Welcome Guest

### NetConnect

#### Internet Domains, simple and cheap

##### Find a domain name:

Home

The time is now 2:48 am
You last visited December 12, 2013, 2:46 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# New "Lucky for Life" should there be a lump sum option?

Topic closed. 11 replies. Last post 2 years ago by GYM RICE.

 Page 1 of 1

Do you think there should be an option for a lump sum?

 Yes, needs to be changed [ 5 ] [31.25%] No, fine as it is [ 11 ] [68.75%] Total Valid Votes [ 16 ] Discarded Votes [ 0 ]
Taunton, Ma
United States
Member #123010
February 11, 2012
136 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 13, 2012, 3:31 pm - IP Logged

My thought is yes. Mainly because they are alienating a large segment of the lottery playing population. If I'm say 75, why would I play this game ? when there are PB and MM, both of which offer lump sum's. I think there should be a lump sum amount of 5million based on the standard 20 year annuity garantee, 65% of which would come up to just under 5mill. What do you guys/gals think?

Scratchies for the win!

We are in a two-party dictatorship. You want change ? Vote third party

upstate NY
United States
Member #108795
March 31, 2011
440 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 13, 2012, 4:40 pm - IP Logged

I stated this in the related thread in the news section, but the whole point of winning for life is, well, winning for life.  It would completely defeat the purpose of the game to opt for a lump sum.  My feeling is that if you were to add that option, very few people would take it.  Then again, I come down on the annuity side of the usual lump sum vs. annuity debate anyway, so it's not surprising that I'd feel this way.

"If I'm say 75, why would I play this game ? when there are PB and MM, both of which offer lump sum's"

Because if you win at 75, the payments don't stop if you die at 80.  Your estate still receives the remainder of the 20-year minimum ($7000/wk * 52 weeks * 20 years =$7.28 million before taxes).  Besides, the lump sum from a PB/MM jackpot will always be more than the Lucky For Life minimum, so if that's what you're concerned about, you probably wouldn't play Lucky For Life anyway, lump sum or not.

Connecticut
United States
Member #61623
May 29, 2008
18060 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 13, 2012, 4:47 pm - IP Logged

I'm getting all hot and bothered waiting for thursday to come  lol.

"...Life is not a matter of holding good cards,but sometimes playing a poor hand well...

United States
Member #111446
May 25, 2011
6323 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 13, 2012, 4:49 pm - IP Logged

I stated this in the related thread in the news section, but the whole point of winning for life is, well, winning for life.  It would completely defeat the purpose of the game to opt for a lump sum.  My feeling is that if you were to add that option, very few people would take it.  Then again, I come down on the annuity side of the usual lump sum vs. annuity debate anyway, so it's not surprising that I'd feel this way.

"If I'm say 75, why would I play this game ? when there are PB and MM, both of which offer lump sum's"

Because if you win at 75, the payments don't stop if you die at 80.  Your estate still receives the remainder of the 20-year minimum ($7000/wk * 52 weeks * 20 years =$7.28 million before taxes).  Besides, the lump sum from a PB/MM jackpot will always be more than the Lucky For Life minimum, so if that's what you're concerned about, you probably wouldn't play Lucky For Life anyway, lump sum or not.

Well stated. I personally like the game because of the much better odd's as well. If I understood the rules correctly, if you are still living after 20

years, LFL will continue paying this annuity until you croak.

Taunton, Ma
United States
Member #123010
February 11, 2012
136 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 13, 2012, 5:26 pm - IP Logged

I stated this in the related thread in the news section, but the whole point of winning for life is, well, winning for life.  It would completely defeat the purpose of the game to opt for a lump sum.  My feeling is that if you were to add that option, very few people would take it.  Then again, I come down on the annuity side of the usual lump sum vs. annuity debate anyway, so it's not surprising that I'd feel this way.

"If I'm say 75, why would I play this game ? when there are PB and MM, both of which offer lump sum's"

Because if you win at 75, the payments don't stop if you die at 80.  Your estate still receives the remainder of the 20-year minimum ($7000/wk * 52 weeks * 20 years =$7.28 million before taxes).  Besides, the lump sum from a PB/MM jackpot will always be more than the Lucky For Life minimum, so if that's what you're concerned about, you probably wouldn't play Lucky For Life anyway, lump sum or not.

I would still play because the odds are better in this one vs the other 2. My concern isn't really for me it's for the older folks who make up a significant part of lottery players. I am aware the payments will still be made to the estate but that does nothing for they're quality of life in the short term. Although 1,000/day is going to improve anyones quality of life right away it just doesnt compare to what you could do with a few million at once. I'm actually afraid this game may not be succesful in the long run because of this. Once the "new game" novelty wears off many people will stop playing until they add the lump sum. Elderly folks are some of the most consistant lottery players out there.

Scratchies for the win!

We are in a two-party dictatorship. You want change ? Vote third party

Indiana
United States
Member #48725
January 7, 2007
1839 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 13, 2012, 6:45 pm - IP Logged

I think it's fine the way it is.

Gonna win.

Station C:\somewhere\in\space\time
Fiji
Member #123705
February 27, 2012
2209 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 13, 2012, 7:10 pm - IP Logged

It probably is fine, but the option can be there.

My question is, if it is moral to pay out huge prices, instead of paying out in the lower prices, in such way a good player can at least play without losing money!

Also I would like to see cheaper tickets, like 50 cents.

Prices should be pretaxed and noted "net". So if they say 1 000 000 first price, then it has to be that net. No more taxes, no more other costs or trouble!

If they continue like this, there might come an opposite reaction here or there.

egg harbor twp.south jersey shore
United States
Member #112972
June 29, 2011
2993 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 13, 2012, 7:18 pm - IP Logged

Is it really $7000 a week or do you get$365,000 less tax on jan 1st ?

Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds    -- Charles Mackay  LL.D.

upstate NY
United States
Member #108795
March 31, 2011
440 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 13, 2012, 8:34 pm - IP Logged

I would still play because the odds are better in this one vs the other 2. My concern isn't really for me it's for the older folks who make up a significant part of lottery players. I am aware the payments will still be made to the estate but that does nothing for they're quality of life in the short term. Although 1,000/day is going to improve anyones quality of life right away it just doesnt compare to what you could do with a few million at once. I'm actually afraid this game may not be succesful in the long run because of this. Once the "new game" novelty wears off many people will stop playing until they add the lump sum. Elderly folks are some of the most consistant lottery players out there.

Actually, I think the various Win For Life games are meant to appeal more to the younger set with the 20-year guarantee being the carrot to keep the elderly interested.

And I disagree with the premise that everyone's playing for a huge windfall.  If that was true, the Pick 3 and Pick 4 forums here at LP wouldn't be anywhere near as popular as they are.   Some people are happy with just being able to live comfortably.  It's a nice supplement to one's salary, and if you're elderly, $1000/day or even$1000/week is probably a huge difference in your quality of life.

NY has a series of Win For Life scratchers.  The original game was a $2 scratcher that paid$1K/week; it proved so popular that they added games for $500/week ($1), $2K/week, ($5, since retired), $5K/week ($10), $10K/week ($20), $100K/year ($5), and $1M/year ($30).  My bet (no pun intended ) is that Lucky For Life will be well-received in New England.

upstate NY
United States
Member #108795
March 31, 2011
440 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 13, 2012, 8:39 pm - IP Logged

Is it really $7000 a week or do you get$365,000 less tax on jan 1st ?

With the Win For Life scratchers in NY, I believe those are paid quarterly.  The WFL twice-weekly draw game in Virginia is likewise paid quarterly.

It's interesting to note that, according to Wikipedia, there used to be a $520K lump sum option but it was dropped in 2007. Also, their minimum is for 10 years, not the 20 offered by Lucky For Life. egg harbor twp.south jersey shore United States Member #112972 June 29, 2011 2993 Posts Offline  Posted: March 13, 2012, 10:29 pm - IP Logged With the Win For Life scratchers in NY, I believe those are paid quarterly. The WFL twice-weekly draw game in Virginia is likewise paid quarterly. It's interesting to note that, according to Wikipedia, there used to be a$520K lump sum option but it was dropped in 2007.  Also, their minimum is for 10 years, not the 20 offered by Lucky For Life.

It is also interesting to note that small biz. must pay taxes quarterly.

Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds    -- Charles Mackay  LL.D.

NH
United States
Member #83352
December 5, 2009
179 Posts
Offline
 Posted: March 23, 2012, 10:19 pm - IP Logged

I know this might sound crazy to some, but winning a thousand dollars a day for life would be so much less stressful FOR ME than winning say 200 million. Something about a 1000 a day makes me feel all cozy inside. 200 million makes me feel a little paranoid. Don't get me wrong, I'd be blessed with either senario, but more money for some people isn't necessarally better.

 Page 1 of 1