# If you won 100 million dollars in the lottery..

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Magical Realist, Apr 13, 2016.

1. ### SarkusHippomonstrosesquippedalo phobeValued Senior Member

Messages:
8,997
Roughly:
Spend $10m on: a nice house away from the hustle and bustle, ideally near a village cricket club and pub - preferably with swimming pool and good home cinema; a pad in London, not large but with a decent view; Aston Martin (always wanted one). Give$10m to siblings... don't have a large family so this would enable them to do what they want.
Set up a company with friends, basically just to do projects of our own like writing, music, games designing etc. No pressures, and enabling them to work at whatever they enjoy rather than simply to earn money. Until our retirement this could probably chew up another $10m or so.$20m to give myself a nice income for the rest of my life.
$40m charity stuff, local community, general philanthropy.$10m reserve should things go bad.
That rather depends on how you wish to spend the money. I don't have much money but already have a financial adviser. I certainly wouldn't need tax specialists as I'm not into playing the system to minimise the tax any more than my FA would advise with the obvious stuff.
Body guard? I'm not suddenly going to be flaunting my money, throwing it around and attracting unwanted attention. If you are then maybe a body-guard would be needed for you.
Accountants and lawyers, only if I choose to do things that specifically require them... such as contracts, companies etc.

If I kept it really simple, though, my only income might be dividends and bank interest, so no need to get anyone else involved, as my tax return would be surprisingly easy. Buying a house would need a lawyer but no more than usual.

So if you want an easy time with your money I don't think there's too much of a problem to be had.

ajanta and Xelasnave.1947 like this.

3. ### YazataValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,451
If I won one hundred million, the tax people would seize a lot of it.

To simplify things, lets say I walked away with fifty million, after tax.

I think that I'd put forty million of that into a charitable trust of some kind. I'd need to talk to an attorney who specializes in that, to write it up in such a way as to ensure that it's distributed in ways that I like and that it goes to causes that I approve of.

Of the remaining ten million, I'd distribute perhaps three million to my family and friends and keep seven million for me.

Of that seven million for me, I'd invest five million in safe-and-sane investments and then gradually draw on it to fund the rest of my life. When I die, the remainder could roll over into the charitable trust.

The last two million would be spending money for me. I'd probably want to buy some real estate, and acknowledge that one to two million wouldn't get me very far here in California. (A middle class suburban house in Silicon Valley.)

So I'd likely move to New Mexico where I already have connections and where the cost of living is dramatically lower. I could buy a small but very nice ranch property in the vicinity of Santa Fe with that kind of money. That would leave me with a few hundred thousand as spending money. I might buy a rugged pickup with a camper perhaps, and explore the surrounding mountains. Furniture, lots of books (I'd convert a bedroom into a study lined with bookcases), computers, a giant-screen tv, stuff like that. I live pretty modestly already, and I don't anticipate that changing a whole lot.

No private jets or grant entrances into celebrity nightclubs.

Last edited: Apr 18, 2016
ajanta and Xelasnave.1947 like this.

5. ### Bebelinakospla.comValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,036
What do you mean?

7. ### BaldeeeValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,998
In the UK lottery winnings are tax-free - so a £100m prize is £100m in the bank.

8. ### Fraggle RockerStaff Member

Messages:
24,690
This is one reason that you have the choice to spread the winnings over ten or twenty years. It puts you in a much lower tax bracket--not to mention preventing you from going nuts and spending it all on something frivolous and ridiculous.

I suppose that if it really were a hundred million, you'd still be in the highest bracket no matter how you spread it: five million every year. But if it's a smaller but still fabulous amount like one million, spread over twenty years that's only fifty thousand per year plus your employment or other income, and it would probably not push you into the highest bracket.

Last edited: Apr 29, 2016
9. ### GageRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
165
I'd definitely give some to the rest of my hardworking family, and then take a few million or so and travel the world.
Before that though I'd buy a really really big piece of land here in North Florida for myself when I retire, maybe start a small winery (Muscadines).
Save the rest for my kids. Somehow...

10. ### Fraggle RockerStaff Member

Messages:
24,690
I take it that you're not young enough to watch the rising sea level obliterate Florida.

ajanta likes this.
11. ### GageRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
165
Maybe, I'm 23.
Though last I checked North Florida, where I live, and even most of central Florida is safe from sea level rise.
The coast though.. Well that's a different matter....

ajanta likes this.
12. ### birchValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,077
To those who replied clicheishly give to 'charity' are naive or stupid. Ever wonder why there are so many charities yet very few are actually helped or recieve?? Because most are just a business where the majority of resources are siphoned for the employers/employees, red tape and to just run the business.

If you want to give to charity, you should really check it out and look at the bottomline. Are they really reaching out to the community? there are some good ones but honestly most are frivolous bs organizations that dont do much at all or help just a few arbitarily to stay a charity.

Honestly, the most real or effective charities tend to fall under government or state funded like salvation army, goodwill etc, usually not completely private. They are larger and well-known. More private or 'obscure' charities tend to be more bogus and spotty/arbitrary with recipients and how they allocate resources and funds. They also pretty much exist as a waste or a feel-good vehicle, hobby or image. It would literally be no different or more effective standing on the street and handing out money to people who pass by. With charities, the larger numbers they actually reach or assist is a better guage of their effectiveness.

I remember this charity that existed just as a referral organization and their info you could get through yellow pages or google. They literally didnt help with anything. Absolutely nothing so basically they existed in a more or less ineffective capacity but it was effective living for them.

The problem with giving 'millions' to private charities is the money will often not be used to reach others more as its intended as in building more facilities or reaching more recipients. It often goes wasted or unaccounted for unless you know specifically how a charity runs. There is also corruption, waste or greed in charities as any organization.

Last edited: May 4, 2016
13. ### Xelasnave.1947Valued Senior Member

Messages:
8,502
I answered an add to collect for a charity when I was very young.
They told me I would get 30% of what I collected I was not told how much "the boss" took but I bet it would have been more than my 30%.
I backed out and looked for another way to get a little cash.
So when I see the adds on TV my mind drifts back and wonder just how much goes to the people the money is being raised to help.
If weath was distributed more equitably would we need charities.

Alex

14. ### birchValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,077
It would be quaintly interesting if someone would build themed towns reminiscent of a 'renaissance festival' with cobblestone streets or the hobbit's shire...

Its the architecture but the theme is important for an area..

I always found it peculiarly disheartening that you have to constantly 'read' about fantastic environments/worlds as there is rich artistic imagination and talent yet its never brought to life when it actually 'could' be.

It would be so fascinating to go to a super high-tech or ultra-modern area like in science fiction with matching architecture as well as celebration and reverance for every other type of themed architectural 'towns' to appeal to anyones taste and lifestyle rather than the utterly indescribably characterless hodgepodge of mediocre architecture along with ugly strip malls of today. Not to mention nothing seems to or is even tried to match. Neighborhoods, towns and cities may connect by city planning in function but there is little to no artistic consideration. Whenever i see new development, the 'vision' sadly isnt as great as it could be because it is just appealing to the masses in a way thats between function and not as beautiful or interesting as its hyped to be, it always veers to almost non-descript as in somewhat modern or somewhat colonial or with some ugly mishmash of features but still stay safe, bland and predictable.

Its not that interesting or delightful things cant be built, its just that most people have crappy taste or little to no artistic appreciation. Why i say this is there are people with such beautiful or amazing vision which is a gift to society but it mostly must remain in the imagination as its expression because most people dont care about it at all as their taste is so utterly banal or as sophisticated as a donkey's ass and you can witness that either with the one extreme of somewhat bland architecture touting itself obscenely as creme de la creme because its better than a rundown slum and the trash culture or mediocre culture of even the majority of middle to high-class. They all go with tunnel vision hype and popularity. Everyone must have granite countertops and stainless steel appliances etc because thats just 'in' etc etc. When you even watch those renovation shows, its not 'amazing', its rather 'common' what people do even when they have money. People are very predictable and even believe they have great taste when all it is just influenced by the common denominator herd.

Most is a mess of an eyesore thrown together especially with most peoples lack of or subpar taste, if you look at towns and cities from an artistic and cultural context. Its just building whatever for functionality for the most part.

Last edited: May 17, 2016
15. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
6,226
When I said I'd give the dollar to charity instead of buying the ticket, I meant that I'd give the dollar to the homeless guy on the street. In your cynical view, no doubt he would use it for drugs.

16. ### mmatt9876Registered Senior Member

Messages:
827
If I won millions of dollars I would split it up between my father, mother, and myself. With my share I would buy a house somewhere in New England and a nice car. I would also go back to college and expand my knowledge and skills. I would also get an accountant and budget my money so I do not spend it all in a short time, as so many lottery winners do.

17. ### wegsMatter & Pixie DustValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,690
I would create The National Orb Foundation, and devote all the money to the exploration of the paranormal. NOT SERIOUS.

I'd build an orphanage and run it, and give money to those in great need. I would also go on a teeny weeny jewelry shopping spree, and maybe travel the world, first. Probably would relocate to Italy or Norway.

18. ### birchValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,077
I would build a shelter for homeless thats actually nice and lends a sense of dignity to the individual.

I dont think the issue is money at all. I would build efficient yet modern spaces that respect a humans need for some personal space. I think transforming storage unit type facilities with small individual spaces is a good but novel idea for today. There are similar setups ive seen overseas with less homeless as its decent for students, underpaid, recently divorced, just starting out or in a tight spot etc.

There are not that many varied living options in america or in many cases has too much hindrances. This would be run similar to an apartment community but more efficient for those who dont qualify traditionally because of income, credit etc.

It would not be run for maximum profit but equitable fairness, humaneness and understanding. Particularly with the understanding not everyone needs or wants a traditional apartment or house and neither is it modern or efficient with the old- fashioned roommate scenarios as the 'personal' aspect is too prevalent in others homes and apartments that are makeshift looking for the right fit with others etc which bogs down the process. There are niches that are not addressed with these outdated limited living options: rent room in someone else's 'personal space' which is wary (costly as apartments), apartments (requiring lengthy leases, income requirements and contracts), houses and hotels. Most all these options are either full of red tape, expensive, or demoralizing/worrying. What it doesnt address is that all these options contrary to hype is for those settled or made of money. You cant really save much with these options to make a head start. For most, you will be just living by paycheck. People need to pay off loans, save for car or repair, child support etc. There is a niche in between all this including different lifestyle as people are very mobile and things change quickly in this society and economy.

It would be run to be as self-sustaining as possible meaning if not working outside of facility, will be given jobs for maintenance of the facility from administrative to yardwork or whatever skills or ability that can be contributed.

Also i would have built in an organic hydroponic garden, business center and library with the business center and library open 24 hours for residents.

I would utilize the immense amount of donations that otherwise would be thrown away, go to waste and rot at landfills to benefit underpriviledged.

Any charities would be visible and advertised for all to see and know so its accessible, not obscure. Literally a building on the street with a signpost.

The caveat is there is no visitors allowed except outside and it will not be co-ed. However, these type facilities still may be perfect for some at a substantially lower price and all inclusive so it could be built to house not only a homeless program but also just as an alternate type living space thats very affordable, efficient and fuss-free. No contracts or deposit. Pay and stay.

The savings are in one climate controlled environment, communal kitchen and bath. The upgrade would be a private bath and kitchenette.

I mean literally 250-400 max and still turn a sizable profit (non-homeless facility) with still the facilities nice. I know it can be done but it requires a different mindset/outlook that is not based soley on maximum profit margin based on unnecessarily decadent frivolous expenditure for that aim or equally cheapest 'slumlord' output for maximum profit either.

Last edited: May 18, 2016
19. ### birchValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,077
This 'one size fits all' mentality or broadbrush is just not true, especially today. There are so many people who dont even cook or not at a certain stage in their life as in they dont need a full size fridge, range with oven, multiple cabinets or closet space, bathtub, separate bedroom and living/dining combo. The money is just wasted with little utilization of these.

So many people are so busy or at a time in their life when they are busting their ass or buckling down for a goal etc that all they do is sleep and shower and utilize the microwave. I remember a time when i had a full sized apartment where i was hardly there and when i slept it was on the couch falling asleep watching tv, showered and never took a bath even with tub, had a balcony i never really sat out on etc. Did i even eat at the dining table? Not that often as it was usually on the couch watching tv, the same place often fell asleep.
Like i said, there are niches within the blindspots. You have to consider your stage or place in life at the moment and what your needs are at the moment. Often you will be paying for things that will be frivolous at some point but not at another point in time with larger household, income and/or leisure time etc.

It was so common sense and eureka when i saw the little private cubicles with the bed, tv/internet/cable, minifridge and some storage space/desk. Also, 24 hour internet rooms with cafe and shower and even relaxing spas with restaurant, business center and sleeping quarters etc.

This is what is not addressed here and there is a market for it as people are in a wide variety of income brackets, lifestyles and situations, temporary or not.

The whole point being that if you want or need to downsize, those facilities should be available just as one can always go larger. Some of the glimmer in that wisdom can be seen with the tiny house revolution but the imbalance was always in favor of going larger whether you needed it, afford it and punishing financially for it.

Even if the space is just the size of a walk-in closet with enough space to sleep and shower for 200 usd but actually decent. Think of the genius in that at certain stages or times in life to save money or efficiency etc and not out in a rural area but central to what you need to take care of. Think of that as a single person or recently divorced or financially strapped, recently laid off, saving for a large purchase etc etc.

Last edited: May 18, 2016
20. ### cluelusshusbund+ Public Dilemma +Valued Senior Member

Messages:
7,619
If i had a 100 million... i tear down my curent house an built a single level house in its place (that woud blow 500 thousand right thar) an for the rest of my life id send necesary items to people in need... an leave what ever is left to the ACLU.!!!

21. ### RetributionBannedBanned

Messages:
200
I'd keep the lot. If I then felt like buying something for someone, I could.
Give it away, my arse. I could do whatever I wanted.

My lifestyle wouldn't change much, though. I sit at home most of the time I'm not at work anyway. Although I might get out a little bit more, if I didn't have to send all my daylight hours at work.
A housekeeper.
And a cook! Awesome.

Oh, yeah... I'd also have to buy a larger house, somewhere out in the bush maybe (as long as it had decent internet reception). Have to have a reason to get a gardener as well. And a pool girl.

...I might die a bit younger when I got fat on all that fine food.

I'd have to draw up a will giving it all to the cook, the gardener, the pool girl, the housekeeper and the sugar baby... so that my relatives could fight year's worth of court battles to try to claim it all back.

22. ### river

Messages:
16,231
100 million dollars ; I have charities I would give to ; explore the World as much as I could ; and build a 2000sq.ft. modernist home. And explore my ideas and others .

23. ### BaldeeeValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,998
What ideas could you explore with \$100m that you couldn't explore with just a PC, time and an audience willing to listen?