Mega Millions player wins historic $1.58 billion jackpot

a reply to: Bluntone22

Not that I play the lottery, but my first call would be to my attorney. The second and third calls would be to attorneys in other offices that would watch the first guy. Depending on the rules I would want them to accept on my behalf, no reason for my name to be known to anyone.

a reply to: Hypntick

I believe some state lotterys allow a winner to remain anonymous but others don't because it's public funds being distributed.
Not sure about the multi state powerball

originally posted by: peskyhumans
No you're just trying to control the winner's winnings. That's one thing all these people agreed on they were playing the mega millions lotto so they could win big money. They weren't playing a lotto for a half million dollar jackpot.

This. I only pay the volunteer tax when the jackpot is one billion or more. If you want better odds with smaller payouts, buy some scratchers and leave everyone else alone.

originally posted by: Jason79

originally posted by: peskyhumans
No you're just trying to control the winner's winnings. That's one thing all these people agreed on they were playing the mega millions lotto so they could win big money. They weren't playing a lotto for a half million dollar jackpot.

This. I only pay the volunteer tax when the jackpot is one billion or more. If you want better odds with smaller payouts, buy some scratchers and leave everyone else alone.

You're missing the point completely.

Part of an earlier post of mine

Clearly and mathematically hundreds or even thousands of people/families every week will be lifted out of poverty without having to win billions or hundreds of millions or whatever crazy amounts.

What can you do with half a million or even one million dollars? Pay for your kids college/university, pay off your mortgage, and so on. You don't become rich automatically but it's a great help.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: AlienBorg

Would it be better, for any lottery and any lucky games, for the amounts to be shared among many instead of trying to match up the numbers where the chance is miniscule.

It sounds like a wonderful idea until you look at the history of winners; 70% are flat broke in a few years and 30% end up having to file bankruptcy.

It seems poor people aren't equipped to handle instant wealth.

I guess it could be overseen by experts and spent on more people; they could have housing, energy, health and food programs for the poor. Of course, those overseeing the program would need million dollar annual salaries, bonuses, paid living expenses......oh, wait.

Sorry, Alien; the jaded side of me shines bright until I've had my morning.....can't bring myself to use the term joe anymore.....liquid octane.

Unlikely to be the case if you have hundreds or thousands of winners every week. Most families will be able to handle half million or one million dollars given they have bills to pay and many other obligations to settle.

What I am proposing is quite easy to be achieved.

Sounds nice, but wouldn't that worsen inflation?
I agree most likely this winner will be broke again in his lifetime. From rags to riches is too much at once if not handled well.

originally posted by: TXTriker
a reply to: AlienBorg

I'm sure they would handle it as well as the Katrina victims that used the money they received on Prada purses and tattoos. Why do people think everyone else should be handed part of everything without any effort.

It also may not be one person. One number won. We don't know if it was one person or a pool. It could be any number of people.

When people are given something with no investment to get it they do not appreciate it and only come to expect more to be handed to them.

This

originally posted by: ancientlight

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: AlienBorg

Would it be better, for any lottery and any lucky games, for the amounts to be shared among many instead of trying to match up the numbers where the chance is miniscule.

It sounds like a wonderful idea until you look at the history of winners; 70% are flat broke in a few years and 30% end up having to file bankruptcy.

It seems poor people aren't equipped to handle instant wealth.

I guess it could be overseen by experts and spent on more people; they could have housing, energy, health and food programs for the poor. Of course, those overseeing the program would need million dollar annual salaries, bonuses, paid living expenses......oh, wait.

Sorry, Alien; the jaded side of me shines bright until I've had my morning.....can't bring myself to use the term joe anymore.....liquid octane.

Unlikely to be the case if you have hundreds or thousands of winners every week. Most families will be able to handle half million or one million dollars given they have bills to pay and many other obligations to settle.

What I am proposing is quite easy to be achieved.

Sounds nice, but wouldn't that worsen inflation?
I agree most likely this winner will be broke again in his lifetime. From rags to riches is too much at once if not handled well.

No.

The only thing half million or one million dollars will achieve is to make you free of tuition fees and loans and free of your mortgage, if you know how to handle this amount of money.

If you start printing more money out of nowhere then inflation will hit you badly. Redistributing a bit of wealth through some lotteries isn't a bad idea.

When you haven't extolled the virtues of Communism for 5 minutes.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Or you could write every citizen of this country a check for $4,700. But... I don't think homeless and impoverished people should be rewarded for being broke. Outside of the silver spoon fed kids who are born privileged, we're all afforded the same opportunities to succeed in life. Some of us take advantage, some sit in a corner and cry about how unfair and racist life is.

In the end, they guy who bought the winning ticket can do what he wants (he'll likely be broke within 5 years) with that burden he now has. I've seen money rip families apart and want nothing to do with having that much. I'd be perfectly content if I had an extra $70K to $100K to put in an account that accrues interest and I'd have to continue working so I didn't go crazy. In the meantime, I'll continue to work and be a happy middle class dude with a great wife and kids.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Jason79

originally posted by: peskyhumans
No you're just trying to control the winner's winnings. That's one thing all these people agreed on they were playing the mega millions lotto so they could win big money. They weren't playing a lotto for a half million dollar jackpot.

This. I only pay the volunteer tax when the jackpot is one billion or more. If you want better odds with smaller payouts, buy some scratchers and leave everyone else alone.

You're missing the point completely.

Part of an earlier post of mine

Clearly and mathematically hundreds or even thousands of people/families every week will be lifted out of poverty without having to win billions or hundreds of millions or whatever crazy amounts.

What can you do with half a million or even one million dollars? Pay for your kids college/university, pay off your mortgage, and so on. You don't become rich automatically but it's a great help.

No, I am saying your option already exists, fewer people buy into it.

Which means, if you change the winnings, people won't buy, therefore no millions/billions to give away.

a reply to: Moon68

The IRS wins every single time.
Second line.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: TXTriker
a reply to: AlienBorg

I'm sure they would handle it as well as the Katrina victims that used the money they received on Prada purses and tattoos. Why do people think everyone else should be handed part of everything without any effort.

It also may not be one person. One number won. We don't know if it was one person or a pool. It could be any number of people.

When people are given something with no investment to get it they do not appreciate it and only come to expect more to be handed to them.

You generalise which isn't a good guide on this case. Poverty is a real issue and I am sure most people and families will be able to handle half million or one million dollars or pounds if you're from the UK.

The example you've given me isn't a valid reason on why hundreds or even billions of dollars should not be divided into hundreds or thousands of people/families instead of being given to just one person.

What part is a generalization? I've participated in office pools with as many 15 other people. In the past there have been pools that almost completely wiped a company's workforce. The Katrina victims were shipped where I live so the news quite frequently covered the use of the funds they were given but here is a link for you on some of the issues - admitted not the tattoos etc but I don't feel like looking for those in addition to this one.

www.gao.gov...

The tickets are $2 per number if you don't buy the frills. It only takes one number to win. Student loans are not my problem. They made the loan not me. I have my own mortgage to worry about. They made theirs they need to deal with it.

Sorry but handouts for no reason need to stop. That's the reason anyone's money should not be force shared. There are too many members of society that expect everything be given them just because they are breathing. Enough of the BS.

originally posted by: TXTriker

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: TXTriker
a reply to: AlienBorg

I'm sure they would handle it as well as the Katrina victims that used the money they received on Prada purses and tattoos. Why do people think everyone else should be handed part of everything without any effort.

It also may not be one person. One number won. We don't know if it was one person or a pool. It could be any number of people.

When people are given something with no investment to get it they do not appreciate it and only come to expect more to be handed to them.

You generalise which isn't a good guide on this case. Poverty is a real issue and I am sure most people and families will be able to handle half million or one million dollars or pounds if you're from the UK.

The example you've given me isn't a valid reason on why hundreds or even billions of dollars should not be divided into hundreds or thousands of people/families instead of being given to just one person.

What part is a generalization? I've participated in office pools with as many 15 other people. In the past there have been pools that almost completely wiped a company's workforce. The Katrina victims were shipped where I live so the news quite frequently covered the use of the funds they were given but here is a link for you on some of the issues - admitted not the tattoos etc but I don't feel like looking for those in addition to this one.

www.gao.gov...

The tickets are $2 per number if you don't buy the frills. It only takes one number to win. Student loans are not my problem. They made the loan not me. I have my own mortgage to worry about. They made theirs they need to deal with it.

Sorry but handouts for no reason need to stop. That's the reason anyone's money should not be force shared. There are too many members of society that expect everything be given them just because they are breathing. Enough of the BS.

If handouts for no reason should stop then the entire lottery and all other lucky games should stop altogether.

I didn't even mention handouts but a much more fair distribution of the lottery funds with multiple winners selected randomly. It could be hundreds or even thousands of them winning every week but instead of one winning $1.58 billion you could have had 1,580 people/families who played the lottery winning from one million dollars or even 3,160 people/families winning half million dollars.

Still you don't have a good argument. As the matter of fact you don't have an argument, unless you think lucky games could magically stop.

originally posted by: Jason79

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Jason79

originally posted by: peskyhumans
No you're just trying to control the winner's winnings. That's one thing all these people agreed on they were playing the mega millions lotto so they could win big money. They weren't playing a lotto for a half million dollar jackpot.

This. I only pay the volunteer tax when the jackpot is one billion or more. If you want better odds with smaller payouts, buy some scratchers and leave everyone else alone.

You're missing the point completely.

Part of an earlier post of mine

Clearly and mathematically hundreds or even thousands of people/families every week will be lifted out of poverty without having to win billions or hundreds of millions or whatever crazy amounts.

What can you do with half a million or even one million dollars? Pay for your kids college/university, pay off your mortgage, and so on. You don't become rich automatically but it's a great help.

No, I am saying your option already exists, fewer people buy into it.

Which means, if you change the winnings, people won't buy, therefore no millions/billions to give away.

It's not what I said and how I said it could happen.
What I said is entirely different, based on simple mathematics, and a viable system.

It could be hundreds or even thousands of them winning every week but instead of one winning $1.58 billion you could have had 1,580 people/families who played the lottery winning from one million dollars or even 3,160 people/families winning half million dollars.

That's very different to what has happened here.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: TXTriker

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: TXTriker
a reply to: AlienBorg

I'm sure they would handle it as well as the Katrina victims that used the money they received on Prada purses and tattoos. Why do people think everyone else should be handed part of everything without any effort.

It also may not be one person. One number won. We don't know if it was one person or a pool. It could be any number of people.

When people are given something with no investment to get it they do not appreciate it and only come to expect more to be handed to them.

You generalise which isn't a good guide on this case. Poverty is a real issue and I am sure most people and families will be able to handle half million or one million dollars or pounds if you're from the UK.

The example you've given me isn't a valid reason on why hundreds or even billions of dollars should not be divided into hundreds or thousands of people/families instead of being given to just one person.

What part is a generalization? I've participated in office pools with as many 15 other people. In the past there have been pools that almost completely wiped a company's workforce. The Katrina victims were shipped where I live so the news quite frequently covered the use of the funds they were given but here is a link for you on some of the issues - admitted not the tattoos etc but I don't feel like looking for those in addition to this one.

www.gao.gov...

The tickets are $2 per number if you don't buy the frills. It only takes one number to win. Student loans are not my problem. They made the loan not me. I have my own mortgage to worry about. They made theirs they need to deal with it.

Sorry but handouts for no reason need to stop. That's the reason anyone's money should not be force shared. There are too many members of society that expect everything be given them just because they are breathing. Enough of the BS.

If handouts for no reason should stop then the entire lottery and all other lucky games should stop altogether.

I didn't even mention handouts but a much more fair distribution of the lottery funds with multiple winners selected randomly. It could hundreds or even thousands of them winning every week but instead of one winning $1.58 billion you could have had 1,580 people/families who played the lottery winning from one million dollars or even 3,160 people/families winning half million dollars.

Still you don't have a good argument. As the matter of fact you don't have an argument, unless you think lucky games could magically stop.

The lottery is not a handout. It is gambling. You pay for the privilege. If those families want a chance to win all they have to do is purchase the tickets. You are wanting to change the winnings to be split over more people and as has been said, if you do that then most won't play and the amount available to split will go down so those families still won't large amounts. And they still won't win at all if they don't buy the ticket.

Here is a link on some of the things Katrina funds were spent on.
www.theatlantic.com...

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: AlienBorg

Or you could write every citizen of this country a check for $4,700. But... I don't think homeless and impoverished people should be rewarded for being broke. Outside of the silver spoon fed kids who are born privileged, we're all afforded the same opportunities to succeed in life. Some of us take advantage, some sit in a corner and cry about how unfair and racist life is.

In the end, they guy who bought the winning ticket can do what he wants (he'll likely be broke within 5 years) with that burden he now has. I've seen money rip families apart and want nothing to do with having that much. I'd be perfectly content if I had an extra $70K to $100K to put in an account that accrues interest and I'd have to continue working so I didn't go crazy. In the meantime, I'll continue to work and be a happy middle class dude with a great wife and kids.

There is plenty of wealth if you want to redistribute funds. I am sure people can find solutions.

In the meantime... hundreds or even thousands of them winning every week but instead of one winning $1.58 billion you could have had 1,580 people/families who played the lottery winning from one million dollars or even 3,160 people/families winning half million dollars.

Imagine hundreds or even thousands of families/persons who played the lottery and other lucky games now are in control of their mortgage and able to pay them off and pay the tuition fees for College/University or other obligations. You dint get rich but surely you get comfortable. You still have to work.

originally posted by: TXTriker

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: TXTriker

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: TXTriker
a reply to: AlienBorg

I'm sure they would handle it as well as the Katrina victims that used the money they received on Prada purses and tattoos. Why do people think everyone else should be handed part of everything without any effort.

It also may not be one person. One number won. We don't know if it was one person or a pool. It could be any number of people.

When people are given something with no investment to get it they do not appreciate it and only come to expect more to be handed to them.

You generalise which isn't a good guide on this case. Poverty is a real issue and I am sure most people and families will be able to handle half million or one million dollars or pounds if you're from the UK.

The example you've given me isn't a valid reason on why hundreds or even billions of dollars should not be divided into hundreds or thousands of people/families instead of being given to just one person.

What part is a generalization? I've participated in office pools with as many 15 other people. In the past there have been pools that almost completely wiped a company's workforce. The Katrina victims were shipped where I live so the news quite frequently covered the use of the funds they were given but here is a link for you on some of the issues - admitted not the tattoos etc but I don't feel like looking for those in addition to this one.

www.gao.gov...

The tickets are $2 per number if you don't buy the frills. It only takes one number to win. Student loans are not my problem. They made the loan not me. I have my own mortgage to worry about. They made theirs they need to deal with it.

Sorry but handouts for no reason need to stop. That's the reason anyone's money should not be force shared. There are too many members of society that expect everything be given them just because they are breathing. Enough of the BS.

If handouts for no reason should stop then the entire lottery and all other lucky games should stop altogether.

I didn't even mention handouts but a much more fair distribution of the lottery funds with multiple winners selected randomly. It could hundreds or even thousands of them winning every week but instead of one winning $1.58 billion you could have had 1,580 people/families who played the lottery winning from one million dollars or even 3,160 people/families winning half million dollars.

Still you don't have a good argument. As the matter of fact you don't have an argument, unless you think lucky games could magically stop.

The lottery is not a handout. It is gambling. You pay for the privilege. If those families want a chance to win all they have to do is purchase the tickets. You are wanting to change the winnings to be split over more people and as has been said, if you do that then most won't play and the amount available to split will go down so those families still won't large amounts. And they still won't win at all if they don't buy the ticket.

Here is a link on some of the things Katrina funds were spent on.
www.theatlantic.com...

Never said anything about handouts. We're discussing gambling.

How do you know most people won't play if they know thousands of them can win half or even a million dollars every week.

I think the opposite will happen after the first few thousands winning from one million dollars.

The Katrina funds is irrelevant to the conversation and has been irrelevant all the way. Just because some people cannot handle money doesn't imply that everyone else cannot handle them. It's a terrible argument just as the one you made above.

I am still waiting to hear some valid cogent arguments.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Wouldnt surprise me if it was a millionaire who played it and won..... buying 50,000 tickets!

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: TXTriker

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: TXTriker

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: TXTriker
a reply to: AlienBorg

I'm sure they would handle it as well as the Katrina victims that used the money they received on Prada purses and tattoos. Why do people think everyone else should be handed part of everything without any effort.

It also may not be one person. One number won. We don't know if it was one person or a pool. It could be any number of people.

When people are given something with no investment to get it they do not appreciate it and only come to expect more to be handed to them.

You generalise which isn't a good guide on this case. Poverty is a real issue and I am sure most people and families will be able to handle half million or one million dollars or pounds if you're from the UK.

The example you've given me isn't a valid reason on why hundreds or even billions of dollars should not be divided into hundreds or thousands of people/families instead of being given to just one person.

What part is a generalization? I've participated in office pools with as many 15 other people. In the past there have been pools that almost completely wiped a company's workforce. The Katrina victims were shipped where I live so the news quite frequently covered the use of the funds they were given but here is a link for you on some of the issues - admitted not the tattoos etc but I don't feel like looking for those in addition to this one.

www.gao.gov...

The tickets are $2 per number if you don't buy the frills. It only takes one number to win. Student loans are not my problem. They made the loan not me. I have my own mortgage to worry about. They made theirs they need to deal with it.

Sorry but handouts for no reason need to stop. That's the reason anyone's money should not be force shared. There are too many members of society that expect everything be given them just because they are breathing. Enough of the BS.

If handouts for no reason should stop then the entire lottery and all other lucky games should stop altogether.

I didn't even mention handouts but a much more fair distribution of the lottery funds with multiple winners selected randomly. It could hundreds or even thousands of them winning every week but instead of one winning $1.58 billion you could have had 1,580 people/families who played the lottery winning from one million dollars or even 3,160 people/families winning half million dollars.

Still you don't have a good argument. As the matter of fact you don't have an argument, unless you think lucky games could magically stop.

The lottery is not a handout. It is gambling. You pay for the privilege. If those families want a chance to win all they have to do is purchase the tickets. You are wanting to change the winnings to be split over more people and as has been said, if you do that then most won't play and the amount available to split will go down so those families still won't large amounts. And they still won't win at all if they don't buy the ticket.

Here is a link on some of the things Katrina funds were spent on.
www.theatlantic.com...

Never said anything about handouts. We're discussing gambling.

How do you know most people won't play if they know thousands of them can win half or even a million dollars every week.

I think the opposite will happen after the first few thousands winning from one million dollars.

The Katrina funds is irrelevant to the conversation and has been irrelevant all the way. Just because some people cannot handle money doesn't imply that everyone else cannot handle them. It's a terrible argument just as the one you made above.

I am still waiting to hear some valid cogent arguments.

Nothing that is said or posted will ever change your point of view. I've watched you on other threads. You have no desire to actually discuss something just push your own idea so I'll not waste any more time.