if PB/ MM changed its policy from CASH to ANNUITY going forward- would that sit well with you?Prev Topic Next Topic

New Topic New Poll

noise-gate

* In hot pursuit of $ *

White Shores- California
United States
Member #136,471
December 12, 2012
7,039 Posts
Offline

Apr 16, 2013, 5:11 pm

Perhaps they say " We have read too many horror stories of winners losing it all, so we have emplemented a fail- safe measure to ensure that this will not happen under our watch from this point on, in the best interest of the lottery & the winner- we feel that this action will be viewed in a positive light once the initial curve has been passed-Yours Faithfully
The State Lottery.
Would you buy into it?
billionaire2bee

United States
Member #130,809
July 25, 2012
1,636 Posts
Offline

Apr 16, 2013, 6:03 pm

Quote: Originally posted by noise-gate on Apr 16, 2013
Perhaps they say " We have read too many horror stories of winners losing it all, so we have emplemented a fail- safe measure to ensure that this will not happen under our watch from this point on, in the best interest of the lottery & the winner- we feel that this action will be viewed in a positive light once the initial curve has been passed-Yours Faithfully
The State Lottery.
Would you buy into it?

I wouldnt care one way or the other long as they could guarantee I'd get all my money....but they couldnt so I think it would be taking away the choice and that's just unamerican right there
redhot7

California
United States
Member #112,359
June 17, 2011
661 Posts
Offline

Apr 16, 2013, 7:41 pm

I would still play multimillion dollars jackpot but I wouldn't play any game that offers less than $50,000 per year annuity.
Coin Toss

Zeta Reticuli Star System
United States
Member #30,469
January 17, 2006
11,788 Posts
Offline

Apr 16, 2013, 7:56 pm

If PB/MM only offered annuities there would be a lot more jakcpot winners selling their 'structured settlements' 'to companies tht buy them...for a lot less.

Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any. So many systems, so many theories, so few jackpot winners.

There is one and only one 'proven' system, and that is to book the action. No matter the game, let the players pick their own losers.
rdgrnr

100

The Hall Of The Mountain Kings Tennessee
United States
Member #73,902
April 28, 2009
15,378 Posts
Offline

Apr 16, 2013, 10:07 pm

Please don't give The Dragon Lady any ideas.
Stack47

Kentucky
United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,302 Posts
Offline

Apr 17, 2013, 12:22 pm

Quote: Originally posted by noise-gate on Apr 16, 2013
Perhaps they say " We have read too many horror stories of winners losing it all, so we have emplemented a fail- safe measure to ensure that this will not happen under our watch from this point on, in the best interest of the lottery & the winner- we feel that this action will be viewed in a positive light once the initial curve has been passed-Yours Faithfully
The State Lottery.
Would you buy into it?

There was a time when almost all the lotto jackpots were paid in yearly installments. Taking the cash value was an added option and in some states that decision had to be made when the ticket was purchased. As more jackpot winners opted for the cash, it relieved the long term investment burden of the lotteries. Today to be able to advertise the huge jackpots, the installments were extended from 20 years to 26 and 30 years. That's about 2/3 of an average lifetime and gives the lotteries the authority to decide an elderly jackpot winner can't collect all their winnings in their lifetime.

Basically you're scenario suggests a state lottery should decide what is best for all future jackpot winners with zero evidence other than their opinion that a few past jackpot winners spent their winnings unwisely. Maybe it's just because of the nature of the game that some players believe they have a vested interest in how the winners should handle their money, but the last thing we need is allowing an appointed government agency to deciding how we should handle our money.

There was a story about a $1 million winner that died of a drug overdose in less than a year. Do you really believe the lottery paying her 20 yearly installments of before tax $50,000 would have prevented that from happening?

Should all prize over $10,000 be paid in installments because a lottery official or even a state legislator believes in their opinions, some winners spent their winnings unwisely?

I paid a buck or two for the ticket and it's none of the lotteries or other players business what I do with MY winnings and the reason why the cash option was given in the first place.
helpmewin

100

u$a
United States
Member #106,660
February 22, 2011
19,960 Posts
Offline

Apr 17, 2013, 12:25 pm

if PB/ MM changed its policy from CASH to ANNUITY going forward- would that sit well with you?

that's Fine with me/whatever they want to do.
noise-gate

* In hot pursuit of $ *

White Shores- California
United States
Member #136,471
December 12, 2012
7,039 Posts
Offline

Apr 17, 2013, 12:52 pm

Stack- its just a question. l am merely picking peoples brains to see whether they would go along with that idea should it arise. Your response in part seems to suggest that l am either for this or l work for the lottery. Neither is true. Its a question forum, don't lose sight of that fact bud.