Straight Dope Message Board

[Standup Karmic]

I've heard numerous times from numerous sources that 95% (or 75% or 50%, or whatever random percentage the speaker chooses) of million-plus lottery winners are in a worse financial state than prior to winning within five years (three years, ten years) of having won.

Any resemblence to reality?

[Shagnasty]

I can tell you that it is absolutely true with my uncle. He won 3.5 million back in the 80's. You had to take the annual payments back then. He burned through his first two years worth in 6 months and obviously had to borrow until the money came in. It was like that for 20 years. His payments ran out a couple of years ago and he has nothing left except half of a house that he will get in his upcoming divorce. He is literally on welfare now and has no health insurance despite being 62 years old and 120 lbs. over weight.

Winning the lottery can be one of the worst things that can happen to a person. Many people don't have the money management skills to deal with it. Unfortunatley, the people that buy a substantial amount of lottery tickets on a regular basis are the least capable of dealing with it if they do win.

[Agent Foxtrot]

How come nobody who wins the lottery hires an accountant to keep them from overspending?

Adam

[commasense]

Because the qualifications for playing the lottery are being ignorant of the principles of mathematics.

[Little Nemo]

Many people don't think of lottery winners as an actual finite amount - they think "I won a whole buncha money!" So they spend it. Then they find out they're spending it out faster than they're receiving it in. This is easy when you have family and friends pitching in to help. As for accountants, they probably had thousands of them come calling; but the odds that they found a reliable one are worse than the odds of winning the lottery in the first place.

[DougC]

- - - Illinois began their state lottery in (I think) 1986. Within three or four years, they had established a special credit counseling agency for lottery winners--because so many of the "winners" were ending up bankrupt after just one or two years. Many couldn't keep track of their spending and banks and stores were too happy to extend credit to them. At least one jackpot winner was totally illiterate. At one point a study showed that the poorest 10% of the population bought 47% of all the lottery tickets. I bet if you looked up some of those early winners, many would be poor again.

- I don't know if the credit counseling agency is still in existence today, but I do remember religious groups pointing to the whole situation at the time as evidence that winners were being punished because gambling was the devil's tool, the state shouldn't be helping people sin, ect ect.
~

[BwanaBob]

One time when I was in Toronto I saw a TV report about this lady who won the one of the Canadian lotteries (something like $3M). They get theirs lump-sum and tax-free.

Anyway she was effectively broke after a few years. She bought cars for a boatload of relatives (nice but foolish).
But her main "crime" was to renevate her house (which was apparently in a lower class neighborhood). She did the most incredibly stupid things like change all her plumbing fixtures to gold, used imported marble to redo the insides.

In a nutshell she pissed away a fortune in improvements that made her house unsellable. Who would buy a "mansion" in a poor neighborhood.

It never occurred to her to sell her old house and buy a real nice house in a better neighborhood.

She then had the balls to complain that the government didn't do enough to educate lottery winners to prevent dumb stuff like this from happening.

[BluePitbull]

Originally Posted by BwanaBob

One time when I was in Toronto I saw a TV report about this lady who won the one of the Canadian lotteries (something like $3M). They get theirs lump-sum and tax-free.

Anyway she was effectively broke after a few years. She bought cars for a boatload of relatives (nice but foolish).
But her main "crime" was to renevate her house (which was apparently in a lower class neighborhood). She did the most incredibly stupid things like change all her plumbing fixtures to gold, used imported marble to redo the insides.

In a nutshell she pissed away a fortune in improvements that made her house unsellable. Who would buy a "mansion" in a poor neighborhood.

It never occurred to her to sell her old house and buy a real nice house in a better neighborhood.

She then had the balls to complain that the government didn't do enough to educate lottery winners to prevent dumb stuff like this from happening.

Amazing, hopefully if I win the lottery, I would not make the same mistakes. So How do you ensure that the money could be stretched but still give you a comfortable lifestyle?

[Maastricht]

Oddly, on Dutch lotteryshows I have heard the opposite happens. Many winners have trouble spending all of their money. They keep their jobs, and keep living in the same neighborhood. The mught buy a nicer car or do up their houses a bit and maybe take a good vacation, but that's it. Counseling from the lottery is aimed ad encouraging them to spend at least the interest they get, so the money doesn't pile up.
I've never heard stories about winners going broke in the Netherlands, and I'm sure the press would have been eager to print them if they had happened.

But then again, Dutch society dislikes ostentious spending. Or weath. If you run around in New York covered in bling, everybody thinks "there goes a winner". If you do the same in Amsterdam, everybody thinks: "there goes somebody who doesn't pay enough tax and has piss-poor taste".

[Sublight]

Originally Posted by BluePitbull

Amazing, hopefully if I win the lottery, I would not make the same mistakes. So How do you ensure that the money could be stretched but still give you a comfortable lifestyle?

A safe way would be to invest the whole thing in government bonds. The current 10-year bond rate is 4.5%, which on $3 million would give you an annual "salary" of $135,000. And as long as you only spend the interest and never spend from that original $3 million, that salary will keep coming (with variations according to interest rate changes) for the rest of your life and your childrens' lives.

Remember, the first commandment of the wealthy: Thou shalt not spend principle.

[chrisk]

Originally Posted by Sublight

A safe way would be to invest the whole thing in government bonds. The current 10-year bond rate is 4.5%, which on $3 million would give you an annual "salary" of $135,000. And as long as you only spend the interest and never spend from that original $3 million, that salary will keep coming (with variations according to interest rate changes) for the rest of your life and your childrens' lives.

Remember, the first commandment of the wealthy: Thou shalt not spend principle.

Additional tip for those who find themselves in this situation: Practice saying 'no'. Practice and practice. You'd probably have to say it a lot... (to family, friends, general acquaintances who come asking to borrow money, wanting you to invest in their business idea, etcetera etcetera.)

_IANALW

[dalej42]

I think this is similar to many pro athletes and rock stars/rappers. Many times, these are those who have been poor for most of their lives. They receive a huge amount of money and they have no money management skills. Plus, they tend to spend the money on all the things they think the "rich" have. But, their view of the rich comes from movies and tv shows. Most millionaires don't have houses like MTV cribs or cars like Pimp my Ride.

Still, I can't find any reliable cites as to the exact percentage of Lottery winners who go "broke." I highly doubt Sen. Jim Jeffords will go broke from his Powerball winnings last week.

[ShibbOleth]

Originally Posted by dalej42

Still, I can't find any reliable cites as to the exact percentage of Lottery winners who go "broke." I highly doubt Sen. Jim Jeffords will go broke from his Powerball winnings last week.

That's going to be the tough part of this question, at least from a GQ perspective. There's not much "news" in: Local man wins lottery, lives normal, happy life. I recall a book several years ago where the thesis was that most people who win the lottery do okay and are happier than before. But that's not as exciting as the schadenfreude of watching a lottery winner go broke or have a string of personal disasters.

If you google this you come up with stories of people who were left unhappy or worse off from their wins and others who are happy. The latter are usually from lottery websites, though.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Originally Posted by dalej42

I think this is similar to many pro athletes and rock stars/rappers.

The MC Hammer Effect.

He was worth millions and had all his relatives and friends on his payroll. He lost everything pretty much.

[R. P. McMurphy]

Originally Posted by Sublight

A safe way would be to invest the whole thing in government bonds. The current 10-year bond rate is 4.5%, which on $3 million would give you an annual "salary" of $135,000. And as long as you only spend the interest and never spend from that original $3 million, that salary will keep coming (with variations according to interest rate changes) for the rest of your life and your childrens' lives.

Remember, the first commandment of the wealthy: Thou shalt not spend principle.

But you are failing to understand the mentality of people that are using their capital to buy lottery tickets in the first place. They are not investors, they are gamblers and wishful thinkers.

What poor people don't realize is that wealth brings on a new set of problems that they never had to deal with before. Yes, wealth will eliminate their current problems but people that get sudden wealth are oftentimes not prepared for the new problems they face. That's not to say that the problems of the wealthy are worse than the problems of the poor. Unfortunately, the coping mechanism of some people who can't deal with the new problems that they never foresaw is to put themselves back where they were.

[JerH]

Originally Posted by dalej42

I highly doubt Sen. Jim Jeffords will go broke from his Powerball winnings last week.

Especially since it was Sen. Judd Gregg who won. (Sorry, nitpick.)

[don't ask]

While the media gratefully whips up the stories of "lottery winners gone wrong" there are hundreds of million dollar winners every year and the large majority (I would think way over 95%) do not go broke. Winners in Australia generally don't sound like idiots who intend to piss it all away. Generally they talk about paying off their debts, buying a house or car maybe and looking after the kids/family.

The few people I have vaguely known that won large amounts in lotteries did very well out of it. Only one of them retired, the others just invested their ill-gotten gains.

[saoirse]

Originally Posted by Sublight

Remember, the first commandment of the wealthy: Thou shalt not spend principle.

Tiny nitpikc: Never spend the principal. A fine distinction, but one I think should be drawn.

[Sgt.Pepper]

Originally Posted by JerH

Especially since it was Sen. Judd Gregg who won. (Sorry, nitpick.)

Whoa, so it was a senator that won the big Powerball prize from last week? That's kind of a let down.

[ShibbOleth]

Originally Posted by Sgt.Pepper

Whoa, so it was a senator that won the big Powerball prize from last week? That's kind of a let down.

No, it somebody in Oregon. A senator, and in this case I think it was a state senator, who is already a multimillionaire, had a winning ticket on the secondary split. I think on that lottery it's five correct without the "powerball" (or whatever) and he won about $800,000+. I heard this on NPR as a blurb, something about the rich getting richer.

[dalej42]

Sen. Judd Gregg won 853,000 in the Powerball. Here is the story from CNN.

I should have looked this up earlier. I knew it was a New England Senator!

[Crafter_Man]

Originally Posted by DougC

a study showed that the poorest 10% of the population bought 47% of all the lottery tickets.

Assuming this is true, this is an important and often-overlooked point.

People who are chronically poor are usually poor for a reason. The cause is often rooted in irresponsibility (including financial irresponsibility). Poor people play the lottery in disproportionate numbers. Therefore, it should be no surprise that many people who play the lottery end up squandering their winnings away.

[Crafter_Man]

Shagnasty: So what did your uncle blow the money on?

[Contrapuntal]

Originally Posted by saoirse

Tiny nitpikc: Never spend the principal. A fine distinction, but one I think should be drawn.

Nitpick.

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by ShibbOleth

A senator, and in this case I think it was a state senator, who is already a multimillionaire, had a winning ticket on the secondary split.

Nope, a US Senator. He bought the ticket down in DC and almost walked out of the store without picking them up.

[dalej42]

Originally Posted by Crafter_Man

Assuming this is true, this is an important and often-overlooked point.

People who are chronically poor are usually poor for a reason. The cause is often rooted in irresponsibility (including financial irresponsibility). Poor people play the lottery in disproportionate numbers. Therefore, it should be no surprise that many people who play the lottery end up squandering their winnings away.

Also, the true cost of playing the lottery for someone who is poor is much greater than for someone wealthy. Look at the case of Sen Gregg. His wealth is "Gregg has assets between $2,697,000 and $9,430,000," according to the CNN story. He spent $20.00 on lottery tickets. Clearly, the cost of those tickets to Sen. Gregg is much less than someone who cashes their $300.00 paycheck and buys $20.00 of lottery tickets. In fact, that cost would actually increase if that $300.00 paycheck was cashed at a check cashing place that takes 10% of the check to cash it.

[Bryan Ekers]

Chris Rock's riff on the difference between "rich" and "wealthy" is relevant, here. The gist was that "rich" people buy stupid things like gold rims for their toasters, while "wealthy" people buy property. You can't get rid of "wealth", but you can lose "rich" after one bad summer and a coke habit.

[wolf_meister]

Bryan Ekers
To continue with Chris Rock's explanation:
"Shaquille O'Neal is rich. The guy who signs his paycheck is wealthy."

[Sunspace]

Originally Posted by Maastricht

But then again, Dutch society dislikes ostentious spending... If you run around in New York covered in bling, everybody thinks "there goes a winner". If you do the same in Amsterdam, everybody thinks: "there goes somebody who doesn't pay enough tax and has piss-poor taste".

I think I must be Dutch.

:: glances around at the people on the subway ::

This would explain a few things.

I would like to read a book describing the experiences of someone whio won the lottery big. It's next to impossible to google for the information though; all you get is "how to win big!" scam sites.

[Balthisar]

That's an interesting tidbit, about the Gentleman from New England (we're out of touch when out of the country).

In any case, I've always considered purchasing lottery tickets, but I always end up chickening out:

• I make fun of lottery players too often and would feel like a hyprocrite.
• I don't know how to play the lottery, and don't want to hold up the people in line behind me (I detest being in line behind the people that do know how -- they slow everything down!). Slips of paper. Little, tiny pencils. Huh?
• They're going to ring up my $100 worth of tickets, and tell me I can't use a credit card or something stupid like that.
• In all probability, it's just a waste of good money.

On the other hand…

• Someone eventually wins.
• It's not expensive to play at all, unless you're poor.
• I piss away money on stupider things like replacing my laptop screen that I carelessly broke!

[peepthis]

Originally Posted by Crafter_Man

Assuming this is true, this is an important and often-overlooked point.

People who are chronically poor are usually poor for a reason. The cause is often rooted in irresponsibility (including financial irresponsibility). Poor people play the lottery in disproportionate numbers. Therefore, it should be no surprise that many people who play the lottery end up squandering their winnings away.

This displays an gallingly poor (har) grasp of the underlying causes of poverty, which would be the topic for another thread entirely. Suffice it to say, nearly all people who live below the poverty line are not there because of frivolous spending; rather, they are never in a position to have money to fritter away in the first place. As if a $6/hour job leaves much room for financial irresponsibility, much less elevating oneself out of poverty or even putting food on the table.

[Dewey Finn]

The rule of thumb I heard is that if you're a poor money manager prior to winning the lottery, you're not going to do well. But if you're reasonably sensible with money, you might do OK with a lottery windfall. Also, prior to the recent $340 million Powerball drawing, a lottery official suggested that any winner first contact a good lawyer and a good accountant prior to claiming the prize. Of course, the difficulty is finding good advisers.

[Harriet the Spry]

While it's a valid point about the cost of lottery tickets being greater for the poor, relatively speaking, I recently heard an interesting piece on public radio pointing out how the benefits of winning are also greater. In other words, the gains for the senator are unlikely to change his lifestyle at all, but winnings can really transform the life of a poor person who wins.

This is why the purchase of lottery tickets by the poor makes sense from an economics perspective. People buy something when they perceive the benefit as greater than the cost.

Sad, though, b/c perception in this case is often not much like reality.

[Crafter_Man]

Originally Posted by peepthis

This displays an gallingly poor (har) grasp of the underlying causes of poverty, which would be the topic for another thread entirely. Suffice it to say, nearly all people who live below the poverty line are not there because of frivolous spending; rather, they are never in a position to have money to fritter away in the first place. As if a $6/hour job leaves much room for financial irresponsibility, much less elevating oneself out of poverty or even putting food on the table.

I have known a lot of chronically poor people. All have engaged in irresponsible behaviors, and these behaviors are what made them poor. It is therefore my opinion that most (if not all) chronically poor people are irresponsible.

And you're right... we shouldn't be discussing opinions in GQ.

[Sublight]

Originally Posted by Spartydog

But you are failing to understand the mentality of people that are using their capital to buy lottery tickets in the first place. They are not investors, they are gamblers and wishful thinkers.

Oh, I'm well aware of that. I just wanted to answer Bluepitbull's question of how to make that money last. I guess it says something that I don't buy lottery tickets.

Originally Posted by saoirse

Tiny nitpikc: Never spend the principal. A fine distinction, but one I think should be drawn.

You're right. You know, I even thought about how to spell it and decided "no, it has to be 'ple', because the guy who runs the school is your 'pal'."

[commasense]

Originally Posted by Sunspace

I would like to read a book describing the experiences of someone whio won the lottery big. It's next to impossible to google for the information though; all you get is "how to win big!" scam sites.

Here is a story that appeared in the Washington Post Magazine in January about a lottery winner in West Virginia who lost more than the money. (It's reprinted on that site without attribution or a copyright notice.) It's a long story, but fascinating and sad. You may want to consider printing it out to read it.

[Jayrot]

The other thing people commonly don't realize (or plan for) is that many of the expensive things we like to buy CONTINUE TO COST MONEY. Oh yeah great, you buy a phatty $5M house. Did you consider what the property tax is you'll be paying on that EVERY YEAR? How about a couple $300,000 Ferraris or Bentleys? That's gonna cost a lot to insure (and repair)? OK, so neither of these are really THAT expensive on their own, but they do keep costing money even after you've layed out the inital investment and can really add up.

There's a local charity raffle here in town (maybe 1 in 10,000) where every year they give away a $2M house. I've often considered that even though I'd love to live in it, if I actually won, I'd have to flip it immediately because I couldn't affort to pay even the 1st year's property tax.

[commasense]

The thing that kills me about the lottery is how the big winners almost always decide to take the lump sum payment instead of the 20-year payoff. So they throw away some huge percentage of the cash--a third or more--so they can get it all in their grubby little hands at once. As if you couldn't possibly live on $5 million a year for the next 20 years. No, you have to take the lump payment of $60 million now. Idiots!

[gazpacho]

Originally Posted by commasense

The thing that kills me about the lottery is how the big winners almost always decide to take the lump sum payment instead of the 20-year payoff. So they throw away some huge percentage of the cash--a third or more--so they can get it all in their grubby little hands at once. As if you couldn't possibly live on $5 million a year for the next 20 years. No, you have to take the lump payment of $60 million now. Idiots!

You know it almost always makes more sense to take the lump sum. $60 today is worth more than $5 a year for 20 years.

[R. P. McMurphy]

Originally Posted by commasense

The thing that kills me about the lottery is how the big winners almost always decide to take the lump sum payment instead of the 20-year payoff. So they throw away some huge percentage of the cash--a third or more--so they can get it all in their grubby little hands at once. As if you couldn't possibly live on $5 million a year for the next 20 years. No, you have to take the lump payment of $60 million now. Idiots!

What you are suggesting is not necessarilly true. If you take the lump sum you can probably find a better annuity than what the lottery commission is paying. You can also use the money to create trusts that will protect the investment from taxes. The lump sum is almost always the better deal except for the undiciplined.

[Valgard]

Originally Posted by commasense

The thing that kills me about the lottery is how the big winners almost always decide to take the lump sum payment instead of the 20-year payoff. So they throw away some huge percentage of the cash--a third or more--so they can get it all in their grubby little hands at once. As if you couldn't possibly live on $5 million a year for the next 20 years. No, you have to take the lump payment of $60 million now. Idiots!

Assuming that this isn't a "whoosh" I'll take a poke at it - if (and as discussed that's a big if) you can handle that kind of money sensibly it makes a lot of sense.

Let's look at the CA lotto, suppose there's a $100M jackpot. You can take it spread out over 25 years (say $4M per year, although I think it's spread out unevenly - bigger payments in later years) or you can take a lump sum payout of about $50M.

Quick back of the envelope calculation (rule of 72) says that if I invest that $50M at about 3.5%, in 25 years I'll have $100M. And as noted, government bonds (pretty solid) are just over 4.5% today - at that rate, I'd have $100M in just 16 years. You're living like a slightly lesser king for a bit (but still filthy rich) in order to reap a windfall a little down the road.

And that's with some pretty tight earnings, you can certainly do much, much better.

Even the state lottery admits that you can do much better than them at investing the money - they are required to keep the principal in *very* conservative investments.

The trick is in not blowing it all on Lamborghinis and platinum bidets right off the bat. I'd get a good financial advisor and keep my head screwed on straight.

[Philster]

"Rich" athletes are nothing more than lottery winners, too. Only the top 5% might have enough wealth to stay rich, or well off, for life.

Take a dope like Terrel Owens. He'll earn 25 mill over his career, 98% of that is NFL contract salary. He owns a 4.9 mill dollar home, with taxes around $40,000/year in NJ, and a similar or bigger home in Atlanta.

10 mill in property, and 100k in taxes....and all the other clothing, car, travel and home expenses keep coming, and coming, and coming.

If I'd won 25 million, I don't think 10 mill would go towards two properties. Essentially, 25 mill is really worth 15 after taxes anyway.

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by Spartydog

What poor people don't realize is that wealth brings on a new set of problems that they never had to deal with before. Yes, wealth will eliminate their current problems but people that get sudden wealth are oftentimes not prepared for the new problems they face. That's not to say that the problems of the wealthy are worse than the problems of the poor.

True. But all I ask is the opportunity to find out firsthand if that is the case.

[R. P. McMurphy]

Originally Posted by Philster

"Rich" athletes are nothing more than lottery winners, too. Only the top 5% might have enough wealth to stay rich, or well off, for life.

Take a dope like Terrel Owens. He'll earn 25 mill over his career, 98% of that is NFL contract salary. He owns a 4.9 mill dollar home, with taxes around $40,000/year in NJ, and a similar or bigger home in Atlanta.

10 mill in property, and 100k in taxes....and all the other clothing, car, travel and home expenses keep coming, and coming, and coming.

If I'd won 25 million, I don't think 10 mill would go towards two properties. Essentially, 25 mill is really worth 15 after taxes anyway.

Not to sidetrack the discussion but consider that in the NFL the contracts are not guaranteed beyond the current year. Get hurt or become less effective and they can cut you loose. That is not necessarily true of the NBA, MLB or NHL. That is why NFL athletes (or more correctly, their agents) love signing bonuses.

[Little Nemo]

And the worst part is that if you're one of the rare exceptions who wins a big lottery prize and then is able to successfully invest your winnings and increase your money, you just end up crashing on a mysterious island trying to figure out what the crazy French woman is talking about and whether you should keep pushing the button.

[SandyHook]

$60 today is worth more than $5 a year for 20 years.

That's not true. $60 today invested at the discount rate used in figuring the lump sum payment would equal exactly $5 a year for 20 years.

It is true, however, that $60 today might be more useful, today and in the near future, than an assured income over 20 years.

The key is, "DISCIPLINE." If you have it you will do well in either case.

Living where there are casinos on every corner I've walked past the Megabucks machines going to breakfast about a zillion times. As a retired accountant I felt the need to look into this and worked out a very detailed spreadsheet (since lost in the great computer crash of 'ought five). The prize of the time was about $40 million over 25 years or the pay out.

I found that living on half and investing half (or something like that I forget the specifics now) gave you a better after tax position from year one through year forever.

But you gotta have that discipline.

[Gfactor]

Good article on lottery winners going broke

[Cliffy]

And the chicken restaurant where you work gets hit by a meteor.

--Cliffy

[Gfactor]

Originally Posted by BwanaBob

In a nutshell she pissed away a fortune in improvements that made her house unsellable. Who would buy a "mansion" in a poor neighborhood.

My ex-wife's grandmother lives next to a lottery winner. The guy had some land. The lot was big because it's in rural Ohio (it was farmland). Grandma has a dumpy old house with a small pasture for her cows. The lottery winner put up a mansion next door. That place will never sell. Most of the other homes are farms or trailers. Across the street there is a lot where the owners have lived in a trailer until it was junk, and then just bought a new one, leaving the old one in place. Three times. Around the block people are living in abandoned school buses.

[Jman]

I know if I won a huge jackpot (say, $25 million after taxes), I would have a small spending spree, then invest the rest and live off the interest. I'd buy a nice house (not anything massive, but a nice, well made home in a good neighborhood, probably about 3000 sq feet....big, room to expand with a family, but not insane). I'd buy a solid sedan (Toyota Camry or Avalon or something), a truck, and my dream car: a 911 Turbo (my only REAL luxury). I'd also buy enough photography equipment to last me my life. After furnishing the house, etc, I figure I'll have spent around $2-$3 million tops. The other $22 million goes into an investment, and I live off the interest, without having to worry about car or house payments.