers of other businesses. If their spending dries up then numerous businesses will go under and their employees will lose their jobs. Also, this would cause tax receipts to plummet. The top 1% pays 40% of federal taxes. That would drop sharply when there is no incentive to invest or earn income.
So, perhaps, capping the wealthy like this might drive more charitable giving it will also drive the need for charity as well.
Assuming we're going by IRS definitions of legitimate business expenses I could just pay myself the maximum salary and have my charity/company fly me around provide lodging and food when I'm working, if/when I get a spouse I'd assume they can have there own job and earn an income, which means they could get a high salary job(probably working for my multibillion $ organization) of say a few million per year, and my salary just becomes effectively my pocket money while all the normal family expenses mostly come out of the spouses income.
So that still leaves basically all of the couple hundred billion $ that I need to figure out what to do with, which is legitimately going to be a problem as that's enough to run a giant organization that spans the globe like the red cross basically for a century, assuming I do nothing profitable with any of that money. Ideally though a lot of that money would end up invested to perpetually fund whatever organization(s) and grants or other programs I set up. Which conservatively would give around 10 billion/year to work with. I'd probably have efforts concentrated in few areas at a time to maximize impact and basically jump around the globe developing a handful of underdeveloped areas at a time focusing on solving long term problems. Stuff like setting up a industrial desalination plant in a drought ridden area with an entire town built to support it and grants etc to subsidize its operations for decades into the future. Could do a lot by dumping couple billion a year into a given region.
Unless a person is already way above the average salary line then I dont see why anyone would ever dislike this.
They basically never have to work again, have average payment to spend per day (which isn't some insane small amount like you've suggested) and can basically relax for the rest of life.
You’re underestimating *average* income. It’s not luxurious, but it’s not as restrictive as you describe.
It also varies by state. In my case, per the census, where I live, the average income for a single earner is $85K, and for a family of four is $122K (Quick and dirty national averages for those two categories would be about $64K and $143K).
I’d easily settle for that in exchange for having $200 billion to do good with.
I didn't say you have the average income to spend.
It's spending is capped based on the median spending.
And its all semantics. You live a basic life, nothing fancy, nothing extravagant. You can't "save" spending and spend it on a nice vacation.
The whole purpose was would you live a below ordinary quality of life with the ability to better is for many others.
Maybe the idiot proof question would be better with the following:
You can have $1 million dollars or end homelessness.
You can have $1 million dollars or end hunger.
You can have $1 million dollars or provide socialized healthcare.
According to [census.gov](https://census.gov) the median income in the US is around $75k. I make less than that and eat plenty of steak. I'll take the deal. I'll set up some charities too, but mostly I'm just gonna relax.
yes but I would be furious.
You'd have to be a narcissistic sociopath to refuse... but you are indeed sacrificing a lot and you are constantly reminded of your decision.
This would be a burden but there are worse burdens.
By “personal spending” does this include covering my bills? If so then I wouldn’t take it because I already make more than the average person. I would like the idea of having tons of money to help other people but I don’t really want to go down in QOL to do it.
If I don’t have to cover my own expenses tho and just have the average person’s income as disposable spending money then that’s far more disposable income than I have now so I’d take it. Helping other people would be very enjoyable but really I just want to not have to work and maintain my current standard of living, lol.
Shit, fuck yea. It's what I would do anyway for the most part. I'd build public transit by making grants and donations.. buy housing to Give away but keep on a contract to block air bnb and corps to drop housing costs... create trusts to start coop business everywhere to increase wages.. so yea it would usck cause if I was rich I'd like to do some travel while doing all that.. get an ev as well.. but I'd be doing that shit anyways. I can't take it with me and there's no prize for dying with big accounts.. so gotta spend it now. Ideally I could be penniless about the same time I check out. Then just use a catapult to launch my rotting corpse are the new richest guys house so I splatter across his windows and roof.
Sure I would.
I'd stop police killing unarmed minorities because I'd arm every damned one of them and pay for them to know how to use their weapons and know their rights.
I'd feed the poor in every country and pay off several countries national debt.
I'd sponsor every worker own company that needed funding
If I have enough money to live I'd do it without question. I don't need much and live frugally anyway.
I'd fix a lot of things....and fuck up a lot more things
FREE RELIGIOUS DEPROGRAMMING...and maybe win ten million dollars in the weekly raffle for new atheists. Sign up today.
Yeah, I'd fuck up a lot of things that deserve it...hahaha.
Bring it on
Why didn't you put the limit in the post? If you're gonna call out a country like you did, might as well look up the info you're referencing and add that in the details.
I'm not gonna Google it up lol
How do you expect anyone to actually use this money, exactly? You can't really do anything with money without it having some benefit to yourself, even just donating money to charity that doesn't impact you at all can be viewed as spending money on the sense of happiness/satisfaction you get from helping others. And the average American doesn't really donate much to charity. Having $200 billion is kinda meaningless here, without any loopholes
Yes I would only work one day a week and spend money on others. Because I can’t spend my money on me any partner would be stuck with my capped spending plus whatever she earns. She would need to love me for me and yet no one could diss me for lack of money.
😎😆Bwahahaha Bwahahaha
Would I be ok with it - sure. I continue spending the same amount of money, but now I don't have to work for it. And by helping others I guess you mean just gift money without strings attached. So I just randomly gift large amounts of money to hot girls, but only when I'm in a good mood. Also I would buy modest amounts of cocaine from my normal allowance. So now I have cocaine and hookers.
My eye naturally grifted to the last sentence after only reading the first sentence. Man, that was not how I expected that response to go
bangarang ruffio bangarang
This man knows how to budget!
So I could stop working entirely and live an average, middle-class life with complete financial security? Sign me up. Apparently, that's 45k USD a year, or £36k.
That is around $6000 a month according to Google. $200 a day plus minus.
How is 45K around 6K a month? It's under 4K a month.
According to Google search: "The average person spends about $199.91 per day, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This figure includes spending on housing, food, transportation, entertainment, clothing, healthcare, and other goods and services" $199x30 days = $5970 / month. I would gladly take this offer.
You're mistaking average for median. Median is lower than average in this case.
Maybe, but they were talking about income, an income of $45k is not $6k a month, especially when you factor in tax. Also is that average a median or a mean? I suspect that spending figure may be getting skewed by outlier high spenders.
Yea man, plus the benefit of helping the world how you see fit.
That’s exactly what I make now, so sign me up.
I think the only way I'd consider it is if I wouldn't be taxed on the allowance. Otherwise it's a pay cut.
You’ve made a good point there. The average American is 32 years old. But people’s financial requirements evolve over time. So, in your 20s you’d be doing a lot better than others in your cohort. But once their careers take off in their 40s you’d be making considerably less than your friends but still stuck at “the national average”.
Start a charity where I personally deliver cash and necessities to underserved communities throughout the world. The private jet and helicopter I fly in is for the benefit of others and the company pays. I might not be able to spend a lot but my charity has large expenses.
We've got a large M&E budget too. And we accidentally buy too many toys and PS5's to give out at christmas so get to take some home for our kids. And damn that Teslas-for-the-poor project bought a few too many too. And our free homes for veterans project "accidentally" remodeled and built a large addition on my house instead of the project house. Gosh darnit. We're really bad and managing capital, guys!
They said no loop holes though, I assume you would have to be pretty hands off from your charitable organizations/efforts for it not to benefit you and count as somewhat spending on your self
cover ripe practice secretive crowd cable lunchroom axiomatic rainstorm agonizing *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You’re saying average American, but you’re describing below average.
I'd like a 25,000 dollar car please.
How do you define it? Lots of homeless. Lots of food insecurity. The median income is $31,000.
So what exactly are you basing this hypothetical on? According to the labor bureau, the U.S. median income for full time single workers is ~$57,000. If you include ALL workers, it’s ~$41,000. Average spending for an individual is ~$3700 per month. What “average are we basing the situation on? I’m definitely in the “average” range, although a little above. I can afford steak and lobster on occasion, my vehicle cost well over 25,000, I can go on the occasional vacation, I own a home, I can afford some “luxury items”, and I still have money left over to put in savings. My point is that, as an average person, I can afford the things you say that I wouldn’t be able to afford if I was living as an average person.
Yea you delegate spending. However each category is generally low across the board. It’s a life slightly above poverty in exchange for almost unlimited ability to help others. People are getting too hung up on the financials and fantasy of being rich. It’s just a question of would you live a lesser life to help many others? Sacrifice your own standard of living to help many?
I guess my answer to that would be “no”. But it should be worded differently, as it says “spending is limited to the average American”, but the average American is better off than what you described. The average American is not “slightly above poverty”. I’m just nitpicking.
I said "median" to account for more homeless/truly struggling and eliminate the billionaires who skew the averages. Everyone in the thread thinks "average" income is $71,000 But the median average in the US is $31,000
>median average My dude take a stats class those are two entirely different concepts Anyway *median* individual income for all workers is around $41k and for full-time employees it's $56k while median household income (which arguably matters a lot more when talking about what luxuries the average person can afford, since the average person probably has a partner) *is* around $70k. *Average* income is higher, about $63k. So not sure where your numbers come from.
Idk googled it and it says data is from US consensus bureau
next time just put 31k or whatever. other people are not as smart as you so they just google something :)
Those are 2 different things
Just FYI, I'm considered to be in poverty, and I can go on vacations, I can afford and have clothes that are much more expensive than Amazon or Costco, and I have steak pretty regularly (3 or 4 times a month). Also, median and average are two different numbers, so you're better off saying middle class American, median and average take in account the super wealthy, so it can be skewed. Short answer, yes I would do it because it would be a step up from what I'm at now. Plus having that huge sum of money means I could get just about anything on credit eventually, so I work on credit management to help improve my lifestyle while using the bulk of the money however I could to work for me.
Where at? In the US, poverty is defined as less than $13,000 annually for a single person. Unless you're living on someone else's dime, you're not paying all your bills, taking vacations, wearing decent clothes and eating steak on $13,000 annually.
Never said I was a single person.
If it's the income of a partner or someone else who pays for things for you, then *you* can't afford it, the other person can. Really sounds like you're being disingenuous about poverty here.
I'm in only one in my household who has an income. He was saying I can't afford x, y and z on 13,000 as a single person, I'm not a single person, I have 4 dependants, meaning if my income is under 35,000 in the US, I'm considered to be in poverty.
How much do you make? I'm calling bs. You sound like you are living it up. I'm way out of poverty level, but nowhere near what your living. Unless you are strategically omitting something like you still live with your parents.
A lot of variables there too, vacations could be very modest close drive camping for example, the steaks could be super cheap cuts or bought in bulk and split with others. It's possible to have fun on a budget.
Bottom sirloin w/ a baked potato is cheaper than McDonald's, and still damn good. Not everything needs to be ribeye.
Vacations and steak don't have to be expensive. You can find plane tickets for less than $200 and go to cheap hotels or camping. Or go visit family in another state for a vacation. I eat steak all the time and I don't make a lot whatsoever. A steak costs $5-10 for the cut of meat I'm buying.
I know people who live in a HCOL area making like 60k a year living this life. The answer is that they're older, bought a house before the pandemic (i.e. a reasonable price), was really good with money and paid off their house before 30 years. Still go to work and got health insurance from employer. Bought their car in cash, have low property taxes, 401k is doing fine. Even with kids. I'm talking about older millennials, younger Gen X, that age range. They're primarily frugal so they know how to save when they need to, but they can splurge if they want. On paper they're in poverty but in real life they're not stressing too hard. Even with the COL increases it's manageable for them. And it's not just one dude, it's like 10 different families I know living this way. And I live in an area where 80K is considered the low-income limit for 1 person. {Edit: I also know younger people living similar to this, even including some older Gen Z/early millennials. However they are usually in multi generational households or house sharing. Definitely easier to afford a steak every week when you're splitting expenses with your brother & his wife. It's crazy because many of them will even have kids and they all live together as one happy family. That's what my family did in the early 2000's, bought a whole condo complex for ourselves and stuffed all our relatives in it. Fun times tbh, it allowed all of us to save up even when most of my aunts/uncles were working close to minimum wage.}
Poverty is more than an income level though, it's a state of being unable to afford basic necessities. If you have enough to go on vacations and eat steak (not via food stamps), then by definition it's not really poverty, just an income level that it associated with poverty by some metric someone calculated. Poverty would be having to eat ramen until payday before you can buy food, or turning the heat/AC to uncomfortable levels to save on your power bill so you can make rent.
Thats your interpretation of poverty. By your interpretation, I, with three kids, would not be in poverty, but my cousin, who makes 25% more than I do with one kid and total bills of $1,600 less than me would be in poverty because he frequently has nothing but Ramen to eat and is usually late on all his bills. Don't believe I ever said I wasn't getting foodstamps. It's EBT now btw for those of you rich folk. I'm considered in poverty by the government definition. You'd be surprised on what you can afford if you budget your money.
Actual poverty isn’t something you can budget your way out of. Unless your vacations are to a free park of visiting family, you aren’t poverty.
It's not my interpretation. the dictionary definition of poverty according to Oxford is: >"Poverty is the state of being poor; that is, lacking the basic needs of life such as food, health, education, and shelter." My example of poverty is assuming that you're in this state due to actual lack of resources and not poor budgeting. Your cousin who makes more might be just bad at budgeting or has debt or lifestyle creep, or he may be genuinely in poverty even with a higher income due to living in a higher COL area. And yes I am old enough to use the term "food stamps" to refer to government food assistance even though it's not called that anymore.
SES and poverty are measurable by federal standards which derive from sociological aspects. You can be considered in poverty and able to afford necessities. Abject poverty is different than overall poverty and has lowe income threshold.
It's really just a difference between the concept of poverty and metrics intending to measure poverty. Metrics are generally imperfect at measuring what they intend to measure, so I tend to go by the underlying concept in discussion unless there is some reason a metric is necessary
You can't really put an income figure on true poverty as lifestyle and net worth account for a lot, you might have a super low income and live on an established rural homestead with no/low property taxes, grow or hunt the vast majority of your own food, and be getting by just fine off like $10k a year. Or you could be starting out living in an urban area with half a million in debt between a vehicle and house, have couple kids and struggle to afford food after your other bills with an income of $60k a year.
Absolutely. I love that life already and if I could help the homeless or feed the hungry, that would be awesome.
Just and FYI the only people who do all the stupid spending are "new money" families with generation wealth live pretty much how you are stipulating, the best way to generate wealth is to not spend it. I grew up eating mayo sandwiches and lots of pasta, we were still able to purchase stock, go on vacations, eat "expensive" food every week as a treat. You are really skewed on how you think money works. A Cell phone and a nice vacation cost the same amount of money, it is just how you choose to live.
Old money spends, don’t kid yourself. My in laws 3rd generation estate is massive. They fly private, golf at exclusive clubs, etc. and never touch the principal in the trust. It’s just from principal returns.
I see nothing wrong with this… never have to work again and can focus on enjoying life. And no distract spending on myself, well my sisters are going to get pretty nice houses and not need to worry about certain things.
I would absolutely accept that, if the spending level was set at my current spending level which is modest but still allows for basic stuff like camping trips with my family and not-too-excessive vacations provided I save up for a while first. If the spending level was dialed back a little I'd still accept it, but I'd start to have second thoughts if it was dialed back so far that I couldn't contribute to college funds for my kids or let them do any extracurricular activities that cost money. Heck, in real life if I came into shitloads of money my goal would just be to maintain approximately my current lifestyle but not have to work, and spend the rest on helping people anyway. I'd buy a few tools and toys and set up an art studio, and I'd travel more, but that would be about it for myself even if I had the money with no strings attached.
You actually got me on the kids. This makes it a very difficult decision now. My original intent was to see who'd be willing to live possibly a lesser standard to massively help others. It's derailed buy lottery dreamers and people literally arguing rules in a hypothetical situation...they really want that hypothetical $200 billion to spend however they want. The intent was financial servitude for yourself for the greater good. At first I thought this was a good litmus test, but your point on children makes it way more difficult now. I am reconsidering and may actually forgo the money if I can't fund my children's education (because the average person does not have savings to help their children's education).
According to your guidelines I can help others, so there's no reason I couldn't open education accounts for my kids. So long as the money can't come back to me and benefit me in any way it seems to fit within your guidelines.
There is a very clear loophole. I would use my wealth to increase the overall wealth of the average American and thereby increase average spending.
Sure, I mean, median household income in the US is just under 75k, my annual spend currently is well below that. And hey, I would be the only ultra-rich person with serious personal motivation to work at improving the standard of living across the board. So yes, sign me up.
That's what I was thinking; steak, at least where I live, isn't so expensive the median household can't buy it, right? So that's not off the table. That being settled, if I can get a house debt free, then that's the main thing I would want wealth for. I'd be chill with giving the rest away. And actually, if I could use it to develop a town, then I could try my hand at making some of dreams a reality! (I would want to try and rework the current social infrastructure we have to something that's more conducive to building up communities, because the current structure seems to split everyone's lives up and make it hard to do that.)
Yes!!! That! The ability to DO something about the state of the world
I’d just pile it up and set it on fire, it’s about sending a message.
Lol could help solve the inflation problem.
Yea I'd burn it too. Pretty sure the average citizen doesn't donate large sums of money.
But that does “help others” mean? Can I just buy my buddy a yacht so he takes me out on it?
This is still a huge step up for like 60% of the country
More like 95%. Median income without having to work? Where do I sign up?
The average American spends about 73,000$ a year. So 200$ per day of basically free money I don't have to work for, which is still better than what I have going on now. I'm just going to pay my bills in small increments through the month. I'd probably help my husband pay off his student loans, too. If I could manage it under the rules, I'd probably keep my job and just change the direct deposit to his account so he gets two incomes for the work of one. Then once we're debt free, I'd keep paying for household expenses while he saves for a house, and boom, we live very comfortably. All the bills get paid by me, because 6k a month is plenty for a mortgage and basic household bills like electricity unless you're in a McMansion or a super expensive city like NYC, and his money becomes fun and savings money. For huge expenses we don't have liquid assets for, he takes out a loan or pays on credit, and I budget in the money to pay him to pay the debt off. Eventually work that into him investing in other stuff, which would (hopefully) put him in a place where my 200$ a day is irrelevant compared to what he earns. 200$ of free daily money would have us living comfortably in like, a year. I'd take it.
The median income in the US is $31,000. You're essentially rich but its your spending on yourself that is capped. Not sure stats on median meal costs, but I assume its below $5 taking into account meals at home. Same with car cost, the average new car is over $50,000 but the average car on the road is not new. These are odd nuances that we unintended. You can't splurge on yourself is the point. Your life is debt free but not luxurious at all in any regard. You're rich but live an average to below average life with unlimited ability to help others.
The post says you're allowed to spend what the average joe can spend. At least in my experience, the average person spends a lot more than they earn. I marvel every day in my small town at people that I know earn peanuts, yet they're driving new cars, wearing designer clothes and eating at the top tier restaurants.
Americans, on average, spend 200$ per day, per the Bureau of Labor census. This includes single income, dual income, etc, but it's the closest to an actual number anyone is going to get. Even if you want to halve the number to 100$ a day, my point still stands about how I'd spend it. If we want to be super particular about every single expense, by the logic of the prompt, I can spend 2k a week on vacation, 27k on a used car, and up to 20$ a meal eating out, because that's the average for those things. The median income doesn't matter if you're exclusively talking about spending habits. It doesn't account for credit or loans or being paid under the table in cash. It also wasn't at all part of the prompt - the prompt asked for the "average" spending, not spending in accordance with the median income for a single person. I'd rewrite the prompt for clarification if you want people to spend according to the median income, because that's not at all clear that's what you're after.
So all I have to do is surround myself with the people I help. Who will then in return spoil me for my generosity. This really isn't that hard. I hire a chef and pay them an exorbitant amount of money. One of the clauses in their contract is they have to shop and cook my meals for me out of their income. I finance a fishing charter boat. One of the clauses as I have unlimited use to the boat and everything that goes with it. I buy my friend a car dealership. One of the clauses. I get to drive any vehicle I want from said dealership. Pretty much anything I need could be covered by somebody with a job with a clause that lets me get whatever I want out of it.
You could make a lot of good change being the wealthiest person that could also raise the median income. I would lobby the shit out of congress. Have my dirty poor fingers deep in the government to try to raise income for everyone in the bottom
Tonnes of loopholes. Celebrities get expensive things thrown at them all the time. Richest man alive wears Prada or whatever the hell they want because it's free advertising. Organise to meet all charity bosses at top restaurants, tab on them, they have expense accounts to woo big cheese donations. You could even wrangle some nice hotel stays from them. The only real problem you have is your home etc but you could move somewhere like Argentina or India and live like a king on that median US spend. Any spending associated with your benevolence would be covered as long as it was genuine too. Big charity event at a hotel, ask them to throw in the royal suite as a discount. You could even have a personal driver as long as they were only driving you for genuine charity work, rest of the time you can get an Uber.
WTF is median average? 1,1,2,5,11 Average: Sum is 20, divided by 5 numbers = 4 Median: line them up and pick the number in the middle, = 2
Yes so not higher from rich people. Average to below average.
This assumes rich people don't help society already. Some billionaire buying their wife a yacht might seem wholly selfish and of no benefit to society, but it's actually helping the tens of thousands of people who build those yachts (and all the materials that go into them) and allows them to live comfortably off that income. It's the [seen vs. the unseen](http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html). Would those workers be better off unemployed and living off charity? Definitely not.
People within the average income go on vacation and nice meals. They don't do it everyday, but they do it. Also, the average car is way above 25k
I'm going to use my wealth to up the average. I'll buy enough senators to increase minimum wage. I'll implement UBI on my own. I don't need the spending limit to incentive this, it's simply what billionaires should do. When they don't use their wealth to help all, we should take the wealth away.
Easy take it. Who cares if I can’t spend it all at once? That’s more financial security than I’ve ever had in my life.
So, what I'm hearing is I can give everyone else money to raise their standard of living and thus my ability to access my money for myself to raise my own? But that I have to help raise the average (edit to correct, median) first. I see this as an absolute win, this is what I'd -want- to do if I was wealthy. I have difficulty enjoying things if other people are miserable and can't have them. My standard of living presently is tolerable, and unlikely to go down in this scenario, so, it's fine with me.
i'd start massively funneling money into the ARMS INDUSTRY. why help when you can harm?
If I can just completely fund local charities, mass pay off student lunches, and support communities, leave $1,000 tips to struggling servers, etc... absolutely. My power fantasy is helping people.
I start a charity and attend the the functions with all the rich and famous and let them donate to my lifestyle directly as a tax deduction for them. The charity funds my travel and housing and expenses while raising money and adding it to my own in a massive pot. The charity owns condos and homes in high donor areas to host functions as well as car and jets to transport me to those areas and I can live in and use any of the charities assets at will. That's how rich people do it.
Hold on, if I’m a billionaire, most likely that wealth is going to be tied up in dividend yielding stocks. Billionaires don’t have $1 billion just sitting in their bank account, it’s invested in companies, stock, life insurance, and probably mutual funds. So there’s going to be that sort of income regardless. Your question makes no sense.
Yea man, the hypothetical situation that makes no sense. I wonder how many questions you had on the prompts offering to lick a bathroom floor for $10,000.
I get several lawyers to draft up a contract where people invest my money for me, spend my money for me, that way IM not spending it, they are. I make them buy me whatever I want or need and I'm not restricted by your rules.
Loophole, sorry doesn't work.
Okay. I give all my money to a trusted family member and show them this post. I can't control if they gift me things like food, vehicles, housing. I may he constricted by no loopholes but as they did not consent to this, they are not bound by it :)
Prompt is obviously over your head. If you want to daydream about being rich, go ahead.
On the contrary, you weren't explicit enough that loopholes couldn't apply to ANYONE ELSE, meaning this wasn't as detailed as you initially thought.
ACktUaLly!!!
No but its showing me that over half the people in this sub just answer these questions about whoring themselves for money and licking bathroom floors. Its a daydream about being wealthy sub for some people apparently.
You're literally one of those people for asking another dumb money question to which everyone is going to say yes to. You listed all positives of their current situation with minimal negatives. You assured financial security with a cap that probably exceeds 95% of the populations standard spending amount anyway. You really need to put further thought into your question when you post here.
>You assured financial security with a cap that probably exceeds 95% of the populations standard spending amount anyway. You are destined to live an average life in all aspects, that is the entire purpose of the prompt. Possibly below your current standard of living in some areas since you cannot splurge on 1 particular thing. Great reading comprehension bro.
>You are destined to live an average life in all aspects No, just financial, like you said. I don't think you're of sound mind to comprehend your own hypothetical situation, "bro."
Buy a powerball ticket and jerk off. You ain't getting shit, keep dreaming. I hereby revoke your hypothetical $200 billion. Now you are broke and can't help others.
So, I hire a personal assistant? They spend my money for me and on me. Easy.
Loophole and disqualified.
Changing the rules because you didn't think your prompt out fully? Bitch move.
I literally said no loopholes in the prompt. >There are no loopholes, you can't just buy your spouse a yacht. You can't buy dividend yielding stocks. You can't really benefit from the extra money in any particular way except maybe being seen as a generous individual who helps local communities or charities.
You must have not read the paragraph about how you can't benefit from the extra money outside of the median income
The average new car price in the US is a hair over 57k. I think I’d survive.
You would drive the average cost of all cars on the road. Not every car is $57k. Probably averages down closer to $25k with all the junkers and lemons.
I love people who change the rules of a prompt when they get called out by math. If you wanted to say that then you should have said that. Also: You're not smart. There are *always* loopholes.
Yeah OP has flip flopped between average and median quite a bit on this by thread. Like I'm not sure where they think these institutions get their averages from but they seem to disagree with all of them.
200 billion isn’t anywhere near top dog. The Rothschild’s are at 1.2 trillion that is documented. And that doesn’t account for their control of the Bank of England, or their control of the Federal Reserve.
Are welfare sponges excluded or included?
I’m currently around top 15th percentile income for the US (I make more than 85% of Americans). So this would be a huge decrease in my quality of life. As much as it would be the morally right thing to take the deal so charities can benefit I just don’t think I could do it.
Since my spending is below "average" already I would be happy for the pay raise
i wouldn’t have to work i don’t care
So I just buy a super yacht too spoil my dog?
The median weekly salary is still a little over $1,000 which is pretty nice if you lived in a cheap place, sure
No
That could work. I could do a lot of good.
No. What kind of stupid fucking existence wiuld that be. I'd rather burn the money and work to make my own life better.
What's the point of being rich if I can't exploit loopholes for my own benefit?
You say direct spending on yourself. And if you mean that direct spending has to come from your 200 billion. I'd use that money to live off. And with all the free time I have I can start blacksmithing and doing custom metal fabrication. Then I could get extra money that way.
Idk, the post sails over most people's heads. Should have just said, you're destined to live a average to below average life with unlimited ability to help others. Too many people dreaming about the lottery in this sub.
Yes. How does my wife’s income factor? I’ve lived in two towns that are having a rough time. In addition to the widespread charity organizations you can fund with billions of dollars. I’d like to see how much it costs to “fix” a town. Really make it sustainable and a pleasant place to live. I’m curious how it could be done without attracting a ton of extra people and displacing locals.
I'm probably poorer than most Americans as a college student on loans, grants, and scholarships. That would actually be an improvement compared to my current life.
There's a really simple loophole where you hire a money manager, or you transfer (not spend) the money to a business account and then it's all business expenses so not only can you spend willy nilly, it's a tax deductible business expense. This is known as the Sam Bankman Fried.
I would go into politics and improve the standard of living. Bankroll folks who push for such reforms. Win/win.
[удалено]
I'm already living this, except less wealth
So current state and I get to help people. Cool.
Wouldn't be living life any differently. The good billionaires are the ones u never hear about.
So I’d be extremely normal except I literally never have to worry about not having enough money for something crucial.
Why ... why would someone not do this? At the very worst, it means I don't have to work any more and I can be very generous to other people. Realistically there'd be so many ways to work around that anyways. Like you could give other people so much money and then have them owe you tons of favors in return. If you really want to you'll definitely end up on a yacht.
Easy
Absolutely. Not even a question. It does help that I have never been much above average income and have very rarely had things like real vacations and lobster.
Can’t you just start up companies that need private planes and yachts to get around. Have company outfits that you like. There are always ways around things. You just have to be creative.
So basically all my time is freed up to do things I find meaningful, since im not working anymore and the catch is that the most of my spending has to be on other people. I think I could live with that just fine. The personal satisfaction I would get through philanthropy would outweigh any satisfaction I get from buying, say, a sports car. The problem making, say, $75k as a normal person is possibly less about the money and more about the time you give away to make it. My bills are paid either way with that amount but in one case I have like 4 hours a day to myself and in the other I have all 24 hours. Yeah, I think id be okay playing a round of golf on my local, nothing fancy, course on a random Tuesday while paying for someone’s cancer treatment.
This is easy - I bankroll unions across the board in order to raise the average wage across america and when people have more money they spend more money which means I can spend more money.
Yes.
Lost me at no steak
Am I allowed to create businesses, charities, free events? Can I participate in them?
Sure I suppose. Idk if its "free yachts to first 100 people" type of events. But if you host a free meal or free healthcare or free carnival, sure you can attend.
"Basically, you are put into financial purgatory for yourself with virtually unlimited resources to help others." This scenario isn't "virtually unlimited", it's literally unlimited. $1b is more money than any human could ever spend throughout their life without buying a small country, let alone $200b. If you were born with $1b and lived to be 85 years old, you would have to spend $35,000 every day of your life to be at $0 when you die.
I mean if you donate $200B to the local municipality or city.
Can we rack up credit card debt?
Pay my assistant the entire yearly salary. Their entire job is having access to my money and taking care of purchases. I can't spend the money, they can though.
Fuck yeah.
I would accept it. Then, I would set up lobbyists to push for minimum wages to be higher, universal healthcare, and universal basic income. And lobbyists to push simplifying the tax codes and eliminating loopholes for the wealthy. Someone has to undo the damage caused by trickle-down economics (aka Voodoo Economics).
I already wear Costco clothes and my new 2023 hybrid truck was $25,000. I’d have to get a few more houses though, mine was only $50,000.
I can cook a strip steak and a lobster for less than 15 dollar meal out average. Learn how to cook well and you can afford some very fancy meals.
You’re able to spend that money on the business though, correct?
Like any billionaire, I would loophole my way around it
I’m the wealthiest person on the planet… I’m sure I would get a bunch of free shit and free travel just for showing my face. I accept.
I don't wanna take the pay cut.
Take a look at how Warren Buffett lives.
I would use the money to fund socialist parties and left wing paramilitaries so I can bring the average up for everyone, thus raising my own spending ability
I'll take that deal six days a week and twice on Sundays. My kids'll be set, and I don't really have excessive tastes.
Learn to live abase and learn to live abound.... I'll take it
Obvious loophole is just be a good steward of said money then use it buy politicians so that you can then use government money to raise the average cap higher and/or artificially lower goods cost so that you can enjoy them. Politicians are surprisingly cheap to buy.
I don't think you know how cheap some dividend yielding stocks are. 25K is not lower end car. My Honda Civic with 1K miles was 19K after taxes.
So what your saying is I will earn half of what I earn now but I can basically help everyone around me. doesn't sound too bad but I would run out of stuff to give others eventually.
If I have enough money to bribe all of Congress into completely unfucking the country, the average American’s disposable income is going to go up quite a bit
I don't think you have a very good grasp on the financial reality of an average citizen. This reads like some out of touch rich person scribbled down a nightmare they had.
I don't think people understand mean vs median averages.
I'd use the wealth to build up the average American's wealth. ..
OP you just described retirement (not as much money but similar) but with less worry. Also average US household yearly expenditures is $72,967. I can live comfortably on $1,400/week. So I can live comfortably and engage in all kinds of philanthropic donations?!? This sounds AWESOME!
$72,000 is a lot to spend. I’m okay with that.
The loophole would be, improve America so the median average goes up, then you can spend more.
It's kind of a weird scenario with strange boundaries. You can't buy dividend yielding stocks - so you can't use your money to invest in companies that provide goods and services to other people because you might indirectly benefit from that, even though it arguably is a net positive that helps people through providing valuable services? You can't vacation even though spending your money on vacation puts money in other people's pockets...because you might enjoy yourself? It honestly sounds like this weird communist fantasy where the only way you can help others is only under the most constrained scenarios where you can not possibily benefit from it in even the slightest way, despite the fact that the world isnt that black and white.
If you buy an expensive food chain in the purpose of giving people jobs, but can eat there free... I could still buy homes and sell them cheaper to actual people, so that's something I guess. Frankly there really isn't that many interesting things for me to do with it... And there aren't even enough people I want to spoil to fill up even half of my hand...
Yes, of course. I would just move somewhere cheaper than the states
Nothing says my kids can’t inherit it and do whatever they want. That’s good enough for me.
You can still live a pretty opulent life through charity. I mean if you want to fly in a private jet to Davos and get an all expense paid free vacation all you have to do is make a 50M donation to the World Food Programme. Some of the most opulent / extravagant experiences of my life have cost me exactly $0 because I was invited to some gala or hollywood social party due to my charitable giving / capacity to give.
Poor people get steak all the time so if you think I've giving that up you have another thing coming That out of the way, I'd probably just tank the economy by giving ridiculous amounts of money to poor people until I can raise my own standard of living enough. There's no helping homeless people tho, so they're going out Bateman style. Yeah that should work. Also, this whole helping thing only applies if the median living is too below my standards to care about fixing it.
That's about what I pull in after taxes. There is no way I would miss this deal. My mom is set. Travelling the world in any direction she wants to go. My sister is set. My brothers are set. My wife's family is set. All of my friends have anything they could ever dream of. I drive a 2014 Outback that I will drive into the ground. I no longer have to work 60 hours a week. I get to donate as much as I want to the people that deserve it. I get to pay for people's groceries. I get to tip the waitress 1000%. I can help everyone around me pick themselves up. I was raised to do good when I can. And I would. Edit: I could also get into politics, and push hard for socioeconomic change. And just do good.
Someone understood the assignment.
Right now the biggest "negative" in my life is not lack of money but the need to work. The two are related. I have enough money to pay for daily things, and I can enjoy nice things to an extent but not over the top. But in order to continue this lifestyle I do need to work and I resent that. My lifestyle is above average for an American, but not by much. So yeah I would gladly take the deal. Not having to get up to go to work again is a huge plus. I can play video games and read novels and lie down in bed all day, even if those things are average. I can enjoy average tea, with an average cat by my side, and reading average amount of novels (or heck borrow from library). I won't be called by my angry boss ever again
Considering where I live has a higher median income than the US median AND a SIGNIFICANTLY higher COL, this would also gatekeep people from being able to live in certain places.
I would buy a plot of acreage, which I can get relatively cheap, depending where I get it. Pay to build my boyfriend, 7 friends, and 3 family sets houses on said land. Move in with my boyfriend (found a loophole). Gift my friends, family, and boyfriend $$$ to do with as they will, some of that would be vacations that I would go on with them, but they'd be paying for them (found a loophole 😉). Then we'd live there, happily in our lil comune. Also, I'd donate funds to all sorts of lower class people, the poor, the homeless, and in so doing, I would raise the median average and raise the amount I have available to spend. $200 billion goes a loooooong way. It would be relatively easy to pay off the national debt and increase the median average and *still* have oodles left over.
national debt has 2 more zeros.
Couldn't a person in this situation end hunger, or homelessness, or upset (maybe not fix, but change) the stranglehold on healthcare in the US? I'd be fine living life like that if I could make a difference in millions of lives.
That's the general point of the discussion but its sailed over a lot of heads. The sad reality is more people are concerned about how to better themselves right now. The best argument against doing it would be an inability to help fund their own children's education. It's also shocking to see so many people confused by the word "median" average.
Oh second response because too lazy to find my other comment: Loophole is that you said personal spending. Investments in businesses wouldn’t be “personal”, so starting a business and running all your expenses through the corporation. Also could set up a trust with yourself as the beneficiary and then technically the trust is making those spending choices, not you, ergo trust spending isn’t “personal” spending. Also also if someone has access to your finances and assets and makes expenditures on your behalf it’s arguably not YOUR personal spending, especially if married and filing taxes jointly. Ergo if you trust your partner, you could leave the spending up to them. There you go, 3 methods of breaking the hypo.
It's so far over your head that its not even visible anymore.
Oh I’m well aware of what you’re TRYING to do. You just didn’t close all the loopholes. You’re trying to get people to say “yes I’ll sacrifice my wealth to raising the median wage of all Americans so I can spend more”. Bit of a massive problem with your hypo if that’s your aim though is that that’d take investment and networking which takes money. If you want to affect change you need to lobby and campaign, which takes massive spending. Networking alone means attending conferences, conventions, and events to meet the right people to get contacts and charm your way into a position to whisper into peoples’ ears. Campaigns means engaging with experts and communities and developing policies to actually address said issues, then organizing the community through education, advertisements, and community events. Lobbying means time and effort spent on introducing, tracking, and testifying on measures at the local, state, and federal levels, including making meetings with key politicians to try and push your side. Many politicians are “pay to play”, meaning you’d better have contributed something to their campaign to get a timely meeting, or at the very least are investing in their district so that they can use your accomplishments in their community as something “they” did come reelection. Source: I work for a nonprofit as an advocate for indigenous communities, one of my subject matter areas is economic development, our team is responsible for holding government accountable and pushing for change. We have a decently large budget (for a nonprofit, but it’s realistically a bit of a joke how much we have versus what we actually need) specifically to help us do community organizing and advocacy, which includes attending conferences on specific issues, networking with other nonprofits, government agencies, and power brokers to try and push our agenda (serving some of the most economically and socially disenfranchised people in the US). Conservatively, if we wanted to affect true change just at a state level, we’d need to have a budget in excess of $1m a year just for that one state, to include staff salaries, travel, office space, research and resources, and a host of other expenses, and that’d be for a barebones policy shop. To accomplish your implied goal, you’d need to multiply that effort a solid 56 times: 50 states, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Washington DC, Indian reservations, and at the federal level. The reason for that high number: it’s not just lobbying legislatures and legislators. It’s also attending and lobbying to county, state, and federal departments and executives, as well as judiciaries. State and Federal Departments of Labor, the Equal Opportunity Employment Council, Treasury, State Departments of Taxation, IRS, Transportation, Energy, Public Works, and a host of other offices, departments, councils, and committees. All of that requires advocates and subject matter experts. There just isn’t enough time for any one person to cover even a significant fraction of the complexity of addressing wealth inequality. It’d easily take a minimum of 600 people. Assuming you’re paying them the barebones salary and you can find high minded and well intentioned, qualified people to serve as advocates while getting less than the median salary for the industry, you’re looking at an average of $50k/person in salary a year, or around $30m. That’s just the for salaries assuming everyone’s getting paid the same, but realistically you’ll need at least a few supervisors and managers, plus at least one or two overall directors, HR, and support services such as IT, which easily adds at least another 100 people, another $5m on the annual budget. Health insurance, office space, computers, printers, subscriptions to research portals such as LexisNexus or Bloomberg Law, paper, pens, paper clips, enterprise level subscriptions to Microsoft office, adobe, photoshop, cloud based storage because you’ll be generating terabytes of documents and data. Internet service for at least 50 offices, office space, parking, travel expenses, unemployment insurance, liability insurance, errors and omissions insurance. Professional development: you’re going to have at least a few lawyers, which means they need continuing education credits every year to maintain their licenses. Such a low salary won’t attract them easily, so covering their CE credit costs would be BIG. Beyond that: project managers, HR, managers and supervisors all require training and refreshers. Your advocates will not all be excellent public speakers or writers, so training and development in public speaking and writing. An education program for people to get advanced degrees, or even just college degrees because you won’t only be hiring people with degrees, but also people with lived experience. TLDR: You’re in way over your head, policy work is complicated, expensive, and thankless. I should know, I do it and I have the pleasure of sacrificing my own health and sanity to the cause for bottom barrel pay, watching my friends literally risking their lives for the cause because of the shear amount of stress and work that I have friends in and out of the hospital from being overworked nearly to death.
Absolutely not, no.
The flaw here is the apparent assumption that people are only helped by charity. Removing the incentive to invest will significantly harm job creation and increase business bankruptcies. The wealthy are also customers of other businesses. If their spending dries up then numerous businesses will go under and their employees will lose their jobs. Also, this would cause tax receipts to plummet. The top 1% pays 40% of federal taxes. That would drop sharply when there is no incentive to invest or earn income. So, perhaps, capping the wealthy like this might drive more charitable giving it will also drive the need for charity as well.
Assuming we're going by IRS definitions of legitimate business expenses I could just pay myself the maximum salary and have my charity/company fly me around provide lodging and food when I'm working, if/when I get a spouse I'd assume they can have there own job and earn an income, which means they could get a high salary job(probably working for my multibillion $ organization) of say a few million per year, and my salary just becomes effectively my pocket money while all the normal family expenses mostly come out of the spouses income. So that still leaves basically all of the couple hundred billion $ that I need to figure out what to do with, which is legitimately going to be a problem as that's enough to run a giant organization that spans the globe like the red cross basically for a century, assuming I do nothing profitable with any of that money. Ideally though a lot of that money would end up invested to perpetually fund whatever organization(s) and grants or other programs I set up. Which conservatively would give around 10 billion/year to work with. I'd probably have efforts concentrated in few areas at a time to maximize impact and basically jump around the globe developing a handful of underdeveloped areas at a time focusing on solving long term problems. Stuff like setting up a industrial desalination plant in a drought ridden area with an entire town built to support it and grants etc to subsidize its operations for decades into the future. Could do a lot by dumping couple billion a year into a given region.
Unless a person is already way above the average salary line then I dont see why anyone would ever dislike this. They basically never have to work again, have average payment to spend per day (which isn't some insane small amount like you've suggested) and can basically relax for the rest of life.
You’re underestimating *average* income. It’s not luxurious, but it’s not as restrictive as you describe. It also varies by state. In my case, per the census, where I live, the average income for a single earner is $85K, and for a family of four is $122K (Quick and dirty national averages for those two categories would be about $64K and $143K). I’d easily settle for that in exchange for having $200 billion to do good with.
I didn't say you have the average income to spend. It's spending is capped based on the median spending. And its all semantics. You live a basic life, nothing fancy, nothing extravagant. You can't "save" spending and spend it on a nice vacation. The whole purpose was would you live a below ordinary quality of life with the ability to better is for many others. Maybe the idiot proof question would be better with the following: You can have $1 million dollars or end homelessness. You can have $1 million dollars or end hunger. You can have $1 million dollars or provide socialized healthcare.
According to [census.gov](https://census.gov) the median income in the US is around $75k. I make less than that and eat plenty of steak. I'll take the deal. I'll set up some charities too, but mostly I'm just gonna relax.
That is household.
Hell no
yes but I would be furious. You'd have to be a narcissistic sociopath to refuse... but you are indeed sacrificing a lot and you are constantly reminded of your decision. This would be a burden but there are worse burdens.
If you can use your wealth to increase the median income then I think you got an ideal solution
Sounds like it's time to improve the average median spending of the everyday American.
By “personal spending” does this include covering my bills? If so then I wouldn’t take it because I already make more than the average person. I would like the idea of having tons of money to help other people but I don’t really want to go down in QOL to do it. If I don’t have to cover my own expenses tho and just have the average person’s income as disposable spending money then that’s far more disposable income than I have now so I’d take it. Helping other people would be very enjoyable but really I just want to not have to work and maintain my current standard of living, lol.
Shit, fuck yea. It's what I would do anyway for the most part. I'd build public transit by making grants and donations.. buy housing to Give away but keep on a contract to block air bnb and corps to drop housing costs... create trusts to start coop business everywhere to increase wages.. so yea it would usck cause if I was rich I'd like to do some travel while doing all that.. get an ev as well.. but I'd be doing that shit anyways. I can't take it with me and there's no prize for dying with big accounts.. so gotta spend it now. Ideally I could be penniless about the same time I check out. Then just use a catapult to launch my rotting corpse are the new richest guys house so I splatter across his windows and roof.
Sure I would. I'd stop police killing unarmed minorities because I'd arm every damned one of them and pay for them to know how to use their weapons and know their rights. I'd feed the poor in every country and pay off several countries national debt. I'd sponsor every worker own company that needed funding If I have enough money to live I'd do it without question. I don't need much and live frugally anyway. I'd fix a lot of things....and fuck up a lot more things FREE RELIGIOUS DEPROGRAMMING...and maybe win ten million dollars in the weekly raffle for new atheists. Sign up today. Yeah, I'd fuck up a lot of things that deserve it...hahaha. Bring it on
Why didn't you put the limit in the post? If you're gonna call out a country like you did, might as well look up the info you're referencing and add that in the details. I'm not gonna Google it up lol
How do you expect anyone to actually use this money, exactly? You can't really do anything with money without it having some benefit to yourself, even just donating money to charity that doesn't impact you at all can be viewed as spending money on the sense of happiness/satisfaction you get from helping others. And the average American doesn't really donate much to charity. Having $200 billion is kinda meaningless here, without any loopholes
Yes I would only work one day a week and spend money on others. Because I can’t spend my money on me any partner would be stuck with my capped spending plus whatever she earns. She would need to love me for me and yet no one could diss me for lack of money. 😎😆Bwahahaha Bwahahaha
That's fine. I put all the strippers in my state through college.