I Won The Lottery

[Bartmanhomer]

Hey everybody. I got wonderful news. Yesterday I won the New York State Lottery. I got fifty million dollars now. My lotto numbers we're 23, 17, 8, 29, 2 and 11. I'm so glad that TV chooses the right number. I'm very happy now. :smile: :smile: :smile:

[denthor]

Get an accountant, lawyer at the minimum. I wish you the best. Your troubles have just begun.

Remember money does not solve your problems it just gives you better view.

Oh and really listen to Bob Dillon "Like a rolling stone " Remember not everyone is your friend.

[enderlord99]

Cool! How many celebrity-signatures is that worth? :smallwink:

[Douglas]

April Fools, right?

[Arutema]

April Fools, right?

It does appear to have been posted just past midnight, April 1, in New York's time zone.

[Razade]

It's better than his forged autographs of famous people. He's trying new things at least.

[Lemmy]

No celebrity autograph this year?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I was there, I took his picture!

https://i.postimg.cc/HWXRqjPb/winner.jpg

[Willie the Duck]

It's better than his forged autographs of famous people. He's trying new things at least.

It is too bad, though. I went in (foolishly not expecting an April Fools gag) hoping for a 'I won the lottery, 800 bucks, let's discuss!' kind of thread.

[Tvtyrant]

Take the lump sum, the reduction in prize money is less then you would earn in interest if invested.

[The Fury]

I was there, I took his picture!

https://i.postimg.cc/HWXRqjPb/winner.jpg

I don't know what I was expecting Bartmanhomer to look like. That ain't it though.

[The Glyphstone]

I don't know what I was expecting Bartmanhomer to look like. That ain't it though.

That's what I said when he posted a self-portrait a few months back.

[Peelee]

I was there, I took his picture!

https://i.postimg.cc/HWXRqjPb/winner.jpg

The signature was a delightful touch!

[ZamielVanWeber]

Take the lump sum, the reduction in prize money is less then you would earn in interest if invested.

The over time one scales to inflation though, so it is essentially a safe investment. Before accepting either talk to a professional investment consultant/tax attorney/etc, not an H&R Block type. And remember, if you don't handle the cash perfectly your life is ruined.

[Asmotherion]

I was kinda hopping every regular member would get a free gamer pc to prove it :p

[Tvtyrant]

The over time one scales to inflation though, so it is essentially a safe investment. Before accepting either talk to a professional investment consultant/tax attorney/etc, not an H&R Block type. And remember, if you don't handle the cash perfectly your life is ruined.

The interest rate on prudent investments tends to (is nearly always) higher then inflation. The reason companies offer that option is it is better for them.

Winning the lottery often ruins lives, its not exactly to be taken lightly. People draw hanger-ons who offer them whatever they want in return for their money, family and friends find their relationships eroded, coming into large amounts of money is good but also dangerous. A professional is a very good idea.

[lio45]

I was there, I took his picture!

https://i.postimg.cc/HWXRqjPb/winner.jpgThis wins the thread.

(I was going to suggest "Take the lump sum and use it to buy celebrity autographs as investments. Incidentally, I have a few to sell. PM me.")

[137beth]

Cool! How many celebrity-signatures is that worth? :smallwink:

I'm out of the loop: why do people keep mentioning celebrity signatures in this thread?

EDIT: Is it a reference to this thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?555007-I-Got-Aaron-Judge-Autograph&highlight=celebrity) or threads like it?

EDIT 2: Oh, there are several (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?584690-I-Got-Serena-Williams-And-Venus-Williams-Autograph&highlight=Autograph) of (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?520094-I-Got-LeBron-James-Autograph&highlight=Autograph) these (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?483377-I-Got-Peyton-Manning-Autograph-And-I-Got-Proof&highlight=Autograph) threads.

[PopeLinus1]

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vL2DZ57-Uts/maxresdefault.jpg

Guys, I finally found an image of Bartmanhomer!

[el minster]

more money more troubles

[Mavezius]

I never had any luck in the lottery.

[Klorox]

Assuming this is real, that’s awesome dude! Congratulations!

If it’s not real, I don’t get the joke. 🤷*♂️

[JadedDM]

If it’s not real, I don’t get the joke. 🤷*♂️

Look at the date when it was first posted.

[el minster]

Look at the date when it was first posted.

April first.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I.E. April Fool's Day.

[clingydreamers]

I'm happy for you, but also very jealous. >_<

[Xyril]

The over time one scales to inflation though, so it is essentially a safe investment. Before accepting either talk to a professional investment consultant/tax attorney/etc, not an H&R Block type. And remember, if you don't handle the cash perfectly your life is ruined.

While this might be strictly true, under most circumstances where inflation starts getting much higher than expected, many of the financial instruments that make up a diversified portfolio will also increase in value. For example, (expected) high inflation tends to push more people and institutions into putting more of their investments into things like stocks rather than currency reserves as a way to help protect their wealth against inflation--this among other things increases the value of stocks, all else equal. This won't be true of everything, of course, but overall inflation pressures will end up helping the lump-sum winner more than it hurts him.

There are conceivable circumstances where increasing inflation coincides with a drastic and prolonged crash in stocks, in which the lump-sum guy might fall behind the person who took the "safe" lifetime payment. However, at that point I'd have serious concerns about how the lottery commission is backing those annuities. I've never really looked into it--if it turns out that they're directly backed by the government, for example, then maybe I'm worried about nothing. In general though, private entities who routinely agree to pay people over period of decades (such as pension funds) have to fund those future payments through some sort investments. Theoretically, they're want to pick investments that give enough of a return to beat putting the money into a bank and collecting interest, but are generally on the safer side. However, my first instinct is that the sort of situation where your inflation-pegged lottery payout starts substantially outperforming the lump-sum investor is the scenario where even fairly conservative investments aren't safe.

Remember, short of a few very high value private (hedge funds, for examples) or legislatively controlled (direct government backing of debt) options, the people administering the lottery largely have access to the same set of investments that the winners do. If something happened that seriously hurts the lump-sum winner's investments, chance are it also seriously undermined the ability of the lottery to pay inflation-pegged annuities.

The real advantage of the long-term payout is if you have serious concerns about your own, or your beneficiary's, self-control, and you want to make sure that there's always a bit more money coming no matter what impulsive choices you made. However, there are a ton of ways to put the same safeguards into place using a trust.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I don't know the whole picture, but I know part of the lottery revenue from the sale of tickets goes into the payout fund. So to a certain extent, the lottery is a Ponzi scheme.

[Peelee]

I don't know the whole picture, but I know part of the lottery revenue from the sale of tickets goes into the payout fund. So to a certain extent, the lottery is a Ponzi scheme.

Lotteries are very up-front about the remarkably low odds of any person getting any ROI, which is the opposite of how a ponzi scheme works.

[Rogar Demonblud]

True. The local one gives you a 1 in three hundred-something chance of getting your dollar back. Next level up is like 1 in 5000 to get $3. And people still play.

[Peelee]

True. The local one gives you a 1 in three hundred-something chance of getting your dollar back. Next level up is like 1 in 5000 to get $3. And people still play.

Eh, I'd probably play the lotto if I could; I see it as effectively entertainment - you spend a dollar a week to imagine how awesome it would be if you won, with a non-zero chance of winning.

I doubt a good deal of lotto players see it that way though.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I can imagine that for free, and spend the dollar elsewhere.

[Peelee]

I can imagine that for free, and spend the dollar elsewhere.

Hence why I added the "non-zero chance" in there. Different strokes for different folks, what entertains me may not entertain others, and a buck every week or two for a small bit of fantasy sounds like it'd tickle my fancy.

[Vinyadan]

Hence why I added the "non-zero chance" in there. Different strokes for different folks, what entertains me may not entertain others, and a buck every week or two for a small bit of fantasy sounds like it'd tickle my fancy.
No need for the lotto, then: you can just imagine finding a 10 $ bill on the pavement. Your chances of winning is probably the same, and you aren't giving up any money :smallwink:

[Peelee]

No need for the lotto, then: you can just imagine finding a 10 $ bill on the pavement. Your chances of winning is probably the same, and you aren't giving up any money :smallwink:

Again, that's why I said "non-zero chance".

For something that so far in my life has cost me ten dollars that I valued as worthwhile entertainment, I'm always surprise ld at the amount of pushback I get on it. Especially when that pushback explicitly avoids my reasoning.

[dancrilis]

Again, that's why I said "non-zero chance".

For something that so far in my life has cost me ten dollars that I valued as worthwhile entertainment, I'm always surprise ld at the amount of pushback I get on it. Especially when that pushback explicitly avoids my reasoning.

Clearly you are having fun wrong - now I will go spend much more money then that on [Insert Activity Here] which has zero chance of paying off because it is my money and [Insert Activity Here] amuses me.

[enderlord99]

Again, that's why I said "non-zero chance".

For something that so far in my life has cost me ten dollars that I valued as worthwhile entertainment, I'm always surprise ld at the amount of pushback I get on it. Especially when that pushback explicitly avoids my reasoning.

Technically, you do in fact have a non-zero chance of finding a $10 bill on the pavement. They didn't "explicitly avoid" your reasoning; they only mostly avoided it.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Again, that's why I said "non-zero chance".

For something that so far in my life has cost me ten dollars that I valued as worthwhile entertainment, I'm always surprised at the amount of pushback I get on it. Especially when that pushback explicitly avoids my reasoning.

I acknowledge your reasoning. I just think there's too many things and causes that need money to waste a dollar on the lottery when I can instead help fund the local food pantry, humane society, school backpacks, etc.

[Peelee]

I acknowledge your reasoning. I just think there's too many things and causes that need money to waste a dollar on the lottery when I can instead help fund the local food pantry, humane society, school backpacks, etc.

I do donate to charities directly. I also work with the 501st Legion, which, among other things, further raises money for charities.

If I buy a new television, would you say that I could have out that money towards a local food pantry instead? If i sign up for a new streaming service, would you argue that it's a waste of seven dollars a month that could instead help the local school system? Do you forego all forms of entertainment so that you focus solely on improving all other aspects of society, and do not pay for any form of recreation ever?

Because unless you answer "yes" to all those, I'll spend a few dollars to entertain myself any damn way I please and I will completely disregard any comments on how or why I am entertaining myself in the wrong way because it's not specifically a thing that you would do, thankyouverymuch.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Depends. Did you get a new television because the other died, or just for NewShiny? How much are you actually using that streaming service? Are your 'entertainment' dollars actually getting you entertainment, or just more stuff to pile up on the other stuff?

I grew up poor enough I never got into stuff, I hate spending more than absolutely necessary and I am very aware of how much need there is out there. Which leads to my only getting New Thing when Old Thing no longer works, most things are subject to a strict cost-benefit analysis that shoves them in the discard pile and my biggest pile of 'stuff' is a few boxes of awards and certificates for my volunteer work. Well, the actual biggest pile is the stuff for keeping up my work certifications, but you know what I mean.

This works for me. All I ask is that you keep the idea that there's a different way to do things in mind when deciding how to spend your money.

[el minster]

Technically, you do in fact have a non-zero chance of finding a $10 bill on the pavement. They didn't "explicitly avoid" your reasoning; they only mostly avoided it.

Technically there is a non-zero chance of you putting your hand on a wall and it moving through the wall.

[Peelee]

Depends. Did you get a new television because the other died, or just for NewShiny? How much are you actually using that streaming service? Are your 'entertainment' dollars actually getting you entertainment, or just more stuff to pile up on the other stuff?

I grew up poor enough I never got into stuff, I hate spending more than absolutely necessary and I am very aware of how much need there is out there. Which leads to my only getting New Thing when Old Thing no longer works, most things are subject to a strict cost-benefit analysis that shoves them in the discard pile and my biggest pile of 'stuff' is a few boxes of awards and certificates for my volunteer work. Well, the actual biggest pile is the stuff for keeping up my work certifications, but you know what I mean.

This works for me. All I ask is that you keep the idea that there's a different way to do things in mind when deciding how to spend your money.

Let me rephrase. Exactly how much do I need to use the streaming service to justify the expense? It it in terms of hours or in terms of the amount of enjoyment I get out of it? If hours, please state the number of hours. If enjoyment, what exactly is your argument here?

You're passing judgement on me not giving a few dollars to others instead of using it for entertainment, despite the fact that I already give money to others and volunteer both time and effort directly to others and to fundraise for others. So, if you are going to pass judgement, I want to explore that judgement by seeing how it applies to you. I am, after all, being judged by you, I think it's only fair. So, I assume you only buy the cheapest possible food to suit your exact nutritional needs? Anything more, after all, is unnecessary. Surely you're not indulging in petty things like flavor when you could instead get the bare minimum and give the money you save to food pantries. After all, are you eating food for caloric intake, or just for NewShiny NiceTasty?

Further, I'm rather surprised that you specifically asked, "Are your 'entertainment' dollars actually getting you entertainment, or just more stuff to pile up on the other stuff?" Because yes, my entire argument this whole time has been "I rarely play the lottery but when I do I my 'entertainment' dollar actually gets me entertainment" but for some reason you argued against that and have been continuing to argue against that while simultaneously waving the "why don't you donate" flag despite not knowing a single thing about how much or often I donate (and again, donate not only money, but also work and time) and then when informed that I do already donate simply assuming it could be more based on absolutely nothing.

So no. You can tell me that you subsist solely on bread and water and give vast reserves of your freed-up wealth to food banks and schools, or you can continue to argue that an unknown percent of my unknown budget can be added to my unknown amount of donations with complete disregard for how others derive entertainment because it differs from how you do. Frankly, I don't care which, because neither will make me feel that your argument is in any way justified.

Or, ya know, the third option of "maybe it's not a good idea to pass judgement on how others entertain themselves, especially when it hurts absolutely nobody, double especially when it is remarkably low dollar amounts, and triple especially when they openly tell you that they already do the things you think they should do instead." That one's good. I vote for that one.

[dancrilis]

Or, ya know, the third option of "maybe it's not a good idea to pass judgement on how others entertain themselves, especially when it hurts absolutely nobody, double especially when it is remarkably low dollar amounts, and triple especially when they openly tell you that they already do the things you think they should do instead." That one's good. I vote for that one.

That reads a bit odd (to me).
Do you mean 'especially when it hurts absolutely nobody' or should this be 'unless it harms someone'?*
*(and then remove double and replace triple with double).

[Peelee]

That reads a bit odd (to me).
Do you mean 'especially when it hurts absolutely nobody' or should this be 'unless it harms someone'?*
*(and then remove double and replace triple with double).

I can understand that, but I didn't want to lump in enjoying playing/watching sports. Quick and dirty example, I like to throw sidearm, and I like when pros decide to throw sidearm, despite that throwing sidearm makes one more prone to injury (obviously I don't want them injured, but it's a risk).

[dancrilis]

I can understand that, but I didn't want to lump in enjoying playing/watching sports. Quick and dirty example, I like to throw sidearm, and I like when pros decide to throw sidearm, despite that throwing sidearm makes one more prone to injury (obviously I don't want them injured, but it's a risk).

Ah, understood - I was thinking more 'someone actively harming others for fun could be judged' but getting a statement to include the exceptions (either way) would just make it clunky.

[Vinyadan]

Again, that's why I said "non-zero chance".

For something that so far in my life has cost me ten dollars that I valued as worthwhile entertainment, I'm always surprise ld at the amount of pushback I get on it. Especially when that pushback explicitly avoids my reasoning.

It wasn't really a pushback: you did say you can't play lotto, so I proposed an alternative :smalltongue:

[Peelee]

It wasn't really a pushback: you did say you can't play lotto, so I proposed an alternative :smalltongue:

Ha! Fair point.

[snowblizz]

I acknowledge your reasoning. I just think there's too many things and causes that need money to waste a dollar on the lottery when I can instead help fund the local food pantry, humane society, school backpacks, etc.

But if the lottery dollar does support charity? Which funnily enough is how most got started and the reason they tend to remain allowed. So e.g. I read in historical magazine about the first lotteries here which were used to fund charitable projects, while simultaneously acknowledged to provide an outlet for a desire for gambling in people.


I don't know the whole picture, but I know part of the lottery revenue from the sale of tickets goes into the payout fund. So to a certain extent, the lottery is a Ponzi scheme.

Not really. A Ponzi scheme uses past revenue to masquerade as future profit slowly moving the "payout" to a future date that will never arrive and accrue a significant shortfall. A lottery is quite explicit that the majority of the revenue is paid back to the players immediately (that is of the lottery rounds' "takings", say 95% is used to pay current winners). I'm not sure what the typical number is but usually such cases like to brag with 90-95% or even higher returns of winnings. Effectively a lottery is a form of capital aggregation and distribution. Each round of the lottery is more or less self-funding. Allowing for a a certain variation along methods and so on (lotteries are organised in various ways). This is why at least here unpaid revenue is piled-up and paid out at a later date in a increasingly large "jackpot".


I used to pick up a lottery ticket for a while while it was easy in the grocery store. Since it's a state controlled monopoly it's transparent and (most of) the proceeds go to various charitable causes, a lot of youth sports e.g. get a lot of money off it. It is not a lot different than putting a buck in a jar of the ppl standing outside the supermarket, except that I can't tell how they use the funds and I can only support one specific cause I might not care for (the charities themselves also do not necessarily put all revenue into actual charity). And the lottery at least in theory I could win something. Once got 10 bucks back, yay.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I'm not sure how it works where you live (Sweden, isn't it?), but here in the U.S. the state takes 50-70% of the lottery money off the top and uses it to fund the bureaucracy and various political pet projects (for instance, North Dakota hired private security forces to go after the protestors during the DAPL thing a couple years ago). Youth sports are generally controlled by the school districts, and paid for out of property taxes (and some ticket sales).

Naturally, there is no such thing as transparency involved. Yet another thing to invest sweat equity in.

[snowblizz]

I'm not sure how it works where you live (Sweden, isn't it?), but here in the U.S. the state takes 50-70% of the lottery money off the top and uses it to fund the bureaucracy and various political pet projects (for instance, North Dakota hired private security forces to go after the protestors during the DAPL thing a couple years ago). Youth sports are generally controlled by the school districts, and paid for out of property taxes (and some ticket sales).

Naturally, there is no such thing as transparency involved. Yet another thing to invest sweat equity in.

Technically Finland, but for anything happened before 1809 Sweden. The countries are, however, very very similar. And I watch mostly Swedish tv. So clearly quite different approaches how to organise a lottery. Even the privately owned gambling companies pay out around 95% winnings (at least that's what they advertise to attract players).

Because I was now curious, and because I could, I went and hunted down the numbers for the state monopoly (all gaming not just lottery, lottery represents somewhere about 25-30% of it). It's not as good as I thought actually. Roughly 45% of revenue are paid out as winnings. Of the remaining part, ~1.7 B last year, 60% goes to charitable* causes, 9% fees to distributors, 12% is state lottery tax and 19% goes to administration. *Charitable here means supporting various sports, veterans, culture, social-health and research activities. Though the company itself doesn't pick these. Though spitballing it ends up being somewhere close to 80% of revenue going back to "society", players, charitable causes and state. I guess it's not that bad.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I take it "Administration" covers advertising? I don't see that listed separately.

[enderlord99]

Technically there is a non-zero chance of you putting your hand on a wall and it moving through the wall.

I've punched through walls before, yes.

[snowblizz]

I take it "Administration" covers advertising? I don't see that listed separately.

I think so yes. There are televised lotto draws and other such that it pays for too. Advertisement is quite strictly limited though by law. So generally speaking they can only advertise how much good things they do with proceeds.

The main idea with the set-up is that gambling will exist regardless so rather than futilely fight it or completely abdicate responsibility it will exist under controlled forms to 1) minimize it and it's impact and 2) provide funding for socially acceptable causes.

An effective monopoly on distribution of most alcoholic beverages exists for the same reason. That one always seemed more schizophrenic in it's execution than the gambling monopoly.

[Rogar Demonblud]

We have both here. The state lottery is really just another tax by now, with little going anywhere useful (definitely not to roads and bridges, the stated purpose when they started). The alcohol revenue goes to the police, who thus have little incentive to try and shut down things like underage drinking or college house parties, since they're effectively paid to enable it.

As you can guess, I throw a cold and fishy eye on the whole schmear.

[snowblizz]

I've heard lottery being described as a tax on idiots and I can see where that idea comes from.

[LibraryOgre]

I maintain the lottery would be far less profitable if there was a good chance to make a solid living from wages. With wages being flat for decades, the lottery becomes more attractive as the chance to have a good life, and give a good life to your friends and family.

That's why you often hear people say "If I win the lottery, I'm going to pay off all my bills and make sure my parents are taken care of" not "If I win the lottery, we'll finally buy that third house and give the nanny a slight raise"... people with second-house and nanny money don't play the lottery because they don't need the extra money as desperately.

[Peelee]

I maintain the lottery would be far less profitable if there was a good chance to make a solid living from wages. With wages being flat for decades, the lottery becomes more attractive as the chance to have a good life, and give a good life to your friends and family.

I have a few other, similar theories.

[snowblizz]

I maintain the lottery would be far less profitable if there was a good chance to make a solid living from wages. With wages being flat for decades, the lottery becomes more attractive as the chance to have a good life, and give a good life to your friends and family.

That's why you often hear people say "If I win the lottery, I'm going to pay off all my bills and make sure my parents are taken care of" not "If I win the lottery, we'll finally buy that third house and give the nanny a slight raise"... people with second-house and nanny money don't play the lottery because they don't need the extra money as desperately.

I'd like to say more but probably heading into inappropriate topics if I do. Suffice to say where I live the first claim be rather rare to hear because most of it is sorted already. So more likely to be "then we can pay off mortgage now instead of in 20 years and travel more". How do we count profitable though? Looking at the numbers about 25% of the total pot comes from the lottery. A whopping 40% from various slotmachines. Funnily enough they claim they are purposefully are trying to get people to play lottery as a "lower risk gambling" I assume compared to casino, slotmachines and sports betting. There's only 1 draw a week and not really incentives to keep increasing the stake I would assume is the thought.

I would argue what you really lose your shirt on is the online slotmachine equivalents and betting. That's usually where I see the people desperate to "fix" their life end up. Been a couple "big" such cases locally leading to the gaming monopoly changing rules like limiting daily stakes and such.



Oh! Apropos nothing, I suddenly stumbled onto the marketing numbers, last year they spent almost 30 M euro on marketing (out of a turnover of roughly 3 B).

[Rogar Demonblud]

So 3%. Over here, advertising is recommended to be 5% of your gross, so not too bad since you're a government entity instead of a corporation.

[snowblizz]

So 3%. Over here, advertising is recommended to be 5% of your gross, so not too bad since you're a government entity instead of a corporation.

And legally speakign they cannot advertise to entice you to play.

[asda fasda]

Winning the lottery often ruins lives, its not exactly to be taken lightly. People draw hanger-ons who offer them whatever they want in return for their money, family and friends find their relationships eroded, coming into large amounts of money is good but also dangerous. A professional is a very good idea.


I think that's mostly because most people don't realy understand how much (or rather little) they have won. As for example if you win 1 million USD and you are earning 30k USD a year, the amount seams amazing but what you have won is frankly c.a 30 year's pension. So if you want to change your live dramatically i.e buy new home, car etc and drop your boring work after a year or two you will find out that this prize is not enough, but at this moment it is hard to return to your previous life.

That's why if you win you need firstly try to understand how much exactly you have won, and grasping with huge numbers is hard for people. I suggest to try to calculate how many years of work this prize represent, because if the number of years is similar to your expected life expectancy you either won early retirement or better quality of live, not both, and you need to remember that.

As for lotteries I found them nice gift addition, it's usually additional 1$ for the gift and if this ticket win you just give the best gift ever : P Although it may sting a little : )

[Rogar Demonblud]

Actually, the first problem is that people look at the gross, not the net. 40% of that $1 million will be taken out automatically for taxes, so you really have $600,000 (before paying for the lawyers for the transfer details; they don't just hand you a check).

As with any windfall, the best thing you can do with it is pay down your debt load, since you're getting charged more in interest than you'll make in an investment.

[snowblizz]

Actually, the first problem is that people look at the gross, not the net. 40% of that $1 million will be taken out automatically for taxes, so you really have $600,000 (before paying for the lawyers for the transfer details; they don't just hand you a check).

As with any windfall, the best thing you can do with it is pay down your debt load, since you're getting charged more in interest than you'll make in an investment.

Man, you do not get a break there, like at all.
Here, the lottery tax is covered by the gaming concern, so what you win you keep. As long as you play something classified as a game of chance (and to the best of my knowledge all the monopoly's games are that) winnings are not taxed as income or capital gains, but as just that, lottery win which is covered under aformentioned lottery tax.

I know I've seen a discussion about taxing (online) poker winnings because it is sold as a game of skill. The service providers and players like to say it's based on skills, but then when it comes to taxing it as regular income suddenly it's a game of chance.

I agree it is usually a good idea to pay off debt, and man do you Americans like racking up various forms of high-interest debt. But, here am thinking of most common debt would be of such low interests it isn't that much of an issue investing in fairly safe investments that would exceed interests rates.

It's kinda an interesting concept though, I think I've heard of such a thing as a "lottery winner's curse". Basically, for many winners their lucky break ends up turning quite nasty. Usually as previous poter alluded to using up their money quickly and all kinds of stuff. Though on that note I must say I've never really heard of any big lottery winner, they tend to stay anonimous. However, tax record are public information (yes we have that too) when finalized so anyone with a sudden burst of wealth would probably show up locally (though only in so far as taxable wealth, lottery winnings isn't taxable income). Just mentioning this because in theory someone suddenly showing up in my local community with a 50M fortune should stick out.

And I agree, people tend to underestimate how much money it takes to live a jetset life for the rest of your life. The usually say it's not who much you earn but how much you spend. Michael Jackson went hugely into debt with an income that would have turned our faces paler than his was at the end if we received it on our yearly taxreturns.

[Peelee]

Congratulations! I was participating in many lotteries but never won anything unfortunately. But if I did I would buy villa in Cannes for sure, I've been to France many times and would love to live there when I retire.

The fact that this thread had survived for so long is to blame, but OP was on April Fool's Day, it's worth noting.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Snowblizz, states charge you income tax on your tax refund over here.

And lottery winners are publicized over here, as a check against the winners just happening to be close relatives to the people running the lotteries. Which is something of a problem with the smaller ones.

And there is no such thing as low-interest debt. Even the best will be well over what you can get with a savings account (which are a good way to lose money, since they generally pay less than half the inflation rate). Even CDs (which are considered a baseline) rarely pay more than 2%, while the bank will use your money for car loans to other people at ~5% or mortgages at whatever the market will bear.

[Mister Biffo]

Woz is worth more than $100 million.

[Peelee]

And there is no such thing as low-interest debt. Even the best will be well over what you can get with a savings account (which are a good way to lose money, since they generally pay less than half the inflation rate). Even CDs (which are considered a baseline) rarely pay more than 2%, while the bank will use your money for car loans to other people at ~5% or mortgages at whatever the market will bear.

A good amount of wealthy people will indeed not pay off debts because they can make more money keeping the money. If your million-dollar home loan is at 3% interest and you can invest a million dollars at 5% interest, paying off the loan with that money is the worse option.

And the people who do this are able to get ROI much better than my quick and dirty figures.

[Rogar Demonblud]

A Roth IRA would probably get you more than that 5%. A good mutual fund should be 8% or more.

[tyckspoon]

A Roth IRA would probably get you more than that 5%. A good mutual fund should be 8% or more.

Historical stock market average is about 7%, IIRC. Anybody telling you they can do better than that over a long timeline probably has a significant financial interest in getting you to give them your money.

[Peelee]

Historical stock market average is about 7%, IIRC. Anybody telling you they can do better than that over a long timeline probably has a significant financial interest in getting you to give them your money.

Or doesn't care about your money because they don't need it. I'm looking at you, Warren Buffet.

[137beth]

The fact that this thread had survived for so long is to blame, but OP was on April Fool's Day, it's worth noting.

Well, let's see if it will last until April 1 2021! Then other people can "win the lottery" exactly one year after BMH:smalltongue:

[snowblizz]

Snowblizz, states charge you income tax on your tax refund over here.
Just when I think I can't hear something more mindboggling, I do.

I can't even fathom how they arrive at that logically. That must be some kind of state/federal overlap thing or?

I even get an interest payment on my taxrefund from the government. A pittence, but still, the point being they have had my money because they didn't count it properly in the first place so I'm compensated. And the other way works opposite, so if I need to pay backtaxes there is no interest on top of that. Similarly I have 5 years to complain voer my taxreturn, but the governemnt can only challenge my tax returns for 2 years. Because again, the onus is on them to get it right.


And lottery winners are publicized over here, as a check against the winners just happening to be close relatives to the people running the lotteries. Which is something of a problem with the smaller ones.
I see the twisted logic there. We have independent gambling/lottery commissions of some kind checkign this. They even used to mention/show them when they did televized broadcasting of the drawing. It was always a greyclad man that looked like caricature of the word "accountent".


And there is no such thing as low-interest debt. Even the best will be well over what you can get with a savings account (which are a good way to lose money, since they generally pay less than half the inflation rate). Even CDs (which are considered a baseline) rarely pay more than 2%, while the bank will use your money for car loans to other people at ~5% or mortgages at whatever the market will bear.
Well yes, an actual savings account won't do it. I was thinking more along lines of general stock indexfund, one that's not "actively managed" and thus more expensive and over time seldom any better.

I have friend with a 0.4 and 0.5% margin on his morgage (i.e. what he pays is 0.5% + current rate of the euribor) and when he sold off the first apartment he had with his wife they could have paid off a big chunk of the morgage on their new family home, but it made more sense to keep the loan and reinvest. Which they did in another apartment better suited for rental. I did recommend stocks but that wasn't really his thing. Part of this is the bank was stuck with his heavily competitized (at one point they were almost giving money away) margin rate so if he kept the loan he could keep that, any renegotiation or taking out a new loan wouldn't get him as competitive a margin anymore. And it should be noted, they tried really hard to sucker him into changing it.

Obviously this is all very much not broadly applicable. Just saying there are situations where some debt might serve you, it can also be a deductible. A friend of mine used to say the only people banks want to lend money to are those who don't need it.

American society is much more heavily debtrun than ours too. Just as a very generalised concept we don't have medical debt, much less student debt, few carloans and people generally do not own a lot of interestbearing creditcard debt.

There was this reality show in the US where they renovated the house of a (deserving) family. I totally blank on the name, obnoxious hosts and a big reaveal at the end, am sure you all know the one I mean. One that sticks in my head is where they renovated the house and gave the familjy 2 brand new F150 trucks. Grand, but none of this is free in upkeep. They probably can't afford to keep all of that.

[DavidSh]

Charging income tax on tax refunds makes sense only, I think, if you get to deduct the original tax withholding.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Nope, they just count it as income. Don't even give you interest on it. But we have to manage our own taxes instead of turning that over to the government.

Oh, and you can only amend for three years, but they can audit for seven (or more, if they find a pattern of fraud--this is part of the issues at hand with that NRA lawsuit you probably saw in the news).

Yeah, medical debt is a thing here. For now. I'll make a sizeable bet that Covid is going to rearrange the medical and insurance industries.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Those are people just plugging the funding into an existing business plan. It's the people without a strong gameplan who get into lots of trouble (including dead--too many lottery winners get killed for the money).

[marydc]

I was there, I took his picture!

https://i.postimg.cc/HWXRqjPb/winner.jpg

Anyways, maybe a bit late, congratulations on your winnings. Do you have any plan on spending the money that you won? You are rich now and can now.

[Cicciograna]

Soooo...
April 1st, paid to Bartmanhomer, signed by Serena Williams?

[Willie the Duck]

Soooo...
April 1st, paid to Bartmanhomer, signed by Serena Williams?

Yeeessss.
The multiple fonts on the check are a nice touch.

[snarlynarwhal]

So this is kind of relevant. The best April Fools prank I ever did: I worked for an MMORPG company, and a couple of the artists and I turned every single player character into a stick figure for the day. We did not even tell the rest of our team, so pranked them too.

[lio45]

Historical stock market average is about 7%, IIRC. Anybody telling you they can do better than that over a long timeline probably has a significant financial interest in getting you to give them your money.Disagree. By definition, that ~7% figure of yours is what a monkey would make for you over a long timeline, if you took away his typewriter because he's not producing the works of Shakespeare fast enough for you, and instead gave him means to select stocks for you.

[Keltest]

So this is kind of relevant. The best April Fools prank I ever did: I worked for an MMORPG company, and a couple of the artists and I turned every single player character into a stick figure for the day. We did not even tell the rest of our team, so pranked them too.
Was this for Everquest by chance? Because i remember that! That was amazing.

[Florian]

I'm not sure how it works where you live (Sweden, isn't it?), but here in the U.S. the state takes 50-70% of the lottery money off the top and uses it to fund the bureaucracy and various political pet projects (for instance, North Dakota hired private security forces to go after the protestors during the DAPL thing a couple years ago). Youth sports are generally controlled by the school districts, and paid for out of property taxes (and some ticket sales).

Naturally, there is no such thing as transparency involved. Yet another thing to invest sweat equity in.

It´s quite the opposite in Germany. Tax and dues are pretty much purpose-bound and the different levels of government have only access to what they directly earned.

State lottery is strictly tied to the "social projects" fund, which can only be "misused" in case of a state of emergency.

[tyckspoon]

Disagree. By definition, that ~7% figure of yours is what a monkey would make for you over a long timeline, if you took away his typewriter because he's not producing the works of Shakespeare fast enough for you, and instead gave him means to select stocks for you.

Yup. Literal random selections should get you about that much if you're selecting across the whole market, and there have been cases (admittedly kind of stunt studies) where actual animals, when given some means of 'picking' stocks, have met or beaten the market average. The people who claim they can do better than this and that you should give them your money to invest because they can make better choices are usually compensated directly based on how much money they are handling - they are getting a percentage of either the trades they make on your behalf, or are being paid a percentage of the funds in the accounts.

And.. sure, you might find places that do beat the market average. But if they're making 8, 9% returns while taking 5% of the profits, that's actively worse than getting 7% back on an investment vehicle with few to no costs to invest.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Yeah, gross versus net is a serious disconnect for a lot of people.

[snowblizz]

The people who claim they can do better than this and that you should give them your money to invest because they can make better choices are usually compensated directly based on how much money they are handling - they are getting a percentage of either the trades they make on your behalf, or are being paid a percentage of the funds in the accounts.


There is a slight truth to the idea of "active" investments as conceivably some people have better insights (also this is usually illegal so you know the kind of people you are in business with!). But some have other advantages in information, like they get the first call about some interesting news (movie style!). Or are allowed to "sit closer" to the central server of a stockexchange and see the orders everyone else place (and amke their own) before everyone else's actually take place. And this latter is a real thing and I can't even conceive how it is still legal.

On a more rational level (and less illegal or morally dubious) it can also pay not to be subject to your own bad judgement and heard behaviour. Buying when mrkets are hot and panic selling when they've crashed is a "common folk" trope for a reason.

Generally speaking I agree though, it's very hard to make "active investement" work for you rather than the person handling your money. Almost all financial systems are hugely lopsided to the detriment of the normal person. The price charge for this kind of based on short term numbers screws you long term because they have long since figured out how to pad their own nest. In other words, if you could pay a fraction of the cost they currently charge you (even jsut 1% off the top is huge) it might actually be worth it.


Yeah, gross versus net is a serious disconnect for a lot of people.
Very much so. I was looking at mutualfunds and even the most lackadaisically managed by the bank was skimming 1-1.5% off the top for anything remotely interesting. And if I knew they'd be actually doing the work I might pay that to access stuff like emerging markets, but most banks just buy shares in even larger mutualfunds so you end up with 2-4 "layers" sucking management fees off before you get to an actual investment.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Yeeessss.
The multiple fonts on the check are a nice touch.

Not to mention that I realized too late the line with "OLG" on it is the signature line, and I shouldn't have been extending the check down to fit an extra line on.

[Kobold-Bard]

UK lottery winnings are tax free since it's a form of gambling, and 25% of all ticket sales are legally required to go to 'good causes', generally community groups and non-profits.

So in addition to the not technically impossible chance that you might become a millionaire, you're also indirectly giving 50p to a worthwhile cause. Which makes me feel better about throwing money at the newsagent for those little pink slips of paper.

[137beth]

Aw, dang. I was waiting until October 1 so I could make a snarky post about how I won "half of the lottery," given that it would be half-way to the next April Fool's Day. But I forgot and missed it. So, uh...I guess if this thread is still alive in six months I better remember to make a joke about it then?

[wheelmaker]

50 Mil sure would be nice.
But you gotta play to win and alas, im too cheap to play.