$3,000,000 USD or your one true love?

[Torrasque]

That's what I was going to ask too. Who's offering such interest rates and what country wouldn't tax you for 500k in interest each year? Nowadays you can consider yourself lucky to stay above the inflation rate with savings accounts. Using a fixed deposit account you might be able to get a few percent points higher APR.

He's talking about Kapitalförsäkring. I've heard of it before, several american retirees invest in it. It does have high interest, however, its annual taxes are also very high... unless you are evading taxes.

[dwarven]

Already have love, and I would never risk my neck for some random person. So none of the above I guess.

[Crispin]

He's talking about Kapitalförsäkring. I've heard of it before, several american retirees invest in it. It does have high interest, however, its annual taxes are also very high... unless you are evading taxes.

Yeah, sounds like a really low ROI, but safe I guess.

[Mendzia]

Love. Easy question.

[Torrasque]

Yeah, sounds like a really low ROI, but safe I guess.

No, it's just valuable because it has an obvious tax-evasion loophole... If it were plugged, it wouldn't be better than anywhere else.

[Crispin]

No, it's just valuable because it has an obvious tax-evasion loophole... If it were plugged, it wouldn't be better than anywhere else.

Doesnt seem to work in sweden, https://www.skatteverket.se/privat/s...800024553.html

[TheDestinatus]

Ad hominem doesnt make your argument stronger, I've had cancer, suffered from anxiety, we had a spontaneous abortion. And while we're good on money, having a someone to share your concerns honestly outdid the ability to go out and buy a new car.

But it's obvious that your only concern is paying for luxuries like internet connection

You keep avoiding the obvious truth because I don't know, you have nothing better to do but prolong this conversation. Basics require money, therefore happiness is dependant upon money. If you don't believe so, conduct the experiment and report back to me later via a means not dependant upon money such as, I don't know, finding your own way to me via walking and report your findings in person. It's stupid to a point of being in a realm beyond stupid to believe money doesn't make you happier through the simple improvements it allows you (a house, food blah blah blah), not "buying a ferrari". For someone supposedly of means, you really have nothing intelligence wise to back up your point of view.

[Crispin]

You keep avoiding the obvious truth because I don't know, you have nothing better to do but prolong this conversation. Basics require money, therefore happiness is dependant upon money. If you don't believe so, conduct the experiment and report back to me later via a means not dependant upon money such as, I don't know, finding your own way to me via walking and report your findings in person. It's stupid to a point of being in a realm beyond stupid to believe money doesn't make you happier through the simple improvements it allows you beyond "buying a ferrari". For someone supposedly of means, you really have nothing intelligence wise to back up your point of view.

Eh, I think you need to reread the initial question, rejecting the money did not include beeing broke forever. And again, drop the ad hominem, it's pointless.

You're taking the argument to some extreme where it never were meant to be, would I choose food over love? ofcourse, but that wasnt the question. It's safe to assume that the 3 million werent meant as a "hey here's money for food and your medical bill", but to purchase luxuries, or in some other cases, not have to work anymore.

[Deleted]

Where i can take the cash?

[TheDestinatus]

Eh, I think you need to reread the initial question, rejecting the money did not include beeing broke forever. And again, drop the ad hominem, it's pointless.

It has nothing to do with the original question at this point. Your statement was that money was only required to buy "nice things", because you've never considered or even experienced a life without it. Money does buy happiness in its simplest form, the 3 million offered in this example may be considered expendable play money to the naive, which seems to be the bulk of those replying including yourself as you seem to think buying a ferrari was a good use of the 3 million. As other have pointed out, taking the 3 million creates a lifetime of happiness for anyone with the self control to invest in any number of avenues and they than have an entire lifetime to find someone they are compatible with, whilst having completely negated the need to be a slave to a life of menial work making money for other people.

Pretending that having someone who is 100% compatible with you is better than having 3 million dollars in order to solidify yourself for a life of freedom and having someone who is only 95% compatible is just hilarious. It takes the average person roughly 30-60 years to make 3 million. Thats more than enough time to find someone not your soulmate like 100% of the human population.

[Deleted]

3 million, easy choice!

[Crispin]

It has nothing to do with the original question at this point. Your statement was that money was only required to buy "nice things", because you've never considered or even experienced a life without it. Money does buy happiness in its simplest form, the 3 million offered in this example may be considered expendable play money to the naive, which seems to be the bulk of those replying including yourself as you seem to think buying a ferrari was a good use of the 3 million. As other have pointed out, taking the 3 million creates a lifetime of happiness for anyone with the self control to invest in any number of avenues and they than have an entire lifetime to find someone they are compatible with, whilst having completely negated the need to be a slave to a life of menial work making money for other people.

Pretending that having someone who is 100% compatible with you is better than having 3 million dollars in order to solidify yourself for a life of freedom and having someone who is only 95% compatible is just hilarious. It takes the average person roughly 30-60 years to make 3 million. Thats more than enough time to find someone not your soulmate like 100% of the human population.

Sorry if I struck a nerve, but 3 mill$ isnt a significant amount to me, I'm obviously not speaking or pretended to speak on the behalf of humankind, I never pointed out that buying a ferrari was a good choice nor would I think it was.

To me, love means more than buying luxury items or avoid working (which i honestly do enjoy), does that make it easier to digest?

Now you can go down the road of arguing against a point I never made, but untill you yourself experience a situation where your money does nothing to get you out of it, it's pointless.

[TheDestinatus]

Sorry if I struck a nerve, but 3 mill$ isnt a significant amount to me, I'm obviously not speaking or pretended to speak on the behalf of humankind, I never pointed out that buying a ferrari was a good choice nor would I think it was.

To me, love means more than buying luxury items or avoid working (which i honestly do enjoy), does that make it easier to digest?

Make what easier to digest? You're still attempting to sell a delusional world, waffling on about luxury items and your desperate need to project wealth whilst avoiding the topic. If you are as wealthy as you pretend to be than conduct the experiment and give up everything you own that is purchased with money and hit me up about what makes you happier. I bet you my fictional 3 million vs your pretend 1/8,000,000,000 soul mate living without anything that I will be the happier.

[schwarzkopf]

I don't get you. I clearly said "including your financial situation". Where is "lack of money" part in it?

Lack of money itself can destroy the perfect love, without EITHER party caring at all about the financial situation of the other person.

That's what you are missing.

[Deleted]

One true love of course, but it has to be real

3 million dollars is easy come easy go

[Dontrike]

Was that all you got from that post?

Fine

Insert 10 ways of dying horribly, including burning in your crashed ferrari, I doubt the fact that it's a ferrari will help.

Point is, you'll probably figure it out later in the SoL

Me? Buy a Ferrari? You mean those shit cars that all they have is speed and nothing else? Again, why do you think that anyone would change their lifestyle just because they have money? I'd be glad knowing I wouldn't have to work for the rest of my life and still buying groceries from Wal-Mart. The fact you come up with the craziest hypothetical means you can't show why having money wouldn't make the normal person happy.

[Farrarie]

already have more than one true love
$3,000,000 USD all the way

[Crispin]

Make what easier to digest? You're still attempting to sell a delusional world, waffling on about luxury items and your desperate need to project wealth whilst avoiding the topic. If you are as wealthy as you pretend to be than conduct the experiment and give up everything you own that is purchased with money and hit me up about what makes you happier. I bet you my fictional 3 million vs your pretend 1/8,000,000,000 soul mate living without anything that I will be the happier.

You obviously arent interested in arguing the topic, but remain in your "try to live without money AT ALL!" experiment suggestion, and if I dont you "win" the argument, an argument that can't be won since it's subjective in the first place. I'm talking about luxury items, you're talking about neccesities in life, ergo we arent arguing the same thing which makes arguing with you pointless. Your basis for the argument is a completely irrelevant situation (unless you live for 0 money, which I doubt), mine is based on my reality, I didnt enter this debate from the viewpoint of a homeless guy, why would I.

[Dontrike]

One true love of course, but it has to be real

3 million dollars is easy come easy go

If you let that kind of money "easy go" then your true love isn't going to like the small amount of money you will "easy go" even faster.

[TheDestinatus]

You obviously arent interested in arguing the topic, but remain in your "try to live without money AT ALL!" experiment suggestion, and if I dont you "win" the argument, an argument that can't be won since it's subjective in the first place. I'm talking about luxury items, you're talking about neccesities in life, ergo we arent arguing the same thing which makes arguing with you pointless. Your basis for the argument is a completely irrelevant situation (unless you live for 0 money, which I doubt), mine is based on my reality, I didnt enter this debate from the viewpoint of a homeless guy, why would I.

I'm talking about spending money in general in order to live and you're creating limitations to the spending as if things like food, clothings and homes, you know, the highest expenditures you'll encounter in life, are apparently free and don't bring pleasure to your life. You think my view point is pointless