Metroid wrote:Well schools benefit from the state lottery all the time. Of course in this jerk offs case I'd have rather seen the 100+ mill gone to local schools then a casino or greedy lawyers pockets but what are ya gonna do.
I tell ya I would love to win that kinda cash but I just cant get myself to buy the tickets, thats not to say I haven't but not regularly. I'll buy one every great once and a while, who knows maybe I'll get lucky.
I'm a pessimist when it comes to the lottery. The odds of you actually winning is so staggering...Han Solo would cringe at them. "Never tell me the odds!"
Metroid wrote:Well schools benefit from the state lottery all the time. Of course in this jerk offs case I'd have rather seen the 100+ mill gone to local schools then a casino or greedy lawyers pockets but what are ya gonna do.
I tell ya I would love to win that kinda cash but I just cant get myself to buy the tickets, thats not to say I haven't but not regularly. I'll buy one every great once and a while, who knows maybe I'll get lucky.
I'm a pessimist when it comes to the lottery. The odds of you actually winning is so staggering...Han Solo would cringe at them. "Never tell me the odds!"
terpfan wrote:315 mil became 113 mil after taxes? Yikes... still alot of money, but thats ALOT going to taxes!!
That was my 1st thoughts. Sorry but that's just criminal.
It doesn't all go to taxes. When you choose to take it in one lump sum they cut it by 50% or more in most places. So assuming he got half of the jackpot, he would have only been taxed on $157.5 million. Still, paying $47 mil in taxes is a lot, but not compared to $202 million.
The "Lump Sum" amount (according to the foilks who run the lottery) is the amount of money they would need to invest to pay out the annuity amount over its term.
For example, Wednesday's Powerball Jackpot is estimated at $180,000,000, but the "lump" amount is $86,000,000.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
Metroid wrote:Sometimes I wonder why people take the lump sum. I mean whats wrong with bringing in 500K a year for not doing anything?
Most financial advisers I've seen/read about advise taking the lump sum. Apparently, if invested properly, you can turn the lump into a bigger sum than the lottery folks (who are ultra-conservative about how they invest it). There are also severe tax implications to your heirs should you kick off before the annuity runs out (the Tax owed on the entire remaining amount becomes due immediately).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
Metroid wrote:Sometimes I wonder why people take the lump sum. I mean whats wrong with bringing in 500K a year for not doing anything?
Most financial advisers I've seen/read about advise taking the lump sum. Apparently, if invested properly, you can turn the lump into a bigger sum than the lottery folks (who are ultra-conservative about how they invest it). There are also severe tax implications to your heirs should you kick off before the annuity runs out (the Tax owed on the entire remaining amount becomes due immediately).
Well thats totally bogus dood. Makes more sense now as to why folks take the lump sum.
Metroid wrote:Well thats totally bogus dood. Makes more sense now as to why folks take the lump sum.
Besides - unless you're a degenerate like the guy in this article you should be able to do just fine with the Lump Sum amount no?
No I totally agree I just wondered why everyone always takes the lump sum being that 50K a year sound pretty sweet. But it all makes perfect sense now.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Munboy » Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:30 am 
