I function this way too. At the start of the month a third of my income goes to my rent, a third goes to my savings and the last third is to pay anything that I'll have to pay in the month, from bills (electricity, insurances...) to leasure activites (restaurants, parties...) If I can't finish the month and need to use a bit of money from my savings, I know precisely by how much I overspent and I can be more careful the next month if needed.

The value of the free time in nanoman's answer is higher because it could easily be switched with work time. If you won't, in any case, work past your usual hours, then your free time is always "valueless" in term of money that you could have made during that same time. On the other hand, if you love your job and have no problem doing a few OT, then doing something else could be considered a loss of money.

So if I understand right : if the company has a capital of 100$, each share is worth 1$. At the point where the company bought 99% of its share, knowing it had to pay 1$ to the previous owners each time, the company is only worth 1$. It then makes no sense to offer 1$ to the last share holder because he already own fully the company and its 1$ of capital.

@Acccumulation Edited by Tim Parenti (thanks). Brian is indeed right, it was a bad translation.

@MatthieuM. I'm not a banker but I wonder if hearing "I have enough to pay you back right now but I want to delay a bit" is not better than "I earn money so I hope I'll be able to pay you back on the long term" for a bank.