It's a ruse

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Thu Apr 01, 2004 11:10 pm

RICHMOND, Va. - Retired truck driver J.R. Triplett is on Easy Street: He stepped forward Thursday to claim a $239 million lottery prize, the second-biggest undivided jackpot in U.S. history. (AP)***No, he didn't.***The Tripletts took their winnings in a pre-tax lump sum of $141.5 million, instead of $239 million in 26 annual installments.***They won $141.5 million. The only way they could have won $239 million would have been if they got a check for $239 million. Getting $9.2 million for 26 years isn't the same thing.***[ April 01, 2004: Message edited by: blanp ]

Rio · **Posted:** Fri Apr 02, 2004 12:29 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
***They won $141.5 million. The only way they could have won $239 million would have been if they got a check for $239 million. Getting $9.2 million for 26 years isn't the same thing.***<hr></blockquote>Well, now, wait a minute there, blanp. They did win $239 million, even if they don't get it all at once. If they're going to get $239 million for having the winning ticket, how can you say they didn't win the jackpot?That aside, if you don't want to say "they won $239 million," then what would you say?

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Fri Apr 02, 2004 12:37 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
Well, now, wait a minute there, blanp. They did win $239 million, even if they don't get it all at once. If they're going to get $239 million for having the winning ticket, how can you say they didn't win the jackpot?That aside, if you don't want to say "they won $239 million," then what would you say?<hr></blockquote>They didn't win $239 million, they won $141.5 million, because they chose the lump-sum option. I would say they won $141.5 million if that's what the lottery people give them.

Rio · **Posted:** Fri Apr 02, 2004 4:49 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
They didn't win $239 million, they won $141.5 million, because they chose the lump-sum option. I would say they won $141.5 million if that's what the lottery people give them.<hr></blockquote>You misunderstood me, although I'll concede I could have phrased my question better.You originally said: "The only way they could have won $239 million would have been if they got a check for $239 million. Getting $9.2 million for 26 years isn't the same thing." OK, but suppose the couple had opted for the $239 million over 26 years. If I understand your original post, you wouldn't have said they won $239 million because they didn't get it all at once. That's what I'm questioning.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Fri Apr 02, 2004 6:20 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
You misunderstood me, although I'll concede I could have phrased my question better.You originally said: "The only way they could have won $239 million would have been if they got a check for $239 million. Getting $9.2 million for 26 years isn't the same thing." OK, but suppose the couple had opted for the $239 million over 26 years. If I understand your original post, you wouldn't have said they won $239 million because they didn't get it all at once. That's what I'm questioning.<hr></blockquote>That's exactly what I'm saying. Calling that person a $239 million winner is like calling me a $2 million copy editor.

Rio · **Posted:** Sat Apr 03, 2004 1:34 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
That's exactly what I'm saying. Calling that person a $239 million winner is like calling me a $2 million copy editor.<hr></blockquote>I believe your analogy is flawed. By your reasoning, I could say, for example, that my new car isn't really a $20,000 car because I've made only the $1,000 down payment.But I'm willing to be persuaded differently. If you don't want to call the hypothetical winner of $9.2 million over 26 years "a $239 million winner," what do you call him?[ April 03, 2004: Message edited by: Gary Kirchherr ]

JonScribe · **Posted:** Sat Apr 03, 2004 2:12 am

Lucky bastard.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sat Apr 03, 2004 2:54 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
But I'm willing to be persuaded differently. If you don't want to call the hypothetical winner of $9.2 million over 26 years "a $239 million winner," what do you call him?[ April 03, 2004: Message edited by: Gary Kirchherr ]<hr></blockquote>I call him the winner of $9.2 million a year for 26 years. If it's all the same to you, I'll take the $239 million upfront.[ April 03, 2004: Message edited by: blanp ]

Oeditpus Rex · **Posted:** Sat Apr 03, 2004 11:00 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
If you don't want to call the hypothetical winner of $9.2 million over 26 years "a $239 million winner," what do you call him?<hr></blockquote>How about "the winner of a jackpot valued at $239 million over 26 years"?Aside, I can't understand why anyone would take the lump sum, since $9.2 million per year for 26 years is a helluva lot of security. Then again, I don't know which way you'd end up paying more in tax.

nstockdale · **Posted:** Sun Apr 04, 2004 12:26 am

And to link this to another thread, who knows what $9.2 million will be worth in 26 years?

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sun Apr 04, 2004 3:21 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Oeditpus Rex:

Aside, I can't understand why anyone would take the lump sum, since $9.2 million per year for 26 years is a helluva lot of security. Then again, I don't know which way you'd end up paying more in tax.<hr></blockquote>The lump sums offered to winner are far less than "jackpots" because given the choice, anyone would take it all at once, and not just because of inflation. That would either bankrupt the lottery or force it to use honest numbers. Conservative investment of such a vast sum would make the notion of $9.2 million a year laughable.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Sun Apr 04, 2004 9:22 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
The lump sums offered to winner are far less than "jackpots" because given the choice, anyone would take it all at once, and not just because of inflation. That would either bankrupt the lottery or force it to use honest numbers. Conservative investment of such a vast sum would make the notion of $9.2 million a year laughable.<hr></blockquote>This is the best advice I've seen on this board yet. I've been wondering what to do when I win the lottery.

Testy Copy Editors

It's a ruse

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links