Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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 3 Las Vegas)   Iowa man wins lottery prize of $25,000 per year, for life. He is 92 years old   ( news3lv.com) divider line
    More: Awkward, Lucky Ball, lump sum, life, 92-year-old man, Drawing, Hawkeye Drive, North Liberty, Technical drawing  
•       •       •

2339 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Oct 2017 at 8:20 AM (12 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-10-05 06:57:57 AM  
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
 
2017-10-05 07:06:56 AM  
At least he will now die surrounded by his family.
 
2017-10-05 07:11:28 AM  
Svatos chose to receive his prize as a lump sum of $390,000, which he plans to use to travel. His winnings ended up being $273,000 after taxes.

Not bad.
 
2017-10-05 07:45:40 AM  
Well, he'll be able to afford most of his medications.
 
2017-10-05 07:50:49 AM  
So the take home is like what, twenty bucks and change?
 
2017-10-05 08:21:34 AM  
The smart thing to do here would have been to sell the prize to a younger person.

I would offer the guy $50,000 per year of the rest of his life for $25,000 a year for the rest of my life.
 
2017-10-05 08:25:26 AM  
So, like, $10,000?
 
2017-10-05 08:25:32 AM  

TheAlgebraist: The smart thing to do here would have been to sell the prize to a younger person.

I would offer the guy $50,000 per year of the rest of his life for $25,000 a year for the rest of my life.


He took the lump sum, subby... want very forthcoming.
 
2017-10-05 08:25:59 AM  
want=wasn't
 
2017-10-05 08:28:00 AM  

Devolving_Spud: Well, he'll be able to afford most of his medications.


For about 6 months until he enters the donut hole of coverage.
 
2017-10-05 08:28:27 AM  
Isn't that ironic?
 
2017-10-05 08:29:20 AM  
Take away his social security and medicare he's making too much money.
 
2017-10-05 08:30:50 AM  
How much traveling are you going to do at 92?
You could rent a room on a cruise ship and live there until you pass.
 
2017-10-05 08:31:23 AM  
You pick out your youngest grandchild and give the ticket to him/her. Da' hecks the matter with you? Senile or something?
 
2017-10-05 08:31:52 AM  

lindalouwho: TheAlgebraist: The smart thing to do here would have been to sell the prize to a younger person.

I would offer the guy $50,000 per year of the rest of his life for $25,000 a year for the rest of my life.

He took the lump sum, subby... want very forthcoming.


Even still I bet he could have gotten a better deal selling the prize for a lump sum to someone with a lot less miles on the clock.

I don't have $273,000 kicking around but $25,000 a year is getting on for 10% return.  Even on the pre-tax amount ($390,000), it's over 6% return.
 
2017-10-05 08:33:07 AM  
Did the irony tag die the next day?
 
2017-10-05 08:34:06 AM  
goodness.org
 
2017-10-05 08:37:01 AM  

tkwasny: You pick out your youngest grandchild and give the ticket to him/her. Da' hecks the matter with you? Senile or something?


Fark that.  Grandkids can get the remaining balance of the amount when I pass away.  About a week later when my heart fails from hookers and blow.
 
2017-10-05 08:38:31 AM  

Bowen: Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.


Thanks, Dad.
 
2017-10-05 08:40:34 AM  
Dammit, all I need is a knife

img.fark.net
 
2017-10-05 08:40:55 AM  

TheAlgebraist: lindalouwho: TheAlgebraist: The smart thing to do here would have been to sell the prize to a younger person.

I would offer the guy $50,000 per year of the rest of his life for $25,000 a year for the rest of my life.

He took the lump sum, subby... want very forthcoming.

Even still I bet he could have gotten a better deal selling the prize for a lump sum to someone with a lot less miles on the clock.

I don't have $273,000 kicking around but $25,000 a year is getting on for 10% return.  Even on the pre-tax amount ($390,000), it's over 6% return.


Generally speaking, those prizes stop paying out on the death of the original winner, not on the death of whoever is currently receiving the payments.

Otherwise you could hand those things down families for generations barring any unlucky accidents to break the chain.
 
2017-10-05 08:45:37 AM  

Devolving_Spud: Well, he'll be able to afford most of his medications hookers and blow.


Go, old man. Wash down all the viagra with champagne and snort that coke from every orifice they'd let you do it from.
 
2017-10-05 08:49:51 AM  
It's like rain on your wedding day.
 
2017-10-05 08:50:40 AM  
How I'd blow it at that age.
Kids In The Hall "again"
Youtube RzJ0Uh1uPz8
 
2017-10-05 08:52:00 AM  
Anyone else think it a bit of a dick move to water down the odds for other people that have decades left of life?

On the other hand, live it up while you can, old man!
 
2017-10-05 08:52:12 AM  
Svatos chose to receive his prize as a lump sum of $390,000, which he plans to use to travel. [...] Oddly enough, Svatos said he bought a fortune cookie last month at a casino that said, "You will discover an unexpected treasure."

"I'm going to Vegas!"
 
2017-10-05 08:53:29 AM  

TheAlgebraist: lindalouwho: TheAlgebraist: The smart thing to do here would have been to sell the prize to a younger person.

I would offer the guy $50,000 per year of the rest of his life for $25,000 a year for the rest of my life.

He took the lump sum, subby... want very forthcoming.

Even still I bet he could have gotten a better deal selling the prize for a lump sum to someone with a lot less miles on the clock.

I don't have $273,000 kicking around but $25,000 a year is getting on for 10% return.  Even on the pre-tax amount ($390,000), it's over 6% return.


Also, yeah, you need to compare pre-tax to pre-tax and post-tax to post-tax. He wouldn't actually be getting $25k in comparison to the $273k. Granted, he probably paid more on the lump than he would have the smaller amounts unless he has a large independent income or lottery money is taxed differently than normal income.

In any event, over 6% annual return on investment is not completely unreasonable even if, obviously, not guaranteed, and even setting that aside, if you didn't invest any of it, it would take over 15 years to go through the lump sum spending it at the amount that you would if you were just spending all of the annuity every year. If you do invest it, conservatively, you could stretch that past 20 years before the annuity catches up to you in terms of dollar value.

I'm a bit curious now, so I might sit down later if I have some time and see how likely it would be that just parking the money in investments for 15 years (the time at which the annuity would catch up to the lump in terms of principle) would be enough for the difference in time spent invested between the two amounts to result in the lump outpacing the annuity in terms of income generation or if the annuity will always outpace it (within the span of a reasonable human lifetime).
 
2017-10-05 08:56:55 AM  
This one is a great test of who actually reads TFA. I know a thing some of ya'll don't.

Subby:
theemptypage.files.wordpress.com
 
2017-10-05 08:58:05 AM  
Good.
img.fark.net
 
2017-10-05 08:58:47 AM  

JerseyTim: Svatos chose to receive his prize as a lump sum of $390,000, which he plans to use to travel. His winnings ended up being $273,000 after taxes.

Not bad.


img.fark.net
"I'll tell you what I'd do, man: half a chick at the same time, man."
 
2017-10-05 09:00:18 AM  

Delta1212: TheAlgebraist: lindalouwho: TheAlgebraist: The smart thing to do here would have been to sell the prize to a younger person.

I would offer the guy $50,000 per year of the rest of his life for $25,000 a year for the rest of my life.

He took the lump sum, subby... want very forthcoming.

Even still I bet he could have gotten a better deal selling the prize for a lump sum to someone with a lot less miles on the clock.

I don't have $273,000 kicking around but $25,000 a year is getting on for 10% return.  Even on the pre-tax amount ($390,000), it's over 6% return.

Generally speaking, those prizes stop paying out on the death of the original winner, not on the death of whoever is currently receiving the payments.

Otherwise you could hand those things down families for generations barring any unlucky accidents to break the chain.


Sorry, I may have been unclear up thread.  What I meant was that he should have sold the winning ticket to someone younger, so that that person was the "original winner".   I know these things aren't transferrable after they have been claimed.

This is assuming that his name wasn't on it or something, I didn't RTFA.
 
2017-10-05 09:02:55 AM  

Delta1212: I'm a bit curious now, so I might sit down later if I have some time and see how likely it would be that just parking the money in investments for 15 years (the time at which the annuity would catch up to the lump in terms of principle) would be enough for the difference in time spent invested between the two amounts to result in the lump outpacing the annuity in terms of income generation or if the annuity will always outpace it (within the span of a reasonable human lifetime).


That's basically the question:  "how much would you pay for a $25,000 annuity that was guaranteed* not to go up or down, and that you couldn't sell or transfer?".

Clearly that price goes up the longer you expect to live.  I think I could outbid a 92 year old.

*barring collapse of the state, meteor impact, etc etc.
 
2017-10-05 09:11:28 AM  
1. Win for life jackpot.
2. Use money to buy longevity treatments.
3. Use more life to get more money to get more longevity treatments.
 
2017-10-05 09:14:47 AM  
It is a shame that he didn't have close family he could give the ticket to, they claim it and get it for decades while paying him plenty of money till he passes on.

"Come here John, you're my favorite grandson..."
 
2017-10-05 09:17:11 AM  

JerseyTim: Svatos chose to receive his prize as a lump sum of $390,000, which he plans to use to travel. His winnings ended up being $273,000 after taxes.

Not bad.


Don't come crying in 20 years when you realized you should have taken the annuity.
 
2017-10-05 09:50:58 AM  
And he thought "well isn't this nice?"
 
2017-10-05 09:51:47 AM  
Now he will be able to afford that cross eyed bear that he was denied.
 
2017-10-05 09:56:36 AM  

TheAlgebraist: Delta1212: I'm a bit curious now, so I might sit down later if I have some time and see how likely it would be that just parking the money in investments for 15 years (the time at which the annuity would catch up to the lump in terms of principle) would be enough for the difference in time spent invested between the two amounts to result in the lump outpacing the annuity in terms of income generation or if the annuity will always outpace it (within the span of a reasonable human lifetime).

That's basically the question:  "how much would you pay for a $25,000 annuity that was guaranteed* not to go up or down, and that you couldn't sell or transfer?".

Clearly that price goes up the longer you expect to live.  I think I could outbid a 92 year old.

*barring collapse of the state, meteor impact, etc etc.


On the other hand, if I'm 92, I think I'd rather have $273k right now than agree to a deal where I have less now but wind up with slightly more money at 100.

Chances are good that I'm in better condition to enjoy all of the money right now than I will be in five years even if I live long enough to beat the lump sum.
 
2017-10-05 10:09:24 AM  

winedrinkingman: JerseyTim: Svatos chose to receive his prize as a lump sum of $390,000, which he plans to use to travel. His winnings ended up being $273,000 after taxes.

Not bad.

Don't come crying in 20 years when you realized you should have taken the annuity.


An annuity would be nice, but on the other hand my debts are close to $100,000.  Wiping those out, buying what I need, and investing the rest is better than making slightly higher monthly payments against those debts.
 
2017-10-05 10:27:44 AM  

Delta1212: TheAlgebraist: Delta1212: I'm a bit curious now, so I might sit down later if I have some time and see how likely it would be that just parking the money in investments for 15 years (the time at which the annuity would catch up to the lump in terms of principle) would be enough for the difference in time spent invested between the two amounts to result in the lump outpacing the annuity in terms of income generation or if the annuity will always outpace it (within the span of a reasonable human lifetime).

That's basically the question:  "how much would you pay for a $25,000 annuity that was guaranteed* not to go up or down, and that you couldn't sell or transfer?".

Clearly that price goes up the longer you expect to live.  I think I could outbid a 92 year old.

*barring collapse of the state, meteor impact, etc etc.

On the other hand, if I'm 92, I think I'd rather have $273k right now than agree to a deal where I have less now but wind up with slightly more money at 100.

Chances are good that I'm in better condition to enjoy all of the money right now than I will be in five years even if I live long enough to beat the lump sum.


I am apparently expressing myself badly today.  When I said:

Even still I bet he could have gotten a better deal selling the prize for a lump sum to someone with a lot less miles on the clock.

what I meant was that I would be tempted to offer the guy a lump sum that was MORE than the $273,000 in order to be able to claim the winning ticket, because it would basically be like spending (say) $300,000 in order to get a $25,000 annuity for life.

Then he is up another ~$27000, and I make the money back over time (because it's paying me $25,000/$300,000 = ~8% or whatever)
 
2017-10-05 10:27:52 AM  

Delta1212: TheAlgebraist: lindalouwho: TheAlgebraist: The smart thing to do here would have been to sell the prize to a younger person.

I would offer the guy $50,000 per year of the rest of his life for $25,000 a year for the rest of my life.

He took the lump sum, subby... want very forthcoming.

Even still I bet he could have gotten a better deal selling the prize for a lump sum to someone with a lot less miles on the clock.

I don't have $273,000 kicking around but $25,000 a year is getting on for 10% return.  Even on the pre-tax amount ($390,000), it's over 6% return.

Generally speaking, those prizes stop paying out on the death of the original winner, not on the death of whoever is currently receiving the payments.

Otherwise you could hand those things down families for generations barring any unlucky accidents to break the chain.


The idea isn't that a winning ticket would be passed down in perpetuity, just that if handed in by an eighteen year old relative, the ticket would supply the family with more income over time than it could if the 92 year old claimed it. The lottery doesn't know who bought the winning ticket, they just pay the prize out to whoever brings it in.

Anyhow, the old guy took a lump sum rather than the annual payout so he didn't take the worst option.
 
2017-10-05 10:30:45 AM  

JerseyTim: Svatos chose to receive his prize as a lump sum of $390,000, which he plans to use to travel. His winnings ended up being $273,000 after taxes.

Not bad.


You save me the time to explain Subby's ignoring of the content of the article.

Obviously the lump sum payout does not take the actuary table for the actual winner into account, but instead is based on the expected remaining lifetime of a typical player which is most likely assumed to be an average adult.

Of course if they really did base it on the expected lifespan of the actual winner, a smart man would find the youngest near relative that he could trust and have them turn it in. I don't know if he had that foresight.  Some people get a lawyer prior to turning in the ticket.  Heck, I store I worked at years ago had a winner for some lotto.  The ticket was eventually turned in a newly formed corporation.  I was surprised that sort of thing was even allowed since it allowed the winner to avoid giving out his name. No idea if this loophole still exists.
 
2017-10-05 10:43:08 AM  

Delta1212: TheAlgebraist: lindalouwho: TheAlgebraist: The smart thing to do here would have been to sell the prize to a younger person.

I would offer the guy $50,000 per year of the rest of his life for $25,000 a year for the rest of my life.

He took the lump sum, subby... want very forthcoming.

Even still I bet he could have gotten a better deal selling the prize for a lump sum to someone with a lot less miles on the clock.

I don't have $273,000 kicking around but $25,000 a year is getting on for 10% return.  Even on the pre-tax amount ($390,000), it's over 6% return.

Generally speaking, those prizes stop paying out on the death of the original winner, not on the death of whoever is currently receiving the payments.

Otherwise you could hand those things down families for generations barring any unlucky accidents to break the chain.


Yes. That's why you sell the ticket to someone. Not the prize, the winning ticket. It's a bearer instrument. The lottery commission has no way of knowing who originally bought it, only who claims the prize.
 
2017-10-05 10:46:34 AM  

MythDragon: Now he will be able to afford that cross eyed bear that he was denied.


Is his name Gladly?
 
2017-10-05 10:50:26 AM  
Viral marketing for Weekend at Bernies 8.
 
2017-10-05 10:58:20 AM  
Say you had a paid-off house, and you took a $300,000 mortgage for 25 years at 4%.  Interest payments are ~$12000 per year, leaving you $13,000 in principle repayments per year.  Without bothering to look at actual repayment terms, let's back-of-the-envelope it at $13,000 * 25 = $325,000.

So this means that in 25 years you will easily have repaid the mortgage (actually significantly less, because interest payments will go down as you repay the principal).  If you expect to live longer than 25 years, this is basically a free annuity (delayed 25 years).
 
2017-10-05 11:02:46 AM  
Ok, I went to a mortgage calculator.  26 biweekly payments of $1000 pays off a $300,000 4% mortgage in 15.5 years.

I'd pay the guy $300,000 today for that annuity provided I could borrow the money at 4%, which I could if I had a paid off house.  Which I don't.

You know what's more sad than dreaming about winning the lottery?  Dreaming about someone you know winning the lottery.
 
2017-10-05 11:39:57 AM  

Rocketboy1313: It is a shame that he didn't have close family he could give the ticket to, they claim it and get it for decades while paying him plenty of money till he passes on.


Typically, people have close family in their current circumstances. Throw a bunch of money into the equation and they become assholes.
 
2017-10-05 11:53:56 AM  

Delta1212: On the other hand, if I'm 92, I think I'd rather have $273k right now...


img.fark.net
Why? That's barely half a chick.
 
2017-10-05 11:55:17 AM  

Marksrevenge: Delta1212: TheAlgebraist: lindalouwho: TheAlgebraist: The smart thing to do here would have been to sell the prize to a younger person.

I would offer the guy $50,000 per year of the rest of his life for $25,000 a year for the rest of my life.

He took the lump sum, subby... want very forthcoming.

Even still I bet he could have gotten a better deal selling the prize for a lump sum to someone with a lot less miles on the clock.

I don't have $273,000 kicking around but $25,000 a year is getting on for 10% return.  Even on the pre-tax amount ($390,000), it's over 6% return.

Generally speaking, those prizes stop paying out on the death of the original winner, not on the death of whoever is currently receiving the payments.

Otherwise you could hand those things down families for generations barring any unlucky accidents to break the chain.

The idea isn't that a winning ticket would be passed down in perpetuity, just that if handed in by an eighteen year old relative, the ticket would supply the family with more income over time than it could if the 92 year old claimed it. The lottery doesn't know who bought the winning ticket, they just pay the prize out to whoever brings it in.

Anyhow, the old guy took a lump sum rather than the annual payout so he didn't take the worst option.


But which 18 year old relative?  Let's assume he had three children, nine grand kids and some great-grand kids.  Who's he gonna chose?  You know the favorite's not gonna share it fairly for the rest of his life.
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report