Yes same here. Too much of something is not good. Whether it's money or family!!! LOL

This thread is amazing me! I just can't understand how $50,000 can't be enough to live on for the rest of your lives. Everyone complains about not having enough time to do the things they want to do and this would be a great way to have the time. No one says that not working means having to spend 24/7 with your family - volunteer, give of yourself and time. Just amazing to me how more important money is to so many!

Depends on where I live. If I were back in texas, maybe. Here (arizona) it just wouldn't cut it.

__________________
You must be the change you want to see in the world ~ Gandhi

It is all highly dependent on where you live. Where I live that is not enough to live well. I would be bored to death quite frankly, and my spouse and I would probably end up driving each other nuts with that kind of together time. I'm WAY too independent to want to be around anyone 24/7.

I was surprised at how many people said "no" too for the same reasons. If I had a guaranteed income, I'd still work just as much but as a volunteer for the causes that are important to me. And that's $50,000 after taxes with no need to save for retirement. I'm glad I'm not in one of those areas that wouldn't cut it. I'd have to move.

__________________

Absolutely! Thats more than we make now.

Around here, $50,000 for the entire household doesn't get you very far. Most couples I know make more than that. I'm sure if I lived elsewhere I could stretch $50,000 quite a bit farther, but around here it's not much. Maybe it's because we're a bit older - dh will be 40 this year. If you would have asked me the same question in my 20s my answer may have been different. Sometimes when you're younger and struggling it's hard to imagine ever breaking out of that trap.

Plus, what if you really love your job, and over time as you gain experience and knowledge there is potential to make quite a bit more than that if you stick with your career? I think you'd be less apt to "settle" for a lump sum like that. Just thinking of my dh - he loves his job. He would probably do it even if he didn't get paid for it. That said, I'm glad he does get paid and that over time the financial rewards reflect the time and energy he's invested in his career. If he never saw in increase in pay, I think a small part of that equation would be missing. Would he be as motivated? I don't know.

There's inflation too. I'm assuming that for the purpose of this question the $50,000 would be adjusted for inflation, but if it weren't I'd be scared to see how much (or how little) $50,000 would actually go in 30 or 40 years (assuming I'm still around then).

This is just my $.02.

__________________
Read my Mommysavers Blog: Forget the Joneses
NEW! Check out the Mommysavers Fan Page on Facebook

Inflation is the first thing I thought of, too. My husband makes more than $50,000 a year, so I wouldn't want to take the cut. Also, you never know where your investments will be in 30 years. We have already saved a lot for retirement, but we're a little older (38 and 43). What if one of the investments skyrockets? I think we'd be losing out at $50,000 a year.

The reason I am against it is inflation, too. I studied economics long enough to know the simple fact that $50,000 in 1970, for example, is far more than $50,000 now and will be much more than $50,000 in 2030, when I will only 60 years old.

If you need a better example, just look at how much it took to live this time last year in grocery prices, gas prices, etc. compared to this year.

Still vote no for $50K or $100K. Not for greed, just common sense that it won't be equal to $50,000 today when I am in retirement age and without investment income for retirement, we would be up the creek without a paddle.

The original post says it is adjusted for inflation. Not that I think you should go for it .. but inflation shouldn't factor in for this scenario.

__________________