Bill would allow Texas Lottery winners to pay for anonymity

Comment #89

GYM RICE — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 22:56:16 GMT

Paying money to someone/something to stay anon when they couldn't possibly give you anon protection is just throwing your money away. Imagine winning 100 million and you pay 5 million to stay anon and within a month you see your name being plastered all over the internet because someone found out who you were. 5 million dollars just gone and for nothing...It's a scam. If it passes, don't buy into thinking they or anyone can keep you anon. They can't. Impossible

Comment #88

One-Day — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 20:18:58 GMT

Paying millions to stay anonymous. Nah, delayed gratification, a good disguise and a new name is WAY cheaper.

Comment #87

Stack47 — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 01:01:18 GMT

The lottery rules were made before they sold the first ticket and because the state legislators made the rules, transparency was one of them. When the lotto games began producing $1 million jackpot winners, they had to prove their was an actual winner and publishing the name and city of the winner with a picture of them holding a over sized check was how they did it.

Those prizes were paid in instalments of $50,000 a year for 20 years before taxes so remaining anonymous wasn't that important... [ More ]

Comment #86

zip316 — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 19:12:08 GMT

Don't worry about being pc and all I think SJL is a crackpot,she must think she is in California.

Comment #85

Romancandle — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 18:55:43 GMT

I did see that screen shot you posted mikeintexas... yeah, if that's what may have caused this to grow legs it's kinda scary.

I think everybody is guilty, myself included, for letting their feelings get the best of them at times.

I have nothing to back this up, but I don't think there's going to be a crushing blow to the lottery if players have a choice to claim anonymously.

If other states come on board, more people will probably choose to claim anonymously, BUT there most likely will... [ More ]

Comment #84

mikeintexas — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 18:36:03 GMT

Did you see that screen shot I posted from a Yahoo msg. board from a couple yrs. back? Someone brought up that 5% idea. Freaked me out a little.

I'd love to see any statistics the other way and I've begged for them in this thread and the other. I like to consider myself open minded, esp. about this sort of thing. I try to never let feelings be my guide, but instead facts and cold logic. Man, I've eaten crow before in debates and I'm not one of those who HAS to be right...but I WANT to be,... [ More ]

Comment #83

Romancandle — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 18:17:21 GMT

Oh I'm buying what you're selling mikeintexas... you've laid it your case pretty clearly.

I'm looking for facts and figures to disprove the other side of this equation... that's a tough nut to crack I suppose.

The fact of the matter is other states are doing this right now and if others follow suit, is it going to be certain death for the lottery

Comment #82

mikeintexas — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 18:07:01 GMT

Shoot, Roman, the lotteries admit that those press conferences and publicity releases after a JP win are good for sales. I didn't bring that up b/c I sure didn't want to be the one to try to compare sales in states that allow anonymity and those that don't. It was brought up in another thread that other countries that allow anonymity don't suffer from a lack of sales, but since there's not the opposite to compare it too, it can't be proved or disproved. I don't know of any other lottery other th... [ More ]

Comment #81

Romancandle — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 17:48:25 GMT

Maybe I missed it in one of these threads, but it seems to me nobody has discussed why anonymity would be bad for the game strictly in terms of dollars and cents- that's what this is really all about.

Please cite facts... not unproven feelings.

We know of a few states that allow anonymity... is something happening to sales in those states? Is that how Texas came up with that 5% figure to offset ??? problems or did they pull it out of thin air?

Without knowing how and why they came to 5... [ More ]

Comment #80

mikeintexas — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 17:26:28 GMT

What do you mean, every excuse in the book? Where did I make excuses? Feed the media frenzy?

I love to pile on Democrats when I can, but they're not the only ones with dumb ideas and there are plenty of Dirty Crooks with an R after their name, too.

Not sure if you woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning or started drinking early.

Comment #79

pickone4me — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 17:13:10 GMT

Looks like every excuse in the book. If you want to feed the media frenzy, go right ahead! Let us know how well it works out. As far as paying for anonymity, that is real low...Not at all surprising considering a democrat introduced it. Dirty Crooks is what they are.

Comment #78

RedStang — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 16:02:52 GMT

NY will be next in line if this passes.

Comment #77

Shelby Mustang — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 14:11:22 GMT

same for you...if you dont like that states have no anonymity laws you also are free not to play the lottery. I dont believe we need them and yes we as lottery players have the right to know that an actually person has won.

Comment #76

mikeintexas — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 03:48:10 GMT

I'm not a fan of it either. I was doing some figuring last night and if someone won next Tuesday's MM and opted for CV, then they'd be paying nearly $3.6 million for anonymity. Good grief, that's enough to hire a team of around-the-clock bodyguards for a year or two, outfit them with enough weapons to start a war and still have quite a bit left over.

That said, if someone wants to take advantage of it (or, as I see it, be taken advantage of ) - if it becomes a law - then more power to them... [ More ]

Comment #75

jillybear — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 21:43:10 GMT

I don't get why everyone is fussing about it. What's the big deal about setting up an LLC and a trust to begin with? Isn't that what smart people do when you win big money

Comment #74

rcbbuckeye — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 16:06:12 GMT

I would consider creating a trust to claim but I gotta have total control of the $$$.

Comment #73

CDanaT — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 13:51:27 GMT

For those of you that have not read this article(Have posted it before), it is from an Attorney out of Dallas. His name is Jim Ross and he claimed a $35 million dollar jackpot for people who won the MM back in 2011. Not a bad read and may provide some insight.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/7/prweb8654988.htm

I am not a fan of this 5% proposal at all. If it was $10-$20,000,that would be a consideration(IMHO). Typical government official trying to get more out of peoples wallet... [ More ]

Comment #72

myturn — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 04:17:33 GMT

The state of Texas is hiding a lottery winner's identity, refusing to release the name of the winner of a $64 million drawing Feb. 8.

A press release published by the Texas Lottery Commission calls the winner The AB Revocable Living Trust as if that were the name of a corporate entity, but an A-B revocable living trust is a form of estatethat minimizes estate taxes by splitting marital assets into separate shares for each partner.

This happened in 2006, a good lawyer is the answe... [ More ]

Comment #71

mikeintexas — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 04:15:40 GMT

A little over the top? It's an out-and-out insult. Note that the poster doesn't name their state on their profile; he/she must be ashamed of living there. At least most Texans know the proper use of ellipses.

I was doing some reading about lottery anonymity last night and saw an article on Yahoo from a couple of yrs. ago; against my better judgement, I scrolled down through the comments and saw this

Comment #70

Stack47 — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 02:34:46 GMT

If the number of posts on LP demanding anonymity is a measure, that Texas representative is doing something the people want even if the method is strange.

Comment #69

rcbbuckeye — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 01:51:33 GMT

A state representative introduced a bill which hasnt been voted on yet. Saying the whole state is crooked is a little over the top. Its a bad bill but lets see what happens.

Comment #68

myturn — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 20:31:53 GMT

Player Protection

The Texas Lottery is committed to informing players about potential threats to the security and integrity of the Games of Texas. We offer our players as much information as possible about these issues including helpful security tips, clearing up common misconceptions about the Texas Lottery, the description of the audible tones on terminals when tickets are scanned, information about protecting yourself from lottery scams, and so much more.

The Texas Lottery has... [ More ]

Comment #67

temptustoo — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:11:27 GMT

can anyone say high way robbery....... The state of Texas is as crooked as they come.......... total rip off.

Comment #66

Scratch$ — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 08:37:30 GMT

The public has no inherent right to the information, or else the courts would not have upheld the laws in the states that provide anonymity. The information is private in several states, not public. What don't you get about private information that has been upheld by law/courts in several states?

If the states that currently require public disclosure wished to, they could change their laws anytime they wanted and make the information private, and POOF! There goes that bogus right to other peo... [ More ]

Comment #65

KY Floyd — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 08:07:40 GMT

It's extremely clear that the public has a right to the information under the law, except in the few states that don't consider the information to be public information. What part of public information is confusing?

As far as your constitutional right to privacy, it doesn't apply. Playing the lottery is voluntary, but when you choose to play you're agreeing to be bound by the rules. If you want to maintain your right to privacy don't waive it by playing the lottery.

Comment #64

VenomV12 — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 07:37:49 GMT

Pretty much in a nutshell.

Comment #63

MonEl — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 03:22:29 GMT

Seems to me that in a way it sounds like a sort of Protection Racket :

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Protection+Racket

A business combination of extortion schemes controlled by a criminal syndicate. For the promise of security, significant sums of money are seized from persons, businesses, communities, or even nations.

----------

Protection Racket :

Extortion schemes for the promise of security, significant sums of money are seized from persons.

Comment #62

Scratch$ — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 01:54:17 GMT

The bill hasn't been passed, and I doubt it will. I wouldn't pay that much, period.

Comment #61

DDOH937 — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 01:47:59 GMT

As disgusting as this proposed lottery 'mob-style shakedown' Bill is, I'd gladly pay it in a heartbeat. I'd simply consider it my 'State Tax' while having the opportunity to avoid the scoundrels, scallywags, long lost 'family members', un-welcomed press, fake friends and the unscrupulous financial hounders. Not to mention the persistent paranoia of watching your back since 'EVERYONE' knows you've won the big one.

It is unfortunate they took this approach instead of simply debating a Bill that... [ More ]

Comment #60

sully16 — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 00:25:26 GMT

Greed.

Comment #59

hit tonite — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 23:35:18 GMT

I'm sure that account needs more money....

Comment #58

lejardin — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 22:45:10 GMT

To me this is another invasion of our privacy. I dont care if they charge 1%, it is just wrong period. Obviously they have been thinking 1) how to exhort more money for the lottery (and for the administrators) or 2) they honestly think winners of big wins are at risk? All those associated with the lotteries and this is the best they can come up with? What would that 5% be used for? Why not use some of the funds they already hold back from the wins to provide anonymity or protection? Of course th... [ More ]

Comment #57

Scratch$ — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 21:32:33 GMT

No, you don't have any such right under the law.

South Carolina and some other states already have laws allowing winners to remain anonymous, and these laws have been upheld by the courts.

If you don't like the anonymity laws and the court decisions upholding them, you're certainly free not to play the lottery.

Comment #56

Shelby Mustang — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 21:17:34 GMT

We as lottery players have the right to know that it was a real person who has won. Is the lottery a government office or a private funded office? If it is a public office then names and faces should be released to the general public. Hey if you want privacy do not play the lottery for fear that one day you will win and be hounded. You can stay in your current financial state and still be happy...right

Comment #55

Scratch$ — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 19:27:32 GMT

I agree with everyone who opposes this proposed bill. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that American citizens have a constitutional right to privacy in most areas of their lives, and I believe this is one of the areas where the right to privacy exists, and people shouldn't have to pay for a constitutional right.

If this dubious bill passes, hopefully it will be with a reduced fee of 1% of the winnings, with the 1% figure made permanent and not allowed to increase ever.

Comment #54

Drenick1 — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 16:31:06 GMT

Willing to wager that the bulk of the 5% collected would go towards lining the pockets of these administrators .

This bill would also set a bad precedent for every other state and more so for those who don't charge a state tax or are already offering anonymity.

Comment #53

Dead_Aim — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 16:26:05 GMT

The 5% would go to the state lottery account, which is used to payout prizes, for operation and administration of the lottery, and foundation school fund

Comment #52

m3347 — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 14:36:36 GMT

Texas lottery says; if you want to remain safe and protect your privacy pay us money. Sounds like blackmail to me.

Comment #51

hit tonite — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:56:28 GMT

Wrong on all levels.... Greedy asses... Where does the money go

Comment #50

SkyLine69 — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:01:26 GMT

It comes down to greed. I was able to be anonymous for up to 1 year after a large prize back in 2014 for free

Comment #49

KY Floyd — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:46:17 GMT

I think we've got a favorite to win the award for biggest dick move of the year.

Comment #48

FlamingoGirl — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 07:26:27 GMT

That's terrible. I hope it doesn't happen.

Comment #47

mikeintexas — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:54:25 GMT

I would counter that with this is the exact sort of thing that requires transparency in all facets of an entity that is in charge of any lottery in any state...which is in turn overseen by the state govt. You can trust them if you want...not me.

I'm not worried about Ohio or Oklahoma's policy on anonymity, only the one in Texas. Unless you live here, you shouldn't either, it's nunya .

I've said this before several times in other threads, but history shows you have much more to fear f... [ More ]

Comment #46

VenomV12 — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:41:24 GMT

Umm, this seems slightly corrupt and borderline illegal.

Comment #45

MonEl — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:25:11 GMT

You should not have to pay for what should be a right.

Anonymity for those who win big should be a right, having to pay to have it is extortion, it would be like paying the mafia for protection.

Comment #44

Seattlejohn — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:10:58 GMT

Very stupid bill, and a complete waste of time. It'll be challenged (if it passes), and will be shot down. It's really simple; either the state offers anonymity or it doesn't; paying for it should not be an option, as it's nothing more than state sponsored extortion.

Comment #43

GYM RICE — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 04:49:52 GMT

Every large lottery winner who sits in front of a camera to answer questions should address the scam that Texas is trying to do by belittling it on a National level. Could you imagine the amount of fear mongering Ads Texas would put out trying to scare people into paying this.

Comment #42

Coin Toss — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 04:15:03 GMT

Since there a few states right now that allow winners to be anonymous for 'free' this bill would set a very bad precedent....... other states would copy it, perhaps even the current anonymous starts.

Also the concept of paying for a ticket, winning a jackpot, and being charged 5% of the jackpot to remain anonymous is nothing but a shakedown. Any guess whether that 5% would be pre-tax or not?

From the OP:

The 5% would go to the state lottery account, which is used to payout prizes,... [ More ]

Comment #41

lejardin — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 04:09:59 GMT

There are plenty to choose from.

Comment #40

HaveABall — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 04:04:25 GMT

Monies back, LOL, gatorsrok

Comment #39

mikeintexas — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 02:35:17 GMT

Correction: my cough insinuation up there is about a U.S. Congress rep. from Texas. She was just the first one I thought of when I was searching my brain for idiotic thoughts from politicians.

Comment #38

gatorsrok — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 02:24:53 GMT

It is not a good deal. With family, friends and social media, people will find out and the media will find you. Then you'll have more publicity and 5% less money to hide in seclusion.

I wonder if they give you the 5% back if you are outed.

Comment #37

mikeintexas — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 01:50:11 GMT

50 grand per million bucks? I believe I can handle my own security for that amount, thanks all the same. Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson will be my constant companions.

These off-the-wall bills come up more often than you'd think. The Texas Legislature meets only once every couple of years and for a max period of 140 days, although the governor CAN call them back in for a special session for a max of 30 days. I like it that way; the less time they spend meeting, the less damage they can do.

Comment #36

rcbbuckeye — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 01:21:32 GMT

And.......

I just read that a state rep from McKinney introduced a bill that would make it illegal to sell lottery tickets after Sept 1, 2015.

Politicians don't know if they're coming or going.

Comment #35

ThatScaryChick — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 01:03:00 GMT

This wouldn't stop someone from having to pay back money on child support, back taxes, school loans and other things. Those get taken out before you receive your money. I believe most states check to see what you owe first. Being allowed to be anonymous won't stop that from happening.

Comment #34

HaveABall — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:58:00 GMT

Jack Whittacker got sued by folks he knew from business, personal, and folks he didn't know for several years. However, I don't believe in paying this additionally proposed, astonishingly high pre-taxed Mob Tax.

Comment #33

Stack47 — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:44:45 GMT

Remaining anonymous will mean the lottery won't give the winner's name to the media, but the store selling the ticket will get a bonus and making it possible to still find out the identity.

Comment #32

LottoMetro — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:34:16 GMT

I said the same thing out loud, except I substituted a different F-word.

My home state doesn't allow anonymous claims but if they did, I don't believe that they would ever do something like this.

And for those defending Texas because they have no state income tax, who's to say they won't introduce one and/or specifically impose it on lottery winnings

Comment #31

Theox- — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:07:03 GMT

A decent person would want to do that. But there are plenty of people that try their best to shirk their responsibilities.

Comment #30

lejardin — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 23:24:46 GMT

What am I missing here? Wouldn't you want, be willing and grateful you were given the ability to pay bills, child support etc?

Taxes, now THAT is another story.

Comment #29

RJOh — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 22:43:28 GMT

Propose a bill to collect state taxes on the lottery then... don't disguise it as a privacy tax.

If they did that they would probably tax all winners, even the ones with the lower prizes.

Comment #28

Romancandle — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 22:39:03 GMT

Absolutely ridiculous...

I didn't know Texas didn't collect state taxes on lottery winning...

Propose a bill to collect state taxes on the lottery then... don't disguise it as a privacy tax.

Comment #27

Get paid — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 21:45:08 GMT

Doesn,t matter one way or the other huge jackpot,that gets national attention,I want to be anonymous,5% or trust.

Comment #26

ttech10 — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 21:41:54 GMT

So if I won the next jackpot, they'd want $3m to keep my name private? I think I'd prefer to just hire an attorney for a fraction of that and claim via a trust or LLC. My name would still be discoverable via an open records request, but at least I would still be fairly anonymous and would have those extra millions.

I don't like it, but I really don't think this is that terrible, simply because the winnings currently aren't taxed on the state level and it's on par with those states that do hav... [ More ]

Comment #25

Think — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:59:44 GMT

The bill is titled, Relating to a lottery prize winner's choice to remain anonymous on authorization to withhold five percent of winnings, and was introduced Tuesday by Rep. Terry Canales (D).

Well there is the problem. Rep Terry Canales (D) --- the problem

They got this one backwards.

Because the state wants to remain transparent the state should have to assign a security team to big winners and at taxpayer expense.

The team should have to stay on and protect the winner... [ More ]

Comment #24

MillionsWanted — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:38:05 GMT

Looks like a form of extortion, but I would probably used the offer to keep the anonymity.

Anonymity is standard for lottery winners in Norway.

Comment #23

Drenick1 — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:33:36 GMT

I know it sounds like legalized extortion but Texas does not have a state income tax. In NC, they withhold 6% for state income taxes initially but then hit you with the balance of an additional 1.75% when you file your taxes.

If I bought a winning jackpot ticket in TX, I would bypass the anonymity tax and just hire my own security for a year. After a year, even the most hardcore moochers/criminals will have long given up.

Comment #22

epmoney$ — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:22:17 GMT

Considering Texas has no state tax on lottery prizes, 5% to go anonymous is fine.

Comment #21

LottoLucy — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:09:06 GMT

Okayyyyy. I think I have finally heard everything.

Comment #20

Dead_Aim — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:34:34 GMT

, but why on earth would you just stop at one or two.

I believe there is a special place for politicans and lawyers (generally, one in the same) to rot in hell.

The only reason they are still on earth is because of the overcrowding.

Comment #19

hearsetrax — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:18:53 GMT

lucky 4 me I have none of those problems .......

but I plan to have a currently trust worthy friend set up the dozen phoney accounts

Comment #18

HaveABall — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:13:05 GMT

, MADDOG10, what ... does the government think that they are the new Mob (you pay the enforcer the asked for amount and you receive protection )?

It's deranged how several of these worldwide law makers think of their role in representing humanity

Comment #17

Tony Numbers — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:15:45 GMT

This is a society of people who already give up their privacy with Facebook twit er and celebrity worship. Just show up claim sign keep your trap shut then leave.

Comment #16

Suzy-Dittlenose — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 17:57:35 GMT

This bill is nonsense! Just another example of legalized extortion. Someone should slap the idiot who came up with this idea....not just one slap, but two

Comment #15

Lottery Playa — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 17:30:34 GMT

No. This would NOT be the case. This is about Government making more money. This bill most certainly will include provisions to garnish any winnings based on things like child support , back taxes, public debts, etc... THIS WILL NOT BE AN OUT FOR THAT

This bill will only allow the winner to remain anonymous to the General Public for purposes of reporting who wins.

It's Just a bill to garner more revenue and nothing else.

5% is quite a bit to fork over to maintain your privacy.

The l... [ More ]

Comment #14

haymaker — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 17:30:10 GMT

Ridiculous !

They should have to pay you to use YOUR name and image, that is if you agree to the use.

Now playing the big $ games only when I go to Delaware.

Comment #13

Technut — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 17:04:29 GMT

What a crock of bull pucky. Allowing someone to be private with regard to lottery winnings should not have to cost them money. 5% seems like small amount but it's not really for every $1M they take $50K just to keep someone's name out of media i say no way.

Comment #12

Saylorgirl — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 16:30:38 GMT

I agree those debts will be taken from your funds before you ever receive your winnings.

Comment #11

Gleno — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 16:14:48 GMT

Don't believe this will protect anyone who owes child support, alimony, back taxes, or judgements. Just think it keeps the winners information from the media.

Comment #10

Gleno — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 16:10:29 GMT

Sounds like extortion to me.

It should not cost 5% in the first place.

The right to privacy should not be something Americans be forced to pay for;

but it may be worth the price to keep your name out of the media,when dealing with huge jackpot winnings.

Comment #9

lejardin — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 16:10:10 GMT

Totally agree Maddog. This sounds like extortion.

Definately need the option to claim anonymously but this is a crock.

Comment #8

dallascowboyfan — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:59:16 GMT

Come on Texas this is crazy we are trying to get away from the Government taking our money and Texas offers something like this (SMH

Comment #7

hearsetrax — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:35:32 GMT

Comment #6

WWWBUKTN — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:33:28 GMT

When you think about it there's some people out there that would consider the 5% a bargain if they owe money, child support, get divorced months after the winning numbers and then go collect on the down low. This opens up a whole world of problems.

Comment #5

zephbe — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:53:56 GMT

South Carolina doesn't divulge the identities of lottery winners to the public if they don't want it to be known.

Comment #4

Shelby Mustang — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:48:37 GMT

I think it's a great idea. If you want to be anonymous then just shell out some money, it really should be public information who has won though. Let's just keep it all transparent. Your biggest threats will come from people you already know anyways. We as lottery players have the right to know who we have lost money to and that the person who has won is a real person

Comment #3

MADDOG10 — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:47:37 GMT

Unbelievable, and they call themselves Americans. I think they should replace the majority of these lawmakers.

Just another fast Money scheme...

Comment #2

Original Bey — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:46:37 GMT

5%? Hmmm.... If all states offer this option it would certainly be an improvement on the notion of making the game even harder to win as a means of earning more revenue.

Comment #1

EZMONEE — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:42:43 GMT

Another way for the government to make money..lol Key word Bill

Bill would allow Texas Lottery winners to pay for anonymity

Lottery Post — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:37:44 GMT

Texas lawmakers are considering a bill that would allow big lottery winners to keep their identity a secret, but they would have to pay for that privilege.

Right now, Texas Lottery winners are not allowed to remain anonymous. In some cases, individuals have established a trust or turned their winning ticket over to a trust to claim the prize for them. But, Texas law requires that someone come forward to participate in a news conference and collect the money.

House Bill 1504 would change th... [ More ]