so then; that’s one more for spending it all on hookers and blow, then?
Darn you dopers and your logic. Just when I was feeling smug too.
I’ve gotta rethink this now. Here BigT… you hold the money while I figure this out. 
I give to charities now, so all that would change is I could give more. Maybe branch out into some kickstarter projects. I don’t think I’d feel any special obligation though, unless the charity had been promised the money and already made arrangements and spent resources based in the promise. And I’d keep the bulk for myself.
I’d take out exactly enough to put myself through paramedic school minus the debt, and not one red cent more.
Oh, but I want the dog. I’ll take excellent care of him, but he’s totally mine.
Hey, I said maybe, didn’t I? You asked a question, I gave a possible answer.
:eek:
What kind of sick freak fucks blind kids?
I, of course, would have never faced the quandary, as dogs rarely get sympathy from me. It’s not like it was a cat. That said, the SDOW has already provided for the mutt; what if it prefers its current caretaker?
I give money to St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, which provides free medical care to needy children with cancer and other horrid diseases. Are you saying that’s wrong? If so, why?
That attitude is kind of …
Nah, skip it.
While not my primary fetish, I can underst oh wait. . .you were kidding. N/M.
Hmm. That depends, can the dog legally demonstrate to a court in some way that s/he prefers the current caretaker?
If we’re talking tens of millions (i.e. more money than I could ever spend), I’d do the same with it regardless of source:
1> Set myself up to have a comfortable, but not extravagant, income for the rest of my life (I know nothing about things like estate planning or trust funds, but something like that). Basically I’d just make sure that I could always pay the rent, buy food, and pay for medical care. I’d pay off debts, buy new [everything I have that’s completely worn out because I can’t afford to replace it – which is quite a bit, actually], and just generally make sure that I’m covered, money-wise, so I never have to worry about not making rent again. I rather like the idea of not having to rely on anyone else to accomplish that, including employers, since people are notoriously unreliable.
2> Whatever is left over will be given away / donated. I’d probably take my time coming up with a full donation list, and if I somehow found out which charity she’d originally planned to bequest to, and it aligned with my own values (including spending most of its donations on its cause instead of on overhead), it would certainly make the list. But I’d be giving to other charities and individual people I know, too.
I figure that the dotty old lady has a right to do with her money as she sees fit, so no, I wouldn’t feel guilty about it.
I’d set up my own charity providing free or very low cost dental care for those who need it. I’ve been noticing a lot of needy mouths in Wisconsin. So many of the poor (both working and unemployed) have lost, or are losing their teeth. This could be due to their own neglect, or the inability to pay for regular dentist visits. Painless dentistry, free dentures … that’s where I’d spend the loot.
I’d keep every cent without the slightest shred of guilt. Since I’ve always felt that I’d try to do some good things with any lottery win, I’d treat the windfall the same way. But if I didn’t feel any special identification with the original charity, it gets nada.
Hmm. I did; and you did, just as you say.
IFF that’s the case, the only thing that changes is that I get to buy an elevator for my cars, now that I don’t have to set anything aside to get the lawyer disbarred.
Mine, no guilt. I’m sure then as now I would continue to give to charity. But it would be one or more of my chosen charities.
I’d take it without guilt. Id it’s tens of thousands of dollars, however, I’d be giving a lot of it away however I’d come by it, so I’d give it to charity and take the old lady’s former will into account when choosing said charities.
Actually, I think that essential care like that should be provided by the state and not subject to the whims of charitable donations - charity should be for extras, like cats’ homes or toys for kids, not medical care for kids. Providing those essential services via charities means that governments don’t have to, or not as much. Essentially, by giving money to those charities you are letting the govt off the hook for providing those services.
Of course, at the same time you’re helping kids who are sick right now and aren’t being provided for the by the govt, so it’s good for them and far less bad than spending all your money on hookers and blow or just rolling around in your money going “and I got the little dog, too!”
you couldn’t spend tens of millions of dollars? Man, I sure as hell would give it my best shot.
I could do it in 5 seconds. My dream July 4th fireworks display is to see two remote conrolled 747s loaded with fuel and explosives crash head on into each other at 10,000 feet. I’m not sure mere tens of millions would be enough!