I guess they are waiting for a Lotto kidnapping. Even then they will probably not pass a common sense law. As long as the Zombie Apocalypse that is the GOP are in office there can never be common sense. All the GOP wishes for is failure of government. That is the way to implement their idiotic Libertarian notions that cannot and have proven will not work.
5
Some advice for Lottery winners (and other users of email):
1.) Avoid using social media, such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter; they are comparable to public broadcasting. LinkedIn is particularly notorious for stealing your address book and sending invitations to join to all of your contacts. There is no privacy in using any of them!
2.) If you have an Outlook/Hotmail email account, drop it in favor of G-Mail, which is excellent at blocking spam. When I opened my Hotmail account over a decade ago, they had an option to automatically delete all spam; that no longer exists, so when I open my account each morning I must separate the rat turds from the coffee beans. Now, I get messages from banks I never did business with, announcements of winning contests I never entered and solicitations for prostitution. Microsoft, take note that these unchecked invasions of privacy hurt your marketability!
Back in the era of "snail mail," one could simply throw it in the circular file, or in the instance of one Alaska man who got on every junk mail list possible, rather than having to chop firewood for heat, he let the U.S. Postal Service deliver the fuel for his wood burning stove to him!
1.) Avoid using social media, such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter; they are comparable to public broadcasting. LinkedIn is particularly notorious for stealing your address book and sending invitations to join to all of your contacts. There is no privacy in using any of them!
2.) If you have an Outlook/Hotmail email account, drop it in favor of G-Mail, which is excellent at blocking spam. When I opened my Hotmail account over a decade ago, they had an option to automatically delete all spam; that no longer exists, so when I open my account each morning I must separate the rat turds from the coffee beans. Now, I get messages from banks I never did business with, announcements of winning contests I never entered and solicitations for prostitution. Microsoft, take note that these unchecked invasions of privacy hurt your marketability!
Back in the era of "snail mail," one could simply throw it in the circular file, or in the instance of one Alaska man who got on every junk mail list possible, rather than having to chop firewood for heat, he let the U.S. Postal Service deliver the fuel for his wood burning stove to him!
7
I would certainly want to remain anon. if I won and think it should be so.
The argument that it would kill interest in the system is inane.
If it does, THAT'S GOOD...The gov't should not be in the biz of promoting these lotteries.
Yes, keep them legal but don't promote them, discourage them, just like with cigarettes...
Cigs. and lotteries are drugs or forms of drugs and have ruined many lives.
The argument that it would kill interest in the system is inane.
If it does, THAT'S GOOD...The gov't should not be in the biz of promoting these lotteries.
Yes, keep them legal but don't promote them, discourage them, just like with cigarettes...
Cigs. and lotteries are drugs or forms of drugs and have ruined many lives.
6
i suppose the only 'out' would be to buy your own island and make certain it is not on any map. other than that, you're screwed and not just by the IRS & state taxing bodies...
1
The other way out is not to play mega lotteries..the great majority of people who have won it, it has ruined their lives as documented by many TV shows.
Don't get me wrong...the ordinary guy can use a mil or two with smaller lotteries. but above that, you are asking for trouble..
There are only a very few people, like the Gates, Buffets etc who truly know how to handle this type of money and not let it ruin their lives.
Everybody else proves the old saying...there is a sucker born every minute.
Don't get me wrong...the ordinary guy can use a mil or two with smaller lotteries. but above that, you are asking for trouble..
There are only a very few people, like the Gates, Buffets etc who truly know how to handle this type of money and not let it ruin their lives.
Everybody else proves the old saying...there is a sucker born every minute.
5
At least,when they publicize the winners and how much they end up with,after the dishonest way they advertise the size of the winnings,it may discourage people from playing.Saying you win a certain amount,when it's given over many years and in future devalued currency isn't honest.When someone supposedly wins,for example,$200 million and ends up getting $50 million,after taxes,it shows how dishonest the game is.
6
Exactly my thoughts too. At least in the UK, when Camelot says the jackpot is $250m, the winner/s actually receive/s the full amount immediately - totally tax free, and in one payment.
8
Remember back before lotteries were legal?
Did the "mob" publish the names of the winners of their "numbers" rackets?
Did lack of publication hinder participation?
Did the "mob" publish the names of the winners of their "numbers" rackets?
Did lack of publication hinder participation?
10
Exactly, evidenced proved it did not and if you read my post...even if it did...THAT IS GOOD...the govt should not be in the biz or promoting gambling.
The argument the pro name showing people give is wrong on both counts..
The argument the pro name showing people give is wrong on both counts..
4
If lottery winners are made public then the states income taxes that publicly-traded corporations pay (or don't pay) should be made public.
11
When you win the lottery "everyone thinks you're going to share" is the Obama mentality. It does to Obama's sharing the wealth to even those who don't, or won't, work for a living. His income equality plan only works as long as the government can take your money away from you.
We have to many people, hanks to Obama, who feel it's their right to get money from people who have it.The problem with the lottery is the people who want to scam the winners. What should be done, is the names withheld for 3 months and winners given legal counsel on the scams they may be confronted with, so they can protect their winnings from scammers. Either this or non discloser of the winners names (unless they want to release their names). That is the least the lottery people can do.
We have to many people, hanks to Obama, who feel it's their right to get money from people who have it.The problem with the lottery is the people who want to scam the winners. What should be done, is the names withheld for 3 months and winners given legal counsel on the scams they may be confronted with, so they can protect their winnings from scammers. Either this or non discloser of the winners names (unless they want to release their names). That is the least the lottery people can do.
1
There has already been kidnappings and at least one murder of lottery winners, that alone should be enough to make it a privacy issue.
12
This is MRS. I don't have a real problem with disclosing the name of a lottery winner. I do have a problem with publishing the person's address. Everyone knows that where there's a lottery winner, there's a relative with a hand out to beg for some of the winnings; there are also scam artists and charities wanting a piece of the action, too. Most people dream big and spend big, depleting themselves because they don't know how to say no to those who think they're entitled to something they didn't win. I do, however, believe that notification to the IRS should be had since taxes have to be paid on the winnings; if the recipient owes back child support, take the arrearage and bring that account current; if the recipient is on welfare, pay back the agency and invest the money so that there will be an income. Of course, all that assumes that there is common sense about winning such a large jackpot. Some people can win a multi-million dollar jackpot and be broke in 5 years.
5
Surely you recall that the infamous Criminal Whitey Bulger helped "share" in the lottery winnings of one unsuspecting, unlucky Massachusetts lottery winner. I say keep the winners public, so at least we KNOW when criminals are profitting/strongarming their way into the winnings.
4
Georgia's demand that you "contribute" back 25% of your winnings for anonymity is disgusting. Thanks to clever accounting winners do not receive the full amount advertised when they take a lump sum settlement but over a third of what's left is taken in taxes. I can see the Feds taking a share but the state taking taxes should be ashamed of itself.
12
You (and others here) seem to be under the illusion that the "million dollar jackpot" is sitting in its entirety in a bank vault. It is not. Your million dollars is the result, over time, of an investment which you are drawing on the interest. The lump sum is the "seed money". There is no "clever accounting", just how large jackpots are paid. It is all in the rules, only most people never bother to read them. How much is taken in taxes is specified in the law regarding taxes and lump sums. Any over taxing can be reclaimed just like always when you file your tax return.
5
Good idea if it is to be from the general population. All taxes and such should be only be allowed to seen by officials.
2
The lottery officials want to publicize lottery winners to further their own interests, not those of the winners. If I ever did win, I would certainly want anonymity, but in my state, evidently I couldn't get it. I'd want to use the money in my own way, on my own terms, without having every Tom, Dick, and Harry pestering me or invading my privacy. The states really should consider the well-being of the winners more than the "needs" of the lottery officials. Since the Federal treasury stands to get so much from the winner, perhaps there should just be a federal law protecting their privacy, and just bypass the states' ideas on the subject.
8
Openness and transparency can be assured in many ways, not just by releasing the name of the winner, which, in many cases, assures nothing about openness and transparency, particularly in highly populated areas.
3
People who win big lotteries become rich people. How do rich people remain anonymous? Or protect their millions? Must there be a social or legislative reaction to every wrinkle in life? If you win the lottery, say thank you and leave the stage.
3
no..anthony..if you win a mega lottery (not a small one)...dont't say thank you because as history has shown it has ruined the great majority of people that won it...be ready to say why was I cursed to win this?
3
This is where a global rather than a parochial perspective may be helpful. Stephen Bradley kidnapped and murdered eight-year-old Graham Thorne in July 1960 after Graham's father, Bazil, had won in the NSW State Lottery.
At the time, all lottery winners' names were published. After the youngster's murder, the laws were changed in Australia so that all lottery winners had the option of staying anonymous.
Gambling is a foolish enough habit to begin with. Gambling with your children's lives in order to win the lottery and have your name published takes foolhardiness to a whole new level.
At the time, all lottery winners' names were published. After the youngster's murder, the laws were changed in Australia so that all lottery winners had the option of staying anonymous.
Gambling is a foolish enough habit to begin with. Gambling with your children's lives in order to win the lottery and have your name published takes foolhardiness to a whole new level.
7
How come no one seems to be concerned about becoming a target for kidnaping? Lucky you Americans that seem not to be suffering from this devastating type of crime.
5
Yes..it is true...kidnapping for lottery winner here is rather uncommon unlike Mexico but nevertheless winning the big lottery here can ruin your life in so many other ways...alcoholism, bankruptcy, loss of spouse, loss of kids, suicide, murder..loss of family and friends...you name it, it has happened..
5
In the UK, our untaxed lottery wins are paid out in full immediately, with anonymity if requested. The largest win to date was almost $260m and four of our ten biggest winners have remained anonymous. This lack of public proof doesn't appear to deter punters as the annual sales figure continues to rise, and last year's sales exceeded $11bn, allowing $80m per week to go to charitable projects. During the last ten years, there have been more than 3,700 multi-millionaire winners (one out of every 10,000 adults), plus there are now an additional four guaranteed million pound ($1.6m) prizes awarded each week for a "raffle ticket" number issued with the chosen numbers. In conclusion, rather than the availability of anonymity reducing sales, I believe it encourages those who wouldn't want any publicity if they won.
16
There have been many studies that show most purchasers of lottery tickets are low-income or lower middle-income people who cannot afford to waste their money on such a sucker's bet.
If that is true, then most of the revenue created by state lotteries is being generated by a very regressive tax. If our politicians at the local, state and federal level were sincere about caring about the poor, they would ban lotteries entirely.
If that is true, then most of the revenue created by state lotteries is being generated by a very regressive tax. If our politicians at the local, state and federal level were sincere about caring about the poor, they would ban lotteries entirely.
2
not ban them David...that never works , would only bring in the mob...but condemn them and discourage them...like we do with cigs...
2
There is no problem by sharing the identity with other government agencies for the purposes of taxation and other purposes, such as alimony. However, there is no necessity to publicize it. It is legal and it has nothing to do with other people. On the other hand, such publicity could ruin a person's life - or even the person's family. At best it is a nuisance when "relatives" and "friends" suddenly coming out of the woodwork; worse, the person and his family could be subject to immanent danger
16
In my fantasies of winning the lottery I never thought with full awareness about this part of it, the part about becoming a target. There used to be a lot more photos on the website of the NY Lottery, including images of nervous winners in dark glasses, obviously hiding within the glare. Such images are gone now, replaced by happy faces and their upbeat stories, so you don't get to see the majority of winners who feel like they're being paraded. Yes, there has to be another way so lucky winners can truly enjoy having bested those absurdly improbable odds.
4
I'm so glad I live in Maryland. If I was ever lucky enough to win the lottery I would not have to go public.
8
Read my other posts Carole...you would not be lucky whether you remain anon. or not...you would most likely be cursed as history as shown it has happened to so many big lottery winners.
Only a very, very small number of people know how to handle the windfall..
Only a very, very small number of people know how to handle the windfall..
2
It's interesting that politicians receiving contributions from donors passed laws to keep the identities secret while lottery winners buying tickets and helping education and receiving prizes from lotteries must have their identity splashed all over the media, leaving them subject to a wide variety of scams and demands for money.
26
" I been playing lottery like crazy over 30 years. But if i get lucky someday please don't use my name as propaganda.
5
Plenty of people play the lottery in Kansas where winners remain anonymous.
9
Granted, I've not been in such shoes, but i tend to think that if I were truly bothered greatly by those calling me up and trying to get their hands on my multi-million dollar lottery winnings, I'd think about changing my name or simply sitting in Italy for a year or two. (I tend to not answer the phone anyway.)
Life should be so hard. Please.
Life should be so hard. Please.
8
Lotteries are not only a form of regressive taxation, they continue to add to the wealth disparity between the top 1% and everyone else. The last thing this country needs is more people entering the "1% club" and giving this group even more power over the middle class. Let's reduce the size of these insane jackpots so that the wealth can at least be spread across a few more people.
4
"But lottery executives insist that disclosure, not just clever marketing or visions of tropical getaways, is the foundation of the public’s interest and confidence in the games they offer."
And they are totally and completely wrong. What they won't admit is that they want to use the winners names for promotional purposes.
I have been playing the Florida lottery for 20 years and I will continue to do so, as will countless friends and relatives of mine. None of them, myself included, could care less about who won.
As a matter of fact, we all play without the slightest idea of who won. That fact is NOT an incentive to play.
And they are totally and completely wrong. What they won't admit is that they want to use the winners names for promotional purposes.
I have been playing the Florida lottery for 20 years and I will continue to do so, as will countless friends and relatives of mine. None of them, myself included, could care less about who won.
As a matter of fact, we all play without the slightest idea of who won. That fact is NOT an incentive to play.
17
Who in their right mind would believe that winners want their names publicly posted when that only leads to harassment from scammers. It is almost like the Lottery commissions want their pound of flesh for a person daring to buy a ticket. What the Lottery Commission really meant to say was "we want to use you for free advertising regardless of the consequences to your life after that". Of course there should be a privacy law.
13
Lotteries are for people with bad math skills.
5
and all around general suckers who are born every minute...( I mean big lotteries not small ones)...
1
If you win and are outed, be incredibly crude and offensive when dealing with everyone who wasn't a friend before you won.
13
The other big issue here is that the amount of a jackpot is not actually the amount paid out if one opts to get it "all". How is that legal? Isn’t it bad enough they can't pay it all at once? Seems like offering some prize you cannot provide at the time of the drawing should be illegal too.
Gambler's gamble.
They don’t force the people who win in Vegas to advertise their names and people still come. The gamblers seem to have faith there without knowing the names of who wins. In fact it is a point of pride and an ad campaign for the city to attract new visitors.
The idea that not advertising the name of a winner in a vice game run by the government will cause gamblers to lose faith in it is ridiculous.
The fact is big winners for the most part lose those winnings in a few years out of ignorance. Making them more easily accessible to those who prey on ignorance (I wonder which of these pols profits by them) is criminal.
I think it may actually be unconstitutional to force people to reveal their identity when they win a lottery or any game of chance.
Gambler's gamble.
They don’t force the people who win in Vegas to advertise their names and people still come. The gamblers seem to have faith there without knowing the names of who wins. In fact it is a point of pride and an ad campaign for the city to attract new visitors.
The idea that not advertising the name of a winner in a vice game run by the government will cause gamblers to lose faith in it is ridiculous.
The fact is big winners for the most part lose those winnings in a few years out of ignorance. Making them more easily accessible to those who prey on ignorance (I wonder which of these pols profits by them) is criminal.
I think it may actually be unconstitutional to force people to reveal their identity when they win a lottery or any game of chance.
14
If you opt to "get it all" you wait for the annuity payments, just like it says in the rules (which not many bother to read). If you want "all" of your winnings now, you get the lump sum payout, the lesser amount which would be deposited for you to draw on to get it "all" over time.
1
These winners should absolutely be allowed their privacy, as otherwise they are prime targets for scam artists, friends, family, churches, non-profits, neighbors who suddenly want to befriend you, etc....coming out of the woodwork.
For the lottery officials to say "..anonymity would threaten the appeal of the games." is laughable. It's not that privacy would 'threaten the games but rather that the publishing of their names and photos with a big fat fake check is free P.R. for the lottery....just another way for them to try and convince the little guy that 'you too can be rich just like this other little guy, by forking over the last few dollars of your paycheck/social security check/welfare check, in a foolhardy attempt to become 'rich'.
For the lottery officials to say "..anonymity would threaten the appeal of the games." is laughable. It's not that privacy would 'threaten the games but rather that the publishing of their names and photos with a big fat fake check is free P.R. for the lottery....just another way for them to try and convince the little guy that 'you too can be rich just like this other little guy, by forking over the last few dollars of your paycheck/social security check/welfare check, in a foolhardy attempt to become 'rich'.
15
In some TV news interviews dealing with very controversial issues, the room is back lit, but the interviewed person's face is in the dark, and the sound of his/her voice may be altered.
It seems to me that winners of big lottery prizes could be briefly interviewed in this manner, and still remain anonymous. For additional proof that the interview is not faked, the IRS could certify the identity of the anonymous winner.
If the winner lives in a large city, this could be named, but smaller town areas could just be referred to by county.
It seems to me that winners of big lottery prizes could be briefly interviewed in this manner, and still remain anonymous. For additional proof that the interview is not faked, the IRS could certify the identity of the anonymous winner.
If the winner lives in a large city, this could be named, but smaller town areas could just be referred to by county.
7
Glad my state allows privacy!
10
To publicize a winning ticket, just say "The winner bought the ticket at the Circle K Convenience Store at 1550 Fifth Avenue." That will suffice.
23
Lotteries are just a form of regressive taxation anyway.
1
Not really, because people can choose not to play. We always called the lottery a tax on the math challenged.
4
I spend 2 bucks a week on the lottery, money I'd have probably blown in some other way. Occasionally I win 4 or 7 dollars. I get to write off what I spend minus winnings on my income taxes. It's not a retirement plan by any logic but the thought that you could win is fun in itself when you think of all the things you'd do with the money.
2
And alcoholics can choose not to drink, et cetra, et cetra
1
If you win big you get a lawyer, then sell the ticket, with a privacy guarantee. Sell it for 90 cents on the dollar value of the cash prize or even less. If you don't your life will be ruined. Only you, your lawyer, the IRS, and the purchaser of your ticket should know about it.
1
That wouldn't work. Let's say there's a $50 million Powerball prize. No individual could take out a $45 million loan, and for a trust to do it, it would take more than six months (typical expiration date of winning tickets). And if you did, then what? After you pay taxes--typically 33%, so $16.5 million in this case--you're left with $33.5 million to pay off a $45 million loan.
6
I say take the idea in the Georgia Senate bill (mentioned in the article) and expand it, so that for example a lottery winner may remain anonymous if he/she devotes at least half the winnings to charity (there are several ways that could be structured to ensure that legitimate charities are the recipients).
As for the alleged need to publicize lottery winner's names to ensure others keep playing, has anyone seen a lower participation rate in those states which do allow anonymity? As several commenters have said, a description of the person ("a schoolteacher in Peoria") should suffice.
As for the alleged need to publicize lottery winner's names to ensure others keep playing, has anyone seen a lower participation rate in those states which do allow anonymity? As several commenters have said, a description of the person ("a schoolteacher in Peoria") should suffice.
"You only get to protect your anonymity if you hand us back 25 percent" is just one step removed from extortion.
11
You actually think that the state should be allowed to confiscate your winnings by telling you what you should do with it?
4
"This year in Georgia, a State Senate bill proposed allowing winners to remain anonymous, but only if they agreed to donate 25 percent of their winnings back to the lottery to finance college scholarships."
Seems like Georgia State Senate is always open to some kind of gratuity. No doubt there would be fees involved for this generous offer.
Seems like Georgia State Senate is always open to some kind of gratuity. No doubt there would be fees involved for this generous offer.
25
In the Federal and most state criminal codes they would call that extortion!
5
I suggest you can have a group (let's say 5) of randomly selected private citizens who agree to be present and bear witness to the authenticity of the winner, but who are under contractual obligation not to reveal the identity. That would assure the legitimacy of the lottery process and protect the winner.
7
Well, we have that "laboratory of the states" here in those states that allow anonymity. Have Delaware and similar states had problems, either with a lack of faith in the lotteries, or a decrease in interest in them?
Count me in as one who would like to see anonymity. The last sentence of the article is key, but it's incomplete. Let me fix it:
"Somebody gets lucky and everybody thinks you’re going to share *and they know just how you should share and with whom you should share and how much.”
Winners need protection from, especially, their own relatives.
Count me in as one who would like to see anonymity. The last sentence of the article is key, but it's incomplete. Let me fix it:
"Somebody gets lucky and everybody thinks you’re going to share *and they know just how you should share and with whom you should share and how much.”
Winners need protection from, especially, their own relatives.
28
How about just capping the prizes at $2 million, tax free, then you wouldn't be "give it away" rich. A nice house, a nice car, and retirement money. There, all spent, now everyone can put their hands back in their own pockets.
5
Not all of them. We've had two female winners here in North Carolina. Both were working Black single mothers. Both kept their winning a secret by not claiming the winnings for months. They both lined up investment counselors and lawyers to set up a system that would allow them to help family members and especially their own children and shield them from the crooks and liars.
2
That would not attract the large crowds the states need. I have heard on news interviews many people saying that they don't bother to play until the jackpot reaches several million.
Really now. Are they underage delinquents? Have they been accused of a crime? No, They have chosen ot participate in a public event. The anonymity they seek is so they will not be bothered. Sorry but no. If they wish to remain in the shadows I suggest some casino somewhere.
5
State-sponsored gambling is indefensible on social, economic and, yes, moral grounds. The measure that most needs considering is the one to repeal the lottery altogether.
8
NYS Lottery people think the money belongs to the state It is not the states money It belongs to all the players who participate. Why not give the players the option? Simply allow anyone who buys a ticket to check a box if he wishes to be anonymous. The present policy, sooner or later, will cause harm to someone
14
It does belong to the state. You buy something from them, the money is no longer yours. You can't have the product (chance of winning) and the money, too. Just like taxes. Once you pay them, the money is no longer yours, but the state's. You exercise your say in how it is spent at the ballot box.
Lotteries are the heftiest tax there is. The programs the lotteries fund will lose their previous funding; so, the good old apple pie programs of education and seniors are still where they were (before lotteries). Net funding just goes to the politicians pet projects.
Requiring winners to claim the prize in person is intended to encourage more people to engage in the Ponzi scheme. Be sure to notice that many more tickets are sold in the poor neighborhoods than the up-scale. Is there any question why?
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
Requiring winners to claim the prize in person is intended to encourage more people to engage in the Ponzi scheme. Be sure to notice that many more tickets are sold in the poor neighborhoods than the up-scale. Is there any question why?
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
5
The poor are more likely to not see another way that they are ever going to afford a nice home or car. The middle class and the wealthy can already either afford those things, or they can clearly see the path before them that will allow them to do so in the future. The poor tend to lack good role models.
4
There should be some level of anonymity but it should not be iron clad. There must be some check and balance to insure that there is no fraud in the system. Secretly giving out tens of millions of dollars secretly is just begging for a scandal. If the public wants to know they should be able to find out, but the winners names needn't be plastered on every newspaper and TV news outlet.
12
@ Bill: I do not understand your comment - this article is about protecting the privacy of winners from the unwanted, unwarranted and potentially dangerous eyes of the general public. There is no reasonable need for anyone to know information of winners; the jurisdiction in charge of managing the lottery is responsible for securing the winner's info, and in some cases, immediately deducting tax dollars; and the winner is 100% responsible in acknowledging this income on their tax return and paying the required tax.
Now, one might re-consider your position if you were to agree to publicly post your salary, and any bonuses or raises you receive...just in case we want to just "congratulate" you and share in your good fortune.
Now, one might re-consider your position if you were to agree to publicly post your salary, and any bonuses or raises you receive...just in case we want to just "congratulate" you and share in your good fortune.
12
The hollow reasoning that publicizing the winner and parading him in front of cameras and all the hoopla is nothing more than a media circus.
The choosing of some of the numbers with a fellow dressed up in a tux and pulling some numbered ping-pong balls from a random stream of them bouncing around is as over the top as it gets.
The argument that publicizing the winners gives assurance that the lottery isn't being faked and could be handed out as a political reward has a very easy solution. There could be an independent review commission, charged under sworn oath, to review and state that the win was fair. Sort of like our system of having NSA warrants heard by a judge sworn to secrecy yet bound by law to follow the law.
The choosing of some of the numbers with a fellow dressed up in a tux and pulling some numbered ping-pong balls from a random stream of them bouncing around is as over the top as it gets.
The argument that publicizing the winners gives assurance that the lottery isn't being faked and could be handed out as a political reward has a very easy solution. There could be an independent review commission, charged under sworn oath, to review and state that the win was fair. Sort of like our system of having NSA warrants heard by a judge sworn to secrecy yet bound by law to follow the law.
8
Reminds me of a cartoon from "The New Yorker":
Two bums in tatters standing outside on the street. Sign in drugstore behind them: Lotto: $100,000,000.
One bum to the other: "Winning the lottery is an essential part of my retirement planning."
Two bums in tatters standing outside on the street. Sign in drugstore behind them: Lotto: $100,000,000.
One bum to the other: "Winning the lottery is an essential part of my retirement planning."
8
lottery players are not bums...but I get the cartoon...just average suckers who live in dream land...they dont realize if they lose the big one they are better off than winning it..
2
If you don't want to be identified then don't play the lottery. Identification is the only way the public knows that the game is honest.
1
Oh, please.
19
total nonsense, give the winners privacy, from the stories that are out there people have a difficult time after winning, most people think that kind of money is a lot of money, it can be but you could spend it in a day.
the most usual outcome is that someone does NOT win every week and the jackpot grows..is there some sneaking suspicion that someone DID in fact win and a conspiracy did not reveal the name so the jackpot could be even bigger and sell even more tickets?
Lets use the lottery states money to put some anti-paranoia drugs in the water! But wait, how do we know they are not doing that already...
the most usual outcome is that someone does NOT win every week and the jackpot grows..is there some sneaking suspicion that someone DID in fact win and a conspiracy did not reveal the name so the jackpot could be even bigger and sell even more tickets?
Lets use the lottery states money to put some anti-paranoia drugs in the water! But wait, how do we know they are not doing that already...
7
There are many ways that someone could keep his privacy and still allow the public to know something about who won (a single mother school teacher?).
While I would LOVE to win a big lottery (I buy about $20 worth of tickets each year, only for the BIG ones), I am very well aware that my mailbox would immediately be full of offers for everything. I can deal with that - just quit having home delivery and hire someone to go through the mail), but I do worry about how it might affect my grandchildren. Would they become targets for kidnapping? I suppose I'd have to upgrade my alarm system to something rivaling Ft Knox or I'd be on every felon's hit list for robbery.
Of course, statistically, I need not worry about ANY of this happening as I have little chance of winning and will figure out how to deal with it if I do.
While I would LOVE to win a big lottery (I buy about $20 worth of tickets each year, only for the BIG ones), I am very well aware that my mailbox would immediately be full of offers for everything. I can deal with that - just quit having home delivery and hire someone to go through the mail), but I do worry about how it might affect my grandchildren. Would they become targets for kidnapping? I suppose I'd have to upgrade my alarm system to something rivaling Ft Knox or I'd be on every felon's hit list for robbery.
Of course, statistically, I need not worry about ANY of this happening as I have little chance of winning and will figure out how to deal with it if I do.
8
Yes, kidnapping, blackmail, and extortion are real concerns and why privacy is important. Sell the ticket anonymously at a discount.
4
If I won the lottery I certainly would NOT want the children to know, let alone every grifter in the state... The Georgia lottery officials once said that the press conference with the big fake check was a part of the whole winning experience... not my style at all.
18
I rarely play the lottery and when I do, it is only when the jackpot hits a very large number. While I have no expectation of winning, it is a fantasy entertainment for a buck or two. I have thought, however, what would I do if indeed I did win and my name would forever be on the internet as a lottery winner? That scares me and would endanger my life and my family's.
I concluded that I would have to legally have my name changed before I ever claimed the prize. I do hope all states would give the anonymity option to all winners so this would not be necessary and security first and foremost should be the consideration.
I concluded that I would have to legally have my name changed before I ever claimed the prize. I do hope all states would give the anonymity option to all winners so this would not be necessary and security first and foremost should be the consideration.
17
If you play the lottery, you do so with the expectation that you will win. If you win, then you should have the expectation that your name will be publicized. I agree with the lottery executives that not revaeling the names could harm the revenue stream since people won't know if the lottery is rigged or not. Don't want your name publicized? Don't play the lottery, plain and simple! It's a choice you make ... no one is forcing you to do it. Take some personal responsibility for the predicament you put yourself in if you want to keep your life private!
6
Yes! Please change asap. When I win.....which I believe is imminent.......I do not want to hear from shirttail relatives......or anyone else for that matter.....I will be on a barrier island beach with a great white burgundy in hand.....don't call me......I will call you........I mean, it's possible I will call you....but, yes, unlikely.......
16
For years, the state of california has publicly published the salaries of it's employees once a year 'in the name of transparency'. As a state employee, i have felt violated and worried about the possibilities of identity theft, etc. ever since. Have i changed my behaviors because of this- you bet! If there was a way to maintain my privacy, would i opt for it? Of course! Do i play the lottery? Never - i already have enough to worry about.
6
It is purely schadenfreude. It is typical of people to resent someone luckier than they are, and when things go badly, as they so often do for lottery winners often as a result of the publicity, resentful people get joy from seeing the misery of the winners.
It is a preposterous notion that folks buy more lottery tickets after "seeing someone win". If lottery officials were interested in creating more net revenue they would spend less of the gross revenue on cheesy marketing. A machine at a retail outlet flashing $200,000,000 is adequate to get my attention. Warehouse-sized billboards polluting the landscape and gaudy signs on buses are not required.
It is a preposterous notion that folks buy more lottery tickets after "seeing someone win". If lottery officials were interested in creating more net revenue they would spend less of the gross revenue on cheesy marketing. A machine at a retail outlet flashing $200,000,000 is adequate to get my attention. Warehouse-sized billboards polluting the landscape and gaudy signs on buses are not required.
19
The hubris of the grifters who run these scams is mind-boggling. For example, Powerball spends around 50% of its take on actual prizes. The worst suckers' game in casinos, slot machines, typically pays at least 90%, sometimes even closer to 95%. Someone else can write how it's often the case that state lottery takes "dedicated" to some budgetary area, like education, effectively often just cover the regular appropriation before lotteries. The "free money" from lotteries has been a most dangerous and addictive drug for state politicians, enabling mendacity such as is described here, even further eroding any moral inhibitions they may have had at some earlier point. Would it REALLY be very qualitatively different if the various state perpetrators next got into, say, the prostitution business?
14
"The house always wins!" And then some, when "the house" is a state government.
9
I thought I saw a recent winner on Good Morning America. She was a young single mom, with 2 or 3 kids. I doubt that the Lottery commission put her up to being on TV. As I was watching, I was thinking the same thing..."what is she doing on television, publicizing that she won the big one?". I also agree that if you do not want to be the "face" of a lottery win, then do not buy a ticket. Me..I will take my chances!
6
The 86 year old Detroit man last week was murdered and robbed when his identity became known... Everyone's right should be to keep one's identity quiet and safre.
17
Of course publicizing the names of winner is a marketing ploy. Anyone else who participates in marketing does so voluntarily and is compensated for it. How about making the lottery authorities pay a rate set by the winner, just as is done for any other advertising?
Or perhaps the rate of lottery participation can be compared between states permitting anonymity and those requiring identification to see if, indeed, publicizing winners' names affects purchase?
Or perhaps the rate of lottery participation can be compared between states permitting anonymity and those requiring identification to see if, indeed, publicizing winners' names affects purchase?
23
As a former winner (apron $300k after tax in 1989), the New York State Lottery contrary to my request, publicized my win in the local newspaper. The principal industry in my very small town of Napanoch is a significant maximum security prison. As a result of the newspaper article I received countless solicitations and most significantly, a letter from a prisoner. The letter was addressed to my name and town (yes the post office delivered it without an exact address). He was warning me that "were a lot of bad people in the world" who could want to come after me and that I should have known better and kept my name out of the paper. Good advice from a felon! I had tried, but publicity meant a lot more to lottery officials, than a winner's safety. After all the unwanted attention, I was concerned for my safety and my lottery bliss was short-lived.
It's time for a little restraint from publicity hungry lottery officials 'who throw winners to the wolves' for free publicity, particularly in New York. The New York State Lottery's jackpot winner policy of no publicity, no payment, sounds a little like blackmail.
A good form of complete anonymity as offered by the Maryland State Lottery, which publishes a winner's story without revealing names, would satisfy the public curiosity. There are plenty of options for transparency that would not sacrifice the joy of winning.
It's time for a little restraint from publicity hungry lottery officials 'who throw winners to the wolves' for free publicity, particularly in New York. The New York State Lottery's jackpot winner policy of no publicity, no payment, sounds a little like blackmail.
A good form of complete anonymity as offered by the Maryland State Lottery, which publishes a winner's story without revealing names, would satisfy the public curiosity. There are plenty of options for transparency that would not sacrifice the joy of winning.
157
I like the Maryland solution. It should be entirely up to the winner to decide if they want their name published. What I'm still shaking my head at is the apparent Georgia Senate Bill that would essentially enable one to "buy" anonymity by forking over 25% of their winnings to the lottery commission. Now there is a state senator who ought to get run out of office just as fast as humanly possible. What a disgrace.
16
And now that a judge has won, suddenly the issue has credibility.
11
Only matters if you play the lottery.
6
I don't play the lottery, I'm saving my luck for not getting cancer, although these days the odds seem about the same.
2
So these states feel they must disclose the names of lottery jackpot winners - in the pursuit of transparency, but what about disclosing the names of large campaign donors?
221
Agreed. I find the argument about transparency to be extremely lame.
21
Art Kraus: If you disclose the names of people or corporations who give millions of dollars to politicians, it may embarrass those politicians. Then the politicians who deny the reality of Global Warming or Climate Change may be suspected of holding those positions due to receiving money from, say, Big Oil. Would you want Senators, Governors and other politicians to be embarrassed like that?
I know I would.
I know I would.
37
Instead of rethinking lottery-winning disclosure, we should instead be removing the state from the lottery altogether. The state should not be in the business of running a gambling institution. But in the absence of removing the lottery, I guess protecting the privacy of the winners is somewhat warranted and will help to protect them from the parasites that come out of the woodwork.
33
Let's tackle this one: "How do I know it [the winner] wasn’t the guy who donated a lot of money to someone’s campaign?” Answer: You won't, under any circumstances, because you can now hide your very big political "gifts" very neatly and very legally. So, you may omit that as a reason for announcing folks' names. For all we know, they HAVE been winning the lotteries and winning them because of their gifts to the politicians!
53
"A Detroit lottery winner, who was missing since December, was found stabbed to death. "
"A woman accused of swindling and killing a Florida lottery winner "
"Chicagoan Urooj Khan...lottery winner...poisoned the next day with cyanide"
And on and on.
"A woman accused of swindling and killing a Florida lottery winner "
"Chicagoan Urooj Khan...lottery winner...poisoned the next day with cyanide"
And on and on.
118
Of course there should be privacy. Why should the penalty for winning be a good possibility of losing friends and family relationships, even if you are generous? It's not that hard to make up a system - are not our tax refunds kept from the public? They just need to proof it against fraud with sufficient oversight.
46
The Lottery insistence on disclosure has nothing to do with integrity as the Lottery itself is one of the greatest mathematical scams every perpetrated on a foolish public. The odds against winning the Powerball and Mega Millions are astronomical (respectively, 176 million:1 and 276 million:1), and the Lottery has shamelessly increased those odds periodically to generate ever larger and more out of reach jackpots, guaranteeing fewer winners with more money than anyone could possibly need to change his or her life. The hounding such winners are in for is, thus, proportionately greater. Perhaps the Lottery should consider the marketing value of protecting its handful of winners from the same vicious avarice that their gigantic jackpots create.
57
So, lottery officials in certain states want to implement a requirement that big money winners must disclose their identity in order to claim their prize? Is it just me, or does this smack of blackmail?
79
Yes, I believe anonymity is the way to go. Why should someone be made public which will cause them all sorts of complications.
39
The secret to accumulating great wealth is not letting the whole world know that you're rich.
87
especially wit relatives who'll come pounding, pounding, at your door for ever more, demanding, demanding, demanding, before you wake.
19
I have known three winners sadly I wasn't one of them. all had to move and change their kids school. you would n't believe the friends you learn you have after they see you on TV. One buddy had to arm himself because he thought he was being followed. Good to give peope the option of not publishing their info.
99
Given that the three lottery winners you’ve known have all had to move and change their children’s schools,and that one of your buddies had to arm himself,
why do you state”Sadly,I wasn’t one of them” ? Would you want o be harassed by
“Friends”pursuing you until you felt the need to move,change your children’s school, and arm yourself? That’s not a tradeoff I’d want to make.Besides,most lottery winners bankrupt themselves quickly and end up quite unhappy.
why do you state”Sadly,I wasn’t one of them” ? Would you want o be harassed by
“Friends”pursuing you until you felt the need to move,change your children’s school, and arm yourself? That’s not a tradeoff I’d want to make.Besides,most lottery winners bankrupt themselves quickly and end up quite unhappy.
3
I agree that the winners should be given the choice of publishing their name or remaining anonymous. If not, should we then all be forced to publish our yearly incomes, tax returns, and other personal information online?
The lottery official's explanation that suddenly people would think the lottery was rigged if there were anonymous winners is a sham argument. They should already have independent auditor's who track and document the integrity of the games and also the payouts.
The lottery official's explanation that suddenly people would think the lottery was rigged if there were anonymous winners is a sham argument. They should already have independent auditor's who track and document the integrity of the games and also the payouts.
109
It's very ironic that the government is "rigged" due to anonymous campaign contributions.
11
Exactly. I don't recall any big scandal when the three Maryland teachers showed up in chipmunk outfits to collect their winnings (the largest drawing in history).
12
Lotteries should be banned, because lotteries are just a tax on poor people, who blow up to 9% of their income on them. If they invested that same money in a fund or some real estate, while they won't get rich overnight, their odds of improving their lot are significantly higher.
Ban lotteries, then this phony problem of winner's privacy goes with it.
Ban lotteries, then this phony problem of winner's privacy goes with it.
41
States advertise gambling; they collect money from cigarette sales; from gasoline sales and probably thousands of other activities and products that they should be discouraging. Instead the budget is based upon these expected revenues. And we pay them to do this.
1
silly unrecievedogma.... lotteries are not a tax on the poor.... lotteries are a tax on people who cant do math!!!
4
You must be very out of touch with reality to believe that poor people have the money to invest in" a fund or in some real estate “. I’m not aware of any real estate investment that can be made with a dollar.”Funds” have minimums as well.
Do lotteries take advantage of poor people?Absolutely.Am I in favor of banning the lottery for that reason? Yes,but I’m well aware that poor people can’t invest in “funds”or purchase real estate other than with 0% down,if that is still allowed,after so many lost their homes and more when they took out mortgages they couldn’t possibly afford to pay. You obviously read the New York Times.How did you miss out on the entire mortgage backed security debacle that nearly brought down the entire economy ?
Do lotteries take advantage of poor people?Absolutely.Am I in favor of banning the lottery for that reason? Yes,but I’m well aware that poor people can’t invest in “funds”or purchase real estate other than with 0% down,if that is still allowed,after so many lost their homes and more when they took out mortgages they couldn’t possibly afford to pay. You obviously read the New York Times.How did you miss out on the entire mortgage backed security debacle that nearly brought down the entire economy ?
6
Playing the lottery is a choice. No one has to play, and it's not as though anyone has tried to hide the fact that the rules in most states preclude anonymity for the winners. If you don't like the idea that winning a million dollars or more requires that your identity be publicized then don't play. It's really pretty simple.
8
Vanessa, I agree with your position but for a different reason. I believe that people who do not want their identities revealed should not play the lottery. If everyone who felt this way avoided the lottery for even just a few months the lottery boards would very quickly get the message and change their policies.
9
Jeff, I am a really big believer in freedom of information and public records. The lotteries we're talking about are state sponsored. The people who play - the public - has a right to know where their money ends up. It's a freedom of information issue to me. I'm just as big a believer in privacy rights, but certain things require one's privacy rights to take a back seat. Arrest records and lottery winners are public records, and that's how it should be.
1
The transparency issue is critical to public confidence in the process. But why not delay the publication of a winner's name for a year? That gives the winner time to adjust without also fighting off every scammer in the world. It provides time to create trusts or gain some knowledge about scams. It also allows the winner time to plan an escape from the public eye.
55
If someone doesn't want the publicity associated with being a lottery winner then the solution seems obvious to me. Don't play.
7
If I ever won one, I would ditch the phone, move and change my name. Done and done.
24
Some of the very states that want to go through the trouble of making lottery winners anonymous are the same states that require welfare applicants and recipients to get fingerprinted, drug tested and forced to go to term with their pregnancies: simply because the state can and the targets are poor and powerless. In Kansas, public school teachers' names and salaries are posted on a state website for anyone to see.
65
The public employees salaries are working people. Maybe their data should be private and welfare recipients public. It's likely that 95% of welfare recipients would look at their picture on the Internet and the next step to a network show.
2
They do that here in NY also.
1
Public salaries are the publics right to know.
8
I think it's appalling that winners don't have the option of choosing to be private, given that past lottery winners have been murdered, beaten, and hounded into hiding from the press, family, and every cheap shyster out there. These lottery officials are playing with people's lives when they claim that the publicity of names is important. I disagree - people will always play the lottery, and the specific names don't matter except to people who shouldn't know them anyway.
192
maryf- The term “Shyster”is considered to be an anti-semitic slur.Some,but not all, believe that the term was derived from Shakespeare’s Shylock,thus tying the term “Shyster” with the vile anti-semitic characterization of Jews Shakespeare painted with the character of Shylock. I did on online search of the term,before replying to your comment. The consensus is that the term “Shyster” has anti-semitic connotations. I am assuming that it was not your intention was to use it that way,so I would like to bring this to your attention,in the event you were not aware of this.
3
I'm not so sure your analysis is correct.
It is a disreputable attorney. No anti-semitism connected with it, and one online source, WikiP, says that there was a worry that the word had such a connotation but didn't find that it had a valid etymology for that interpretation.
If you think 'anti-semistim' when you see the word, then I worry both about you and also the loss of richness to our valid use of descriptive language.
Let's not let a word become lost because of undeserved influence of political correctness.
It is a disreputable attorney. No anti-semitism connected with it, and one online source, WikiP, says that there was a worry that the word had such a connotation but didn't find that it had a valid etymology for that interpretation.
If you think 'anti-semistim' when you see the word, then I worry both about you and also the loss of richness to our valid use of descriptive language.
Let's not let a word become lost because of undeserved influence of political correctness.
13
Just because people bother you after you win doesn't mean you have to give them your money. The government is always trying to protect people from their own mistakes. And even if you're anonymous, you could still do ill-advised things with your money.
4
The issue isn't so much people soliciting winners, it's people harassing and even threatening them. Last month an elderly man in Detroit was killed by someone trying to get money from him after he claimed to have won a lottery jackpot. A Florida lottery winner was murdered as part of a scheme to steal his fortune. A couple of years ago a lottery winner in Chicago was killed by cyanide poisoning in an apparent attempt to collect his winnings. And so on. The fact is, putting your name and face out there as a lottery winner comes with real risks. So this is not an issue of Big Government trying to tell people how to manage their money. It's more serious than that.
47
It's not people "bothering them." It's people killing them or holding them for ransom or breaking into their houses, or at the very least the constant stream of people showing up on their doorstep.
46
I think you're underestimating the problem. I know a woman who won a meaningful, but not huge sum, in lottery with a group from her office. Her name was published, includeing in a Newsday article. Shortly thereafter, she was the victim of identity fraud. This is about protecting people, but not from themselves.
52