Another "Lose for Lifer".

Cash,

With all due respect to you and your feelings on whether a prize should be taken as an annuity or cash option, can you please stop being so negative on the topic? I, for one, am happy for the guy. He knew when he bought the ticket that the top prize was paid via an annuity, he made the choice to purchase, and he won. Now, he will get $200,000 a year (pre-tax) for the rest of his life, with a guaranteed minimum payout of $4 million (pre-tax).

The whole structure of a "Win for Life" style game is such that paying the prize as anything other than an annuity is impossible. There is no way to figure out a cash option for this game as the total payout depends on how long the guy lives! While I agree with you that in cases where a prize is $X a year/month/week for Y number of years there should be a cash option offered for those who want it all at once, this type of game cannot have that option due to the varying lifespans of the winners.

I am all for giving winners a choice between cash option and annuity, where possible and practical to do so, but it is ultimately up to each winner given that choice which to choose. If I were to ever have that choice, I would take the annuity in a heartbeat. While I know I theoretically could invest the lump sum and make more money, I know myself too well and would rather take the "bird in hand" guarantee.

Those, like yourself, who would only take a cash option prize are free to do so, as far as I am concerned. And, if that is the only prize type that you would ever want to win, then you are free to refrain from playing those games where that is not an option to take. But, there are a lot of us out there who either don't care or would choose the annuity, and those games appeal to us.

In short, stop being so negative. Feel free to try to convince us with facts and studies about which option is the better one to take. But, please refrain from disparaging those who would/did not choose how you would have.

I just pray this guy doesn't get recalled for another tour of duty - let him and his family enjoy their good fortune.

Vince:

I have SOME tolerance for "lifetime" prizes due to the reasons you mention. The problem is that Massachusetts (and NY, where I live) each have games that pay X dollars a year for Z years with NO cash option, which I have ZERO tolerance of.

CO:

I'm not trying to speak for Vince, but I think what he may be talking about is calling a guy who served our country and then won the lottery (a truly deserving person if there ever was one) a "loser for life".

All of us who understand your viewpoint on Mass annuity-only games understand you weren't railing the guy - rather you were making the point about his lack of ability to choose a cash option.  However, you may want to make your point without calling the guy a loser.

He's a winner in every sense.  It's the Mass Lottery that's being a loser in this case.

CO:

One more thought: how about starting a Blog about your contacts (e-mails, etc.) with the state lotteries?  It would be a cool way to chronicle your efforts, as well as publicizing your points.

I would love to be a "loser" with $140,000 going into my bank account year after year, while I used my days to do whatever I wanted.  Yes, that is the very definition of loser. 

    tg636,I definitely agree with you.If that what is a loser,than I want to be that loser for the rest of my live.

Me too.  140,000 per year is just fine with me.  I am still having nightmares about people who invested all of their money and went broke..(Enron, etc)..maybe in these uncertain times, it is better to have an annuity...that way if u lose x number of dollars in one year..you always have x more coming in the next year.