50-50
- Thread starter Novax25
- Start date
Silverface
Active member
Imagine you get cancer and because of the second one you now get 50% more cancer. 
(I know, only positive things work with the second one, but I just wanted to mention it
)
(I know, only positive things work with the second one, but I just wanted to mention it
) 
Opa-Athenalite
Well-known member
You mean every time I buy something my income goes +50%? 
WarriorSoul
TKR 6 - Diplomats
I took this to mean I can choose between earning 50% more or everything I buy is 50% off. If that’s the case, the latter seems like the mathematically correct choice, no?
Last edited by a moderator:
Jabberjay13
Active member
A double pay check seems like the obvious choice
Since you put some aside in savings u earn more then u spend.
Since you put some aside in savings u earn more then u spend.
John of Timoria
Member
I am assuming that it would be non taxed income......
Canbec
Administrator
So I'm not sure how to interpret the second option.
If it means that every time I buy something, I would get 50% more of that thing (i.e. buy a car and get an extra 50% of a car), then I would prefer the first option (50% discount on everything I buy).
If it means that every time I earn something, I would get 50% more (i.e. a 50% income bonus), then I would prefer option 2. Seeing as I spend less than I earn, the logical conclusion is that I would benefit more from a 50% increase in my income than a 50% reduction in my expenses.
If it means that every time I buy something, I would get 50% more of that thing (i.e. buy a car and get an extra 50% of a car), then I would prefer the first option (50% discount on everything I buy).
If it means that every time I earn something, I would get 50% more (i.e. a 50% income bonus), then I would prefer option 2. Seeing as I spend less than I earn, the logical conclusion is that I would benefit more from a 50% increase in my income than a 50% reduction in my expenses.
Mauris
TKR 7 - First Knight
Hmm... if the second option only adds 50% to your income from jobs/businesses, I think the 1st option might be better.
if you get stuff 50% cheaper your money is effectively worth double which is more than the 50% offered in option 2. Also you probably can sell what u bought (e.g. a house) at it's original price and this buy-sell cycle could ramp up real quick imo
if you get stuff 50% cheaper your money is effectively worth double which is more than the 50% offered in option 2. Also you probably can sell what u bought (e.g. a house) at it's original price and this buy-sell cycle could ramp up real quick imo
WarriorSoul
TKR 6 - Diplomats
I looked at it this way:
If I earn $2000 and my mortgage is $1000, then my mortgage is 50% of my paycheck.
If my paycheck is $2000 and my mortgage is now $500, my mortgage is now only 25% of my paycheck.
However, if my paycheck is $3000 and my mortgage remains $1000, my mortgage is 33% of my paycheck.
This is how I justified the 50% off choice.
If I earn $2000 and my mortgage is $1000, then my mortgage is 50% of my paycheck.
If my paycheck is $2000 and my mortgage is now $500, my mortgage is now only 25% of my paycheck.
However, if my paycheck is $3000 and my mortgage remains $1000, my mortgage is 33% of my paycheck.
This is how I justified the 50% off choice.
The income amount is static. The purchase amount is variable (therefore the 50% discount is able to scale)
For that reason, I'd go with the discount.
The only reason the income amount choice would be attractive if is if there was a compounding component that allowed the amount to scale.
You could even generate a huge amount of income using the first option.
For instance, if I purchase a house that is appraised at 500,000 for 250,000, I instantly have 250,000 dollars worth of equity. I can just sell, collect the 250k equity, and apply it to a more expensive home for which I will then immediately earn equity. You would only need to do this a few times to become a billionaire.
Here's the path to 1 billion dollars if you increase the home purchase price in accordance to the equity earned on last sale:
This is essentially what flippers do, except we don't have to do any extra work because the capital gain comes from the 50% discount of the purchase (which is unique to us and does not affect the appraised value of the home). This removes the inherent risk involved in property flipping and turns it into an infinite money glitch.
You could essentially do this with any item you buy and resell. As long as the market value is higher than what you paid, you'll earn a profit. It's just that bigger ticket items are more efficient to flip.
For that reason, I'd go with the discount.
The only reason the income amount choice would be attractive if is if there was a compounding component that allowed the amount to scale.
You could even generate a huge amount of income using the first option.
For instance, if I purchase a house that is appraised at 500,000 for 250,000, I instantly have 250,000 dollars worth of equity. I can just sell, collect the 250k equity, and apply it to a more expensive home for which I will then immediately earn equity. You would only need to do this a few times to become a billionaire.
Here's the path to 1 billion dollars if you increase the home purchase price in accordance to the equity earned on last sale:
This is essentially what flippers do, except we don't have to do any extra work because the capital gain comes from the 50% discount of the purchase (which is unique to us and does not affect the appraised value of the home). This removes the inherent risk involved in property flipping and turns it into an infinite money glitch.
You could essentially do this with any item you buy and resell. As long as the market value is higher than what you paid, you'll earn a profit. It's just that bigger ticket items are more efficient to flip.
Last edited by a moderator: