Abaddon's Weird News of the World!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Never waste monies on Lottery tickets, like gambling its just a money trap
Honestly its like a tax on the poor.

I would take the lump sum and invest it into two units, then mortage one of them to purchase three you have a reasonable income stream and your money is tied up property giving you a nice cushion in case you want to sell a property and do something with it
 
If someone offered me £1000 a week tax-free, I'd jump at the offer, even if I'm technically better off (in my late 30s, that is) taking a lump sum. I don't have expensive tastes, so I have no big purchases I wish to make.
 
It entirely depends on how comfortable and self-confident you are. You can buy a lot with 1 Million (house, small corporation, NOT investing in the stock market), but it needs you to know what you are doing. And it helps a lot if you already have some wealth on the side, freeing you up for that. What the 1000 per week on the other hand allow you is to educate yourself with not having to work on the side or draining your parents savings. And that freedom is probably worth a lot more than just the financial balance at the end. You can either go for a high-paying job or have more liberty to do something you really do. It‘s safer and requires less thinking and the flow don‘t stop after finishing your education.
Not just that, I'm not sure what stupid things I might do if I had a million dollars.
mitsho said:
On second thought, this probably would be prime advertisement for the Universal Basic Income.
Well, yes…
And where did you have in mind to do this? There are places in Canada where you actually can live comfortably (albeit not with a lot of extras) on $1000/month. But there are lots of places where that money would mean needing 2-3 roommates in a run-down apartment, and that's not even considering anything else like utilities, food, or transportation.
In my personal (admittedly rather odd) situation, a fixed income is far more immediate a necessity than large injections of capital.
 
In my personal (admittedly rather odd) situation, a fixed income is far more immediate a necessity than large injections of capital.
I'm not disputing that a fixed income is necessary, just the amount you're hypothetically talking about. Even if I traded my 2-bedroom suite for a 1-bedroom suite, rent and utilities would still be well over $1000/month.

Unless I got a roommate, of course. And that is not going to happen.
 
In this instance, given that it's not taxable, one imagines that you'd still be able to rely on your other income streams too.
 
I'm not disputing that a fixed income is necessary, just the amount you're hypothetically talking about. Even if I traded my 2-bedroom suite for a 1-bedroom suite, rent and utilities would still be well over $1000/month.
Mind you, in this part of the world $1,000 might have more purchasing power than where you are.
 
Doesn't that rely on her not spending a penny until she reaches the age of 78?

The calculation I used was to calculate the NPV (Net Present Value) with the DCF (Discounted Cash Flow) for that 1000 a week, which became at 5% interest rate1,000,000 after 60.8 years (not exactly when she reaches 78 years, but 5% was a round number).

Calculating NPV is the usual method to compare investments with different investing and return trajects over time (companies using 10-20% rates).
The basic principle is that 1000 today is of more value than 1000 next year.
So in the example of the girl, the 1,000,000 has the same value TODAY as the 3170 weeks *1,000 = 3,170,000 over those years.
 
I'm not disputing that a fixed income is necessary, just the amount you're hypothetically talking about. Even if I traded my 2-bedroom suite for a 1-bedroom suite, rent and utilities would still be well over $1000/month.

Unless I got a roommate, of course. And that is not going to happen.
You are speaking $1000/month.
She was offered $1000/week.

As for whether she chose well... probably yes, but lets remember she opted to bear the risk of devaluations.
Maybe comparing Canada and Estonia is a stretch, given our turbulent history, but in 1931, 10 000 Estonian crowns, (fully backed by gold standard) was roughly what a common worker could be expected to make in 20 years.
However, if this lump sum was converted through all subsequent "money reforms", one would be left with just 0,8 euros 80 years later, in 2011 - not quite enough for a carton of milk.
 
You are speaking $1000/month.
She was offered $1000/week.
I was talking to Takhisis, and my comment was based on this:

However, a steady income is something I've lacked forever. I could do a lot of things in Canada with $1,000 a month to start with.

So it was Takhisis who brought up $1000/month.

I could live very well on $1000/week, based on current habits (my most expensive one is books, and I've cut down on that drastically due to running out of room to put them).
 
Well, yes… the point is that $1,000 a month would be a lot of money to me. $1,000 a week would make me almost rich.
 
$1,000 a week is over $4,000 a month.

btw if it were $1,000 a month, to continue with Valka's interpretation, well, it depends. If I had the same situation in Canada as I do here (actually owning the place where I live, dingy as it may be), would make $1,000 not that small a sum.

btw since Argentina's de facto currency is the US dollar $1k a month is bare survival here as well.
 
$1000 a week is actually not far removed from the median household income in the US. Which is at $59k per year, compared to $52k for the prize. And as the prize does not have income tax deducted, it's actually higher purchasing power. So you can live on that moderately comfortably for life, so long as you're not stupid about it.
 
*nods enthusiastically*
 
I heard that on the radio this morning. He's a friend of the DJ crew. It was pretty funny hearing them tell it because they knew the guy. :lol:
 
My favourite part of the story is the fact that gourmet pepperoni is actually a thing in Nova Scotia.
 
Yes it is. And it's pretty good too.
 
TMZ
April 20, 2018

Allison Mack -- best known for playing Chloe Sullivan on "Smallville" -- has been arrested for her connection to the case involving the alleged leader of a sex cult called Nxivm.

The actress was arrested by the FBI, according to NYC law enforcement sources, and is reportedly due to appear in federal court in Brooklyn Friday. It's unclear what charges she is facing so far.

As we reported ... Mack was on the scene last month in Mexico when cops took Keith Raniere into custody in Puerto Vallarta, where he fled last year. He co-founded a purported self-help group called Nxivm ... which authorities now believe is a cult that forces women into sex slavery -- after they're branded with his and Mack's initials.

Mack is believed to be second in command to Raniere, who was extradited to the U.S. to face charges for sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit forced labor.

http://www.tmz.com/2018/04/20/former-smallville-star-allison-mack-arrested-sex-cult/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom