Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 20, 2017, 3:06 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

POLL: 'Moral' obligation for a jackpot winner

Topic closed. 49 replies. Last post 10 years ago by guesser.

Page 4 of 4
PrintE-mailLink

Does a jackpot winner have a moral obligation to leave their job?

Yes [ 1 ]  [1.45%]
No [ 34 ]  [49.28%]
Not sure [ 4 ]  [5.80%]
LET ME FIND OUT! [ 10 ]  [14.49%]
Yes, heck yes, they have to quit! [ 1 ]  [1.45%]
Eventually they'll quit anyway [ 16 ]  [23.19%]
Our society really produces robots, doesn't it? [ 1 ]  [1.45%]
Other, explain if you will. [ 2 ]  [2.90%]
Total Valid Votes [ 69 ]  
Discarded Votes [ 3 ]  
Coin Toss's avatar - shape barbed.jpg
Zeta Reticuli Star System
United States
Member #30470
January 17, 2006
10391 Posts
Offline
Posted: July 3, 2007, 2:43 am - IP Logged

I don't understand this 'moral obligation' garbage at all, let's take it one step further, hypothetically speaking:

1) I make $50,000 a year, am single, and have no kids, never been married.

2) There is a guy that is unemployed, married, and has two kids, and he is perfectly qualified to do my job.

So do I have a 'moral obligation' to quit so he can have a job and support his family ?  

guesser

In your example above, you're making $50,000 a year. It's still a job and regardless of marital status etc... you need to work.

The person in the OP who hits the jackpot no longer NEEDS the job.

In your example you never show where you don't NEED the job.

Now, since the jackpot winner no longer needs the job should they make room for someone who does? 

Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any.

Lep

There is one and only one 'proven' system, and that is to book the action. No matter the game, let the players pick their own losers.

    justxploring's avatar - villiarna
    Wandering Aimlessly
    United States
    Member #25360
    November 5, 2005
    4461 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: July 15, 2007, 10:58 pm - IP Logged

    I see where both Guesser & Coin Toss have valid points.  If that hypothetical single person even makes $150,000 a year, he still needs to work, because he has no idea when/if he will be out of work or sustain an injury!  Maybe I'd work just for the health benefits.  Just because someone has a job one day, doesn't mean he'll have it next year.

    Actors who are millionaires several times over still accept roles in pictures for many reasons,and they paid quite a bit too.  Maybe they want to work, they love to act, or they just like the fame.  In any case, they only need to work if they lead a very extravagant lifestyle. After the first $20 million, I doubt if anyone really needs to work if their money is invested wisely. Some of these superstars make several million per picture.  I doubt if David Letterman can't live off of the $31 million he makes, but he continues to host Late Night.  Jay Leno could also give up his job and let someone else have a shot at it.  He makes a lot touring around the country doing standup.  No, they do not have any obligation to stop working.

    However, Coin Toss was NOT referring to people in Hollywood.  He was talking about someone who has a "regular" job and might be taking an opportunity away from someone else.  In that case, I would say it doesn't make sense to keep your job.  There is so much more to life than getting up to go to the factory or waiting on people at a restaurant.  Even if you like your job a lot, I don't know why you wouldn't volunteer for something else.  Still, there are many jobs where the rewards are more than monetary.  A teacher, a doctor, a nurse, a scientist, a musician, a high school coach....many of these people identify with their careers.  There is no moral obligation to quit, but in troubled times I wouldn't feel right taking a "regular" job away from someone else, although it's a personal choice.

      RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
      mid-Ohio
      United States
      Member #9
      March 24, 2001
      19900 Posts
      Online
      Posted: July 15, 2007, 11:30 pm - IP Logged

      guesser

      In your example above, you're making $50,000 a year. It's still a job and regardless of marital status etc... you need to work.

      The person in the OP who hits the jackpot no longer NEEDS the job.

      In your example you never show where you don't NEED the job.

      Now, since the jackpot winner no longer needs the job should they make room for someone who does? 

      Before I removed my e-mail address from my profile, I would get e-mail telling me I didn't NEED to play the lotteries and the money I spent could serve the NEEDS of others better.

      I didn't need to response to them but I did because I had a need to tell them it was none of their business

       * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
         
                   Evil Looking       

        Avatar
        Westerose
        Canada
        Member #52915
        June 15, 2007
        189 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: July 15, 2007, 11:39 pm - IP Logged

        Ya know it depends on how much a person wins and such. Someone making say 25k a year to continue working after getting 40 M after taxes is a bit rediculas even. However with some peoples views of how many people they can help if they win the lottery I would say they should keep working cos they will be broke soon enough.

        There is a difference between Income and Interest Income.  Interest Income from a lottery win only grows if you don't spend money or give money away. Look at David Edwards he thought his interest would stay the same as it was the first day in the bank no matter what he spent. Well that wasn't true.

        So it depends on how the person is gonna live if they should keep their job and some just might need to so they don't end up in the gutter.

        Personally I could find other things to do and wouldn't be giving out or over spending where I would need to.

        You live a life of abundance! You have won the lottery! Belief creates reality! Believe!

          guesser's avatar - Lottery-017.jpg

          United States
          Member #41383
          June 16, 2006
          1969 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: July 16, 2007, 1:51 am - IP Logged

          At almost any age, all anyone 'NEEDS' to live the rest of their life on is about 3 million cash, in the bank.

          $50,000 x 60 (years) is just that, assuming you win at age 21 and live until 81.

          And please don't jump in and say anything about taxes, or the higher cost of living in later years, we are just discussing a raw number for today. Besides, it's safe to assume this 3 mill will grow over the course of your life expectancy, even if only 2-4%, or up to 5-8%, compounded.