8 ms·

I hope she wins. There's a pretty funny (or sad, I suppose) reddit comment about winning the lottery that seems pretty true: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit

I hope she wins. There's a pretty funny (or sad, I suppose) reddit comment about winning the lottery that seems pretty true: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vzgl/you_just_won_a_656_million_dollar_lottery_what_do/chba4bf/?utm_content=permalink&utm_medium=front&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=AskReddit https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vzgl/you_just_... Winning the lottery (publicly, at least) seems to be a real monkey's paw wish.

Sniffnoy 9y ago
Note: The text of this comments is (AFAIK) originally from this 2008 forum post: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/-/5-749519/ https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/-/5-749519/
- pronoiac 9y ago
  Heh, and that was a user reposting their previous comment: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/_ARCHIVED_THREAD____What_would_you_do_if_you_won_the_275million_power_ball_drawing_/5-686685/?page=2#i12473256 https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/_ARCHIVED_THREAD____What...
  - dawnerd 9y ago
    Basically FWD:FWD:FWD Think we can assume none of it is true. Seems a bit alarmist. At most its no different than what any other wealthy person has to deal with. Welcome to being rich.
meddlepal 9y ago
The follow up is pretty good advice too and is the advice I have been given by lawyers I know that are familiar with these problems... also they have all advised getting the hell out the country for awhile. Congrats, you are taking a two-week vacation in London or Paris. Long enough to get paperwork dealt with and short enough that it does not need explanation to family, friends or colleagues.
kodablah 9y ago
> I hope she wins I'm not sure I do. She opted into a transparent system and gets the down side that comes with it (or opts out). If this was thrust upon her, I might feel different. I fear the precedent this would set for redacting names from Forbes lists and the like. It's one of those unfortunate occurrences where openness and privacy are in conflict and when it's government actions like this, arresting someone, awarding some other monies to someone, etc I think openness should prevail.
- baddox 9y ago
  I don’t see the value in sticking to this legal technicality. She could have accepted the ticket using an anonymous trust, but since she signed it with her own name instead, she’s not allowed to change it. Since anonymous trusts are already legal there, there’s no threat of “losing openness.” I mean come on, that’s such a petty technicality for such a massive life event. Just let her set up the anonymous trust and move the ticket to it.
  - wahern 9y ago
    The problem is allowing people to challenge the process, ex post facto, by which a winner is established. You can't think of any reason why making it easier to challenge that process--to change the outcome--might be problematic for an agency tasked with giving away hundreds of millions of dollars? Finality is one of the primary functions of rules and laws--of justice--often more important than getting a "correct" outcome in any particular case, especially in cases such as this where the woman is free to return to the status quo ante by forgoing the winnings altogether. And in as much as courts can make and change laws, they must do so on principle, almost always by applying or extending some pre-existing principle of law. It can be difficult to articulate a principle cabined to the particular facts of a single case. It's much easier for legislatures to do that--to craft a rule that literally recites the facts of this woman's case so that the exception only applies to her and to people facing her exact same circumstance. Maybe the court can do that in this case. We just shouldn't make the mistake of thinking it's an easy case to resolve.
    - 9y ago
LaGrange 9y ago
> If you are really paranoid, you might consider picking another G7 or otherwise mainstream country other than the U.S. according to where you want to live if the United States dissolves into anarchy or Britney Spears is elected to the United States Senate. Ah, 2014. Such a bright, optimistic time to be alive.
- tnzn 9y ago
  I hope the US dissolves into anarchism. I'd move here.
aje403 9y ago
It's really like some kind of kafkaesque greek irony or bad horror movie. Most of these people probably wish they threw away the ticket.
mcbits 9y ago
I really disagree with the common advice to take the lump sum - unless the winner is elderly. It seems to be centered on the idea that you can earn more interest/dividends yourself, but there are a few problems with that. 1. To get higher rates of return, you expose yourself to more risk of losses. The risk is real, i.e., you could lose everything. 2. You need even better (riskier) returns to pay for all the legal/investment/accounting advice because lottery winners rarely have experience here, at least not in the first year. 3. You need even better returns (and more risk) to make up for the taxes you pay up front. The annuity is based on pre-tax funds, and federal tax is much higher than the 25% initial withholding. 4. A $2-3 million windfall is more than enough to live on a sensible six-figure budget and get some practice with investing. If you screw up, you get another windfall next year. Just avoid debt. 5. Will taxes go up in 10 years? Who cares. They won't go to 100%. Even if you lose everything for 9 years straight, you'll still be rich in 10 years with far more certainty than if you took the lump sum. Just stay out of debt.
- walshemj 9y ago
  You are ignoring political risk eg in 15 years that state government changes the rules and sequesters the money - this actually happened in the UK to the SERP pension I lost mine for a small uplift in the state pension when they changed the rules. You also ignoring the time value of money 100 million to day is worth more than 10 million for 10 years
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    > You also ignoring the time value of money 100 million to day is worth more than 10 million for 10 years The "now" and "later" lottery payment options do not offer equal nominal amounts, so it doesn't make sense to just say "you're ignoring the time value of money". The regular payment pays out more nominal money because of the time value of money. You could argue that they're getting it wrong, but that's a radically different argument.
    - walshemj 9y ago
      Depends on 1 how old you are and 2 your health
hathawsh 9y ago
That Reddit thread is really great. One idea they don't mention is that perhaps the extreme transparency of winning the lottery should include anyone who begs for money. That is to say, the lottery winner should bring a camera with them everywhere they go, film every beggar and harasser, and post all the footage on YouTube. This would of course require a good bodyguard or two. I think that's what I would do. When someone is about to start their pitch, I would tell them the rules: if you pitch to me, you must do it on camera, in public. Otherwise, I'm calling my bodyguard.
- taurath 9y ago
  Except the biggest problem will be friends or family that suddenly all “need help” because they spend their money frivolously or suddenly their car breaks. That or you get totally pushed out because you weren’t generous enough.
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    My mother-in-law got an accident settlement 20 years ago. Suddenly, foreign "relatives" she'd never met were calling her for handouts (and that's besides the relatives that she knows who were asking).
ChuckMcM 9y ago
Yeah, that. It always amazed me that Eric Schmidt spent millions every year on personal security for himself and his family. But the reality is that for some people it is "easier" to find someone with money and force them to give it up than it is to get the money legitimately. The comments about family really resonate. I did not realize that so many of these folks were being killed by family members, that seems a bit extreme.
- ikeboy 9y ago
  The general rule is, if you can afford it, you need it. I think I first saw this rule about lawyers but rings true with bodyguards, insurance, etc
DoreenMichele 9y ago
You're not going to double your money, so cool it. Let me say that again. You're not going to double your money, so cool it. My dad grew up in the Great Depression. He used to say "The best way to double your money is fold it in half and stick it in your pocket."
King-Aaron 9y ago
That was a truly eye-opening read. My word.

Sniffnoy 9y ago

Note: The text of this comments is (AFAIK) originally from this 2008 forum post: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/-/5-749519/ https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/-/5-749519/

pronoiac 9y ago
Heh, and that was a user reposting their previous comment: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/_ARCHIVED_THREAD____What_would_you_do_if_you_won_the_275million_power_ball_drawing_/5-686685/?page=2#i12473256 https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/_ARCHIVED_THREAD____What...
- dawnerd 9y ago
  Basically FWD:FWD:FWD Think we can assume none of it is true. Seems a bit alarmist. At most its no different than what any other wealthy person has to deal with. Welcome to being rich.

meddlepal 9y ago

The follow up is pretty good advice too and is the advice I have been given by lawyers I know that are familiar with these problems... also they have all advised getting the hell out the country for awhile. Congrats, you are taking a two-week vacation in London or Paris. Long enough to get paperwork dealt with and short enough that it does not need explanation to family, friends or colleagues.

kodablah 9y ago

> I hope she wins I'm not sure I do. She opted into a transparent system and gets the down side that comes with it (or opts out). If this was thrust upon her, I might feel different. I fear the precedent this would set for redacting names from Forbes lists and the like. It's one of those unfortunate occurrences where openness and privacy are in conflict and when it's government actions like this, arresting someone, awarding some other monies to someone, etc I think openness should prevail.

baddox 9y ago
I don’t see the value in sticking to this legal technicality. She could have accepted the ticket using an anonymous trust, but since she signed it with her own name instead, she’s not allowed to change it. Since anonymous trusts are already legal there, there’s no threat of “losing openness.” I mean come on, that’s such a petty technicality for such a massive life event. Just let her set up the anonymous trust and move the ticket to it.
- wahern 9y ago
  The problem is allowing people to challenge the process, ex post facto, by which a winner is established. You can't think of any reason why making it easier to challenge that process--to change the outcome--might be problematic for an agency tasked with giving away hundreds of millions of dollars? Finality is one of the primary functions of rules and laws--of justice--often more important than getting a "correct" outcome in any particular case, especially in cases such as this where the woman is free to return to the status quo ante by forgoing the winnings altogether. And in as much as courts can make and change laws, they must do so on principle, almost always by applying or extending some pre-existing principle of law. It can be difficult to articulate a principle cabined to the particular facts of a single case. It's much easier for legislatures to do that--to craft a rule that literally recites the facts of this woman's case so that the exception only applies to her and to people facing her exact same circumstance. Maybe the court can do that in this case. We just shouldn't make the mistake of thinking it's an easy case to resolve.
  - 9y ago

LaGrange 9y ago

> If you are really paranoid, you might consider picking another G7 or otherwise mainstream country other than the U.S. according to where you want to live if the United States dissolves into anarchy or Britney Spears is elected to the United States Senate. Ah, 2014. Such a bright, optimistic time to be alive.

tnzn 9y ago
I hope the US dissolves into anarchism. I'd move here.

aje403 9y ago

It's really like some kind of kafkaesque greek irony or bad horror movie. Most of these people probably wish they threw away the ticket.

mcbits 9y ago

I really disagree with the common advice to take the lump sum - unless the winner is elderly. It seems to be centered on the idea that you can earn more interest/dividends yourself, but there are a few problems with that. 1. To get higher rates of return, you expose yourself to more risk of losses. The risk is real, i.e., you could lose everything. 2. You need even better (riskier) returns to pay for all the legal/investment/accounting advice because lottery winners rarely have experience here, at least not in the first year. 3. You need even better returns (and more risk) to make up for the taxes you pay up front. The annuity is based on pre-tax funds, and federal tax is much higher than the 25% initial withholding. 4. A $2-3 million windfall is more than enough to live on a sensible six-figure budget and get some practice with investing. If you screw up, you get another windfall next year. Just avoid debt. 5. Will taxes go up in 10 years? Who cares. They won't go to 100%. Even if you lose everything for 9 years straight, you'll still be rich in 10 years with far more certainty than if you took the lump sum. Just stay out of debt.

walshemj 9y ago
You are ignoring political risk eg in 15 years that state government changes the rules and sequesters the money - this actually happened in the UK to the SERP pension I lost mine for a small uplift in the state pension when they changed the rules. You also ignoring the time value of money 100 million to day is worth more than 10 million for 10 years
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  > You also ignoring the time value of money 100 million to day is worth more than 10 million for 10 years The "now" and "later" lottery payment options do not offer equal nominal amounts, so it doesn't make sense to just say "you're ignoring the time value of money". The regular payment pays out more nominal money because of the time value of money. You could argue that they're getting it wrong, but that's a radically different argument.
  - walshemj 9y ago
    Depends on 1 how old you are and 2 your health

hathawsh 9y ago

That Reddit thread is really great. One idea they don't mention is that perhaps the extreme transparency of winning the lottery should include anyone who begs for money. That is to say, the lottery winner should bring a camera with them everywhere they go, film every beggar and harasser, and post all the footage on YouTube. This would of course require a good bodyguard or two. I think that's what I would do. When someone is about to start their pitch, I would tell them the rules: if you pitch to me, you must do it on camera, in public. Otherwise, I'm calling my bodyguard.

taurath 9y ago
Except the biggest problem will be friends or family that suddenly all “need help” because they spend their money frivolously or suddenly their car breaks. That or you get totally pushed out because you weren’t generous enough.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  My mother-in-law got an accident settlement 20 years ago. Suddenly, foreign "relatives" she'd never met were calling her for handouts (and that's besides the relatives that she knows who were asking).

ChuckMcM 9y ago

Yeah, that. It always amazed me that Eric Schmidt spent millions every year on personal security for himself and his family. But the reality is that for some people it is "easier" to find someone with money and force them to give it up than it is to get the money legitimately. The comments about family really resonate. I did not realize that so many of these folks were being killed by family members, that seems a bit extreme.

ikeboy 9y ago
The general rule is, if you can afford it, you need it. I think I first saw this rule about lawyers but rings true with bodyguards, insurance, etc

DoreenMichele 9y ago

You're not going to double your money, so cool it. Let me say that again. You're not going to double your money, so cool it. My dad grew up in the Great Depression. He used to say "The best way to double your money is fold it in half and stick it in your pocket."

King-Aaron 9y ago

That was a truly eye-opening read. My word.