Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 18, 2017, 7:04 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Man in Iraq wins $6.4 million Oregon Lottery jackpot

Topic closed. 92 replies. Last post 1 year ago by bainboy.

Page 6 of 7
53
PrintE-mailLink
Bilionario's avatar - Lottery-012.jpg
New Member

Namibia
Member #171156
January 1, 2016
7 Posts
Offline
Posted: January 1, 2016, 9:08 pm - IP Logged

I predict that the next Powerball jackpot winner will also be a "foreigner" Wink .Watch this space...

    MaximumMillions's avatar - Lottery-013.jpg

    Germany
    Member #164603
    March 8, 2015
    637 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: January 1, 2016, 9:15 pm - IP Logged

    I predict that the next Powerball jackpot winner will also be a "foreigner" Wink .Watch this space...

    One can only hope Jester

      Teddi's avatar - Lottery-008.jpg

      United States
      Member #142499
      May 13, 2013
      1203 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: January 1, 2016, 9:41 pm - IP Logged

      I predict that the next Powerball jackpot winner will also be a "foreigner" Wink .Watch this space...

      From your lips to God's ears, since I'm a foreigner. Banana

      COME ON BIG MONEY!!!

      I might wake up early and go running.  I might also wake up and win the lottery.

      The odds are about the same.

        Teddi's avatar - Lottery-008.jpg

        United States
        Member #142499
        May 13, 2013
        1203 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: January 1, 2016, 10:02 pm - IP Logged

        I for one am happy for this Iraqi Kurd.  Shiites would no doubt kill him and his family if his name was released.  I could care less what origin of country a winner comes from, doesn't affect me in the least.  I do hope he gets his family out of that hell hole of a country.

         My question is with the IRS; how will he get a refund since he is not a citizen?  Tax laws aren't my speciality and maybe the stronghold of the IRS doesn't care where you are...you've got to pay.  BTW he has a tax liability of 20 years!

        I'd looked this up a couple years ago, yes he has to pay taxes. Non-citizens who win have to actually pay more in taxes than citizens and legal residents do. What I'm not sure about is if they have to pay it all up front or not, but they definitely have to pay. There is no tax leeway given for foreign nationals who win a jackpot.

        I might wake up early and go running.  I might also wake up and win the lottery.

        The odds are about the same.

          MaximumMillions's avatar - Lottery-013.jpg

          Germany
          Member #164603
          March 8, 2015
          637 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: January 1, 2016, 11:28 pm - IP Logged

          I'd looked this up a couple years ago, yes he has to pay taxes. Non-citizens who win have to actually pay more in taxes than citizens and legal residents do. What I'm not sure about is if they have to pay it all up front or not, but they definitely have to pay. There is no tax leeway given for foreign nationals who win a jackpot.

          Unless you are a citizen of a country that has a tax treaty with the US, like most EU countries. (Notable exception: Switzerland)

           

          "And because the executive at the European banking firm Unicredit lives in Britain he will not have to pay federal taxes on his winnings, only New York taxes, which means he will net $931,500 a year for the rest of his life.

          Under a US treaty with Britain, income from lottery winnings and several other sources is not subject to taxation for British residents."

          http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1870660.ece

            Teddi's avatar - Lottery-008.jpg

            United States
            Member #142499
            May 13, 2013
            1203 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: January 2, 2016, 1:05 am - IP Logged

            Unless you are a citizen of a country that has a tax treaty with the US, like most EU countries. (Notable exception: Switzerland)

             

            "And because the executive at the European banking firm Unicredit lives in Britain he will not have to pay federal taxes on his winnings, only New York taxes, which means he will net $931,500 a year for the rest of his life.

            Under a US treaty with Britain, income from lottery winnings and several other sources is not subject to taxation for British residents."

            http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1870660.ece

            I believe I had gotten my info from the Florida lottery site, and at that time they never showed those exceptions. Gotta say, I am not happy about this at all. Britain has one of the worst tax laws for foreign athletes, and I frankly don't think they should be getting this kind of break when American residents have to fork over 39.6% to the federal government. 

            Great Britain says that if a foreign athlete competes on British soil, that athlete has to pay them a percentage of their ENTIRE annual earnings. Most countries just require to athletes to pay taxes on what they make in that country, GB wants a cut of every single penny regardless of where they earned it. And then that athlete has to pay taxes on everything he/she earns for the year with their country of citizenship. It's like the UK doesn't realize that the days of indentured servitude is over. They want a cut of something they had no part in so I don't see why any of their people get a tax break in other countries regardless of circumstance.

            I might wake up early and go running.  I might also wake up and win the lottery.

            The odds are about the same.

              MaximumMillions's avatar - Lottery-013.jpg

              Germany
              Member #164603
              March 8, 2015
              637 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: January 2, 2016, 1:53 am - IP Logged

              I believe I had gotten my info from the Florida lottery site, and at that time they never showed those exceptions. Gotta say, I am not happy about this at all. Britain has one of the worst tax laws for foreign athletes, and I frankly don't think they should be getting this kind of break when American residents have to fork over 39.6% to the federal government. 

              Great Britain says that if a foreign athlete competes on British soil, that athlete has to pay them a percentage of their ENTIRE annual earnings. Most countries just require to athletes to pay taxes on what they make in that country, GB wants a cut of every single penny regardless of where they earned it. And then that athlete has to pay taxes on everything he/she earns for the year with their country of citizenship. It's like the UK doesn't realize that the days of indentured servitude is over. They want a cut of something they had no part in so I don't see why any of their people get a tax break in other countries regardless of circumstance.

              Let's hope other countries aren't as greedy and unreasonable. To expect a percentage of the years earnings and not just of local tournament wins sounds fishy, that is really a dirty thing to do for HRMC.

               

              Personally, I'll happily take that break.

                Avatar
                NY
                United States
                Member #23835
                October 16, 2005
                3502 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: January 2, 2016, 4:41 am - IP Logged

                I believe I had gotten my info from the Florida lottery site, and at that time they never showed those exceptions. Gotta say, I am not happy about this at all. Britain has one of the worst tax laws for foreign athletes, and I frankly don't think they should be getting this kind of break when American residents have to fork over 39.6% to the federal government. 

                Great Britain says that if a foreign athlete competes on British soil, that athlete has to pay them a percentage of their ENTIRE annual earnings. Most countries just require to athletes to pay taxes on what they make in that country, GB wants a cut of every single penny regardless of where they earned it. And then that athlete has to pay taxes on everything he/she earns for the year with their country of citizenship. It's like the UK doesn't realize that the days of indentured servitude is over. They want a cut of something they had no part in so I don't see why any of their people get a tax break in other countries regardless of circumstance.

                Maybe you'd be less unhappy if you had a better understanding of how it works. I trust you at least realize that it's not a treaty that just says the US won't tax (some) income of UK residents. Tax treaties work in both directions and both governments expect to get something in return for what they give up.  The treaty is about limiting double taxation (i.e., paying taxes to both countries), so since the UK doesn't tax gambling winnings, the US also exempts taxes on gambling winnings for UK residents who have gambling income from US sources. If a US resident had won that prize from a UK lottery while visiting the UK they wouldn't be paying any taxes to the UK. As a result of not paying taxes to the UK they'd pay more US income tax, because they wouldn't have any deduction for taxes paid to another country. It's similar to winning a lottery in a state you don't live in, in which case any income taxes you pay to that state will reduce the taxes that would otherwise be owed in your state of residence.

                As for the taxation on athletes and entertainers, you're missing details on that, too. The UK doesn't tax them on "every penny" of income. They're taxed based on the portion of their income that's attributable to performing in the UK. If they earn $10 million for a performance that $10 million will be taxed. If they have sponsorship deals they'll be taxed on that, based on how much of it can be attributed to performing in the UK. A simplified example would be an athlete who earns $5 million from actual performance in the UK, $20 million from performances in other places, and is also paid $5 million per year to wear and promote Nike shoes. It's reasonable to attribute 20% of the sponsorship income from Nike to the 20% of the performance income earned in the UK. The US does the same thing.

                  Teddi's avatar - Lottery-008.jpg

                  United States
                  Member #142499
                  May 13, 2013
                  1203 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: January 2, 2016, 7:55 pm - IP Logged

                  Maybe you'd be less unhappy if you had a better understanding of how it works. I trust you at least realize that it's not a treaty that just says the US won't tax (some) income of UK residents. Tax treaties work in both directions and both governments expect to get something in return for what they give up.  The treaty is about limiting double taxation (i.e., paying taxes to both countries), so since the UK doesn't tax gambling winnings, the US also exempts taxes on gambling winnings for UK residents who have gambling income from US sources. If a US resident had won that prize from a UK lottery while visiting the UK they wouldn't be paying any taxes to the UK. As a result of not paying taxes to the UK they'd pay more US income tax, because they wouldn't have any deduction for taxes paid to another country. It's similar to winning a lottery in a state you don't live in, in which case any income taxes you pay to that state will reduce the taxes that would otherwise be owed in your state of residence.

                  As for the taxation on athletes and entertainers, you're missing details on that, too. The UK doesn't tax them on "every penny" of income. They're taxed based on the portion of their income that's attributable to performing in the UK. If they earn $10 million for a performance that $10 million will be taxed. If they have sponsorship deals they'll be taxed on that, based on how much of it can be attributed to performing in the UK. A simplified example would be an athlete who earns $5 million from actual performance in the UK, $20 million from performances in other places, and is also paid $5 million per year to wear and promote Nike shoes. It's reasonable to attribute 20% of the sponsorship income from Nike to the 20% of the performance income earned in the UK. The US does the same thing.

                  If you're going to try and correct me then YOU get your own facts straight. Now I see why you and Ridge were always at it. THE UK TAXES THE ENTIRETY OF THE ATHLETES' EARNINGS. The US does NOT do the same thing. Which is the reason Bolt won't run on British soil without receiving a special tax waiver. While some in parliament say the law is ridiculous and is alienating many famous athletes from competing in Britain, others want to claim that since athletes are given exposure while in Britain that everything they earn for the year was enhanced by that exposure and so the UK is entitled to a cut. OF EVERYTHING.

                  Just because American athletes get a pass from UK because of the mutual back rubs shared on foreign affairs means nothing, since I hope realize that there are actually other people in the world than just Americans. 

                  There have been many foreign golf, tennis players and track stars who have flat out refused to compete in the UK because of their tax raping system. They wanted Bolt so badly at the London Anniversary Games that they actually passed a law to waive the ridiculous taxes just so he would attend. For the Anniversary games they agreed to tax only what he and the other foreign athletes made in GB and not their global income. Similar laws had to be passed before the IOC would allow London to be in contention for the Olympics and they also do the same if the Commonwealth Games is held on British soil. 

                  This point of excessive taxation on foreign athletes has been hotly argued in the British press from before the 2012 London Olympics, so I really don't care what you THINK the laws are, we know for SURE what they ACTUALLY are and what the contentions have been from all sides. Former athlete and current British athletics sportscaster Steve Cram has had a lot to say on the issue. Michael Johnson has put in his two cents as well and he agrees with the stance the athletes have taken of boycotting meets on British soil because the tax laws are ridiculously unfair to foreign athletes.

                  Like I said, get your own facts straight

                  I might wake up early and go running.  I might also wake up and win the lottery.

                  The odds are about the same.

                    Teddi's avatar - Lottery-008.jpg

                    United States
                    Member #142499
                    May 13, 2013
                    1203 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: January 2, 2016, 8:22 pm - IP Logged

                    Let's hope other countries aren't as greedy and unreasonable. To expect a percentage of the years earnings and not just of local tournament wins sounds fishy, that is really a dirty thing to do for HRMC.

                     

                    Personally, I'll happily take that break.

                    The worst thing is to actually hear those in parliament argue for keeping the laws as is. A lot of sporting event planners have been lobbying to have the laws changed to be in keeping with most other nations, but so far all they've won is a temporary lift for specific sporting events. 

                    Surprisingly, a lot of Britains agree with the law. And maybe I would too if I lived there. It's free money for doing absolutely nothing.

                    These athletes hold no property there. Don't attend school there. Don't use the healthcare system. They don't burden the system in any way and millions in taxes are demanded from them if they so much as do a shilling of work on British soil.

                    It'd actually be brilliant if it weren't so draconian.

                    Athletes who don't make a lot of money don't have much issue in giving them a cut of their global earnings. It's only when someone is making millions outside of Britain that it becomes an issue. A top athlete might make a million pound appearance fee in Britain which is great. But if that athlete is making $50 million worldwide, not only would the British taxes eat that million pounds, but take a chunk out of the other 50 as well. To many in that range, even with the added exposure, the financial hit is unfair. And I wholeheartedly agree.

                    I might wake up early and go running.  I might also wake up and win the lottery.

                    The odds are about the same.

                      Avatar
                      NY
                      United States
                      Member #23835
                      October 16, 2005
                      3502 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: January 3, 2016, 6:42 pm - IP Logged

                      If you're going to try and correct me then YOU get your own facts straight. Now I see why you and Ridge were always at it. THE UK TAXES THE ENTIRETY OF THE ATHLETES' EARNINGS. The US does NOT do the same thing. Which is the reason Bolt won't run on British soil without receiving a special tax waiver. While some in parliament say the law is ridiculous and is alienating many famous athletes from competing in Britain, others want to claim that since athletes are given exposure while in Britain that everything they earn for the year was enhanced by that exposure and so the UK is entitled to a cut. OF EVERYTHING.

                      Just because American athletes get a pass from UK because of the mutual back rubs shared on foreign affairs means nothing, since I hope realize that there are actually other people in the world than just Americans. 

                      There have been many foreign golf, tennis players and track stars who have flat out refused to compete in the UK because of their tax raping system. They wanted Bolt so badly at the London Anniversary Games that they actually passed a law to waive the ridiculous taxes just so he would attend. For the Anniversary games they agreed to tax only what he and the other foreign athletes made in GB and not their global income. Similar laws had to be passed before the IOC would allow London to be in contention for the Olympics and they also do the same if the Commonwealth Games is held on British soil. 

                      This point of excessive taxation on foreign athletes has been hotly argued in the British press from before the 2012 London Olympics, so I really don't care what you THINK the laws are, we know for SURE what they ACTUALLY are and what the contentions have been from all sides. Former athlete and current British athletics sportscaster Steve Cram has had a lot to say on the issue. Michael Johnson has put in his two cents as well and he agrees with the stance the athletes have taken of boycotting meets on British soil because the tax laws are ridiculously unfair to foreign athletes.

                      Like I said, get your own facts straight

                      "THE UK TAXES THE ENTIRETY OF THE ATHLETES' EARNINGS."

                      If you're going to make claims the burden is on you to establish that you're correct. If you're right it will be simple matter, but we'll never see anything credible from you.

                      "These athletes hold no property there. Don't attend school there. Don't use the healthcare system. They don't burden the system in any way and millions in taxes are demanded from them if they so much as do a shilling of work on British soil."

                      And yet you're upset because a British banker who didn't work at all in the US doesn't have to pay federal taxes for a lottery prize won in the US?

                        Teddi's avatar - Lottery-008.jpg

                        United States
                        Member #142499
                        May 13, 2013
                        1203 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: January 5, 2016, 4:53 pm - IP Logged

                        "THE UK TAXES THE ENTIRETY OF THE ATHLETES' EARNINGS."

                        If you're going to make claims the burden is on you to establish that you're correct. If you're right it will be simple matter, but we'll never see anything credible from you.

                        "These athletes hold no property there. Don't attend school there. Don't use the healthcare system. They don't burden the system in any way and millions in taxes are demanded from them if they so much as do a shilling of work on British soil."

                        And yet you're upset because a British banker who didn't work at all in the US doesn't have to pay federal taxes for a lottery prize won in the US?

                        I'm sorry, but if you're too lazy and too afraid of admitting you're wrong to simply look up ALL the facts I've already given you, that's on you. If you want to be a person who is okay basking in the glory of their own ignorance, again, that's on you.

                        It's obvious you have no actual knowledge of the UK and it's tax laws. It's also obvious that you would prefer to THINK you are right than to actually BE right. In which case there is no hope for you. 

                         

                        To those who actually want to know the truth about how the UK taxes foreign athletes who are non-residents, these should give you a clue:

                        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/9854065/Usain-Bolt-gifted-a-tax-free-trip-to-London-for-2012-Games-anniversary-meeting-at-Olympic-Stadium.html

                        And the part of this article to hit home about this unfair tax issue:

                        "Although he [Bolt] commands a typical appearance fee of $250,000 (£160,000), tax rules mean he would be paying tax not just on his earnings at the meeting but on a proportion of his entire global income, including his multi-million dollar sponsorship deals"

                        http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2011/10/14/nadal-declines-to-play-in-uk-tourney-citing-tax-laws/

                        "under British tax law, the amount of tax due is pro-rated based on the number of events that an athlete competes in; this is in addition to a 50% tax rate on appearance fees. If, for example, Nadal participates in ten tournaments in 2011 and one of those tournaments is located in the UK, the Brits take the position that they are more or less entitled to 1/10 of Nadal’s worldwide income"

                        And from another article: "Sports chiefs have warned that foreign stars across a range of sports could snub Britain because of the harsh tax regime"

                         

                        So KY,  tell me again where I'm the one with the credibility issue. If you're going to insist on making really stupid assertions and attempting to stick to them, you should at least have actual facts to back those stupid assertions up. 

                        I might wake up early and go running.  I might also wake up and win the lottery.

                        The odds are about the same.

                          Avatar

                          Canada
                          Member #154380
                          April 14, 2014
                          58 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: January 5, 2016, 6:32 pm - IP Logged

                          I predict that the next Powerball jackpot winner will also be a "foreigner" Wink .Watch this space...

                          I will try to make your prediction come true. I have my tickets. Bought legally by the way, and not through a reseller.

                            Avatar
                            NY
                            United States
                            Member #23835
                            October 16, 2005
                            3502 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: January 5, 2016, 8:30 pm - IP Logged

                            I'm sorry, but if you're too lazy and too afraid of admitting you're wrong to simply look up ALL the facts I've already given you, that's on you. If you want to be a person who is okay basking in the glory of their own ignorance, again, that's on you.

                            It's obvious you have no actual knowledge of the UK and it's tax laws. It's also obvious that you would prefer to THINK you are right than to actually BE right. In which case there is no hope for you. 

                             

                            To those who actually want to know the truth about how the UK taxes foreign athletes who are non-residents, these should give you a clue:

                            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/9854065/Usain-Bolt-gifted-a-tax-free-trip-to-London-for-2012-Games-anniversary-meeting-at-Olympic-Stadium.html

                            And the part of this article to hit home about this unfair tax issue:

                            "Although he [Bolt] commands a typical appearance fee of $250,000 (£160,000), tax rules mean he would be paying tax not just on his earnings at the meeting but on a proportion of his entire global income, including his multi-million dollar sponsorship deals"

                            http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2011/10/14/nadal-declines-to-play-in-uk-tourney-citing-tax-laws/

                            "under British tax law, the amount of tax due is pro-rated based on the number of events that an athlete competes in; this is in addition to a 50% tax rate on appearance fees. If, for example, Nadal participates in ten tournaments in 2011 and one of those tournaments is located in the UK, the Brits take the position that they are more or less entitled to 1/10 of Nadal’s worldwide income"

                            And from another article: "Sports chiefs have warned that foreign stars across a range of sports could snub Britain because of the harsh tax regime"

                             

                            So KY,  tell me again where I'm the one with the credibility issue. If you're going to insist on making really stupid assertions and attempting to stick to them, you should at least have actual facts to back those stupid assertions up. 

                            Congratulations on actually doing some research, but that's only part of the battle. You also need to understand what you've read. In case it's part of your confusion, you also need to know what you've said. In case you're unclear about the last point, here it is (in case you've forgotten, you're the one who thought it necessary to emphasize it by using all caps):

                            "THE UK TAXES THE ENTIRETY OF THE ATHLETES' EARNINGS"

                            Sorry, they don't. You just made it clear yourself by quoting from the articles you didn't understand. I'll try to make those quotes even easier to understand than they already are, even though you already thought you should emphasize the relevant part:

                            proportion of his entire global income

                            You do know what "proportion" means, right? Notice it's similarity to the word I used in explaining how it actually works: "They're taxed based on the portion of their income that's attributable to performing in the UK."

                            Then there's the part you (deliberately?) excluded by stopping the quote where you did:

                            "(some exceptions apply but you get the idea)"

                            Some exceptions. Not the "ENTIRETY" of their income. Not "every penny". A portion that can be attributed to what they've done while in the UK in order to earn money elsewhere. You know, like the US does.

                            But, hey, "If you want to be a person who is okay basking in the glory of their own ignorance, again, that's on you. It's obvious you have no actual knowledge of the UK and it's tax laws. It's also obvious that you would prefer to THINK you are right than to actually BE right."

                              Teddi's avatar - Lottery-008.jpg

                              United States
                              Member #142499
                              May 13, 2013
                              1203 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: January 5, 2016, 9:35 pm - IP Logged

                              Congratulations on actually doing some research, but that's only part of the battle. You also need to understand what you've read. In case it's part of your confusion, you also need to know what you've said. In case you're unclear about the last point, here it is (in case you've forgotten, you're the one who thought it necessary to emphasize it by using all caps):

                              "THE UK TAXES THE ENTIRETY OF THE ATHLETES' EARNINGS"

                              Sorry, they don't. You just made it clear yourself by quoting from the articles you didn't understand. I'll try to make those quotes even easier to understand than they already are, even though you already thought you should emphasize the relevant part:

                              proportion of his entire global income

                              You do know what "proportion" means, right? Notice it's similarity to the word I used in explaining how it actually works: "They're taxed based on the portion of their income that's attributable to performing in the UK."

                              Then there's the part you (deliberately?) excluded by stopping the quote where you did:

                              "(some exceptions apply but you get the idea)"

                              Some exceptions. Not the "ENTIRETY" of their income. Not "every penny". A portion that can be attributed to what they've done while in the UK in order to earn money elsewhere. You know, like the US does.

                              But, hey, "If you want to be a person who is okay basking in the glory of their own ignorance, again, that's on you. It's obvious you have no actual knowledge of the UK and it's tax laws. It's also obvious that you would prefer to THINK you are right than to actually BE right."

                              No one should be this stupid and stay in the gene pool. Of course exclusions apply you idiot. Other than your own total lack of understanding, name one thing exclusions do not apply to? How old are you? Do you have any comprehension skills at all? You flat out stated that oh no, they only get taxed on this or that, and UK tax system is just like the US. Right, because all of those same athletes are boycotting competing in the US, right? Oops, no they are not. Why is that? Why would they have no problems competing in the US if the US has the same tax system the UK? Which event did the IRS have to lift taxes on just so the foreign athletes would actually show up.

                              Which governing bodies of golf, athletics and tennis have had to fight with the IRS about the tax laws jeopardizing their respective sports. Oh wait, that happened in the UK not the US. 

                              You do understand what ENTIRE GLOBAL INCOME means don't you? Sound out the words, put them together. Entire + global + income. You can do it...maybe.

                              According to you, Britain has the same tax laws as the United States. Have these same athletes boycotted or complained about the US tax system? No. They most certainly have not. So now let's see if you can actually find the fault in your own logic if they've boycotted competing in GB but not boycotted competing in the US.

                              Let's see how long it's going to take you to figure out why even if you ignore the articles, the proof of the athletes actions show you to be wrong. When someone wanted evidence, got it, and STILL can't let go of their own false assertions, that's an idiot. 

                              I've clearly made my point and then some. I've also managed to show everyone what an lying, misrepresenting, wholly lacking-in-credibility person you are. Thanks for your assistance with that. Couldn't have done it without you.

                              But as the saying goes, "never argue with a fool, they will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience" so since you've proved yourself a superb fool,  I'll leave you to argue with yourself. Have fun with that.

                              I might wake up early and go running.  I might also wake up and win the lottery.

                              The odds are about the same.