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.
If the fact that a name gets attached to the prize is the only thing stopping them, then they could easily make up a name and photoshop a picture. This feels like it's getting into conspiracy theory territory.
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_... Winning the lottery (publicly, at least) seems to be a real monkey's paw wish.
My understanding is that the lotto wants free advertising at the cost of the winners being made very public. It seems like this individual is doing a tremendous public service by taking this to court. I think most of us would balk at the risk of somehow losing the millions of dollars.
> My understanding is that the lotto wants free advertising
What's free about it? They will advertise the win one way or another, just in this instance using a verifiable name of an individual.
That might make the advertising more believable or relatable and effective but doesn't make it 'free'.
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…
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
> You also ignoring the time value of money 100 million to day is worth more than 10 million for 10 years
The lump sum is generally pretty close to what an annuity from a reputable company would cost, so the time value of money is already factored into it. Of course, you might prefer a riskier investment for higher returns, but that is really dependent on your risk tolerance, it's not a complete no-brainer to go with the lump sum.
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...
Charitable gift annuities don't have the result you describe. For starters, they're only partially deductible, and you have to pay taxes on income earned by the annuity. In effect, a lottery winner would pay taxes twice: first on winning the income, and then when receiving money from the annuity (because a partial charitable deduction wouldn't offset the annuity income and for a gift in the millions would be capped anyway).
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_... Winning the lottery (publicly, at least) seems to be a real monkey's paw wish.
> 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.
I hope the US dissolves into anarchism. I'd move here.
Not exactly, it is advised by the lottery office to immediately sign your ticket. Otherwise it may create a lot of unnecessary troubles, like your ticket is lost, robbed, or some friend claims you had verbal agreement on splitting the rewards, etc.
On the extremely rare chance that you do win, avoiding the troubles of a newly minted public millionaire, not signing it seems like a good trade off.
Losing the ticket is NOT extremely rare chance at all. Avoiding troubles going public, versus losing all of the million dollars rewards, it's obvious what people would choose.
Related: I wonder if any analysis on the life outcomes of another jackpot system, "sold company for a windfall", have been done. I appreciate the bad lotto result stories because they confirm my correct bias that lotto should not be played because it is a tax on not understanding probability (except at about 350M for powerball, in which case your enemy is not expected value but variance). However, no such analysis se…
As somebody who lived as a professional gambler for a while, I would agree that your assessment of value of most lotteries is correct: they are poor value and should be avoided. However, we're not expecting people to deploy Kelly criterion here, nobody is playing lotto for EV and a need to maximise returns on known value parameters. But I play lotto. And I know all this more than most. I have literally paid my rent w…
I never said the word 'ignorant' nor did I say anyone was a fool. I said 'not understanding'. If someone doesn't understand chess, I don't call them a fool, I just point out they are not trained in chess. Also to your point about grains of rice, I think the world would probably benefit from everyone purchasing the optimal number of grains of rice, and eating that number of grains of rice. Food waste is a problem, as is the belief that 2 dollars here and there doesn't add up.
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...
Charitable gift annuities don't have the result you describe. For starters, they're only partially deductible, and you have to pay taxes on income earned by the annuity. In effect, a lottery winner would pay taxes twice: first on winning the income, and then when receiving money from the annuity (because a partial charitable deduction wouldn't offset the annuity income and for a gift in the millions would be capped a…
> Charitable gift annuities don't have the result you describe.
Really? They have exactly the results I described. In what way do they differ from what I wrote?
Charitable Gift Annuities are not theoretical, despite you having gone from protestations that Universities would go out of business for engaging in them, to now saying that I wrote things I didn't.
P.S. A deferred annuity for a lottery is an entirely different product from a charitable gift annuity.
I do not know the validity of other hackers because I got acquainted to the darkwebsolutions organization early. They provided me with a crypter and also they helped my niece with an untraceable grades change. i can tell you more about this as they provide a wide range of services. I have a circle of satisfied friends too. Mail darkwebssolutions at gmail dot com. I will help in any way I can to hook you up.