NationStates Jolt Archive

Would you rather be given £1,000,000, no strings attached, or have £1,000 go to charity? How about, once again, £1,000,000 for yourself or £10,000 to charity?
£100,000?
£1,000,000?
£1,000,000,000?
A billion pounds?

You're guaranteed that the money to charity would have every penny spent on the cause; if, however, you choose the £1,000,000 for yourself then you're forbidden from using it in any charitable way and it's to be spent only on yourself; not on your friends or family.

What would you do?

Personally I'd give even £1,000 to charity as opposed to £1,000,000 entirely for myself. I'm a highly moral person and consider that any money to charity whatsoever is a better thing than any amount of personal gain.

Ilaer

Edit: 2^9 posts!

Can I get Euros instead please?

Fuck the needy, I could use that money.

I'll take the cash. I'll probably give some away to charity, but I'm pretty sure I won't ever get another opprtunity at a big payoff like that and I'd be stupid to pass it up.

Can I get Euros instead please?

All right.
Take those values in whatever local currency you have. :D
Although I might remind you that £1,000,000 is more than 1,000,000 Euros.

Fuck the needy, I could use that money.

How nice and generous. :D

Ilaer

I'll take the cash. I'll probably give some away to charity, but I'm pretty sure I won't ever get another opprtunity at a big payoff like that and I'd be stupid to pass it up.

You're not allowed to give it to charity.

Ilaer

Free money? Hell yes I'll take it.

Can I get Euros instead please?

Convert 'em yourself, you get more than one Euro per quid. Unless the other option is two million Euros, in which case can I have the Euros please, too?

And as to the OP's question: The money is yours to do with as you like, right? No strings attached. So I'll take the million quid, and give a grand to charity (perhaps). The charity is just as well off (maybe), I'm much better off, everyone's chuffed.

That's always the logical choice up to the charitable donation being equal to the amount I'd get. If the charity would get more than I would, then ideally you'd give it to them, but I'm sure we could come up with a deal (especially in either of the "billion quid" cases; say to charity "If I get you one billion quid, can I have a million of it?"; they'd be daft to say no).

And do I get to choose the charity? That matters. I'd be much more generous towards Redwings Horse Sanctuary, say, than Amnesty International.

Edit:
You're not allowed to give it to charity.
Damn rule-changing! Not "no strings attached" now, is it? Pah :p

Would you rather be given £1,000,000, no strings attached, or have £1,000 go to charity?

however, you choose the £1,000,000 for yourself then you're forbidden from using it in any charitable way and it's to be spent only on yourself; not on your friends or family.

That seems like a pretty big string. :p

I'll take the cash. I'm practically a charity case anyway.

You're not allowed to give it to charity.

Ilaer

Ok then, I'll hire the poor as servants and pay them a fair wage.

Take the cash. Charity is overrated.

Would you rather be given £1,000,000, no strings attached

<snip>

if, however, you choose the £1,000,000 for yourself then you're forbidden from using it in any charitable way and it's to be spent only on yourself; not on your friends or family.But I suppose I have some money outside that one million I could spend on others and/or charity.

Can I take the ~$2 million, go to college, get some books published, then give some of my earnings (not the original money) to charity? (Though college won't cost 2 million dollars, but meh....)

...it's to be spent only on yourself; not on your friends or family.

Then why bother with the money. If it wasn't for my family, I'd be content living on the street and eating out of garbage cans. A £ 1,000,000 however could go along way to pay for my kids education and move them to a safer neighborhood. Ok, maybe not a long way, but at least it would make a dent.

All right then...
*curses the observant and bloody-minded lot of NSG*
There're no other strings attached.

Ilaer

Would you rather be given £1,000,000, no strings attached, or have £1,000 go to charity? How about, once again, £1,000,000 for yourself or £10,000 to charity?
£100,000?
£1,000,000?
£1,000,000,000?
A billion pounds?

Anything stopping me from donating any money I earn myself after getting that cash ;) ?

Personally I'd give even £1,000 to charity as opposed to £1,000,000 entirely for myself. I'm a highly moral person and consider that any money to charity whatsoever is a better thing than any amount of personal gain.

I call bullshit. Everytime you buy or spend money on ANYTHING for yourself that exceeds the most basic requirements of life you are doing the opposite of what you say you believe is the right thing. And unless you can convince me that posting on NSG *is* essential to life we already have proven that you do spend money on luxuries.

I can't give any of the money I'd get myself to charity?

Screw it, then. I'd pick the charity option, as high as I can possibly go.

It depends. I can't really throw about me with money, without using it at least partially on charity type stuff & people. I mean, it's not very likely I'll go underground and avoid my social circle, my job and whatnot.

That aside, I'd take the money, unless an equal or higher amount is donated to the charities/non-profit orgs of my choice. £1,000,000 is enough for both my SO and I to never have to worry about making ends meet. Since both of us tend to persue projects that are either horrendously underpaid, or not paid at all, it's very damn tempting. But pouring that much money into some of the things we're involved in instead, would be even better.

Charity supports the weak. I'll take the cash.

Charity supports the weak. <snip>

Yeah, I think that's the whole point of charity.

I'd keep it. I'd use it for my education. That money made I could spend how I like.

Money to myself, always.

Yeah, I think that's the whole point of charity.

And thats why I am not a charitable person.

I can't give any of the money I'd get myself to charity?

Screw it, then. I'd pick the charity option, as high as I can possibly go.

With the OP stated as is personaly I would take the money and give all MY earnings to charity untill which time as they are equal (at about 80 K USD a year ... ) Either way the charity makes out better WITHOUT the origional money going to charity

Charity supports the weak. I'll take the cash.

Whats wrong with that?

Anything stopping me from donating any money I earn myself after getting that cash ;) ?



I call bullshit. Everytime you buy or spend money on ANYTHING for yourself that exceeds the most basic requirements of life you are doing the opposite of what you say you believe is the right thing. And unless you can convince me that posting on NSG *is* essential to life we already have proven that you do spend money on luxuries.

Actually, I didn't buy this laptop. Or any of the other things in my room.
I don't make any money and I don't get any to spend.

I subsidise my friends' meals when they can't afford them out of my own lunch money. I donate to charity from the same when given the chance.

Don't speak like that of someone whom you don't know.

Ilaer

And thats why I am not a charitable person.

Selfishness I can understand, but just not wanting to help the weak because they're weak seems kind of mean. Anyhoo, different strokes for different folks.

Yeah, I think that's the whole point of charity.Depends on the charity, though if you mean what I think you mean, you're wrong. Charity may support the weak, but the point is to keep them weak. The support's just a side effect.

What if I use it to support myself while I donate my time and effort to charitable causes?

Actually, I didn't buy this laptop. Or any of the other things in my room.
I don't make any money and I don't get any to spend.

You are using electricity to post on internetforums. Donating the money you would save by not doing that would be more than enough to save a few dozen children per year in third world countries from dying.

I'll take the money.

Fuck them, Ill take the money.

Even if it was like 100 dolars to myself or 1 million to charity, I would chose 100 dolars.

Depends on the charity, though if you mean what I think you mean, you're wrong. Charity may support the weak, but the point is to keep them weak. The support's just a side effect.

If you want to keep them weak just saw off a couple of their limbs. It's not like they can afford prosthetic replacements.

If you want to keep them weak just saw off a couple of their limbs. It's not like they can afford prosthetic replacements.

But they might struggle. Very few people struggle if you give them a bag of money.

I'd take any amount of money for myself over money for charity. Fuck you all, I don't have morals, I certainly don't need them.

If you want to keep them weak just saw off a couple of their limbs. It's not like they can afford prosthetic replacements.I don't. But what I meant was that if you're talking about soupkitchen type things, it's nothing but a scam. Charity would be to offer them whatever medical care, education, shelter, privacy and job they need and can perform. Just making sure they have a cramped corner to sleep in and a hot meal once every other day, doesn't help. If anything, it does the opposite.

If it actually happened... 100% I would take the money and run. Because im not very nice. Yeh, you can get away with being an asshole if you have money *nods*.

I don't. But what I meant was that if you're talking about soupkitchen type things, it's nothing but a scam. Charity would be to offer them whatever medical care, education, shelter, privacy and job they need and can perform. Just making sure they have a cramped corner to sleep in and a hot meal once every other day, doesn't help. If anything, it does the opposite.

Well the whole freezing to death on a streetcorner in the middle of winter or dying from eating contaminated food from a dumpster can really fuck up your chances to turn your life around.

Would you rather be given £1,000,000, no strings attached, or have £1,000 go to charity? How about, once again, £1,000,000 for yourself or £10,000 to charity?
£100,000?
£1,000,000?
£1,000,000,000?
A billion pounds?

You're guaranteed that the money to charity would have every penny spent on the cause; if, however, you choose the £1,000,000 for yourself then you're forbidden from using it in any charitable way and it's to be spent only on yourself; not on your friends or family.

What would you do?

Personally I'd give even £1,000 to charity as opposed to £1,000,000 entirely for myself. I'm a highly moral person and consider that any money to charity whatsoever is a better thing than any amount of personal gain.

Ilaer

Edit: 2^9 posts!

In what way do the 1,000,000 pounds have 'no strings attached'?

You are using electricity to post on internetforums. Donating the money you would save by not doing that would be more than enough to save a few dozen children per year in third world countries from dying.

Being a teenager in a house run by a tyrant of a mother, I don't exactly have control over expenditure, do I?
And consider this: I donated much of my most valuable resource, time, to charity; I have programmed several games merely to sell and donate all profits to charity.

As I said, I have no control over expenditure in my house. I do the best I can.

And this is getting way off topic.

Ilaer

In what way do the 1,000,000 pounds have 'no strings attached'?

Course there are no strings attached...its not puppet money.

In what way do the 1,000,000 pounds have 'no strings attached'?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12461260&postcount=15

I corrected that, as you were not the first to point this out.

Ilaer

Fuck the needy, I could use that money.


QFT!


I could use the money to build an empire and then use the money I made to help people.

Course there are no strings attached...its not puppet money.

Here's some money with strings attached.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3mx6k25VJ4

QFT!


I could use the money to build an empire and then use the money I made to help people.

I could use the money to thoroughly enjoy myself.

This:
Would you rather be given £1,000,000, no strings attached
and this:
if, however, you choose the £1,000,000 for yourself then you're forbidden from using it in any charitable way and it's to be spent only on yourself; not on your friends or family.
are very different things.

That said, I'd take the money both times. I help the needy more by investing that money in the economy than I do by giving it away.

Would you rather be given £1,000,000, no strings attached, or have £1,000 go to charity? How about, once again, £1,000,000 for yourself or £10,000 to charity?
£100,000?
£1,000,000?
£1,000,000,000?
A billion pounds?

You're guaranteed that the money to charity would have every penny spent on the cause; if, however, you choose the £1,000,000 for yourself then you're forbidden from using it in any charitable way and it's to be spent only on yourself; not on your friends or family.

What would you do?

Personally I'd give even £1,000 to charity as opposed to £1,000,000 entirely for myself. I'm a highly moral person and consider that any money to charity whatsoever is a better thing than any amount of personal gain.

Ilaer

Edit: 2^9 posts!
I would take the money, convert to American Dollars and put it into savings.

then I would then donate my paychecks (since I will still keep my job) to charity and live off of the interest off of my savings.

See, the thing about charity is that someone, somewhere else ends up getting "no strings attached" money or some material comfort equivalent to it. Why don't the recipients of charity have this strange moral dilemma about accepting someone else's money? I know that a lot of people have it a hell of a lot worse then I do, but I could tell you a (true) sob story about my life that'd make heart's bleed. What makes one man' suffering more deserving of un"earned" cash then another’s?

I'd take the money, say "fuck you" to your bullshit rule, and get the hell out of my house and set my mother up with enough money to have the peace and comfort she deserves for years of spousal abuse hell; then invest the rest to build up a respectable nest egg for myself while working through college.

Well the whole freezing to death on a streetcorner in the middle of winter or dying from eating contaminated food from a dumpster can really fuck up your chances to turn your life around.Conditioning society to think it's acceptable or perhaps unavoidable to have an entire class of people unable to sustain themselves, because they shouldn't have the right to an opportunity to do it - and that's what 'charity' does - really fucks up people's chances too.

i think youve put it around the wrong way

would i take $1mil instead of giving a charity $1k?

damn straight i would

but would i take $1k instead of giving the charity $1mil? thats an entirely different story.

I think that I could do more good as a self-interested money holder of a larger sum than I could donating less money away. I might consider charity if the ratio were 1:1 or greater of charity dollar per self dollar between choices.

The main problem I see with this phrasing is one of when this money actually becomes free money. Let's just say that I use this money as some form of investment and I get a return on this investment, am I now prevented from using any bit of this return on charity? Like, lets just say I get a MBA with these funds, now I get a salary, am I now forbidden from giving any bit of my salary to charity or even from spending any money ever on a date or progeny even if this is a move motivated by darker instincts? I am basing my conclusion on the assumption that returns on capital end up being free money and that the overall spending effects of massive monetary gain under this circumstance will not be included as a part of this money, as if the other assumption were made then we no longer have selfishness vs altruism(the original premise) but rather blind selfishness vs enlightened egoism or altruism, in which case any sane person would likely pick the latter if only out of self-interest.

I think that I could do more good as a self-interested money holder of a larger sum than I could donating less money away. I might consider charity if the ratio were 1:1 or greater of charity dollar per self dollar between choices.

The main problem I see with this phrasing is one of when this money actually becomes free money. Let's just say that I use this money as some form of investment and I get a return on this investment, am I now prevented from using any bit of this return on charity? Like, lets just say I get a MBA with these funds, now I get a salary, am I now forbidden from giving any bit of my salary to charity or even from spending any money ever on a date or progeny even if this is a move motivated by darker instincts? I am basing my conclusion on the assumption that returns on capital end up being free money and that the overall spending effects of massive monetary gain under this circumstance will not be included as a part of this money, as if the other assumption were made then we no longer have selfishness vs altruism(the original premise) but rather blind selfishness vs enlightened egoism or altruism, in which case any sane person would likely pick the latter if only out of self-interest.
Even if those results still aren't free money, you can still do more good by investing in the economy and creating wealth and jobs than you ever could by simply giving the money away.

Even if those results still aren't free money, you can still do more good by investing in the economy and creating wealth and jobs than you ever could by simply giving the money away.
You could do a lot, however, there end up being questions on the optimal utilitarian use of wealth. If one directs investments out of a perceived view of greater utilitarian gain at the cost of personal gain then charity is still being performed. You may be assuming that markets work perfectly in directing money where it is most needed, however, if we take any weaker belief on this matter then your argument ends up being false and market outcomes can be improved by the ideal investment of money by an interested and researched party.

You could do a lot, however, there end up being questions on the optimal utilitarian use of wealth. If one directs investments out of a perceived view of greater utilitarian gain at the cost of personal gain then charity is still being performed. You may be assuming that markets work perfectly in directing money where it is most needed, however, if we take any weaker belief on this matter then your argument ends up being false and market outcomes can be improved by the ideal investment of money by an interested and researched party.
That only works if the "interested and researched party" has complete knowledge of the consequences of her actions.

I'm not claiming the market works perfectly. I'm claiming the market works better than those who seek to improve it.

I suspect that's true because the market involves people working for their own interests, and they have the best knowledge as to what their interests are. As soon as you're working for the benefit of others your quality of knowledge goes down.

That only works if the "interested and researched party" has complete knowledge of the consequences of her actions.

I'm not claiming the market works perfectly. I'm claiming the market works better than those who seek to improve it.

I suspect that's true because the market involves people working for their own interests, and they have the best knowledge as to what their interests are. As soon as you're working for the benefit of others your quality of knowledge goes down.
Right, and that is what I am suggesting from an interested and researched party. I am not suggesting a politician or something of that nature, I am suggesting that there is a theoretical possibility that a person who does enough research into charity could apply money in a manner where the utilitarian gain surpasses that of the market.

Are charitable donors who are invested into their investment included in that assessment? The market may work better than a person who sends money off without care, but what about a person who does research and tries to find a legitimate need.

It is true that the market involves looking out for one's own interests, however, imperfect incentive structures can arise at points either due to poor adaptations to changes or wrongful governmental interventions, and cannot individuals improve things, at least in that latter condition? I do recognize the 4 ways to spend money as having some truth, however, with diligent efforts to deal with information problems and to find the ideal place to put cash, can it not improve upon outcomes in certain areas? After all, some desires are very easy to discern but still require money to meet.