Mega Millions player wins historic $1.58 billion jackpot

a reply to: AlienBorg
You are trying to change the game. The goal is to select the exact number sequence. How can 2000+ people all select the same number sequence every week when it took weeks and weeks of people gambling just to get the one number sequence??

The game would have be to be something completely different for you to achieve the results you seek. I suppose you could become the founder of this game and try to register it as an online gambling venture. Doing so however is where you will finally find your answer. The point of thes games is to bring in enough unwon money so when someone does win, the organizationstatescammer has already raked in plenty of money for themselves to cover what they must pay.

These games do not exist to help people, but to butter up tax coffers to be plunderer by slick politicians. The trick that is most frequently used is to use the lotto taxes to replace what is siphoned out of a normal budget through crafty accounting and spending bills. They can claim the lotto funds schools, but they never get extra money. What is replaced by Lotto tax winnings disappears off into some vague over budget road work project, or theater remodel, or highly inflated waste services contract billed as a more "green" alternative to the prior service provider.

Let's not forget the businesses getting the contracts are often friends of the legislaters that award them

originally posted by: TXTriker

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.

My points are very reasonable.
In contrast you haven't presented any cogent argument but kept moving the bar or the topic of the conversation.

You started with the argument of not giving handouts for free. But I never discussed anything like this, it's what we call whataboutism. People who enter the lottery or other lucky games are gambling, so the discussion is about gambling.

Then you moved to how winners will spend their money. It's clearly unrelated to winning the lottery or other lucky games. How they spend it will depend on them and it's not a valid reason why the lottery funds shouldn't be distributed much more fairly.

After these failed attempts you moved your argument to 'people won't be playing the lottery or other lucky games'. Seriously? What evidence is there when we haven't event tried it. If people knew there could hundreds or thousands every week winning from half to one million dollars guarantee you think the lottery or lucky games will collapse??!?!!

You still have no convincing arguments.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: AlienBorg
You are trying to change the game. The goal is to select the exact number sequence. How can 2000+ people all select the same number sequence every week when it took weeks and weeks of people gambling just to get the one number sequence??

The game would have be to be something completely different for you to achieve the results you seek. I suppose you could become the founder of this game and try to register it as an online gambling venture. Doing so however is where you will finally find your answer. The point of thes games is to bring in enough unwon money so when someone does win, the organizationstatescammer has already raked in plenty of money for themselves to cover what they must pay.

These games do not exist to help people, but to butter up tax coffers to be plunderer by slick politicians. The trick that is most frequently used is to use the lotto taxes to replace what is siphoned out of a normal budget through crafty accounting and spending bills. They can claim the lotto funds schools, but they never get extra money. What is replaced by Lotto tax winnings disappears off into some vague over budget road work project, or theater remodel, or highly inflated waste services contract billed as a more "green" alternative to the prior service provider.

Let's not forget the businesses getting the contracts are often friends of the legislaters that award them

We send a man on the moon and you think it's difficult to redistribute $1.58 billion dollars much more fairly and have instead 1,580 winners, winning one million each. Or even 3,160 winners, winning half million dollars each.

I ve noticed new accounts coming up out of nowhere trying to challenge a very simple and viable proposition. Is it my imagination? Or it's just people lurking and just seen something they don't agree with?

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: TXTriker

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.

My points are very reasonable.
In contrast you haven't presented any cogent argument but kept moving the bar or the topic of the conversation.

You started with the argument of not giving handouts for free. But I never discussed anything like this, it's what we call whataboutism. People who enter the lottery or other lucky games are gambling, so the discussion is about gambling.

Then you moved to how winners will spend their money. It's clearly unrelated to winning the lottery or other lucky games. How they spend it will depend on them and it's not a valid reason why the lottery funds shouldn't be distributed much more fairly.

After these failed attempts you moved your argument to 'people won't be playing the lottery or other lucky games'. Seriously? What evidence is there when we haven't event tried it. If people knew there could hundreds or thousands every week winning from half to one million dollars guarantee you think the lottery or lucky games will collapse??!?!!

You still have no convincing arguments.

One last time, there are hundreds and thousands of dollars available almost every day of the week in addition to the "grand" prize. If they were playing now they would be winning and you have no proof their not. You just want to make sure no single person wins big. You don't even know if one person won because they haven't come forward. When you lower the top prize all prizes will lower. That's the nature of gambling. It is scaled so the "house" never loses.

a reply to: AlienBorg
what happens when people stop buying tickets? Police kicking in doors and killing pets? Shouting 2 dollars or your life?

Your idea is worse than scratchers, current scratchers are on a state level with a much smaller population. Your idea puts everything on a national level.

The tiniest amount of research on your part would show fewer people buy tickets when the jackpot is low. Sells massively increase when the jackpot is higher.

originally posted by: TXTriker

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: TXTriker

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.

My points are very reasonable.
In contrast you haven't presented any cogent argument but kept moving the bar or the topic of the conversation.

You started with the argument of not giving handouts for free. But I never discussed anything like this, it's what we call whataboutism. People who enter the lottery or other lucky games are gambling, so the discussion is about gambling.

Then you moved to how winners will spend their money. It's clearly unrelated to winning the lottery or other lucky games. How they spend it will depend on them and it's not a valid reason why the lottery funds shouldn't be distributed much more fairly.

After these failed attempts you moved your argument to 'people won't be playing the lottery or other lucky games'. Seriously? What evidence is there when we haven't event tried it. If people knew there could hundreds or thousands every week winning from half to one million dollars guarantee you think the lottery or lucky games will collapse??!?!!

You still have no convincing arguments.

One last time, there are hundreds and thousands of dollars available almost every day of the week in addition to the "grand" prize. If they were playing now they would be winning and you have no proof their not. You just want to make sure no single person wins big. You don't even know if one person won because they haven't come forward. When you lower the top prize all prizes will lower. That's the nature of gambling. It is scaled so the "house" never loses.

Because there are other prizes other than the grand prize this doesn't imply winners win a reasonably good amount of money. Most winners win a much smaller amount and most money goes to very few people. There could be a much more fair distribution of the top prize.

Still you're not having me or others convinced.

originally posted by: Jason79
a reply to: AlienBorg
what happens when people stop buying tickets? Police kicking in doors and killing pets? Shouting 2 dollars or your life?

Your idea is worse than scratchers, current scratchers are on a state level with a much smaller population. Your idea puts everything on a national level.

The tiniest amount of research on your part would show fewer people buy tickets when the jackpot is low. Sells massively increase when the jackpot is higher.

People will stop buying tickets? Why?
Gambling will stop? Gambling has been part of human nature forever.

My idea is reasonable and its implementation very easy. We have gone to the moon and we have achieved a number of seemingly impossible tasks, it won't be difficult to distribute large sums of lottery funds in a much more fair way. Just imagine if people knew there could be hundreds or even thousands or people every week winning from half to one million dollars.

a reply to: AlienBorg

People already know that you can win hundreds of thousands every week, that is why most people play weekly/daily.

Jason79 made the point that "fewer people buy tickets when the jackpot is low. Sells massively increase when the jackpot is higher.", and he is not wrong. It's the same mentality that people have when it comes to finding money on the street; most people won't stop and pick up anything less than a quarter, while those that are more keen to the idea will stop to pick up any change they find.

It's simple human greed that keeps the numbers climbing weekly and more people want to play the higher it gets.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: AlienBorg

People already know that you can win hundreds of thousands every week, that is why most people play weekly/daily.

Jason79 made the point that "fewer people buy tickets when the jackpot is low. Sells massively increase when the jackpot is higher.", and he is not wrong. It's the same mentality that people have when it comes to finding money on the street; most people won't stop and pick up anything less than a quarter, while those that are more keen to the idea will stop to pick up any change they find.

It's simple human greed that keeps the numbers climbing weekly and more people want to play the higher it gets.

Sharing the jackpot or the lottery funds in a much more fair way seems (at least) more desirable. It's unlikely, given the prices, thousands of people winning million dollar every week. If that was the case we would have known about it but it isn't. The only way to guarantee thousands of people becoming millionaires or half millionaires every week is to have large sums (billions of dollars) shared among thousands. The comment made earlier that people will decide not to play, is based on nothing more than personal interpretations. People will continue gambling, especially if they see thousands of millionaires every week.

a reply to: AlienBorg


The only way the jackpots get as big as they do is that nobody wins and the "funds" keep rolling over week to week. If someone won it every week there would ,probably, not be any million dollar jackpots at all.

In the end, looking at statistics, most if not all jackpot winners take the lump sum and are broke again within a couple years (pretty sure the numbers is around 70% of winners go bankrupt within 5 years). Your idea will only create short term wealth for more people. Most people aren't going to use that money responsibly and will be going back for more before they can even file their taxes for the following year.

The idea that people will decide not to play based on jackpot size/payouts is not interpretation, it is observation from actual events. The lower the jackpot, the less people play. The higher the jackpot, the more people play. Nobody is saying that people will stop gambling, that has not been said at all in this thread.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: AlienBorg


The only way the jackpots get as big as they do is that nobody wins and the "funds" keep rolling over week to week. If someone won it every week there would ,probably, not be any million dollar jackpots at all.

In the end, looking at statistics, most if not all jackpot winners take the lump sum and are broke again within a couple years (pretty sure the numbers is around 70% of winners go bankrupt within 5 years). Your idea will only create short term wealth for more people. Most people aren't going to use that money responsibly and will be going back for more before they can even file their taxes for the following year.

The idea that people will decide not to play based on jackpot size/payouts is not interpretation, it is observation from actual events. The lower the jackpot, the less people play. The higher the jackpot, the more people play. Nobody is saying that people will stop gambling, that has not been said at all in this thread.

Under the current system everyone is looking to win hundreds or even billions of dollars. But imagine everyone knew they could win a fair share of money every week. I think much more money would be up for sharing. You don't really need a jackpot every week, all you need is participation with a few dollars each. You don't really need the entire country to participate. Just do the math.

How people spend their money and winnings is not relevant to the conversation and it was brought up by someone else earlier as they couldn't think of anything better.

My point is valid.
$1.58 billion dollars could be send much better in 1,580 people/families who played the lottery winning one million each, or 3,160 winning half million dollars each. Most people are sane and they can spend their winnings in paying off the mortgages, paying for their kids college/university etc, and pay for various other obligations they have.

a reply to: AlienBorg

I say again, greed is the number one driving factor in how the lottery is played by everyone.

Greed is the main reason people gamble in the first place.

Lets say you take the 1.58 billion dollar jackpot and distribute it out to 1,580 people. Let's say they all take the lump sum. After taxes and fees, they are left with roughly $400,000 that they will again pay taxes on everything they buy with that.

BUT, once that 1.58 billion jackpot is gone, it goes down to roughly $20 million. So if they do the same thing the following week with 1,580 families, they only get, roughly, $4800 after taxes and fees.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: AlienBorg

I say again, greed is the number one driving factor in how the lottery is played by everyone.

Greed is the main reason people gamble in the first place.

Lets say you take the 1.58 billion dollar jackpot and distribute it out to 1,580 people. Let's say they all take the lump sum. After taxes and fees, they are left with roughly $400,000 that they will again pay taxes on everything they buy with that.

BUT, once that 1.58 billion jackpot is gone, it goes down to roughly $20 million. So if they do the same thing the following week with 1,580 families, they only get, roughly, $4800 after taxes and fees.

Not everyone is greedy and most families will welcome half a million or million dollars.

From my OP

The winning ticketholder can choose between the massive $1.58 billion jackpot paid in annual payments or a one-time cash option worth an estimated $783.3 million.

So obviously you get much more than you said, close to 50% of your winnings in one time cash option or the whole amount in annual payments minus the tax. The tax isn't 60% as you said, that's wrong. It's about 24%

Take a look at this and do the math.

www.usatoday.com...#:~:text=Regardless%20of%20which%20option%20the,out %20of%20either%20payment%20choice.

If the Jackpot was $1.35 billion dollars the taxes will be $324 million which is 24%. The tax isn't 60% as said above.

If you have £20 millions to share you do it among 20-40 winners and not 1,580 winners. When you have $1.58 billion dollars you then share among 1,580 winners or 3,160 winners. In all cases winners go home with at least half million dollars or one million dollars.

Greed is part of human nature. But not a good reason why not to share large sums or even smaller ones, in a much fair way. The same is true for how people choose to spend their money, again not a good reason why not to share large sums or even smaller amounts.

a reply to: AlienBorg

24% is the minimum tax withheld by the IRS, it can go up to 37%. Plus you add on any state taxes, plus having to claim them at the end of the year as well.

But, back on point, the lottery was never meant to be an "everybody wins" concept, it's not a charity. It is what it is in definition; "a means of raising money by selling numbered tickets and giving prizes to the holders of numbers drawn at random."

Would you go to a casino and tell the guy that one 1 million at the poker table he needs to split it with everyone at the table because that is "more fair"? Did he win, or did everyone else at the table win?

If you won money on a game show and they said you have to split your winnings with the other contestants is that fair? Did you win the prize, or did the other contestants win?

a reply to: AlienBorg
Let me guess. Another illegal...it's always an illegal

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: AlienBorg

24% is the minimum tax withheld by the IRS, it can go up to 37%. Plus you add on any state taxes, plus having to claim them at the end of the year as well.

But, back on point, the lottery was never meant to be an "everybody wins" concept. It is what it is in definition; "a means of raising money by selling numbered tickets and giving prizes to the holders of numbers drawn at random."

Would you go to a casino and tell the guy that one 1 million at the poker table he needs to split it with everyone at the table because that is "more fair"? Did he win, or did everyone else at the table win?

If you won money on a game show and they said you have to split your winnings with the other contestants is that fair? Did you win the prize, or did the other contestants win?

In these lottery winnings it's clear the tax stands at 24%. It could be a little more but certainly not 60%. You get a very good amount of money after tax. See the article I linked.

I never said you have to split your money but the sharing could become much more fair and the method is very easy. Every ticket has a number and according to the total sum the winners will be such and such. If the total for example is $100 million then you could have 100-200 hundred winners getting plenty of money even after tax.

$1m after tax will result in you getting $760k, plenty of money most people will never even imagine having, especially if they don't have to work for it.

So far there hasn't been any good cogent argument why lottery funds or funds from any other lucky game cannot he shared in a much more fair way even if this will require a change on how the games are played.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Your math is still not correct. If 100 people split the 100 million jackpot everyone gets 1 million.

BUT!

The lump sum for most lottery winnings is about 50-60% of the actual advertised jackpot.

SO, after your lump sum, you are left with 500,000.

THEN, you pay federal taxes which is a MINIMUM of 24% and can be as much as 37%. Plus state tax and income tax at the end of the year.

So all said and done, your 1 million jackpot turns into 350,000 pretty quick. Now I'm not saying that is a small amount of money, but most people who would win that will be worse off after they win it than they would if they never won money at all.


All in all, the lottery is not a charity so that everyone can win. It is an odds game that you play to have a chance at winning. If someone wants something where everyone wins, go play youth soccer and get a participation trophy.


EDIT: This is from your source you posted earlier; "Regardless of which option the player takes, the IRS takes a minimum 24% federal withholding tax upfront on lottery winnings." And that is before you even start paying your actual taxes.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: AlienBorg

Your math is still not correct. If 100 people split the 100 million jackpot everyone gets 1 million.

BUT!

The lump sum for most lottery winnings is about 50-60% of the actual advertised jackpot.

SO, after your lump sum, you are left with 500,000.

THEN, you pay federal taxes which is a MINIMUM of 24% and can be as much as 37%. Plus state tax and income tax at the end of the year.

So all said and done, your 1 million jackpot turns into 350,000 pretty quick. Now I'm not saying that is a small amount of money, but most people who would win that will be worse off after they win it than they would if they never won money at all.


All in all, the lottery is not a charity so that everyone can win. It is an odds game that you play to have a chance at winning. If someone wants something where everyone wins, go play youth soccer and get a participation trophy.

The tax isn't 65%
Still you ve got things wrong on this issue. You started with tax at 60% and then you now have it at 65%. The tax is around 24% and can go up to 37%. I have shown you the link. You keep changing how much each one will get after winning one million dollars. Now you have claimed the one million dollars win will end up being $350,000. At the end you will claim the million dollar winner will get pretty much nothing.

But have a look at the link again.

How much tax on a $1.35 billion lottery win?
The single winner could take the total $1.35 billion in 30 payments over 29 years or go for the one-time cash option ­– in this case, $707.9 million – which is what most winners choose.

Regardless of which option the player takes, the IRS takes a minimum 24% federal withholding tax upfront on lottery winnings. That's a big chunk out of either payment choice. If the total $1.35 billion payout is chosen:

Federal taxes: $324 million
Take-home: $1.026 billion (by 2051)
If the cash option of $707.9 million is taken:

Federal taxes: $169.9 million
Take-home: $538 million

Even if the tax goes up to 37% you then adjust the winnings accordingly.

In practice, there is a 24 percent federal withholding of the gross prize, plus the remaining tax, based on your filing status. For example, if your gross prize is $1,000,000, you need to pay $334,072 in total taxes ($240,000 federal withholding, plus the remaining $94,072 for single filing status in 2021).

Total withholdings are $334,000 in a million and not $650,000.

The math I ve done is correct and have stated already you get a million dollars before tax. If you say 2/3 of your winnings go into various taxes then this has to be backed up by something other than just saying it.

a reply to: AlienBorg

The following screenshot is from YOUR link. Notice how the final number after taxes equals out to about 35% of the original number? Well OMG, that would mean the total tax/fee rate is about 65%.

Not sure how many other ways I can lay this out for you to understand?



And regardless of the taxes and fees, the lottery is not meant to be a charity. Not everyone is going to win, that's how it works. If you don't like it, you don't have to play it.