From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Mon Jul 23 2001 - 11:41:14 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> Damien wrote
>
> >> Remember also, that we have now learned (thanks to Chris Rauch
> >> this morning 10:01am) that about one-fourth of the populace
> >> would quit working within a year
> >
> > Aargh. Lee, Lee, do you really think there's no motivational distinction
> > between being assured of getting, say, $25,000 a year `Purple Wage' for a
> > family of four (THE SPIKE, p. 249), and winning 10 million bucks in one
> > joyous and often tax-free lump?
>
> Sorry. Logical error on my part. I should have remembered that
> distinction, and that you were probably talking about something
> smaller than I was thinking about (a pittance, it turns out).
> Um, now does the typical lottery winner here get 10 million bucks?
> The ones that I remember reading about usually have to settle for
> a life-time guarantee of $100,000 a year or something. By the way,
> getting $1000 a year is approximately equivalent to the interest
> earned on $20,000 (if there aren't any taxes). Since we're just
> talking ideas, do you have an idea of the value of the GI, say
> in America, that you are talking about?
Lotteries in the US can generally be won by two types of ticket holders:
those that have chosen the 'annuity' option when they bought their
ticket, or those that chose the 'cash' option. Choosing 'cash' gets you
the full value of the prize (minus 39% income taxes, unless you do a
quick filing as a limited partnership, so you only pay a 24% capital
gains tax.)
>
> I'll go on record as guessing that if we switched over tomorrow
> to a GI of $10,000, without loss of other government benefits,
> a lot of people (who have had a rough day, or who hate their
> boss, or who are daunted at preparing their resume) would find
> a way to live on it, and that we'd have, say, about a third of
> the workforce quitting within five years. Sound too pessimistic?
Yes. With a GI of $10,000, its enough to live in a crappy little studio
apartment, no kids, no pets, and no fun. You'd have the dumb people
going to work to earn a better living, and the smarter and less
scrupulous ones would make a better living ripping off the dummies at
gunpoint/knifepoint (yeah, sure, go ban the guns too, just by making
them unaffordable to anybody living off of their GI.... talk about
instituting feudalism all over again)....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:09:03 MST