She won the lottery at 17. Now she blames Euromillions officials for ‘ruining her life.’

apparently in the uk you can buy lottery tickets at 16 and she did at 17 and says the emptiness oh having money caused her problems and shes suing to raise the age for the lottery among other things

I don’t know it sounds like she led a rather serious life she dosent know how to enjoy things …‘ruining-her-life’/ar-AAmXzts?li=BBnbfcL

SHE ruined her life. The lottery helped.

If having money’s so terrible, she’s welcome to give it all back. Heck, she can give it all to me, and I’ll make sure the EuroLotto people get it. No worries, I promise.

Of all the ways I’ve ruined my life already, having too much money is the way I haven’t tried yet and seems the most fun.

Oh, boo fucking hoo. Money doesn’t take away your purpose. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have certainly managed to have purpose. I guess charitable giving is also not in her lexicon.

When you’re miserable and poor, you know why you’re miserable. It’s because you’re poor and you live in squalor and you have to bust your hump for your jerkoff boss.

If you get some money and you’re still miserable, and you think it’s because your life has no purpose, well, your life had no purpose back when you were poor either. It’s just that you were so busy staying out of the rain you thought your purpose in life was fulfilled every night you spent with a roof over your head.

I can see how ‘purpose’ for some people equates to ‘getting money’, and therefore, winning the lottery represents the end of purpose.

That’s why money should be regarded as a means, not an end.

Having to be on your guard as for as romance goes must suck, finding love can be difficult enough as is. But she also needs to get a hobby. Maybe stamp collecting will keep her busy

To take up for the poor girl, she isn’t the first person to have noticed this phenomenon. She was not even an adult in U.S. terms and won what she thought was a lot of money. The problem is that she really didn’t at least in whole life terms. She was technically a millionaire for a short while assuming she was allowed to keep most of it (I don’t know how British taxes work on sums of that size) but that amount won’t last someone of that age that long if they believe they are truly rich because they aren’t.

My ex-wife’s uncle who I know quite well won a whole lot more than that and reported the same thing (3.5 million in the early 80’s). He thought that he won ‘life’ at that point because everyone kept telling him he was stupid for spending so much on the lottery when he had virtually no money but it didn’t work out even in the medium term because he truly believed he was rich when he wasn’t. The lottery he won required 20 year payments at the time which is certainly nice if you have any sense but they don’t give you any sense when you win. One hundred and something thousand dollars can’t buy you a house in Boston, San Francisco and Italy at the same time like he planned even back then. He stopped working at anything, moved to Florida and bought a moderately nice house, gained 200+ pounds and hung out for 18 years. As soon as the money ran out, he got divorced, had to sell the house and is on food stamps now.

It takes a whole lot more to turn a poorer person into a wealthier person than just money. There is a lot of attitude, perspective and financial management education required to learn how to sustain it. Most people thrown into that situation suddenly do not have that.

Being a millionaire is not the infinite amount of money it used to be thought of back when I was a kid. In a 1970s economy you could retire on a million (pounds, dollars, exchange rate may vary, etc) if you managed it carefully, and still live a life of riley. That’s not possible now, you can spend a million in a month with not much trouble. Buy a house, a boat, a fancy car, and a few other expensive items, and it’s gone.

Though with careful management you could probably have a steady income generated from investment interest that maybe you could live on (in a low standard of living area), it wouldn’t be a wealthy lifestyle by any stretch of the imagination.

Lottery winnings are tax-free in the UK, as are gambling winnings (at least from the punters perspective).

ive seen a bit of what she describes …she just realized the 400th trip to the mall didn’t make her feel better and money does change every thing a little earlier than most people

one good thing is shes not a 24/7 coked up nihilistic boozer like most kids would be

I do agree with a few of the commenters on the page asking wheres the parents tho …

There is a HUGE difference between earned and unearned money. The rich people who worked for their money are (on average) much, much nicer and better-grounded than the people whose money fell into their laps, whether through inheritance or the lottery. Besides, when you have to work for the money, you’re extremely unlikely to become rich until after you become mature.

In addition, you and a lot of people in this thread seem to have unrealistic expectations of 17-year-olds. There might – might – be one out of a thousand who could handle that sort of life change in a reasonable manner.

Again, the wisdom of Musical Theater knows everything.

In the article, she says the minimum winning age ought to be 18 rather than 16. I am not sure there is a meaningful difference between maturity at those ages. If even people in their 30s or 40s can blow an entire jackpot frivolously, does it make much difference for 18 vs. 16? There may be other good reasons to limit winners to age 18 and above, but for this reason - maturity - I’m not sure it would solve much of the problem. I certainly wouldn’t trust the average 18-year old to do well with a giant jackpot.

A million dollars only buys you something like $50,000 a year in income. If you use some of your million dollars to buy your house outright you won’t need as much to pay your mortgage or rent, but you’ll have spent a big chunk of capital and will therefore have a smaller income.

It’s not that a million dollars isn’t a lot of money. It really is. But it’s not enough to set up in in luxury for the rest of your life, even if you’re really good at managing money. It’s enough to set you up for modest middle class living in a small town without working for the rest of your life, but not luxury.

Someone else once pointed out that many lottery winners go broke because they think of their money as simply being a finite sum, which is withdrawn from, again and again, until it’s all gone. So, if you have $1 million, you can withdraw $50,000 every year for twenty years, and it’s gone.

They do not see their money as being something that can be invested to generate continuous, additional income, and which could make their $1 million grow or last much longer than just twenty years.

I’ve got zero sympathy for her. Of all the things to be hit with at 17, being a millionaire has to be one that is survivable. But it looks like she was a stupid twit before she won, and still is.

Yeah, that’s about what I figure too. So it couldn’t support a family, but a single person living in a modest area should be okay.

There’s a lot to be said for a safe steady predictable income, though. It gives financial security, which brings peace of mind, and it lets you reliably plan for your future. If you don’t spend it all each year, you can even give back into your investment capital, which might cover inflation. That’s my plan if it ever happens to me, at least.

She won enough to buy a small home, used car, and attend college. Perhaps with some left to save.

Leaving college debt free would put her far ahead of many graduates. Start a career and make a nice life.

She’s got a great future ahead if she goes that direction.