WARNING to NY Lottery players

Reply #29

Justin — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 04:09:52 GMT

indiana is the worst. by far.

Reply #28

Maverick — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 04:03:07 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by ineed9million on February 16, 2005oh yeah, i almost forgot...i used to love playing winner for life a PA instant game that costs $2 and its top prize is 1,000 a week for life. I didnt figure it out exactly, but after taxes and inflation after twenty years of receiving checks your annual check will be worth around 20,000 dollars if not less. This is compared to the 52,000 the people running the lottery want you think you are playing for. It's almost not worth it a... [ More ]

Reply #27

CASH Only — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:49:33 GMT

Jimmy:The difference between Mass and NY is that Mass has a computerized annuity-only Megabucks. NY Lotto is hardly worth playing either.

Reply #26

JimmySand9 — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:45:26 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by CASH Only on March 9, 2005 Only the Mass Lottery is more corrupt than NY.Even with Ca$h WinFall

Reply #25

CASH Only — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:10:05 GMT

Only the Mass Lottery is more corrupt than NY.

Reply #24

JAG331 — Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:29:55 GMT

JimmySand,They're 'risky' only to a certain point. Yeah, some years you might lose a bit, but in the long run you'll make a whole ton of money. How do rich people stay rich? Some may spend a lot, but they've got a lot of diversified investments working for them 24/7.

Reply #23

CASH Only — Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:48:06 GMT

Annuities are not a sure thing either.

Reply #22

JimmySand9 — Fri, 18 Feb 2005 03:42:20 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by JAG331 on February 17, 2005 There are plenty of investment vehicles available to the super-wealthy, where you can earn a phenomenal return (10-15%). Taking the cash is the better option, but who's counting?I'm sure those are also kind of risky.

Reply #21

JAG331 — Fri, 18 Feb 2005 02:41:51 GMT

There are plenty of investment vehicles available to the super-wealthy, where you can earn a phenomenal return (10-15%). Taking the cash is the better option, but who's counting

Reply #20

JimmySand9 — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:42:06 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by CASH Only on February 17, 2005 Take the lump sum, and THEN invest your winnings.That's exactly what I'd do. If you can find a high-yield savings account or CD, you'll get more money over the same length of time as you would with an annuity. Not a whole lot more, but still more.

Reply #19

CASH Only — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:54:13 GMT

Take the lump sum, and THEN invest your winnings.

Reply #18

Annual Payments — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:44:26 GMT

Even with inflation I'm sure we could always live very comfortably on $850,000 a year. To add to that, most of us aren't gonna spend nearly that much on yearly expenses. So all that extra money could be invested.

Reply #17

CASH Only — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:39:11 GMT

What about inflation

Reply #16

Annual Payments — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:33:30 GMT

Yeah but it's 50m minus taxes...versus $27m minus taxes.

Reply #15

CASH Only — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:29:38 GMT

You have to pay taxes on annuity winnings too.

Reply #14

Annual Payments — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:28:02 GMT

I don't know. It's just that $50m sounds much better than $27m minus taxes.

Reply #13

CASH Only — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:21:55 GMT

AP:You do NOT get less money by choosing cash. Why do I keep having to say that

Reply #12

Annual Payments — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:20:32 GMT

but the lump sum is considerably less that what you'd get. I just don't see anything wrong with multi-hundred thousand dollar salaries. I could easily live on that. Maybe that game is to popularize annuities. No one chooses them.

Reply #11

CASH Only — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:14:26 GMT

If you can't collect in lump sum, it's not worth playing.

Reply #10

Annual Payments — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:12:07 GMT

Cash only..if u don't play u don't win

Reply #9

CASH Only — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:07:15 GMT

No more Mass Megais bad$ until there's a cash option.

Reply #8

Annual Payments — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:40:55 GMT

Well how much is the jackpot and I can decide for myself whether I think it's bad or not.

Reply #7

Annual Payments — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:39:50 GMT

oh my god Cash only! that's not a warning lol.I would like to see how you react to winning Mass MegabuXXX

Reply #6

CASH Only — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:00:53 GMT

And you think the Hoosier Lottery is corrupt

Reply #5

Todd — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:56:43 GMT

Reply #4

JimmySand9 — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:47:57 GMT

Annuity-Only, that's the worst part?! How about it's rediculous 1 in 5 overall odds. Now that's corruption.

Reply #3

ineed9million — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:36:12 GMT

oh yeah, i almost forgot...i used to love playing winner for life a PA instant game that costs $2 and its top prize is 1,000 a week for life. I didnt figure it out exactly, but after taxes and inflation after twenty years of receiving checks your annual check will be worth around 20,000 dollars if not less. This is compared to the 52,000 the people running the lottery want you think you are playing for. It's almost not worth it at that point. Lots of people will dventually find out that yo... [ More ]

Reply #2

ineed9million — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:26:56 GMT

man, until i started reading some of the posts on this site i never realized how crooked the lottery commissions are.

Reply #1

MillionsWanted — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:52:00 GMT

Quote: Originally posted by CASH Only on February 16, 2005 The new scratch game Kangaroo Kash , despite its name, is ANNUITY-ONLY.Probably because Kangaroo Annuity doesn't sound like a selling name.

WARNING to NY Lottery players

CASH Only — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:34:27 GMT

The new scratch game Kangaroo Kash , despite its name, is ANNUITY-ONLY.