Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wouldn't want to win $1 billion. It would be a burden for me. Instead of enoying the winnings, I'd probably spend most of my time trying to determine which charitable, educational or healthcare organization to give most of the money to. Plus, I'm a simple person. I don't need a mansion, yacht or private jet.
My feelings exactly.
Charity would get the bulk of any winnings if I won a lottery.
I assume that anyone who wins would have to be a US citizen.
Castro opted for the lump sum payment of $997.6 million.
The news people in the original link, went to every address with an Edwin Castro listed. Someone will eventually find him. Smart he has not gone back to the place he bought it from, used to go there every day for coffee
I personally would not be donating to many "charity" organizations because most spend most of their money on paid staff and a small amount to advertise, they do not directly help people affected with the disease or illness. Cancer charities are the worst to donate to.
My hub had tonsil cancer, his hearing is shot from the head and neck radiation. I contacted an oral cancer charity to ask if they help survivors buy hearing aids, they do not. Similar for national cancer association, they do not give help, their mission is to educate the public about cancers.
I would most likely make my own charity, but charity starts at home. I would help my kids, my immediate family still in Hungary.
I agree one should research all charities before donating.
The charities I would give to are mostly those protecting animals, but there are a few that involve people.
I assume that anyone who wins would have to be a US citizen.
I personally would not be donating to many "charity" organizations because most spend most of their money on paid staff and a small amount to advertise, they do not directly help people affected with the disease or illness. Cancer charities are the worst to donate to.
My hub had tonsil cancer, his hearing is shot from the head and neck radiation. I contacted an oral cancer charity to ask if they help survivors buy hearing aids, they do not. Similar for national cancer association, they do not give help, their mission is to educate the public about cancers.
I would most likely make my own charity, but charity starts at home. I would help my kids, my immediate family still in Hungary.
I used to examine the information returns of nonprofit organizations for the IRS. It really disgusted me that few of the organizations I audited actually performed activities that benefitted a charitable class in accordance with the beliefs and expectations of the general public. For this reason, the majority of the revenue agents I worked with did not make charitable contributions outside their church. And that's why the money would be a burden to me. I would spend to much time evaluating organizations and tracking how the contribution was spent.
Hint: You don't have to give it much mind that the money is in your bank account. Keep living a low consumption life and never look at your bank account in apps, online or at a brick-and-mortar bank branch. All you know is that whenever you use your debit card, it will never say "declined" or "insufficient funds." lol
In all seriousness, having a lot of money doesn't mean you have to go on a shopping spree day in, day out. It's actually better to have lots of money and a low consumption rate than a high consumption rate and hardly any money. With the first scenario people will look at you and the last thing they will think is that you have money, but in the second scenario people will look at you and think you have money (not debts, but money). Having enough money to get a Bugatti doesn't mean you have to get one. You can do it any minute by heading where they sell Bugatti's and walk out driving your own, but you don't have to. Instead you can go to a Kia dealership and do the same. At the end of the day, a car is a car and they all run on the same public streets. Plus, why should it matter what other people think? 99.999% of the people you don't know and will never meet.
That's the beauty of having lots of money. You can live a lavish life or one with little or no luxuries. It's your decision, but whichever you make the result is the same: you don't have to wonder where the money to pay the bills will come from.
With a billion dollars, it's guaranteed that 99.999999% of the people around you wherever you go have less money, a lot less and this includes most millionaires. Stepping out of a Mercedes-Benz or a Kia will not change that. Living in a mansion in a gated community or a modest townhouse on a public street near downtown will not change that. Wearing high couture fashion or nameless shirt, swearpants, $30 Walmart shoes, and a cap will not change that either.
You can go to a McDonald's to get your Big Mac, fries, and drink. The people sitting next to your table woukd never know the guy right next to them has access to more money than they will ever see in a lifetime. Everyone is a regular person living paycheck-to-paycheck eating a McDonald's meal. That's how it looks, but not everything that shines is gold and things are not always what they seem.
I'd simply buy tax-exempt municipal bonds and live off the interest. For example, $1 billion @ 5% = $50 million per year. I could easily live off $100K. Lol...
I agree one should research all charities before donating.
The charities I would give to are mostly those protecting animals, but there are a few that involve people.
Due diligence takes time and effort. I imagine I would have to pay someone to do it on my behalf.
I like individuals that find a reason not to play the lotto. Just don't play the lotto. No one cares. "Well, when you take the taxes out it's only.....SHUT UP!!"
I understand your point of view but much like pro athletes that sign 100 million dollar contracts..........then start spending money like they have 100 million yet really get about 1/2 the money in the headlines (agent 10%, taxes 37% plus state taxes). Lottery winners think 2 billion but cash in the bank today is only about 1/3 of that.
2b net worth and 667mm net worth are two very different wealth levels. Sure both can be lifetimes of money but the guy with 667mm shouldn't buy a 100mm yacht, 60mm plane and a 40mm house.
First.. I have no idea if he needs to be a citizen or not.. But.. Does it matter? Let's say he's a Mexican citizen who lives in TJ.. Came across the border to buy a ticket.. He paid his money.. I don't see how they could keep it from him.
He might get immediately deported if he was illegal.. But.. If so.. couldn't he then sue for the US taxing his winnings when he wasn't a citizen? Hmmm..
Anyway.. I don't get why people are kinda hung up on his name. so what? Good for him.
Anyone except.. Outside of the 'normal' people you'd expect.. people who work for the lottery, etc, etc.. Some states have tried to prevent felons from collecting. And someone convicted of a felony may have their winning seized to cover judgements against them. I think that can happen on about anything. Felon or no.
Charities are all different. Some are good, some not so much. You can't lump them all in together.
A charity that, if *I* won the lottery I would start would be a Tombstone charity. Providing money for those who can't afford to give their loved ones a marker after they die, money for repairing/cleaning old tombstones.
Is that going to be a flashy charity? Probably not.. but.. Would also help a large number of people, not only today but far into the future..
I like your charity idea. Would you include helping people that don't have money to bury or cremate their loved one? There are unclaimed people listed on our national missing and unidentified person's database, NamUs
Quote:
Originally Posted by quiet life
Agreed that charity starts at home. I would keep it all for family. Create generational wealth so the Quiet Life family will be set. My grand children's children will be financially independent. What's the word? Trust fund babies!
I would do similar so that the main funds are in a trust, my descendants could live off of the interest it gained.
I was reading an article about Marie Osmond. She will not be leaving anything to her kids or grand kids; it's all being donated to various charities. She said she busted her butt working all of her life, that her kids and grand kids can do the same thing, work for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJ2MDdude
I used to examine the information returns of nonprofit organizations for the IRS. It really disgusted me that few of the organizations I audited actually performed activities that benefitted a charitable class in accordance with the beliefs and expectations of the general public. For this reason, the majority of the revenue agents I worked with did not make charitable contributions outside their church. And that's why the money would be a burden to me. I would spend to much time evaluating organizations and tracking how the contribution was spent.
The biggest charities are usually the worst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Guy997S
I understand your point of view but much like pro athletes that sign 100 million dollar contracts..........then start spending money like they have 100 million yet really get about 1/2 the money in the headlines (agent 10%, taxes 37% plus state taxes). Lottery winners think 2 billion but cash in the bank today is only about 1/3 of that.
2b net worth and 667mm net worth are two very different wealth levels. Sure both can be lifetimes of money but the guy with 667mm shouldn't buy a 100mm yacht, 60mm plane and a 40mm house.
I don't think I'd take the cash amount. I'd rather get payments that I'd have to learn to live off of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NORTY FLATZ
California doesn't tax lottery winnings. Surprisingly.
Thanks, didn't know that. Link below breaks it down.
The article also says there were three other winners in California that had 5 of the 6 numbers.
The $2.04 billion Powerball jackpot marks the largest in lottery history. While 37% of the winnings will go toward federal income tax, California is one of only a few states that doesn’t tax lottery winnings.
This means that if the winner is a resident of California and chooses the lump-sum prize, which is about $997.6 million, then Bloomberg noted that they will take home $147 million more than if they lived in one of the five boroughs of New York City. The state of New York charges a tax of 10.9%, plus an additional 3.9% if you live in New York City.
But the $2.04 billion will only go to the lucky winner if they claim the prize as 30 annuity payments instead of the $997.6 single payout, Bloomberg says.
I never understood how someone can sit on a winning lottery ticket. No matter where I put it I would always be worried about something happening to the ticket.
California doesn't tax lottery winnings. Surprisingly.
I was thinking of that high tax bracket 12-13% that the actors and athletes were trying to avoid but funny CA lets lottery winners skip that one!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
