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

Reply #11

GYM RICE — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 02:19:03 GMT

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.

Reply #10

haymaker — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:29:45 GMT

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

Reply #9

mediabrat — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:39:58 GMT

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.

Reply #8

mediabrat — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:34:15 GMT

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 eve... [ More ]

Reply #7

haymaker — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:18:51 GMT

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

Reply #6

SergeM — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:10:12 GMT

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 react... [ More ]

Reply #5

Guru101 — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:45:36 GMT

I think it's fine the way it is.

Reply #4

Bigheadnick — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:26:45 GMT

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 succe... [ More ]

Reply #3

mcginnin56 — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:49:35 GMT

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.

Reply #2

JonnyBgood07 — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:47:43 GMT

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

Reply #1

mediabrat — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:40:33 GMT

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... [ More ]

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

Bigheadnick — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:31:56 GMT

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