Couple wins $3M jackpot 27 years after wife's numbers last came up

Comment #41

Drenick1 — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:19:55 GMT

Nice! You look like a pro

Comment #40

Jill34786 — Sun, 23 Mar 2014 00:20:34 GMT

Glad you like my avatar as that is actually me hitting my tee shot.

Comment #39

michaelsullivan — Sat, 22 Mar 2014 13:04:41 GMT

if you dont have a ticket you dont have a chance.

Comment #38

Drenick1 — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 17:37:37 GMT

Cool avatar btw! I don't golf but have tried and failed miserably.

Comment #37

Jill34786 — Thu, 13 Mar 2014 21:25:02 GMT

Didn't make any sense to me either.

Comment #36

Drenick1 — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 19:33:40 GMT

That is the nightmare scenario I have heard so often from those who play their own numbers. They never want to miss a draw in case the stars line up in their favor.

I am sorry to hear this happened to.

I agree with you as well on the puzzling annuity selection.

Comment #35

TNPATL — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 16:24:40 GMT

This is my favorite part right here

Before answering the official, Jeanne Gagnon said she whipped out her handheld computer and did some quick tax calculations.

I don't think [the lottery official] was expecting that, she said.

In the end, the Gagnons determined they would be better off with annual $70,000 payments, for which they are establishing a family estate.

If we had taken the lump sum we would have lost $700,000 right off to taxes, Jeanne Gagnon said. I wasn't ha... [ More ]

Comment #34

Drenick1 — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 18:41:25 GMT

The only thing in common with the highest tax bracket from past years is you are subject to paying the most in taxes when compared to the overall population. Income and wealth are not even close to being comparable unless you adjust for inflation.

Comment #33

mightwin — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 17:52:34 GMT

I was wondering if being in the highest tax bracket now (around 40%) is close to being in the highest tax bracket back then (around 90%). Maybe theres too much to factor in, don't know. Any thoughts anybody

Comment #32

Drenick1 — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 16:19:34 GMT

Using inflation as a factor $100k in 1940 is worth almost 1.7 million. Spending power does however differ. The average price of a movie ticket was .24 now it's over $8.00, the average car was $800 now it's over $20k so spending power of 100k in 1940 is closer to $3million.

Comment #31

OldSchoolPa — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 14:11:06 GMT

Well, my numbers for Mega Millions came up about 12 years ago. I had them written on a sheet of paper in front of me on my desk. I was going to play them even though the jackpot had been hit the previous draw. We were going to be headed to a Christmas party that night, so my ex-wife would pop into my office from time to time. She was dead set against playing the lottery and she saw me looking at the lottery website and the numbers written down in front of me and she ripped into me about how play... [ More ]

Comment #30

mightwin — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 13:51:13 GMT

Quick question....so say back in the 40's someone who was in the top tax bracket had $100,000 left over after taxes, which would be alot back then, what would that amount ($100,000) be equivalent to today

Comment #29

JonnyBgood07 — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 11:44:17 GMT

... She switches the numbers she plays each week based on a system she's developed.

awesome

Comment #28

Drenick1 — Sat, 08 Mar 2014 16:54:46 GMT

I think the only issue with offering 10/15/20 year annuities would be the diminished jackpot number. The current $309 million annuity could very well be $500 million if it was offered as a 50-year annuity. While that amount sounds nice, I would still take the cash option.

Comment #27

DDOH937 — Sat, 08 Mar 2014 16:49:17 GMT

....right there with you on this one Drenick1. You know what i was thinking recently, i wonder if in the coming years these lotteries will evolve to where they would offer 10/15/20/25 year annuity options. Of course the cash option would yield the least amount but increase gradually to varying degrees with the 10/15/20/25/30 year option. I think the percentage of people opting for annuity would be much higher.

Comment #26

Drenick1 — Sat, 08 Mar 2014 16:39:03 GMT

Not only will a lawsuit attack their annuity payments but the temptation to cash in some of those payments will be looming as well. Cash option were not available until the late 1990's and many jackpot winners prior to that point still went broke.

Comment #25

DDOH937 — Sat, 08 Mar 2014 16:03:40 GMT

.......I agree COMPLETELY teddi. One of the things i find fascinating since joining LP is not only the vast array of opinons on here, but also how little people know about the lotteries/options should they win. I often read these opinons praising/critizing winners choices and it blows my mind that some on here even if they were lucky to win, they would fall victim or remain ignorant to the realities of claiming their prize. I have learnt so much from being on the LP. Not just from what people po... [ More ]

Comment #24

dallascowboyfan — Sat, 08 Mar 2014 12:43:10 GMT

Woo Hoo congratulation to Mrs./Mr Gagnon

Comment #23

Teddi — Sat, 08 Mar 2014 09:53:46 GMT

What in the world are you talking about? You do realize that a lawsuit can dry them up regardless of annuity, don't you? They lose a lawsuit and they will have to fork over or relinquish their rights to future payouts. I really wish people would get that annuities are not the be all and end all of preserving lottery wins. Do you have any idea how many annuity takers have ended up broke or bankrupt? Annuities aren't protected from lawsuits. If they really wanted to protect that money and preserve... [ More ]

Comment #22

TheGameGrl — Sat, 08 Mar 2014 02:36:39 GMT

Enjoyed how their time arrived and they chose well in the annuity. For some folks the Vested security is more important then the short term lump. All it would take is one lawsuit to dry them up. Instead they are perservering and savoring the income. Lets face it, most of us would be happy to live on 70k a year.

I support them in what the real goal is, guaranteed income for them and the family.

Comment #21

Piaceri — Sat, 08 Mar 2014 01:08:38 GMT

Congrats to this lovely couple. Their story brought a smile to my face this evening.

Comment #20

CDanaT — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 22:09:49 GMT

Kudos and congrats to them !!!

May they enjoy their win and take a few trips over to Moosehead Lake

Comment #19

LottoMetro — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 21:35:44 GMT

I'm with the majority. Her mistake in the tax savings calculation was assuming that rates will remain at or below their current levels for the next 30 years. All you have to do is look at the national numbers and realize that with a limited population capacity and rising costs, taxes must go up at some point.

Of course, every winner must make the decision on their own and based on personal outlook of their situation. Hopefully this couple consulted a financial advisor before claiming, since t... [ More ]

Comment #18

DDOH937 — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 20:20:55 GMT

This is why Annuities are a HUGE gamble on the future and really makes no sense. Look at these historical tax rates. We are sure to return to one of these sky high ones at some point. Whether due to a war, financial crisis, weather realated crisis/disaster, whatever the case might be. Even if its short lived, some of these rates are simply BRUTAL!!!! And you know that lottery winners would be the first targets with the bulls eye on their winnings..

Comment #17

maringoman — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 20:13:42 GMT

I am curious to hear from those who are for annuities. I agree with you and Drenick1 on lumpsum payouts.

Comment #16

Drenick1 — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 19:29:00 GMT

The Top federal rate was 91% in 1963 and even as late as 1981 stood at 70%. I have no doubt we will witness several severe tax hikes in our lifetime.

Comment #15

DDOH937 — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 19:23:03 GMT

During WWII, tax rates on the 'rich' went up to as high as 90%. There will DEFINITELY be a time in the future when special taxes will be assessed. I am sure of it. To make it worse, citizens would gladly vote on any referendum that would allow lottery winners to be taxed up the hilt. They wouldnt care. The first thing they would highlight is that lottery winners didnt really work for their money. Again, no way annuity is attractive to me, unless its over $600 million, then i might be crazy enoug... [ More ]

Comment #14

sully16 — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 19:21:23 GMT

Congrats to the very patient couple.

Comment #13

DDOH937 — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 19:18:26 GMT

She would only have 25%+ state tax witholding for this year. That would leave them with $1Million +. The remainder in taxes are due next April. With over $1 million in the bank, even the most conservative portfolio would yield over 5%. Especially with their age, disabled son ect, they'd be tax benefits to capitalize on. Good for them either way, but there is no way on earth i'm leaving that much money on the table in the hands of a government/state run agency for 30 years.

Comment #12

Drenick1 — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 19:01:30 GMT

I wouldn't put it pass Congress to implement a special tax on lottery prizes. We are already well over $17 trillion in debt and likely to surpass $18 trillion later this year.

I would have taken the lump sum as I have no faith in what happens in 30 years.

Comment #11

Drenick1 — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 18:57:31 GMT

The cash option was actually $1.5 million and she was concerned about having to pay almost $700k in Federal and state taxes.

Interest on $900k would be lucky to hit $9k a year considering most banks pay less than 1%.

Comment #10

maringoman — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 18:40:40 GMT

The federal government is over $16T in debt. This will not end well. The politicians can easily propose a special tax on lottery prizes to help fund research on moon-bats lol and guess what? It would sail through the house without much opposition. Gambling is considered a dirty business anyways.

No no not with my money...I'd take that money in a heartbeat.

Comment #9

DDOH937 — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 16:04:39 GMT

Completely agree. No way i'm waiting for 30 years of payment. So much can change in 10/20/30 years. Most of these lotteries are not even close to being 30 years old. Who knows what the next 30 years will be like. I'm with you on this one maringoman, its my money and i need it now!!! LOL!!!

I'll think, only think, just for and in the name of due diligence of annuitized options ONLY when winnings exceed $100 Million. Give it a better look over $400 Million. And devote some real thought to it wh... [ More ]

Comment #8

maringoman — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 15:59:10 GMT

Like that JG Wentworth commercial it's my money and I need it now! That's my philosophy when it comes to the lottery payouts.

Great story still.

Comment #7

DDOH937 — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 15:57:46 GMT

When its your time, its your time. Quick Picks, Birthdays, Randoms, Dreams, Cookies, One Ticket, 10 Tickets, 1000 Tickets. Doesnt matter one bit it seems. When its your time, you'll be in the right place at the right time facing the right store clerk at the appropriate second. You may let someone ahead of you, someone let you ahead, you may run out of gas and need to stop, feeling hungry and grabbing a bite, or simply a gut feeling when you decide to grab a ticket. Its seems that's all there rea... [ More ]

Comment #6

MzDuffleBaglady — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 15:36:57 GMT

Happy Spending

Comment #5

psykomo — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 15:29:49 GMT

YES BIG CONGRAT'$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to the Ganon'$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

We must admit LUCK played her hand on these people. Bad LUCK the ole man forgot to play her number

back in 1986. Good LUCK played her hand in March 3, 2014. REALLY, Psyko thinks she took the annunity this

time because, she trust it the best way they can keep money together for their disabled son. It appears that

she is the DECISION maker therefore, they will live off $70,000 a year and no more

Comment #4

DDOH937 — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 14:47:10 GMT

Big Congrats to the Gagnons. But not quite sure why they would opt for the annuity. With $3 million cash option after taxes, they'd net around $1.1 million or so. That could sit and generate $50,000 + annually in interest. So both parents and son would benefit greatly as the principal could remain untouched, especially since they are retired. Hmmmm, happy for them but i think the annuity makes sense only if your winnings are $100 Million or above. Maybe i'm wrong but i think the math suggests th... [ More ]

Comment #3

RedStang — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 14:47:08 GMT

Great win and i bet she still plays.

Comment #2

Teddi — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 14:28:29 GMT

This is a really cute story, but really weird that they opted for the annuity at their age.

Comment #1

mypiemaster — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 14:25:25 GMT

WTG. Congrats

Couple wins $3M jackpot 27 years after wife's numbers last came up

Lottery Post — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 13:56:49 GMT

He's finally forgiven, because last time he forgot to buy tickets

In February 1986, Robert and Jeanne Gagnon had the winning Megabucks lottery numbers for the weekly drawing.

Not that it mattered.

I had all the numbers, Jeanne Gagnon said Wednesday. But my husband forgot to pick up a ticket that day.

And I've been hearing about it ever since, her husband, Robert Gagnon, said, shaking his head.

Now it appears all is forgiven. Two weeks ago, the retired couple learned they held t... [ More ]