Reading all this makes me think that I must be a complete weirdo! The first thing I thought when I read that question was no! But not for the reasons listed.

I've read that some couldn't make it on that amount of money, that they'd have too much time on their hands, that not having investments pay off, being around the family too much and so on was the deal breaker.

I thought wow. That is too much money to just be given to people. My hubby makes $25,600 a year BEFORE taxes and we get by. No we don't have health, dental, or optical insurance, a retirement fund or our full family yet but that is way more than we need to live on even if we did get those things.

I know that there are some great perks to that deal.
I would love to never send my hubby off to work. I miss him too much when he has to work and then comes home for some family time before seeing to the house and yard upkeep. I would love the fact that he wouldn't miss any of his childrens firsts and would have just as much time with them as I do. I would also love to be able to know that I can see him whenever I want.
Then too with that much more income we would be able to pay off our house in three years and the brand new car in three as well.

Then there is not having to earn that money. A perk and a downfall at the same time.

The money would have to come from somewhere and our Govt. couldn't afford to do that especially with out the rule that you have to work and the debt that they have now. There would be a lot of unfilled jobs if that were a possiblity. There are a lot of people that live off welfare (a lot smaller chunk of change) who are capable of working, but don't. NOW, DO NOT GET ME WRONG. I didn't say that there was anything wrong with welfare... just abusing it.

So I wouldn't take that offer because I wouldn't see it as being beneficial to the economy or us as a people. Especially if there wasn't a stock market or people to sell you what you need to be happy and thrive.

Am I weird? Or has anyone else had these thoughts.

Wow, 50,000. I've never made anywhere near that, no where near it. I live in a fairly low cost area now but have lived in a high cost area( Northern Va) when I was married and lived on much less than that,did just fine.
Boy, I would be living high on the hog if I made 50,000. Not to mention what great family time that would create. Would absolutely take it.

Yes provided I had things paid for. Like a house that fit my families needs. We just make it on 43K so I can see us doing 50K no probs still if you take out what extra we would need for health insurance then I see us not making it on 50K. We like living in a Medium COL so It would need to be higher unless we were debt free.

__________________
Kimberly Proud Mommy to Bethany Rose April 2006 &

Organizer of the Coupon Clippers of Tacoma

Yes. I think time is a much more precious commodity than money.

No!

Everything is relative. You can't just box everyone in the same situation and say that it should be enough money! Even on the low end here the houses are $200,000 starting. Everyone's situation is different.

Same here! As long as dh could keep working...and still invest!

__________________


-STACEY-

Stacey, if you read further, KH says that has to be family income and there is no investment income either

__________________
~Happiness is a large family~

Everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger. James 1:19

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. 1 Corinthians 9:24

I would totally do it, and I think we'd do great with it provided health insurance was included. We could live comfortably in our area for that amount of money.

We have a farm, so DH would be busy outside doing projects and chores during the day, we wouldn't be together 24/7, and I'd probably see him less than I do now..LOL (he loves his projects).

He makes more than that now, but he pays a lot into union dues and fees and clothes for work and tools, etc. Plus he's gone a lot and misses out on a lot with the girls and I.

To not have that expense AND have a guaranteed set income each year would be great...especially since it goes into retirement. Nobody knows what their health will be like and if you will even be able to work until retirement.

We could live nicely on $50,000 per year and we'd save now for the girl's college expenses.

The security of always having that income would be very nice.

__________________

To you and everyone else that said no for the same reason . . . if the $50,000 was adjusted so that it was equivalent in your area for basic mortgage and living expenses, would you do it then?