# Your $101M Acquisition



## Jenna (Jun 25, 2011)

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

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

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

Thank you.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 25, 2011)

Campaign to get the strupid weapon laws in this country revised along common-sense lines ... and build some 'classic' architecture JSA dojo's .

Also, lovely to see you back posting, *Jenna*.  I've been worried about you.


----------



## Jenna (Jun 25, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Campaign to get the strupid weapon laws in this country revised along common-sense lines ... and build some 'classic' architecture JSA dojo's .
> 
> Also, lovely to see you back posting, *Jenna*.  I've been worried about you.


Hello dear friend.  It is good to see you here still knocking about the old forum.

So you would use all that money to modernise our weapon laws?  That is interesting.  Can I ask how would that benefit you?

Ah but I can see the dojos set in a sanctuary of cherry blossoms? I can hear the sound of the koto.  And the slicing of ripe fruit ha.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 25, 2011)

Jenna said:


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


 

Hi, Jenna-good to have you back!

I'd use it to fund a prototype for Accelerator Transmutation of Waste.


----------



## Jenna (Jun 25, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Hi, Jenna-good to have you back!
> 
> I'd use it to fund a prototype for Accelerator Transmutation of Waste.


And once tested working, would this be a profitable piece of technology?  I think there is nothing in the 'rule' about generating profit above your $100M.  Of course that begs the question what would you then do with your profits, which I think should not be inconsiderable and come from many nuclear capable quarters.  

As clever as ever my friend.  It is good to hear from you also.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 25, 2011)

Jenna said:


> And once tested working, would this be a profitable piece of technology? I think there is nothing in the 'rule' about generating profit above your $100M. Of course that begs the question what would you then do with your profits, which I think should not be inconsiderable and come from many nuclear capable quarters.
> 
> As clever as ever my friend. It is good to hear from you also.


 
Nah-wasn't thinking about profits gaines, though they are potentially....._considerable._ 

I was thinking more of the nuclear waste disposal problem, and how I have always thought that this was an elegant potential solution. WHen I worked at LANSCE I was really hopeful that funding would come through for this as a project-there was talk of it, but it never happened. 

I'd just really like to see it happen.


----------



## Omar B (Jun 25, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I noticed last night that our Euro Lottery jackpot prize has gone over 100 million and which *I think is obscene for one person to win.*  Anyway, here is a somewhat banal and but still interesting hypothetical I was pondering...
> 
> Say you win (or otherwise acquire) $101M.  That $101M is subject to the condition that you can keep only $1M yourself.  One way or the other you must oversee the use of the remaining $100M and but it cannot be used to acquire anything further for yourself.
> 
> ...



This is where we differ.  I don't see why it is at all obscene for a person, to win or earn that kind of money.  But we all know how the Lottery winners work, they can win infinity and still be broke in 2 years.  People who didn't start the day with money (or financial knowledge) loose it just as quickly because they don't know how to manage it.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 25, 2011)

Omar B said:


> This is where we differ.  I don't see why it is at all obscene for a person, to win or earn that kind of money.  But we all know how the Lottery winners work, they can win infinity and still be broke in 2 years.  People who didn't start the day with money (or financial knowledge) loose it just as quickly because they don't know how to manage it.


True that... it lifts people out of an old "comfort-zone" and into a new one that they're wholly unfamiliar with. This is why a lot of millionaires stay millionaires because they don't spend... beyond what is necessary. 
Middle class and the poor who have a sudden windfall are all excited about getting the things that they've always wanted (ahem, excuse me NEEDED  ) and thus as Omar said... end up broke as they ever was within two years. 
Oh they may have a nice house now and new cars and new practically everything... but when the money is gone, the taxes on the house in that nice neighborhood that they've admired from afar is going to force them to sell the house (eventually) and the cars (which would go first) and almost everything else... and they're right back where they started from with the exception of a few nice things that are *ahem* difficult to sell, like that oversized black crushed velvet Elvis painting they bought for their wall. 
Some have lost their new-found fortunes to unscrupulous accountants ("trust me, I'm a professional" ) hired to help them "manage their money". Fraudulent investment brokers likewise can take it all or most of it away.  
Many also dole out X-amounts to family and friends and charities that they've always wanted but couldn't give to. $10,000.00 don't seem like much to one who has 1000 times that amount but it adds up. Oh boy does it ever add up and that right quick, sad to say. 
Still a few do manage to be wise enough to squirrel away enough to carry them through the next 10-15 years and longer if they husband the money. A person is laid out flat on their back spread eagle and their throat exposed when they win an "obscene amount" ... it's the smart ones (sheep-dogs and wolves) who know to turn over on to their feet and zealously guard what they have. It may piss a lot of people off... "oh now you're rich, you won't share!?!?!" 

Actually Jenna, one million is probably enough to get a lot of bills paid, the house/car(s) paid off and a nice home entertainment center and a great vacation with a little left over to last the rest of the year. Basically a million bucks doesn't get as far as it used to. So how about up-ing the ante to say about $5 million? 

But in answering the question. I've often pondered this (especially as a lottery player)... 
Donate 1 million each to the following, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, St. Jude's Hospital, NRA, 100 ($100 K) Scholarships to Gallaudet University (my alma mater -- and it's a University for the Deaf, and it's for students who have the grades out of H.S. but not the money), American Red Cross, 100 ($100 K) donations to various homeless organizations across the country, but not to churches who help the homeless because when I see those big fancy beautiful church buildings taking up a whole or 1/2 city block (including parking), I think about how much money it's all worth and how many mouths it could've fed instead.  Make-A-Wish foundation (heavily supervised, heard about it but know it's still a legit organization just have to watch them to make sure $$ spent is ON the child not the organization itself). Hmm... up to 25 million so far... Oh definitely $100K to MT (because I love you guys). 

I also have this idea of setting aside 10 Million in cash broken up into bundles of $5,000 to $10,000 and carry a few around with me at a time as I travel. Hundreds of times I meet people who have "a story"... strangers just like me. Some just barely living on the knife's edge of poverty and just need that one break to get going again. Example: Two weeks ago I drove past a man on a freeway off ramp holding a card-board sign... saying "Lost job, mortgage payment due, family hungry. Please Help!" Part of me wanted to pull over and talk with the guy to simply hear his story to find out how it began that he ended up on a street corner holding a sign. Depending upon his circumstances then I'd give him a packet of either the $5K or $10K and then disappear without even giving him my name. 
Other times I meet people who have jobs but are struggling mightly to simply catch up with everything... they're making their payments and all that but too much month at the end of the paycheck syndrome... which A LOT of people are dealing with. They would also get one or the other packet. Basically providing what was asked for when someone cries out "gimme a break!" 
What they DO with that money is entirely up to them. But chances are they'll do what they need to do. I'll be that optimistic about people instead of cynical.

There are at least a dozen or so other smaller (non-profit) organizations that could use a 100K or so. They just don't have the funds (or the need) that allow them to nationally advertise but they're worthy... at least IMO. 

As far as what's left... I thought about doing a mini-make-over for an entire neighborhood block of homes that are just hovering over the poverty line. You know the ones, where everyone does have a job (of sorts) and isn't on welfare but are living in homes that are at least 35-40 years old and are in need of some repair or another, i.e. new roof, siding, paint, doors, windows, and often times landscaping. Things that the owners of the homes neither have time or money for. At least people can feel good about the area where they're living. 

Beyond that... I dunno :idunno: wanna change the world... do it locally and let the rest take care of itself. 
Bill Gates and others are donating millions to impoverished countries overseas... why should I throw in my two bits when it's those impoverished right here at home that could use some non-government help.

Look around your area/city/town/village/ where you live... how could you help?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 25, 2011)

Jenna said:


> So you would use all that money to modernise our weapon laws?  That is interesting.  Can I ask how would that benefit you?



In direct terms of benefit to me, it would be somewhat less fraught when it comes to either transporting my swords or buying new ones.  In the more important indirect terms, the legislation that has been enacted when it comes to swords is a stranglehold on the 'supply' of future practitioners of the JSA in Britain.  Every swordsman I know started out with those god-awful cheap 'imitations' that are now outlawed.  Without that impetous, very few of us would have progressed on to searching out legitimate instruction and gone on to purchase the 'real thing' to practise with.

The same applies to guns too.  I know *Tez* does not wholeheartedly agree on this but, with the greatest of respect to her, she is in a somewhat priviledged position due to her job.  The rest of us have chances that range from slim to none of ever being able to shoot again - most particularly with side-arms.  That latter is of no great loss to me, personally, as I could never hit the side of a barn with a pistol anyhow but the principle is important.


----------



## Jenna (Jun 26, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Nah-wasn't thinking about profits gaines, though they are potentially.....considerable.
> 
> I was thinking more of the nuclear waste disposal problem, and how I have always thought that this was an elegant potential solution. WHen I worked at LANSCE I was really hopeful that funding would come through for this as a project-there was talk of it, but it never happened.
> 
> I'd just really like to see it happen.


I do not know anything about this process and but would the cost of realisation be likely to be billions rather than millions? Has it not happened already because we do not have the capability or because it is not economically viable or it is a problem too easily "hidden" where it is out of sight and mind?  And but yet I should think you would be a wanted man (in both a very good way and a very ominous way too) were you to bring this technology online even in some private philanthropical venture.  




Omar B said:


> This is where we differ. I don't see why it is at all obscene for a person, to win or earn that kind of money. But we all know how the Lottery winners work, they can win infinity and still be broke in 2 years. People who didn't start the day with money (or financial knowledge) loose it just as quickly because they don't know how to manage it.


Yes as you say, a fool and his money are easily parted.  I think the obscenity lies in the inequality.  Giving one person $100M to squander on a fleet of Lamborghinis or a flock of butlers and maids while this would sustain a children's hospital or feed a poverty-stricken township for a year or generate job creation in our worse depressed urban or rural areas is in my mind perverse. Yes it is the nature of the game, and who knows, maybe one day from it, a true altruist will emerge.




MA-Caver said:


> Actually Jenna, one million is probably enough to get a lot of bills paid, the house/car(s) paid off and a nice home entertainment center and a great vacation with a little left over to last the rest of the year. Basically a million bucks doesn't get as far as it used to. So how about up-ing the ante to say about $5 million?


Well if you feel you need $5M then you go ahead.  $4M less for those whom you would otherwise have chosen to assist I guess. They will manage, yes?

I like how you divvy out the loot.  I agree too that a close eye would need to be kept on the benefactors (as we are all naturally greedy) and I like you have heard stories of fraud and misuse of monetary donations.  I like too your "secret millionaire" idea though it might be seen as quite a self-gratifying endeavour no?  Your idea brings something else to light too in that with such monetary power, we depend upon the integrity of the distributor of that money to do "good" with it. And what is one person's good is another's not-good. In extreme cases I guess there's always James Bond to subdue the evil millionaires ha.



Sukerkin said:


> In direct terms of benefit to me, it would be somewhat less fraught when it comes to either transporting my swords or buying new ones. In the more important indirect terms, the legislation that has been enacted when it comes to swords is a stranglehold on the 'supply' of future practitioners of the JSA in Britain. Every swordsman I know started out with those god-awful cheap 'imitations' that are now outlawed. Without that impetous, very few of us would have progressed on to searching out legitimate instruction and gone on to purchase the 'real thing' to practise with.
> 
> The same applies to guns too. I know Tez does not wholeheartedly agree on this but, with the greatest of respect to her, she is in a somewhat priviledged position due to her job. The rest of us have chances that range from slim to none of ever being able to shoot again - most particularly with side-arms. That latter is of no great loss to me, personally, as I could never hit the side of a barn with a pistol anyhow but the principle is important.


What would you have in mind Suke?  Some kind of carry licence?  As you say, it already applies to military.  Would you use your $100M to bribe... sorry lobby Home Office ministers?  OR use half of it for that and the other half to pay for the extra policing needed?


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 26, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Well if you feel you need $5M then you go ahead.  $4M less for those whom you would otherwise have chosen to assist I guess. They will manage, yes?
> 
> I like how you divvy out the loot.  I agree too that a close eye would need to be kept on the benefactors (as we are all naturally greedy) and I like you have heard stories of fraud and misuse of monetary donations.  I like too your "secret millionaire" idea though it might be seen as quite a self-gratifying endeavour no?



I'd do it for my own reasons and the hell with anyone else's speculations on my motives. What have THEY done lately?


----------



## Jenna (Jun 26, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> I'd do it for my own reasons and the hell with anyone else's speculations on my motives. What have THEY done lately?


Exactly so.  Your donations by any standard are highly laudable.  

Can I ask, would you be a secretive philanthropist do you think?  Or would you be a publicity-drawing Bill Gates-style philanthropist, hoping your benevolence would encourage the same in others maybe?  Thank you.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 26, 2011)

Jenna said:


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


 
Two Chicks at the same time.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 26, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Exactly so.  Your donations by any standard are highly laudable.
> 
> Can I ask, would you be a secretive philanthropist do you think?  Or would you be a publicity-drawing Bill Gates-style philanthropist, hoping your benevolence would encourage the same in others maybe?  Thank you.



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

Besides who needs attention... I don't. 


uhh... :wavey: over here... I said I don't need attention... hello?? 

( :uhyeah: )


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 26, 2011)

Orange Tic tacs, Chewing gum and Chiclets....Lots of orange tic tacs, chewing gum and chiclets &#8230; or possibly corner the Pez market


----------



## Omar B (Jun 26, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Yes as you say, a fool and his money are easily parted.  I think the obscenity lies in the inequality.  Giving one person $100M to squander on a fleet of Lamborghinis or a flock of butlers and maids while this would sustain a children's hospital or feed a poverty-stricken township for a year or generate job creation in our worse depressed urban or rural areas is in my mind perverse. Yes it is the nature of the game, and who knows, maybe one day from it, a true altruist will emerge.



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

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

Whatever the value involved, it is your lack of it that gives you a claim upon those who dont lack it. It is your need that gives you a claim to rewards. If you are able to satisfy your need, your ability annuls your right to satisfy it. But a need you are unable to satisfy gives you first right to the lives of mankind. - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged_


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 26, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


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


Better buy a warehouse and a security guard.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 26, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I do not know anything about this process and but would the cost of realisation be likely to be billions rather than millions? Has it not happened already because we do not have the capability or because it is not economically viable or it is a problem too easily "hidden" where it is out of sight and mind? And but yet I should think you would be a wanted man (in both a very good way and a very ominous way too) were you to bring this technology online even in some private philanthropical venture.


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

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







Jenna said:


> . I think the obscenity lies in the inequality. Giving one person $100M to squander on a fleet of Lamborghinis or a flock of butlers and maids while this would sustain a children's hospital or feed a poverty-stricken township for a year or generate job creation in our worse depressed urban or rural areas is in my mind perverse. Yes it is the nature of the game, and who knows, maybe one day from it, a true altruist will emerge.


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

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


----------



## Brian King (Jun 26, 2011)

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

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

Welcome back Jenna, you have been missed.

Warmest Regards
Brian King


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 27, 2011)

elder999 said:


> It's the nature of things-though, I have to add that if you start squandering $100M on Lambos, you're gonna go broke pretty quick. On the other hand, in spite of all the horror stories, there are a lot of people who have won large amounts of money in lotteries and just gone on living their lives at a somewhat higher standard, and without ever having to worry about money again. My point of view-handed down from my father, and his father and grandfather before him-is that there's really only so much money you can spend for yourself on *stuff*-everything else is just showing off, or being silly, or something. At a certain point, the realization comes for most that _money is power_, and one should really use that money to do good _for others_.
> 
> But that's my point of view, and everyone else can do as they like-no skin off my back.


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

:idunno: I know, I'm weird.


----------



## Jenna (Jun 27, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> Two Chicks at the same time.


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





MA-Caver said:


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


My sentiments would mirror your own.




MA-Caver said:


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


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





Xue Sheng said:


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


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



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




Omar B said:


> An individual spending his money on cars or other luxuries does so because he wishes to and at his expense. These needy kids, hospitals that seem to be permanently on fire, etc, didn't have the money in the first place and have no claim to it at all. Another person's need does not become my burden. If the world worked liek that we would all be forced to pay alms to those a step or two lower on the financial ladder, because they want that money.
> 
> Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you? If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, why is it an immoral indulgence in your stomach, but a moral goal for you to achieve in the stomach of others? Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it? Does virtue consist of serving vice? Is the moral purpose of those who are good, self-immolation for the sake of those who are evil?
> 
> Whatever the value involved, it is your lack of it that gives you a claim upon those who dont lack it. It is your need that gives you a claim to rewards. If you are able to satisfy your need, your ability annuls your right to satisfy it. But a need you are unable to satisfy gives you first right to the lives of mankind. - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged



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





elder999 said:


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


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




elder999 said:


> It's the nature of things-though, I have to add that if you start squandering $100M on Lambos, you're gonna go broke pretty quick. On the other hand, in spite of all the horror stories, there are a lot of people who have won large amounts of money in lotteries and just gone on living their lives at a somewhat higher standard, and without ever having to worry about money again. My point of view-handed down from my father, and his father and grandfather before him-is that there's really only so much money you can spend for yourself on stuff-everything else is just showing off, or being silly, or something. At a certain point, the realization comes for most that money is power, and one should really use that money to do good for others.
> 
> But that's my point of view, and everyone else can do as they like-no skin off my back.


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





Brian said:


> I was a very small part of local program a few years ago. Money was raised (like $20,000) not very much and was then given away. People wrote in what they would do with the money (it was given out in $1,000.00 'grants'). The idea was that the money would benefit others and they would benefit by helping others. Many video taped their helping of others and the reactions of those receiving the gifts. For some it was dropping off bags of groceries at poorer neighbors homes, for others it was small home/auto repairs. Many of the videos were very touching and what is interesting is that they provided the momentum for others to also get into the act of giving and helping. Just as fear and hate are contagious so is hope.
> 
> 
> 
> Can't imagine doing this with the kind of money talked about in the thread but could see everyone in the thread give some thought and a put a couple of hundred dollars to a neighbors need. The high of giving and helping is just like the endorphin high runners get, except it can last for weeks or months and by reliving-recounting the giving the high returns. It does not take much. In Tim Sanders book 'Today We Are Rich' he tells of a day when his grandmother who he was living with gave a traveling man some work. The man worked hard all day and Tim watched and talked to the man learning some lessons (read the book it is worth it) at the end of the day his grandmother paid the man the money due, gave a bit extra and to Tim's surprise a pair of her deceased husbands shoes. As the man walked off with his new shoes his grandmother told Tim, "today we are rich". The lesson being no matter how 'poor' you are you can always find somebody a little worse off and give them a hand. In doing so you enrich your own life. I agree with the lesson.


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


----------



## Omar B (Jun 27, 2011)

Jenna said:


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




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

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

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

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


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 27, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> Better buy a warehouse and a security guard.


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



Jenna said:


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


 
Yup...see above


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 27, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


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


Sneaky... :asian: 



Omar B said:


> Wait,_ "It is of course your right to accumulate wealth and use it as you  see fit and yet I do not think it should be at the expense of others."_  You present two ideas in one sentence that are diametrically opposite.  It is my goal to make as much money as I can.  No, my making money is not at the expence of anyone.  My paycheck does not mean someone else goes hungry, I'm not a pirate, it's not plunder, the money in my pocket is not seized from anyone else and therefore my earnings are not at the expense of anyone.  It's my due reward for what I do.
> 
> Your point as to why you think that sum is immoral is still unmade.  That money did not belong to the needy before and still does not belong to them now.  If I wish to give some of it away it's my choice, not a moral objective just because somebody else needs it.  There are guys out there not getting laid, isn't it moral for chicks to go out, find these guys and bang them all?  They have something in abundance these guys want it's their duty to share right, it's immoral to have something someone else wants and not give it up simply because it's yours and you choose not to.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## Omar B (Jun 27, 2011)

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


----------



## granfire (Jun 27, 2011)

Omar B said:


> An individual spending his money on cars or other luxuries does so because he wishes to and at his expense.  These needy kids, hospitals that seem to be permanently on fire, etc, didn't have the money in the first place and have no claim to it at all.  Another person's need does not become my burden.  If the world worked liek that we would all be forced to pay alms to those a step or two lower on the financial ladder, because they want that money.
> 
> _Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own?  If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you?  If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, why is it an immoral indulgence in your stomach, but a moral goal for you to achieve in the stomach of others?  Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so?  Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away?  And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it?  If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it?  Does virtue consist of serving vice?  Is the moral purpose of those who are good, self-immolation for the sake of those who are evil?
> 
> Whatever the value involved, it is your lack of it that gives you a claim upon those who dont lack it. It is your need that gives you a claim to rewards. If you are able to satisfy your need, your ability annuls your right to satisfy it. But a need you are unable to satisfy gives you first right to the lives of mankind. - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged_



LOL, I think she is a poor example tho.

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

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

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


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 27, 2011)

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


----------



## Jenna (Jun 27, 2011)

Omar B said:


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


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

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




MA-Caver said:


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


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

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

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


----------



## Steve (Jun 27, 2011)

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


----------



## Jenna (Jun 27, 2011)

granfire said:


> LOL, I think she is a poor example tho.
> 
> I pondered a bit.
> Then I pondered a bit more.
> ...


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



Flying Crane said:


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


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




stevebjj said:


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


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


----------



## elder999 (Jun 27, 2011)

Omar B said:


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


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

I know that's the case with me.




Omar B said:


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


 
THe world is like that. Another person's *need* is my burden. I am my brothers' keeper, to the extent that I am able to _without undercutting my own needs._

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


Omar B said:


> _Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own_?


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



Omar B said:


> _ If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you? If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, why is it an immoral indulgence in your stomach, but a moral goal for you to achieve in the stomach of others? Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it? Does virtue consist of serving vice? Is the moral purpose of those who are good, self-immolation for the sake of those who are evil?_
> 
> _Whatever the value involved, it is your lack of it that gives you a claim upon those who don&#8217;t lack it. It is your need that gives you a claim to rewards. If you are able to satisfy your need, your ability annuls your right to satisfy it. But a need you are unable to satisfy gives you first right to the lives of mankind. - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged_


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

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

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


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 27, 2011)

Jenna said:


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


 

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

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


----------



## Omar B (Jun 27, 2011)

Jenna said:


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



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

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


----------



## granfire (Jun 27, 2011)

Jenna said:


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




Young adult lit. (and Manga) ^_^

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

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


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 27, 2011)

Jenna said:


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



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


----------



## David43515 (Jun 27, 2011)

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


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 28, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I noticed last night that our Euro Lottery jackpot prize has gone over 100 million and which I think is obscene for one person to win. Anyway, here is a somewhat banal and but still interesting hypothetical I was pondering...
> 
> Say you win (or otherwise acquire) $101M. That $101M is subject to the condition that you can keep only $1M yourself. One way or the other you must oversee the use of the remaining $100M and but it cannot be used to acquire anything further for yourself.
> 
> ...


 

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 28, 2011)

Rich Parsons said:


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



My new best friend.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 28, 2011)

Rich Parsons said:


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


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


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 28, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I noticed last night that our Euro Lottery jackpot prize has gone over 100 million and which I think is obscene for one person to win. Anyway, here is a somewhat banal and but still interesting hypothetical I was pondering...
> 
> Say you win (or otherwise acquire) $101M. That $101M is subject to the condition that you can keep only $1M yourself. One way or the other you must oversee the use of the remaining $100M and but it cannot be used to acquire anything further for yourself.
> 
> ...


 
OK a serious post on the topic.

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

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


----------



## granfire (Jun 28, 2011)

I tend not to be too charitable of individuals...too many people like to wallow in their misery...(not to say I would not know a couple who would deeply appreciate a shot in the arm)

But in all seriousness...you win 100 million, you will need every penny to fend off all those friends and family that you never knew you had....


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 28, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> OK a serious post on the topic.
> 
> Jenna ironically the day you posted this I was driving past a daycare center that appears to need a roof and I was actually thinking if I had Trump money (Donald Trump) I would go buy them a new roof. There are also multiple groups that help and protect children I would give money too as well. I would also make donations to school systems in my area.
> 
> I am pretty sure I could go through $100 million fairly easily... However in my state it would not be $101millioin, it would be taxed because lord knows the government needs their share



Well after the government takes their *ahem* share (and just WHAT entitles them to anyway?... oh right because I live here  ). What you were talking about... the daycare center needing a new roof, probably could use a few other things as well... it's what I was talking about.  Sure it's nice to give to the big organizations (Cancer, Heart, Make-A-Wish, et al) but like I said earlier... locally who could use a helping hand?  Real question is what are their real needs? You're driving through a neighborhood and see a house in sad disrepair and know there's a family living in there anyway and think to yourself... yeah $5,000 should help them get that house back in order... not perfect but decent looking... but what does that family REALLY need? Payment on late medical bills? Food? Mortgage late? Kids need new shoes/clothes? ... THAT I think is what people would appreciate.  Extreme home make-over is a great show no doubt. They not only provide a new house but also new interiors for the house and all the bells and whistles to go with it. Sad thing is lately they've been finding the folks that have gotten the amazing new house have either sold it or NEED to sell it because Dad/Mom still needs a new job or their bills still haven't been paid.  What they need to do is make a show called Extreme LIFE make over. Bills paid, mortgage paid off or at least caught up, job prospects, fridge and pantries full of food ... things that really matter I reckon.  Still having helped out in anyway possible (even if it's a couple hundred bucks) says a lot about you as a person.   





granfire said:


> I tend not to be too charitable of individuals...too many people like to wallow in their misery...(not to say I would not know a couple who would deeply appreciate a shot in the arm)
> 
> But in all seriousness...you win 100 million, you will need every penny to fend off all those friends and family that you never knew you had....


That's why it's better to disappear off the face of the earth (and net) for a couple of months until the furor has died down and the door has been replaced (from all the &quot;pounding&quot; to get in).


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 28, 2011)

Hmm... how lucky can you get?


----------



## granfire (Jun 28, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> Hmm... how lucky can you get?



:lfao:

I am sure _she _is the love of _his _life....the other way around? Weeeeellllllll.......



But I changed my mind...
I think I would spend my money to bring the Teletubbies, Tots TV and Theodor Tugboat back to TV!


----------



## Jenna (Jun 29, 2011)

granfire said:


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



I think these ideas are wonderful ideas my friend!  Dealing with those you know on a (reasonably) personal basis is a sound safeguard against false "friends" and faux needy who, as you say, would come tripping over theirselves to fawn.  Literature and reading, regardless of the genre, is imperative I agree and music brings its own joy and enlightenment, I like your thinking very much granfire   Tots TV? Oh goodness did you get that over there?  I think me and the boy tolerated that show while waiting for like Bob the Builder or Thomas the Tank Engine ha.  I should think you all speak French or Spanish very well now 





Flying Crane said:


> My list of charities is made up of some small organizations that are doing important work, but largely fly under the radar. They struggle and fight battles that nobody else sees as important, but I support what they do. I'll write a check tho, and not hand over the cash.
> 
> As far as the self-gratification issue: I dunno, but I see your point and I see the potential. the way I see it, any lotto winnings are unexpected funds, a pure bonus, and when the numbers are that big there's no reason to be stingy with those who are important in one's life. You're on the list, kid.


I think many smaller organisations are no less worthy of assistance and do work at a much more grass roots level so I am with you there absolutely.  

Can I ask do you think Michael that martial arts in any format at all would be a worthy recipient of your money?





Cryozombie said:


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


Ah now well I should like to know what you would do with $100M that was earmarked for those other than yourself?





David43515 said:


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


Wow this is an insightful plan.  As not only will these that you have chosen to patronise learn to "fish" and but they in turn can train their own proteges thereby elongating the life of your donation.  I like that plan a lot.  Business start-ups will in turn reinvigorate the local area in which they are based.  Excellent! 





Rich Parsons said:


> I would put the 1 million Euro ($1,435,800USD) into bonds so I would not loose the base and live off the annual interest alone.
> 
> The rest of the 100 Million Euro would be fun to spend.
> I have ideas from time to time. One is to buy enough into the company I work for now so I could make some management changes and let certain people go.
> ...


I like your prudence with your own share Rich.  I think that is wise indeed.  And yes 100 million dollars or Euro (we still use pounds sterling here thankfully!) would be fun to dish out for sure!  Spending this in areas that you are already involved will I think ensure your donation is best employed and not squandered.  Issues that have personally affected you are sure to be high on the list.  As trite a hypothetical as my question is, I am pleased you have thought about it.  I think too often we see ourselves as being near the bottom of the wealth ladder rather than (on a global scale) almost at the top.  Thank you! 

Rich, would it be worth spending any of this money on martial arts type schemes or projects?  





Xue Sheng said:


> OK a serious post on the topic.
> 
> Jenna ironically the day you posted this I was driving past a daycare center that appears to need a roof and I was actually thinking if I had Trump money (Donald Trump) I would go buy them a new roof. There are also multiple groups that help and protect children I would give money too as well. I would also make donations to school systems in my area.
> 
> I am pretty sure I could go through $100 million fairly easily... However in my state it would not be $101millioin, it would be taxed because lord knows the government needs their share


This is fantastic XS, it is encouraging that you had cause to think on this already.  Facilitation of child protection is admirable.  AS is donating to schools and but I wonder (paradoxically) are schools the best potential educators of our children?  I think that is one for another day though   I would hope though that your $101M charitable donations might be written off as tax deductible no?  As for your own $1M well you can hire some fancy tax lawyer to avoid any fiscal penalties 

Can I ask you would you not spend any of this money on martial arts projects at all?







MA-Caver said:


> Well after the government takes their *ahem* share (and just WHAT entitles them to anyway?... oh right because I live here ). What you were talking about... the daycare center needing a new roof, probably could use a few other things as well... it's what I was talking about. Sure it's nice to give to the big organizations (Cancer, Heart, Make-A-Wish, et al) but like I said earlier... locally who could use a helping hand? Real question is what are their real needs? You're driving through a neighborhood and see a house in sad disrepair and know there's a family living in there anyway and think to yourself... yeah $5,000 should help them get that house back in order... not perfect but decent looking... but what does that family REALLY need? Payment on late medical bills? Food? Mortgage late? Kids need new shoes/clothes? ... THAT I think is what people would appreciate. Extreme home make-over is a great show no doubt. They not only provide a new house but also new interiors for the house and all the bells and whistles to go with it. Sad thing is lately they've been finding the folks that have gotten the amazing new house have either sold it or NEED to sell it because Dad/Mom still needs a new job or their bills still haven't been paid. What they need to do is make a show called Extreme LIFE make over. Bills paid, mortgage paid off or at least caught up, job prospects, fridge and pantries full of food ... things that really matter I reckon. Still having helped out in anyway possible (even if it's a couple hundred bucks) says a lot about you as a person.
> That's why it's better to disappear off the face of the earth (and net) for a couple of months until the furor has died down and the door has been replaced (from all the &quot;pounding&quot; to get in).


I think you are absolutely right my friend, local is the key word here maybe.  Your donation can have more of an impact on your area and those that inhabit it and perhaps you can safeguard its use a little more.  I think real needs and like-to-haves are difficult to differentiate if you do not know individuals involved and you must therefore defer to local organisations that *do* know individuals or go yourself into your community places and meet people there   I think there is a sliding scale and what is genuine survival need for one individual or family might be table scraps to another.  Still, the decision will be yours and yours alone  Spend wisely


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 29, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Can I ask do you think Michael that martial arts in any format at all would be a worthy recipient of your money?


 
of course.  My list of friends includes my teachers and classmates and friends I've met thru training, and an influx of finances can give them more freedom to train/teach/whatever they wish to do.


----------



## granfire (Jun 29, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I think these ideas are wonderful ideas my friend!  Dealing with those you know on a (reasonably) personal basis is a sound safeguard against false "friends" and faux needy who, as you say, would come tripping over theirselves to fawn.  Literature and reading, regardless of the genre, is imperative I agree and music brings its own joy and enlightenment, I like your thinking very much granfire   Tots TV? Oh goodness did you get that over there?  I think me and the boy tolerated that show while waiting for like Bob the Builder or Thomas the Tank Engine ha.  I should think you all speak French or Spanish very well now



LOL, actually my French is only marginally better than my Spanish (which is non exist)

But I adore the Tots!

I would love to find out how having schulwerk in the lower end schools would impact test scores!


----------



## Jenna (Jun 30, 2011)

granfire said:


> LOL, actually my French is only marginally better than my Spanish (which is non exist)
> 
> But I adore the Tots!
> 
> I would love to find out how having schulwerk in the lower end schools would impact test scores!



I think the value of music to young learners is gaining some momentum.  Yes, it would be interesting to see how these programmes would boost learning, I think we underestimate the link between music and mathematics especially.

Ah I would not begrudge you and yours the Tots then   I could never get beyond those squeaky voices and squishy faces, though remembering that I grew up with the Muppets that does seem a bit contradictory ha  Take care, Jenna x




Flying Crane said:


> of course. My list of friends includes my teachers and classmates and friends I've met thru training, and an influx of finances can give them more freedom to train/teach/whatever they wish to do.


Would you ever consider setting up any kind of martial arts project with this money?  Is it possible that martial arts can have a positive effect on the community?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 2, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I like your prudence with your own share Rich. I think that is wise indeed. And yes 100 million dollars or Euro (we still use pounds sterling here thankfully!) would be fun to dish out for sure! Spending this in areas that you are already involved will I think ensure your donation is best employed and not squandered. Issues that have personally affected you are sure to be high on the list. As trite a hypothetical as my question is, I am pleased you have thought about it. I think too often we see ourselves as being near the bottom of the wealth ladder rather than (on a global scale) almost at the top. Thank you!


 
Yes I have thought about it do what I can to help causes I like and care about as well as people I know. Thank you for your kind words. 

As to being on top, I know that more than others. What I make for me living humbling, versus some friends who make less and support more people and even struggling from time to time. A loan of cash to get s major item fixed and giving them time to repay without interest and or borrowing a vehicle or selling them a vehicle for real low cost to them or no cost so they can get through a rough period and get back to doing mroe for themselves. I expect nothing in return. Once again thank you for your kind words. 




Jenna said:


> Rich, would it be worth spending any of this money on martial arts type schemes or projects?


 
It could. It would be a large training hall where people I know out of work could come and make some money for the meet and greet and answering the phone and covering a class or two. But it would also fall under helping friends.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 2, 2011)

Rich Parsons said:


> Yes I have thought about it do what I can to help causes I like and care about as well as people I know. Thank you for your kind words.
> 
> As to being on top, I know that more than others. What I make for me living humbling, versus some friends who make less and support more people and even struggling from time to time. A loan of cash to get s major item fixed and giving them time to repay without interest and or borrowing a vehicle or selling them a vehicle for real low cost to them or no cost so they can get through a rough period and get back to doing mroe for themselves. I expect nothing in return. Once again thank you for your kind words.
> 
> ...


Rich, your magnanimous viewpoint and your sense of humanity over greed is encouraging as always. You are right, his money would go far in helping friends and entire communities.  You could change a great deal with an amount like this - I am just checking and this lottery has not yet been won. The jackpot for Tuesday is now £154M (US$245.5M).  And this is why I am asking the question because there are in my mind too few people as yourself and others who have commented who would keep only a little of that money and utilise their time and the rest of that money to seeking worthy benefactors.  I think it is an obscene amount to be entrusted to one individual who is as likely to accumulate a hangar full of private jets and exotic motor cars as they are to invest in something immediate that could save members of their own community for years and possibly generations to come. 

Specifically regarding the martial arts, I would set up here a training hall where folks from around the area could come and train for free with myself and with other associates I know that train other arts in the borough.  This is something I try to encourage anyway and but I hope that by diverting their energies into hard training they can find a greater attraction than they do in gang participation which is something of a problem around these streets. I think martial arts can have a very positive set of benefits in areas like mine and which I think are common around the world. Thank you as ever for your input.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 3, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Rich, your magnanimous viewpoint and your sense of humanity over greed is encouraging as always. You are right, his money would go far in helping friends and entire communities. You could change a great deal with an amount like this - I am just checking and this lottery has not yet been won. The jackpot for Tuesday is now £154M (US$245.5M). And this is why I am asking the question because there are in my mind too few people as yourself and others who have commented who would keep only a little of that money and utilise their time and the rest of that money to seeking worthy benefactors. I think it is an obscene amount to be entrusted to one individual who is as likely to accumulate a hangar full of private jets and exotic motor cars as they are to invest in something immediate that could save members of their own community for years and possibly generations to come.
> 
> Specifically regarding the martial arts, I would set up here a training hall where folks from around the area could come and train for free with myself and with other associates I know that train other arts in the borough. This is something I try to encourage anyway and but I hope that by diverting their energies into hard training they can find a greater attraction than they do in gang participation which is something of a problem around these streets. I think martial arts can have a very positive set of benefits in areas like mine and which I think are common around the world. Thank you as ever for your input.




Jenna,

To be honest I most likely would keep more. Seting aside 2 to 3 million or even 4 million in bonds and such would make for living of the interest with no work real easy. 

I also would set aside stuff for education funds for niece's and nephew's. But that could be considered for me as it is family. 

I also would do as I stated with the training hall, but once again if I own it it is for me.

All of these are not too bad, but did not fit into your initial rules.  I tried to play within them. Yes I know I am greedy, but the plans would set me up for fail safes and bad markets and bad times.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 10, 2011)

What a million dollar home is like... well add a couple hundred thousand here and there. 

http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/112748/million-dollar-homes-across-america-cnbc

Oh and nice places to retire to... once you get that acquisition of course. 
http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement...o-retire-abroad-kiplinger?mod=retire-planning


----------



## Jenna (Jul 10, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> What a million dollar home is like... well add a couple hundred thousand here and there.
> 
> http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/112748/million-dollar-homes-across-america-cnbc
> 
> ...


How the other half live indeed!  There is something amiss when the number of millionaire properties sold has increased this year (here in London). Wow, what depression.  The Euromillions lottery here that prompted me to post has once again rolled over to £166M (US$266M).  Scary.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 10, 2011)

Jenna said:


> How the other half live indeed!  There is something amiss when the number of millionaire properties sold has increased this year (here in London). Wow, what depression.  The Euromillions lottery here that prompted me to post has once again rolled over to £166M (US$266M).  Scary.


  Heh... where can I buy a ticket? :uhyeah:


----------



## Buka (Jul 10, 2011)

I'd pretty much do what I do now. I'd just have a nicer car and really nice shoes.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 11, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> Heh... where can I buy a ticket? :uhyeah:


Do not worry, I am always keen to share


----------



## Jenna (Jul 11, 2011)

Buka said:


> I'd pretty much do what I do now. I'd just have a nicer car and really nice shoes.


Yes, if you were able to keep $1M surely, too many shoes is not a thing we can ever have!  and but what if you were charged with distributing _the other_ $100M?  Can I ask what would you do then?


----------



## crushing (Jul 11, 2011)

Omar B said:


> This is where we differ. I don't see why it is at all obscene for a person, to win or earn that kind of money. But we all know how the Lottery winners work, they can win infinity and still be broke in 2 years. People who didn't start the day with money (or financial knowledge) loose it just as quickly because they don't know how to manage it.



I have an uncle that won $1,000 a week for life in a Michigan Sate lottery.  He began living beyond that and ended up selling it for a lump sum at what I'm sure was a tiny fraction of the long term value.  Now he has nothing again.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 11, 2011)

crushing said:


> I have an uncle that won $1,000 a week for life in a Michigan Sate lottery.  He began living beyond that and ended up selling it for a lump sum at what I'm sure was a tiny fraction of the long term value.  Now he has nothing again.


I wonder do you think he would have been better served by not winning that prize at all?


----------



## crushing (Jul 11, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I wonder do you think he would have been better served by not winning that prize at all?



I think he probably had a hell of a good time while it lasted.


----------

