There is a story on /r/teslamotors about winning a Tesla. I wonder if Tesla itself knows who was the winner now.
Lottery winner asking a judge to let her keep the cash and remain anonymous
211–220 of 230 posts
Re: Lottery winner asking a judge to let her keep the cash and remain anonymous
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
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/in…
The main reason to take the lump sum is if you want to do things that cost more than the annuity. For example, starting a company, purchasing a company, running a political campaign, giving a large donation (e.g. endowing a position at a university), etc.
Those are just a few of the ways a typical rags-to-riches lottery winner (with tons of encouragement from an entourage of friendly and helpful advisors) is likely to end up broke in 10 years, and exactly why I'd expect the annuity to be more profitable for them in the long run.
Re: Lottery winner asking a judge to let her keep the cash and remain anonymous
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who cares if people are suspicious? People believe in chem trails and all kinds of crap, no one has to take a publicity hit to calm them.
Yes, but governmental, judicial, and financial malfeasance do happen. And with this much money involved, there's basically a certainty that it would. Government-sponsored entities awarding millions of dollars to anonymous persons gets sketchy really quickly.
...But they are allowed to collect anonymously, this is over a technicality.
Re: Lottery winner asking a judge to let her keep the cash and remain anonymous
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given all the issues in regards to exchanges i.e. fraud, theft and relative difficulty in getting out, I wouldn't trust cryptocurrency at all.
What you don't realize are that your arguments here are actually anti-noncryptocurrency. Transactions done only in the cryptocurrency have no such disadvantages, at all. Those are all issues with conversion to and from fiat, and thus arguments against fiat. At some point, maybe not with Bitcoin, maybe not with Ether, but at some point, there will be a tipping point. Probably with the next country whose fiat fails (ve…
Not sure what to say to that other than the Kool-aid must be good.
Here's the thing, i want to be able to pay bills and be relatively insured against losing to a con man.
Currency must be boring, reliable, trustworthy. Examples of the Wiemar Republic Mark, Zimbabwe Dollar and other examples of hyper-inflation are reasons why it must be consistent. Not 10,000 one day and 8,000 the next. That's gambling.
Right now CC is a non-starter as i can't get my daily needs met using it. It's a pyramid scheme full of shysters and people trying to get rich quick.
How do you vet that an exchange won't pull something ?
I want a boring finances. Yes there are issues with fiat but i can go, put a dollar in, come back and still have a dollar. Not 0 and some excuse "hacked!".
Re: Lottery winner asking a judge to let her keep the cash and remain anonymous
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes to the first part, no to the second as that would be tax evasion. She could put it all into a grantor trust (an asset holding entity which is not a charity or a foundation) which pays her an allowance at a constant rate.
Actually, the second part is very legal and is done all the time. In fact, people who donate large sums to University and other charitable causes do just that, receiving payments in return. FYI, when politicians say they donated XYZ to their personal foundation or trust, this is many times what has happened.
[deleted]
Re: Lottery winner asking a judge to let her keep the cash and remain anonymous
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes to the first part, no to the second as that would be tax evasion. She could put it all into a grantor trust (an asset holding entity which is not a charity or a foundation) which pays her an allowance at a constant rate.
Actually, the second part is very legal and is done all the time. In fact, people who donate large sums to University and other charitable causes do just that, receiving payments in return. FYI, when politicians say they donated XYZ to their personal foundation or trust, this is many times what has happened.
A charitable trust is not a charitable organization for tax purposes but can receive deductible donations. It cannot send money back to donors. A foundation generally is a charitable organization and can receive deductible donations, and similarly cannot send money back to donors.
In fact, people who donate large sums to University and other charitable causes do just that, receiving payments in return.
Citation needed. What you have described is not a donation, and would indeed be a violation of the University's fiduciary responsibility with respect to donations. The consequence is generally that the University would lose its non-profit exemption. Most likely, you are conflating a contribution to a family trust with a contribution to a charitable trust. Transfers to a family trust can be revoked, and the trust can pay money back to its grantors or trustees because it's not a charitable organization and does not have a charitable purpose. A grant to a charitable trust is irrevocable, and cannot go back to the donor.
Re: Lottery winner asking a judge to let her keep the cash and remain anonymous
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, the second part is very legal and is done all the time. In fact, people who donate large sums to University and other charitable causes do just that, receiving payments in return. FYI, when politicians say they donated XYZ to their personal foundation or trust, this is many times what has happened.
A charitable trust is not a charitable organization for tax purposes but can receive deductible donations. It cannot send money back to donors. A foundation generally is a charitable organization and can receive deductible donations, and similarly cannot send money back to donors. In fact, people who donate large sums to University and other charitable causes do just that, receiving payments in return. Citation neede…
That's a lot of words for, "I don't believe you." A citation is needed for your assertion, please.
Here is a page at the University of Chicago that describes how that university implements charitable gift annuities.
https://campaign.uchicago.edu/join-the-campaign/giving/plann...
Re: Lottery winner asking a judge to let her keep the cash and remain anonymous
#218Both her, and Shane Missler, who won the Mega Millions in January should just disappear. I think her problem is that she wants her life to remain largely the same. Well it can't and it won't. But a few hundred million dollars gives you plenty of opportunities to start over, at any age, and take care of your inner circle from wherever in the world you want to live.
I wonder how some people here make it out to be a huge hardship for the winner.
Re: Lottery winner asking a judge to let her keep the cash and remain anonymous
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are they a bad thing for everyone? Obviously the players are almost universally worse off for playing, but don't they generate tax revenue and funnel money into places like schools?
Lotteries are often dedicated to funding schools. But the schools were going to be funded anyway. What ends up happening is the lottery pays for its own staff, the school budget stays the same, and money that would have gone to schools goes elsewhere in the government budget. In this stylized example, is that extra money in the non-school budget funded by surplus from the lottery? What would it mean for the lottery t…
The state lottery funded the scholarships that put me through school twice.
Don't worry, the schools are getting their money.
Re: Lottery winner asking a judge to let her keep the cash and remain anonymous
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
And suddenly the principals of the lottery company start spending huge amounts of cash...
Which would also be visible on the blockchain. Depending on the cryptocurrency. Not too hard to sign an address to prove it's yours.
If you can identify the recipient, then it doesn't provide privacy. If you can't identify the recipient, it is open to fraud by the principals.