On keeping your friends after winning the lottery
Lenona
I thought Miss Manners' answer to this was clever.
Lenona.
http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/article.aspx?cp-documentid=22790208
Dear Miss Manners,
Some friends and I were discussing what we would do in the unlikely
event that any of us won the lottery, and find we need to appeal to
you on one major question that came up. What is the etiquette involved
in suddenly becoming embarrassingly rich?
Of course, we all agreed that none of us would flaunt it, but the fact
remains that, even if one accepted the winnings anonymously, one would
have a moral responsibility to use large portions of the winnings to
help out friends, relatives and charities. It would be impossible, in
that case, to hide the fact that one had "come into" a bit of money.
How does one politely refuse to divulge the exact amount of winnings
received? Or for that matter, the amounts given to various people and
causes, or even the amount of winnings currently remaining? How does
one politely refuse to become a fairy godmother to everybody and their
sister? If one wishes to, say, fund the college education of a
cousin's three children, is it necessary to gift an equal amount of
money to the comfortably well-off cousin's childless sibling? Is it
possible to give money to charities and not have them hound you for
the rest of your life?
These are burning questions to which we all hope to need the answers
soon.
Max
> I thought Miss Manners' answer to this was clever.
>
> Lenona.
>
>
Three decades ago I came into $3 million over a short period of time.
I did not reveal the fact to friends at the time. I must say my
concern for others dwindled to almost nothing during that era. The
windfall was short lived due to market changes in the gas & oil
exploration business. I think I'm better off now and care more for
people. Everybody handles these things differently, but I have never
had trouble telling people NO.
The Real Bev
> Is it
> possible to give money to charities and not have them hound you for
> the rest of your life?
No, and the hounding continues into the afterlife. After the one-year forward
on my mom's mail ended, the Post Office graciously gave all the charities the
address to which her mail had been forwarded -- mine. I now receive several
begging letters per day for her. It always angered her that the ones she
actually contributed to wasted her money on sending her more begging letters.
I take a certain amount of satisfaction in the fact that eventually they will
have spent more on soliciting her than she gave them during her lifetime.
I wish there were some way of punishing the Post Office for what I consider to
be an egregious breach of confidentiality.
--
Cheers, Bev
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do.
They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy,
they'd have indoor plumbing by now." -- Ann Coulter
VFW
<7d9e0b4d-5dbe-4f54...@1g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Lenona <leno...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I've heard that you have about the same odds of winning the lottery
whether you buy a ticket or not.
so, I save the money. Hey, I'm a winner w/o MONEY.
IMHO
--
money; what a concept!
clams_casino
>I've heard that you have about the same odds of winning the lottery
>whether you buy a ticket or not.
>so, I save the money. Hey, I'm a winner w/o MONEY.
>IMHO
>
>
Actually, the odds are 50/50. Either you win or you lose.
Bill
"Lenona" wrote in message
> I thought Miss Manners' answer to this was clever.
>
> Lenona.
>
> http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/article.aspx?cp-documentid=22790208
>
I wouldn't tell a soul! And the only people I would help would be those who
have helped me in the past - not very many! And I would do this anonymously
via a lawyer, maybe set up a trust fund with a monthly income for them. Then
they couldn't squander it (the reason they would need help in the first
place - because they can't manage their money.)
And if I did any lifestyle changing, it would be by buying a second house
somewhere where no one knew me. But I would keep my existing house exactly
the same and no one would know a thing!
But frankly I've never cared much for the "country club" crowd, the poor
people with nothing are those I prefer to hang around with. Much more fun!
Al
> "Lenona" wrote in message
> > I thought Miss Manners' answer to this was clever.
>
> > Lenona.
>
>
> I wouldn't tell a soul! And the only people I would help would be those who
> have helped me in the past - not very many! And I would do this anonymously
> via a lawyer, maybe set up a trust fund with a monthly income for them. Then
> they couldn't squander it (the reason they would need help in the first
> place - because they can't manage their money.)
>
> And if I did any lifestyle changing, it would be by buying a second house
> somewhere where no one knew me. But I would keep my existing house exactly
> the same and no one would know a thing!
>
> But frankly I've never cared much for the "country club" crowd, the poor
> people with nothing are those I prefer to hang around with. Much more fun!
You are beginning to sound like Tiger Woods, AKA Eldrich Tont Woods.
Lenona
>
> I've heard that you have about the same odds of winning the lottery
> whether you buy a ticket or not.
Humorist Fran Lebowitz said that first, I believe.
Lenona.
Lenona
>
> I wouldn't tell a soul!
Just how often IS it possible to win and not have your name made
public?
Lenona.
Marsha
Anyone can win and be anonymous. I forget what it's called, but you can
set something up through a third party.
Marsha
h
"Lenona" <leno...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:01ebb726-8b92-4216...@q16g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>>Lenona.
I've always heard that the lottery was a tax on people who suck at math.
Rod Speed
> Bill <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> I wouldn't tell a soul!
> Just how often IS it possible to win and not have your name made public?
Completely routine with the well organised lotterys.
ra...@vt.edu
> Just how often IS it possible to win and not have your name made
> public?
It depends on where you win. For example, in German lotteries it
is common to keep the winner's identity a secret, possibly even
from their spouse. On the other hand lotteries in some US states
*require* the winner to be identified publicly. Here is a link to
their FAQ which pretty much says you can't remain anonymous:
http://www.valottery.com/faq/kb_detail.asp?type=category&category=1&id=89
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
watcher
>
> "Lenona" <leno...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:01ebb726-8b92-4216...@q16g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 15, 9:45 am, VFW <george...@toast.net> wrote:
>>
>> I've heard that you have about the same odds of winning the lottery
>> whether you buy a ticket or not.
>
>
>>>Humorist Fran Lebowitz said that first, I believe.
Nope. I said it first; she heard it from me :-)
>
>>>Lenona.
>
> I've always heard that the lottery was a tax on people who suck at math.
>
>
There's a certain amount of truth to that, I think. However, I won't knock
people who play the lottery in my state, since the percentage the state takes
funds free public transit for geezers like me. As long as I keep my money in
my pocket and don't waste it playing the lottery, I'm ahead of the game :-)
W.
--
son...@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
clams_casino
It's the 3rd largest source of state revenue for us. Keep buying those
tickets!!!!
Lenona
>
> I've always heard that the lottery was a tax on people who suck at math.
Quote I found:
"Lottery: the closest we have to a tax on stupidity."
(And a depressing one, too, every time you choose to play.)
Lenona.
Les Cargill
I started playing when my child won a scholarship based on it. Seemed
the least I could do....
--
Les Cargill
The Real Bev
> On 2009-12-16, h <tmc...@searchmachine.com> wrote:
>> "Lenona" <leno...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 15, 9:45 am, VFW <george...@toast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've heard that you have about the same odds of winning the lottery
>>> whether you buy a ticket or not.
>>
>>>>Humorist Fran Lebowitz said that first, I believe.
>
> Nope. I said it first; she heard it from me :-)
>>
>> I've always heard that the lottery was a tax on people who suck at math.
>
> There's a certain amount of truth to that, I think. However, I won't knock
> people who play the lottery in my state, since the percentage the state takes
> funds free public transit for geezers like me. As long as I keep my money in
> my pocket and don't waste it playing the lottery, I'm ahead of the game :-)
That's a nice visible result. Ours supposedly gives money to the schools,
whatever that might mean. They (both schools and lotteries) still suck.
--
Cheers, Bev
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"I can't stand this proliferation of paperwork. It's useless to
fight the forms. You've got to kill the people producing them."
-- Vladimir Kabaidze
Marsha
> That's a nice visible result. Ours supposedly gives money to the
> schools, whatever that might mean. They (both schools and lotteries)
> still suck.
>
Ours does, too. Except for every dollar the lottery gives to the
schools, our government takes away - or so that's what I've heard.
Marsha
Coffee's For Closers
Publicly identifying the winner makes it look more real. "Yes,
there is a real person, named Sally Jones, of Slumville, who got
a huge pile of cash handed to her. Listen to her tell you how
great it is, and what she will spend it on."
That helps to feed the public's fantasies. They can see that,
the winner was an schmuck just like themselves. And therefore
feel that, "Hey, if s/he can win, then I can, too."
Simply announcing that, an anonymous person received a cheque
just doesn't have the same energy. It is harder to relate to
Mr/Ms Anonymous.
Naturally, the folks running lotteries never publicise stories
about chronic players who lose money. And how the few winners are
only possible because of the large number of losers. They also
don't like to talk about the winners who blow it all in a few
years, ending up with nothing, or even massive debt. Because
people who buy lottery tickets (including the winners) are, by
definition, irrational with money.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
Coffee's For Closers
billnoma...@yahoo.com says...
> "Lenona" wrote in message
> > I thought Miss Manners' answer to this was clever.
> >
> > Lenona.
> >
> > http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/article.aspx?cp-documentid=22790208
> I wouldn't tell a soul! And the only people I would help would be those who
> have helped me in the past - not very many! And I would do this anonymously
> via a lawyer, maybe set up a trust fund with a monthly income for them. Then
> they couldn't squander it (the reason they would need help in the first
> place - because they can't manage their money.)
OTOH, the kind of people who "need help" have contributed
absolutely nothing to my life, and therefore there isn't any
legitimate sense of debt to them.
The fact that someone is poor at managing money is their problem,
not mine. And they will never, ever, have any gratitude or
appreciation of the fact that, giving them stuff would be a
sacrifice for me.
Also, I have found that, it is best to never accept ANYTHING from
any acquaintance/"friend," no matter how small. Because they
will later blow it out of proportion, and act like I owe them a
much larger amount of favours/resources.
It is also important to beware of people who will claim that,
merely spending time associating with me, is some kind of service
incurring an economic debt from me to them.
> And if I did any lifestyle changing, it would be by buying a second house
> somewhere where no one knew me. But I would keep my existing house exactly
> the same and no one would know a thing!
Or maybe consider whether you would really want the keep the kind
of "friends" who be cause problems if they found out about the
money.
> But frankly I've never cared much for the "country club" crowd, the poor
> people with nothing are those I prefer to hang around with. Much more fun!
Right up until they know (or just think) that you have an
economic resource that they want.
Strider
news:MPG.25943c6e7...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Publicly identifying the winner makes it look more real. "Yes,
> there is a real person, named Sally Jones, of Slumville, who got
> a huge pile of cash handed to her. Listen to her tell you how
> great it is, and what she will spend it on."
>
> That helps to feed the public's fantasies. They can see that,
> the winner was an schmuck just like themselves. And therefore
> feel that, "Hey, if s/he can win, then I can, too."
It also proves that the lottery is legitimate; IOW, there really are actual
winners. Recall in Orwell's "1984" the Ministry of Plenty's lottery was a
scam, because only very small prizes were ever awarded. The "big winners"
were in fact nonexistent persons a la "Comrade Ogilvy."
> Naturally, the folks running lotteries never publicise stories
> about chronic players who lose money. And how the few winners are
> only possible because of the large number of losers. They also
> don't like to talk about the winners who blow it all in a few
> years, ending up with nothing, or even massive debt. Because
> people who buy lottery tickets (including the winners) are, by
> definition, irrational with money.
And since when is it their duty to publicize losers? As for what the
winners did with their $$ afterward, that's no one's business (or
responsibility) but the winners themselves. And no, not everyone who wins a
large sum of $$ is by definition irrational. FYI, there are plenty of
professional and amateur gamblers who have won a mint and managed their
fortunes quite well.
In fact, the *truly* irrational rich people are black athletes. They're the
ones most likely to be flat broke within a year or two of their careers
ending because they never saved a dime and squandered everything on "the four
B's" -- booze, bimbos, blow and bling (http://tinyurl.com/sbpdl22). They're
the ones famous for throwing C-notes into the air at bars & strip clubs like
so much confetti (http://tinyurl.com/sbpdl602). During the 1998-99 NBA
lockout Patrick Ewing talked about setting up a players' relief fund; would
that be even remotely necessary if those players had any financial
self-discipline at all? Of course, lots of NBA salary goes to supporting
legions of illegitimate children, which is another consequence of
non-existent self-discipline (http://tinyurl.com/sbpdl155 and
http://tinyurl.com/sbpdl20). Note that there was no need for an NHL players'
relief fund during the 2004-05 lockout, and that one killed the whole season,
not just part of it.
Strider
Strider
news:e87aedc7-1bb3-467e...@x15g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>Quote I found:
>
>"Lottery: the closest we have to a tax on stupidity."
>
>(And a depressing one, too, every time you choose to play.)
Actually there's *occasionally* times when playing certain lottery games is
a good idea -- namely, when the payout exceeds the odds.
For example, the Florida Lotto picks six numbers from 1-53. That makes the
odds 1 in 22,957,480. Check it out in the Windows Calculator: 53!/(47!*6!).
So if the jackpot rolls over enough times to >=$22 million, buying a ticket
actually makes sense. Same principle as calling vs. folding in poker. If the
pot odds are at least as high as the odds of getting the right card, you
should stay; otherwise, you should fold.
Strider
VFW
Balvenieman <balve...@invalid.net> wrote:
> "Strider" <fgevq...@tznvy.pbz> wrote:
>
> >For example, the Florida Lotto picks six numbers from 1-53. That makes the
> >odds 1 in 22,957,480. Check it out in the Windows Calculator: 53!/(47!*6!).
> >So if the jackpot rolls over enough times to >=$22 million, buying a ticket
> >actually makes sense. Same principle as calling vs. folding in poker. If the
> >pot odds are at least as high as the odds of getting the right card, you
> >should stay; otherwise, you should fold.
> So _you're_ the guy the lottery's made for! Don't want to break
> your bubble but the odds of any combination "hitting" in any individual
> draw are precisely the same as they were of hitting on any previous draw
> and as they are of hitting on the next and on any future draws. That a
> number of successive draws has produced no winner does not effect the
> chance that any future draw will or will not. That's the whole point to
> a lottery: It is the purest sucker-bait. The mounting jackpot, coupled
> with the unchanging odds, causes more suckers buy tickets who wouldn't
> otherwise have and induces the fools and addicts to buy more tickets
> than they usually do in the belief that their, for example, 100
> additional tickets is significant against the 22,957,380 possible
> combinations that they _didn't_ buy. Buying additional tickets is more
> likely to increase the risk of sharing a jackpot than it does the
> probability of picking the winning combination. Did you ever wonder why
> private lotteries, raffles and most "sweepstakes" are illegal? The only
> variables are the weights of the balls, of which the sets are rotated
> frequently enough to discourage counters, and among the various machines
> used, which also change.
> Stay away from the poker table, too. You are confusing pot odds
> with the odds of winning. There is no direct relationship, although,
> both must be taken into account to determine ones expectation of
> winning.
I've heard the odds of "winning" the lottery are about the same whether
you buy a ticket or not.
I'll think I'll pass. save for a rainey day.
--
Hint; Enjoy the moment !
clams_casino
It's 50 / 50. Either you win or you lose.