If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(News 13 Orlando)   What's another $3 million when you already won $10 million?   (mynews13.com) divider line 74
    More: Florida  
•       •       •

8131 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Oct 2013 at 1:38 AM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



74 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-31 12:47:50 AM
Going to be hard to tell this guy to stop now..... he'll likely play $5k a week on the lottery now... look at the returns!
 
2013-10-31 01:40:53 AM
What's an additional $3M? The taxes on the first $10M.
 
2013-10-31 01:58:03 AM
What, did he spend all $10 million on lottery tickets?
 
2013-10-31 01:59:38 AM
He chose to take his winnings in payments of $100,000 over the next 30 years.

Ok Bankers. Let's say he took the lump sum of $5,000,000. Taxes drop it to $4,000,000. Nationwide 5 year CD rate for $100,000+ is 2.02% APY, or $80,800 per year. Can't you take that interest as a payment per year? So he could have gotten $20,000 less per year, but still had that lump sum as disposable income every 5 years if he wanted to blow it. Also, he might not even live 30 years.

I dunno, I just always heard taking the money over time was a dumb idea but lottery people love it because they can invest your lump sum instead of you being able to invest it, and they also get to scrape your leftovers if you die early right?

Just asking.
 
2013-10-31 02:01:04 AM
If I win $100, I'd gladly take another $30. Or $1,000,000 and an extra $300.
 
2013-10-31 02:03:10 AM
$3 million?
 
2013-10-31 02:03:26 AM
You can never have enough money.
 
2013-10-31 02:06:26 AM

Bucky Katt: You can never have enough money.


Ugh.  I disagree completely.
 
2013-10-31 02:06:34 AM
30% more.
 
2013-10-31 02:07:01 AM
Genju: Ok Bankers. Let's say he took the lump sum of $5,000,000. Taxes drop it to $4,000,000

Taxes don't work that way.

// between state and federal, he could be paying upwards of 45% in taxes on that much moolah.

// YMMV depending on state
 
2013-10-31 02:10:27 AM
Genju: Ok Bankers. Let's say he took the lump sum of $5,000,000. Taxes drop it to $4,000,000

Ahh, just RTFA, florida has no income tax.

So, quick back of the napkin calculation and he would be paying about 35% to federal income tax (marginally).

(so the feds are taking closer to $1,750,000
 
2013-10-31 02:11:30 AM

Genju: and they also get to scrape your leftovers if you die early right?


No, any leftover payments go to your estate.
 
2013-10-31 02:14:40 AM

Genju: He chose to take his winnings in payments of $100,000 over the next 30 years.

Ok Bankers. Let's say he took the lump sum of $5,000,000. Taxes drop it to $4,000,000. Nationwide 5 year CD rate for $100,000+ is 2.02% APY, or $80,800 per year. Can't you take that interest as a payment per year? So he could have gotten $20,000 less per year, but still had that lump sum as disposable income every 5 years if he wanted to blow it. Also, he might not even live 30 years.

I dunno, I just always heard taking the money over time was a dumb idea but lottery people love it because they can invest your lump sum instead of you being able to invest it, and they also get to scrape your leftovers if you die early right?

Just asking.


Taxes are more than that on large incomes. Federal tax is almost 40% on amounts over $400,000 and then there's state tax. You can end up paying near 50% of your winnings in taxes. However that aside, lotteries are generally "full amount in equal payments over 30 years or half in cash up front." So figure $2.5 million from the lottery, and then around half of that to tax, you take home $1.25 million.

Now invested properly, you still probably do better with the lump sum, but it is a lot less. Also a reason some people might take the payments is it is harder to blow. A lot of lottery winners end up broke because they get a big lump sum, which seems infinite, but is actually very easy to blow through real quick. Getting it as payments can help with that.
 
2013-10-31 02:15:59 AM

Z-clipped: Bucky Katt: You can never have enough money.

Ugh.  I disagree completely.


I'll be more than happy to help you out by disposing of all your unwanted money for you. EIP.
 
2013-10-31 02:18:12 AM
Genju:

I dunno, I just always heard taking the money over time was a dumb idea but lottery people love it because they can invest your lump sum instead of you being able to invest it, and they also get to scrape your leftovers if you die early right?

Just asking.


Economically it is always better to take the guaranteed payout over 30 years all other things being equal. The simple reason is that on average the average person cannot get better returns than the government pays out. But of course not all things are equal. For one, if you take the 30 year payout you have less flexibility.  That is a major consideration when it comes to issues like inflation or even the soundness of the economy. It also has an issue in terms of what one can spend.

http://www.businessinsider.com/should-you-take-the-annuity-or-the-lu mp -sum-if-you-win-the-lottery-2013-9

.
 
2013-10-31 02:27:22 AM
Who the hell keeps playing the lottery after winning $10m?   I have a hard time understanding that impulse.
 
2013-10-31 02:27:44 AM

untaken_name: Z-clipped: Bucky Katt: You can never have enough money.

Ugh.  I disagree completely.

I'll be more than happy to help you out by disposing of all your unwanted money for you. EIP.


I don't have any unwanted money at the moment, but that doesn't mean I'm so avaricious that "enough money" is an incomprehensible concept.  Seems like a horrible way to approach life to me.  Bordering on mental illness, even.
 
2013-10-31 02:29:15 AM

lordargent: Genju: Ok Bankers. Let's say he took the lump sum of $5,000,000. Taxes drop it to $4,000,000

Ahh, just RTFA, florida has no income tax.

So, quick back of the napkin calculation and he would be paying about 35% to federal income tax (marginally).

(so the feds are taking closer to $1,750,000


Also, I read the article wrong anyway. The $100K per year (pre-tax) was based on his $3M winnings, not the $10M. It doesn't say what he did with the $10M but if he did the same thing, he would have gotten roughly $333,333 per year (pre-tax) or something. The Florida Lottery site and Forbes say different things about the percentage taxed. Forbes says in 2013 with the tax hike it's 39.6%.

This is from the Florida Lottery site:

The Internal Revenue Service requires that the Florida Lottery withhold 25 percent federal withholding tax from prizes greater than $5,000 if the winner is a citizen or resident alien of the U.S. with a Social Security number. The Florida Lottery is not required to withhold federal withholding taxes from prizes for $5,000 or less. If the prizewinner is a U.S. citizen or resident alien who does not have a Social Security number, the Florida Lottery is required to withhold 28 percent backup federal withholding tax from any prize of more than $600. For nonresident aliens, the Florida Lottery is required to withhold 30 percent federal withholding tax from all prize amounts. The Internal Revenue Service requires the Florida Lottery to report all winnings for $600 and above for U.S. citizens and resident aliens.

Withholding and actual tax rates are different, though, right?
 
2013-10-31 02:37:43 AM

Z-clipped: untaken_name: Z-clipped: Bucky Katt: You can never have enough money.

Ugh.  I disagree completely.

I'll be more than happy to help you out by disposing of all your unwanted money for you. EIP.

I don't have any unwanted money at the moment, but that doesn't mean I'm so avaricious that "enough money" is an incomprehensible concept.  Seems like a horrible way to approach life to me.  Bordering on mental illness, even.


Depends on what you plan on doing with it. A truly philanthropic person could change the world for the better in a very short period of time with an infinite supply of money. A greedy SoB could destroy the world with an infinite supply of money.
 
2013-10-31 02:45:23 AM

Z-clipped: untaken_name: Z-clipped: Bucky Katt: You can never have enough money.

Ugh.  I disagree completely.

I'll be more than happy to help you out by disposing of all your unwanted money for you. EIP.

I don't have any unwanted money at the moment, but that doesn't mean I'm so avaricious that "enough money" is an incomprehensible concept.  Seems like a horrible way to approach life to me.  Bordering on mental illness, even.


If you are completely out of things to do with money, you're probably very dull. Saying you have "enough money" is like saying you've been to "enough places", or you've read "enough books", or you've seen "enough things". Sure, I can conceive of someone so boring they feel they've actually been everywhere or seen everything, but I say that shows a distinct lack of imagination. As a practical matter, I could never have enough money because I could always think of something new to do with it.
 
2013-10-31 02:46:54 AM

Bucky Katt: You can never have enough money.


How many yachts can you water-ski behind?
 
2013-10-31 02:48:16 AM

fusillade762: Bucky Katt: You can never have enough money.

How many yachts can you water-ski behind?


I don't know, but it sounds like a fun thing to find out.
 
2013-10-31 02:59:46 AM

GodComplex: infinite supply of money


Stop and think for a second about the economic implications of this statement.

untaken_name: If you are completely out of things to do with money, you're probably very dull. Saying you have "enough money" is like saying you've been to "enough places", or you've read "enough books", or you've seen "enough things".


It's nothing like those things.  Money has decreasing marginal utility.  Human experience does not.  Books are cheap.  Travel is relatively cheap.  There are more things to do that don't require much money at all than you could ever experience in a lifetime.  If you think you need enormous amounts of money to have an interesting and fulfilling life, you probably have a very poor imagination.
 
2013-10-31 03:01:05 AM
Genju: Also, I read the article wrong anyway. The $100K per year (pre-tax) was based on his $3M winnings, not the $10M. It doesn't say what he did with the $10M but if he did the same thing, he would have gotten roughly $333,333 per year (pre-tax) or something. The Florida Lottery site and Forbes say different things about the percentage taxed. Forbes says in 2013 with the tax hike it's 39.6%.

Tax brackets work against ranges of money, not on the person themselves.

When someone is in the 39.6% bracket, it just means that the upper portion of their money is taxed at that amount, not ALL of their income.

It doesn't matter if you made 40k or 400k, the first $36,250 you earn is taxed at 15% (for a single filer) This is why the 1040s (and related forms) say $x dollars plus y% of income earned over z.

b-i.forbesimg.com

EX, someone that earned exactly $225,002 would pay $62,9923 in taxes on the first $225,001 (a marginal rate of 27.9%) and would pay 39.6% on the $1 that they earned over $225,001

They're in the 39.6% tax bracket, but are really only paying slightly over 27.9% on their taxes.

// the more earned over that $225k, the more their marginal rate approaches 39.6%

// then deductions come in and fark all of the math up :P
 
2013-10-31 03:08:50 AM
It doesn't matter if you made 40k or 400k, the first $36,250 you earn is taxed at 15% (for a single filer)

OOps

I had 8925 in there and 10%, then changed it.

Only what you earn that's above $8,925 and below $36,251 is taxed at 15% :P

// it's 12:00 PM and I've been awake since 8:00 AM and I was told there would be no math.
 
2013-10-31 03:09:25 AM
Damnit, see messed up my HTML too :P
 
2013-10-31 03:18:08 AM

Z-clipped: It's nothing like those things. Money has decreasing marginal utility. Human experience does not. Books are cheap. Travel is relatively cheap. There are more things to do that don't require much money at all than you could ever experience in a lifetime. If you think you need enormous amounts of money to have an interesting and fulfilling life, you probably have a very poor imagination.


Um, okay. I never said I "need" money to have a fulfilling life. I simply said that saying you have "enough" is stupid. Money only has decreasing marginal utility if you hoard it. If you can't understand that money facilitates interesting experiences more than it impedes them, I weep for you, sir.
 
2013-10-31 03:34:08 AM

fusillade762: Bucky Katt: You can never have enough money.

How many yachts can you water-ski behind?


Do don't understand how this works.

You need a yacht for the hookers and another one for the blow.   For obvious reasons you don't want those all on the same boat.  Then you need a third to actually ski behind because the other yachts are too big for that.  You might need a fourth yacht to distract family from what you are really doing.
 
2013-10-31 03:41:48 AM
Money can buy love. Ask anybody who's not a total moron.
 
2013-10-31 03:44:13 AM

untaken_name: Z-clipped: It's nothing like those things. Money has decreasing marginal utility. Human experience does not. Books are cheap. Travel is relatively cheap. There are more things to do that don't require much money at all than you could ever experience in a lifetime. If you think you need enormous amounts of money to have an interesting and fulfilling life, you probably have a very poor imagination.

Um, okay. I never said I "need" money to have a fulfilling life. I simply said that saying you have "enough" is stupid. Money only has decreasing marginal utility if you hoard it. If you can't understand that money facilitates interesting experiences more than it impedes them, I weep for you, sir.


Consider this: if I were to win €5,000,000 I could give it to the bank for 10 years and get 3.3% interest. Each year I would get a nice €105,000 after taxes to spend. I could buy a nice house and still have money to travel 5 months each year, buy all the books I want and have 2 girls at the same time. I'd say that is "money enough" for me. More money would merely be for score keeping and turn into a goal in and of itself.
 
2013-10-31 03:45:43 AM

DerAppie: untaken_name: Z-clipped: It's nothing like those things. Money has decreasing marginal utility. Human experience does not. Books are cheap. Travel is relatively cheap. There are more things to do that don't require much money at all than you could ever experience in a lifetime. If you think you need enormous amounts of money to have an interesting and fulfilling life, you probably have a very poor imagination.

Um, okay. I never said I "need" money to have a fulfilling life. I simply said that saying you have "enough" is stupid. Money only has decreasing marginal utility if you hoard it. If you can't understand that money facilitates interesting experiences more than it impedes them, I weep for you, sir.

Consider this: if I were to win €5,000,000 I could give it to the bank for 10 years and get 3.3% interest. Each year I would get a nice €105,000 after taxes to spend. I could buy a nice house and still have money to travel 5 months each year, buy all the books I want and have 2 girls at the same time. I'd say that is "money enough" for me. More money would merely be for score keeping and turn into a goal in and of itself.


This. But with $.
 
2013-10-31 03:48:43 AM

untaken_name: I simply said that saying you have "enough" is stupid.


I didn't say I had enough. I said that the idea that no amount of money can ever be enough is unhealthy, IMO.

untaken_name: If you can't understand that money facilitates interesting experiences more than it impedes them, I weep for you, sir.


Don't weep for me.  I have a very fulfilling life.  If you think that having more money will always make your life better, weep for yourself, because you're in for a big disappointment.
 
2013-10-31 03:57:49 AM

DerAppie: Consider this: if I were to win €5,000,000 I could give it to the bank for 10 years and get 3.3% interest. Each year I would get a nice €105,000 after taxes to spend. I could buy a nice house and still have money to travel 5 months each year, buy all the books I want and have 2 girls at the same time. I'd say that is "money enough" for me. More money would merely be for score keeping and turn into a goal in and of itself.


Sure, but with €25 Brazillion, untaken_name can buy his own private island and stock it with giraffes, that he can have sex with using his extremely expensive custom made prosthetic giraffe penis. Because that's what life is really all about.

I'll stick to racing motorcycles, climbing mountains, studying physics, travelling, drinking beer, and having sex with the cute girls my wife brings home, because I'm dull like that.
 
2013-10-31 04:08:13 AM

Z-clipped: untaken_name: I simply said that saying you have "enough" is stupid.

I didn't say I had enough. I said that the idea that no amount of money can ever be enough is unhealthy, IMO.

untaken_name: If you can't understand that money facilitates interesting experiences more than it impedes them, I weep for you, sir.

Don't weep for me.  I have a very fulfilling life.  If you think that having more money will always make your life better, weep for yourself, because you're in for a big disappointment.


Well, if I ever decide to think that, I'll weep for myself. But since that isn't what I said, nor what I've espoused, I don't think I have to worry. You keep on saying "oh but you don't need money to be fulfilled" like I ever said you did. I don't know why you have a problem getting past this most basic comprehension issue.I don't need steak to be fulfilled, either, but that doesn't mean I don't actively seek out steak because while it isn't NECESSARY for a fulfilling life, it sure ADDS to one.
 
2013-10-31 04:11:24 AM
If he took a lump sum thats 1.5 million after taxes.. then he dies next years his  heirs  only get 750K after taxes. This way his heirs still get 50K a year after taxes.
 
2013-10-31 04:13:18 AM

worlddan: Genju:

I dunno, I just always heard taking the money over time was a dumb idea but lottery people love it because they can invest your lump sum instead of you being able to invest it, and they also get to scrape your leftovers if you die early right?

Just asking.

Economically it is always better to take the guaranteed payout over 30 years all other things being equal. The simple reason is that on average the average person cannot get better returns than the government pays out. But of course not all things are equal. For one, if you take the 30 year payout you have less flexibility.  That is a major consideration when it comes to issues like inflation or even the soundness of the economy. It also has an issue in terms of what one can spend.

http://www.businessinsider.com/should-you-take-the-annuity-or-the-lu mp -sum-if-you-win-the-lottery-2013-9

.


My university economics professor said a few years ago that taking the lump sum ends up being the better deal over the annuities, in large part due to inflation continuously reducing the value of all the remaining installments as the years press on.
 
2013-10-31 04:13:39 AM

Z-clipped: Sure, but with €25 Brazillion, untaken_name can buy his own private island and stock it with giraffes, that he can have sex with using his extremely expensive custom made prosthetic giraffe penis. Because that's what life is really all about.


So, you're so butthurt about being completely and totally wrong that you have to insult me in a reply to someone else, and in a very retarded way, even for fark? Wow, look how edgy you are, projecting your bestiality fantasies onto me. Besides, not only would I not need a prosthetic to fark giraffes, I wouldn't need a private island, either. There's a zoo one town over.
 
2013-10-31 05:36:59 AM

Z-clipped: GodComplex: infinite supply of money

Stop and think for a second about the economic implications of this statement.


Just speaking in extremes. Would you prefer a 'as it goes towards infinite?' Idea being that one person with a metric boatload of money can change the world for better or for worse should they choose too. Course most just choose to sit on it and biatch about the poor people.
 
2013-10-31 06:15:09 AM

unyon: Who the hell keeps playing the lottery after winning $10m?   I have a hard time understanding that impulse.


selfish assholes that don't want to give someone else a chance to win?
 
2013-10-31 06:28:06 AM
This has to involve some sort of fraud. It is almost statistically impossible to win twice like this.
 
2013-10-31 06:39:35 AM

filter: This has to involve some sort of fraud. It is almost statistically impossible to win twice like this.


I am sure there are some investigators from the lottery who are doing more then making a few enquires. That saying it does not say how much money he is spending on lottery tickets to increase his chances. I worked in a bar where this one chap use to win the fruit machine jackpot at least once a week but he was the one playing it 80% of the time and putting loads of money into the machine.
 
2013-10-31 06:43:36 AM
Duh, doesn't he know that according to fark the lottery is a tax on stupidity and he will never get more than he pays for lottery tickets?
 
2013-10-31 07:32:25 AM
I like money.
 
2013-10-31 07:58:15 AM

WraithSama: worlddan: Genju:

I dunno, I just always heard taking the money over time was a dumb idea but lottery people love it because they can invest your lump sum instead of you being able to invest it, and they also get to scrape your leftovers if you die early right?

Just asking.

Economically it is always better to take the guaranteed payout over 30 years all other things being equal. The simple reason is that on average the average person cannot get better returns than the government pays out. But of course not all things are equal. For one, if you take the 30 year payout you have less flexibility.  That is a major consideration when it comes to issues like inflation or even the soundness of the economy. It also has an issue in terms of what one can spend.

http://www.businessinsider.com/should-you-take-the-annuity-or-the-lu mp -sum-if-you-win-the-lottery-2013-9

.

My university economics professor said a few years ago that taking the lump sum ends up being the better deal over the annuities, in large part due to inflation continuously reducing the value of all the remaining installments as the years press on.


It will be great when he can be a nice, hot Starbucks with his last installment in 2043.
 
2013-10-31 08:06:28 AM
Lotteries are fixed I tell you
 
2013-10-31 08:15:31 AM

dryknife: I like money.


I like money too...We should hang out
 
2013-10-31 08:28:39 AM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-10-31 08:42:53 AM

WraithSama: worlddan: Genju:

I dunno, I just always heard taking the money over time was a dumb idea but lottery people love it because they can invest your lump sum instead of you being able to invest it, and they also get to scrape your leftovers if you die early right?

Just asking.

Economically it is always better to take the guaranteed payout over 30 years all other things being equal. The simple reason is that on average the average person cannot get better returns than the government pays out. But of course not all things are equal. For one, if you take the 30 year payout you have less flexibility.  That is a major consideration when it comes to issues like inflation or even the soundness of the economy. It also has an issue in terms of what one can spend.

http://www.businessinsider.com/should-you-take-the-annuity-or-the-lu mp -sum-if-you-win-the-lottery-2013-9

.

My university economics professor said a few years ago that taking the lump sum ends up being the better deal over the annuities, in large part due to inflation continuously reducing the value of all the remaining installments as the years press on.


And inflation reduces the value of the lump sum you received as well.
Economists don't know a lot of answers, and when they think they know, they're usually wrong. But they are pretty good at knowing questions.
So instead of telling you the answer, your professor should have told you the question: can you achieve a real rate of return higher than the real rate of return implied by the lump sum payout?
 
2013-10-31 09:00:09 AM

worlddan: Genju:

I dunno, I just always heard taking the money over time was a dumb idea but lottery people love it because they can invest your lump sum instead of you being able to invest it, and they also get to scrape your leftovers if you die early right?

Just asking.

Economically it is always better to take the guaranteed payout over 30 years all other things being equal. The simple reason is that on average the average person cannot get better returns than the government pays out. But of course not all things are equal. For one, if you take the 30 year payout you have less flexibility.  That is a major consideration when it comes to issues like inflation or even the soundness of the economy. It also has an issue in terms of what one can spend.

http://www.businessinsider.com/should-you-take-the-annuity-or-the-lu mp -sum-if-you-win-the-lottery-2013-9

.


Good link, but your summary is the opposite of what it says: that if you can pull at least a 3-4% return, the lump sum is better, and that holds true even if you give yourself a spending "allowance" each year (because who in their right mind would win the lottery but not spend any winnings for 30 years?). If I hit that kind of jackpot, you can bet I'll find some good financial advisers to get me at least that on return.
 
2013-10-31 09:07:47 AM

Narnboy: What's an additional $3M? The taxes on the first $10M.


Not even, I thought that they tax at least 40% of the winnings.
 
Displayed 50 of 74 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report