You are 30 ... Would you rather have $50 million at 30 and die at 50 or have $100 at 30 and die at 70?

Been there, done that wrote:

I had $100, now I am sixty, no regrets.

no crap, einstein. how can you have any regrets? you didnt have a choice of 50 mil, remember??

If you have a family, 50 is pretty early to go. Your kid(s) may not even be out of high school. So imagine what itd be like having to call it quits so soon, not being able to watch your children become adults, and leaving your wife alone (and most possibly horny).

If you're single and just living life crazy, then yeah, take the 50mil cause if that's your lifestyle, those 20 years wont tickle your pickle as good as they used to.

As for me, i'd probably fit in with the former.

Definitely the time. I've got a relative who's a multi-millionaire and I'm only 37 and don't have much net worth at all. All my measley money has been self made. But I'd still take my life over his any day of the week. Money ain't happiness.

Doug Heffernan wrote:

well, I could argue that the money would allot me all that extra time to be able to spend with family and build relationships that you otherwise never would've had. You could take the time to visit family members around the country for a few weeks (or more) out of the year, you could take them on nice vacations with you, support them financially (i.e. pay for college educations), etc. Besides, from what I've seen, life after 50 isn't too glamourous, and at that point in your life, your family should be able to support themselves anyways.

This is very true. I bet with 50 million dollars you could spend more time with friends and family in 20 years than you could in 40 years having to work 40-60 hours a week, plus all the work to maintain your home, etc, that you wouldnt need to do with the money. Seems to me either way, you are losing HALF of that time to not spending it with friends and family (most people spend well over half of their waking hours at least five days a week involved in work, or travel to/from work)...but having the money would probably be more enjoyable, for that time....

How old am I when I make the choice? In the poor scenario, am I poor because I just graduated with a Harvard MBA on which I spent all my savings? And is $100 my net worth, meaning I'm debt-free?

If I'm 30 with no education and the intelligence and looks of an average letsrun poster, I'll take the $50M, thank you very much. At least that way I know I'll score some ass before I die.

money or not, i'd rather die young. how about $100 and death by 30, but with incomparable artistic talent? (or for the sake of the website, running talent)

$50 million dollars.

At 30yo, my parents would most likely be retiring soon and they wouldn't have to worry about work and finances.

At 30yo, I would hopefully be married with kids and they would be set.

and I suppose you're the rule, not the exception, right? You're healthy? Great. Whether you want to admit it or not, you're still not the same as when you were in your 20's.

Also, I like how you decided to completely ignore my argument on the whole family thing. Let me repost that for you:

well, I could argue that the money would allot me all that extra time to be able to spend with family and build relationships that you otherwise never would've had. You could take the time to visit family members around the country for a few weeks (or more) out of the year, you could take them on nice vacations with you, support them financially (i.e. pay for college educations), etc. Besides, from what I've seen, life after 50 isn't too glamourous, and at that point in your life, your family should be able to support themselves anyways.

I have some experience on this front. I am 31 and have done well for myself. I am not worth $50m but at the same time I have well over $1m. That alone doesn't give me a good perspective on this question as I may have been born wealthy. However, I was born and raised lower-middle class. The last few years have been kind - I would say some strategic positioning but certainly a lot of luck.

My answer:

No brainer - take the $100 at 30 and live the 20 extra years. Money hasn't necessarily made me happier (I am happy). The most it has done is given me some nice toys and taken stress out of my life. I remember being just as joyful and vibrant before having money. If anything, the struggle/challenge to get here was more fun than the actual reward. I suppose money may put my marriage under less stress as well - we don't have to deal with money issues, something that is supposedly a big stress for most married couples.

Doug Heffernan wrote:

...and I suppose you're the rule, not the exception, right? You're healthy? Great. Whether you want to admit it or not, you're still not the same as when you were in your 20's.

Seriously? Do you definitively know diffently? No offense, but you must have been brainwashed by the movie Logan's Run. Contrary to your somewhat naive stereotype, most people do NOT start falling apart at 50-years-old. Again, your perspective is strictly from one side of the side fence, and unless you are an M.D., that gives my viewpoint much more credibility than yours.

Doug Heffernan wrote:

Also, I like how you decided to completely ignore my argument on the whole family thing.

No, I didn't. Your ego is telling you that I did because I didn't specifically address those words, but I'm confident that you will eventually get over it. The fact of the matter is that what I said still goes: I would not trade away 40 years with my family and friends in exchange for a "higher quality" 20-year time frame. That's remarkably self-centered and materialistic.

EASY choice, live life to 70 and hopefully beyond. I feel sad for anyone that would purposefully choose the money and early death.

some of us on this thread won't live to 50...

Neither is your outlook on life.

If you feel you need that extra time to build relationships, go ahead. I build great relationships with the time I have. And my family members have their own things to do in life. They've got their own jobs, their own families, their own activities. They've got other things to do and they certainly are not looking to be supported in their lives by me. All the more reason I admire them. They don't have the time to go away with me for a few months of the year.

The problem is that "what you've seen" is only as a spectator, not a participant.

I'm really going to have to go with neither one here. Of the two, dying at 50 seems like a more miserable choice, so I guess I have to go with the $100 at 30 and die at 70, but it's definitely the lesser of two evils.

i'd take a great 20 years in exchange for a mediocre or crappy 40 yrs.

The good you could do, the way you could change people's lives, and the sheer fun and experiences you could have with the $50M out weigh the alternative.

I'm 31. I would take the $50 mil in a heartbeat. The next 19 years would be quite enjoyable. I don't desrire to live past 80 as it stands now anyway.

I'll take the 50 million, and Doug Heffernan can die at 50.

I think the correct answer is "neither", since the average life span in the US is well over 70 years, and with careful saving and investment pretty much anybody can rack up some amount of money in between $100 and $50,000,000.

Heffernan, you should really just be quiet. No, he's admitted he's not the same as he was in his 20s. Stop pushing that. He's also shown that he's wise enough to know that that doesn't matter.

I know plenty of guys in their 50s, some with a lot of health problems, some without. It's not like all guys over 50 are cripples. And even the ones that are, they don't want to just drop over and die.

Once you get a little older, you realize there's more to life than the feeling that you can do anything, which is admittedly like a drug for most young guys. And the very nature of your attack on him shows that you haven't realized that yet. You're measuring the worth of your 50s based on your ability to feel and do as you do in your 20s. There's a whole lot more to life than that. I could go on for a while on that, and I'm sure the guys over 50 could go on even longer, but do we really have to? Are you really that dense? Or just trolling?

And your argument about using the money to spend more time with family has some merit. But it's not as simple as you make it out to be. It's not just a matter of how much time you spend with people, but what time. If you go at 50, you might be throwing away the opportunity to walk your daughter down the aisle. You likely won't see your grandkids, and certainly won't see them grow up. You won't be there to give your son advice when he's ready to take his first big job or buy a house. You won't be there for your sister when her husband dies of cancer. You won't be there to take care of your parents when they need you most as they age and need special care (and leaving a few million to cover the expenses is not the same thing as being there).

You're still making a tough choice and sacrificing a lot either way.

FWIW, I'm a 26 year old guy, but am pretty confident I would have thought the same at 20. I might have felt the same as you when I was 15. Maybe you've already said, but I don't recall. How old ARE you?

As the OP, I posted this thinking that it would be a tough decision. Many at first might jump at chance to have $50 million at 30 and just live high on the hog and have virtually care-free life.

But, having $100 only means you are starting at the bottom (not actually bottom, since you are debt-free) and have 20 more years to enjoy life.

I really think if you have $50 million and will die in 20 years will temper whatever joy you get from being rich and living large. Maybe not at first, but when you approach 40, it will weigh heavily on your mind. 10 years goes fast - and, especially, if you have children and realize that your time spent with them (and perhaps with their children) is severely time-limited.