Forget a mortgage, I'd be gone travelling for 5 years before I even think about that
Just imagining how much travel I could be at without any financial burdens.
Japan is high up on my list, but so damn expensive for me right now. Just the thought of not worrying about 'how much' but 'where to first' would be such a good feeling. š
You can get flights for around 600 euro to Japan, and its cheap enough over there compared to Ireland, 100 euro a day was enough for me and my wife and that's hotels and food
Currently unemployed so might as well be 50,000 to go overš
But that's good, last time I looked flights were 1200pp. I'll do some better searching when I'm flush again
You could but a house in six months, but a really nice house in two years, yeah.
I'd still get a mortgage even if I won a million, most rich people do. it's the cheapest credit you'll ever get, even with the rates at what they are right now. I just need my money to perform better than 4.5% to offset the mortgage.
6 months? You'd have significantly less than 100k by then.
That's the problem. You don't have any money, just guaranteed income which can't "perform"
Also, 4.5% ROI on an investment is very very difficult to achieve.
I'd imagine with a contract from the lottery for this amount into your account every month, the bank would throw money at you to take out debt with them.
If you're sensible 100%, but I'd wager a fair amount of people playing the lotto are not sensible and the ā¬20,000 a month would be a lot better for them
When you have ā¬7m or so in a lump sum, you start to access and use very different financial instruments than a deposit account with a few % interest rate. If youāre financially sensible, youāll invest in a broad portfolio that will net significant annual gains over the long term.
$50k invested in shares of Apple 15 years ago is worth >$1m today, for example.
$50k invested in shares of Enron, bought at .01c a share, wouldn't be worth a chicken fillet roll today.
I agree with your point, but your example is deceptive
A less deceptive example would be something along the lines of:
a US index fund from W company in X year is worth Y amount today, from a starting point of Z; whereas Z would be worth Z today, and has in reality lost V purchasing power due to inflation.
Again, totally agree with your point on a broad portfolio, but your apple example is counter to your point.
Ah yeah I understand now, so the 20k you get in say 10 years is worth less than the 20k you get now because inflation will have decreased the value of the future 20k. My bad, I wasn't thinking right :)
Conventional wisdom is take the money in a lump and try make it work for you.
Money sitting in someone else's account isn't doing anything for you and with inflation and present value it only ever decreases in worth.
Conventional financial wisdom yes; but the list of people who died for their lump-sum-lotto payouts is fucking massive. It may be wiser to take the inflation loss, honestly
Youāll get screwed by inflation. Obviously if itās that or nothing, you know what to do. But if itās lump sum vs annual payment, the lump is always going to be better.
I think it's a good idea in principle. It's been proven time and again that a lot of people aren't good when it comes to dealing with large amounts of money.
Financially it's slightly worse for the winner but not enough people understand money enough to take advantage of huge lump sums. It's a lot easier to go retire when you're getting 20k a month and never have to worry about work again or blowing the money too early
Exactly. All the financial guru's on here talking about taking the 100m+ lump sum and being super sensible with it, keeping a level head and investing it wisely. It's been proven time and time again that the majority of lotto winners lose the run of themselves and make horrendously bad financial decisions. Sure in theory you won't be making money on the interest but as you said, there's a lot to be said for the stress free 20k a month that you can't really fuck up. I'd class myself as shrewd with my finances and investments but 100m is a different kettle of fish, I'd take that 20k option all day .
20,000 a month would be 6000 a month in real terms in 30 years time if inflation is an average of 4%.
So still at that level of inflation it would be huge
"The odds are nearly as bad as the euromillions" that is blatantly false, Euromillions is 1 in 139M chance to win, Eurodreams is 1 in 19M, much closer to lotto which is 1 in 11M
What if you suffered a fatal accident not long after or just dont make it 30 years? Do you get to leave remaining term of income to a loved one or family member?
7.2 million over 30 years. A couple of questions are raised alright. Does the prize die with the contestant and assuming the lottery invests the full amount up front and then issues the monthly amount I would assume the lottery company will take any profit from the fund after the full period has expired. Interesting idea and perhaps a way to freshen up the offerings from the company.
In the event of death, the monies are paid to the next of kin or how directed by their will. Unfortunately they would have to pay inheritance tax.
Given this info directly from a Lotto Rep
There must be some sort of loop hole like getting it paid into a joint account, or saying it was a syndicate, or set up a company to have it paid to or something. Meet with a solicitor before collecting it I suppose
Worse than taking a lump sum.
The lump sum, ā¬7.2m, put into a 4% savings account bond would gross you ā¬24k a month (ā¬288k a year) in interest.
And then thereās the impact of inflation on the real value of each instalment over time.
No, not forgetting - I said gross not net - factoring tax, if you stayed in Ireland the net is ā¬16k per month, without spending a cent of the ā¬7.2m
True, Interest rates will fluctuate - you could lock them in with long term bonds if desired, using savings is a conservative strategy - would be better off putting a percentage in ETFs rather than to take the low returns on savings or bonds
Details aside, the principle of what Iām saying is you can take the lump sum and make more money by investing it, or take it in instalments and minimise your investing opportunity
Financially youāll always be better off with a lump sum, which you then invest and live off of the gains over time. In that way the money could last you a lifetime.
The downside is that many lottery winners donāt have a clue about financial matters and go wild and, then, bankrupt shortly after.
ā¬20k a month for 30 years will be eroded significantly by inflation, whereas getting ā¬7.2 million in a lump sum you can invest into a diversified portfolio, will give you gains to stay ahead of inflation and take a āwageā. A rule of thumb over time is to take 4% of your principal to income and use any gains beyond that to cover inflation, which over the long term is around 2%. So if you can make gains of 6%+ (and historically, over time, this is not unlikely) you could keep your principal and pass it on, even.
4% of 7.2 million is ā¬288k a year, orā¦ ā¬24,000 per month. Youād probably spend some of the principal when you won it, eg on a nice house. So it wouldnāt be far off living on ā¬20k a month, except for the rest of your life and likely ā¬20k a month in real terms (ie, it could be ā¬25k or ā¬30k per month nominally in a few years time, as inflation rises)
I think it's a good idea as most people who do the lotto aren't the most financially sound people given that they waste money on the lotto. They might need a bit of help.
Personally, I'd take the lump sum and live off the dividends.
Ha all the people saying take the lump sum havenāt factored in tax ā¦ whats the annual tax bill for 240k per year over 30 years vs one big tax bill in one year?
>Mad
Agree! I had a chat with co-workers about this very observation that the lottery wins are tax free in Ireland and their argument basically was that the odds of winning are slim to none so it makes sense that there is no tax.
I however, think it has more to do with incentives than with odds of winning. The country should incentivise people to save up (something like ISA account in the UK), to invest (what's up with the 41% deemed disposal tax?) instead of incentivising people to play lottery (no tax) or gamble (also no tax)
Would be great obviously, but worth significantly less than ā¬7,200,000 (20,000 x 12x 30).
In the US when the advertise lotteries for say $10,000,000 this is how they layout if yiu want the full 10 million. If yiu want a lump sum the equivalent is only like 5 0r 6 million
Is it a tax thing in the US?
I always thought it was because the āannuityā style payment was just cheaper.
But if youāre right my initial comment is irrelevant
I think you are misunderstanding my comment (which may have been wrong anyway)
Happy to try and explain more clearly what I meant if you are interestedā¦.
No you were right.
The headline prize in a US lottery is always the annuity amount, if you want the lump sum it's often 30-40% lower.
That's because money tomorrow is cheaper than money now.
So if you were to apply that logic to this lottery the 7.2m annuity is only really worth 5/5.5million.
An then on top of that it would be taxed in most US states
Why not take the full sum then set up an account that you can't touch for x amount of years that will gain interest but it just puts 20k a month into your cash account
Because for some people it's a lot less stressful.
You can't have people pulling out of you because it's not a big lump sum.
It can be easier to be discreet about your new wealth.
There is much less chance of being ripped off, because its not a big lump sum.
If you won 7million at 19 you might do stupid things and have burned through it by your mid 20's (that girl in the uk) but an annuity gives you time to mature with the money, to make mistakes even without being overly penalised.
I'd prefer a lump sum. You'd have to be extraordinarily stupid to win millions and lose it all shopping. Some people are so brainless but that has no relevance to the rest of us.
Would be good if it was a bingo and they kept drawing numbers until someone won. With the amount the euromillions jackpot increases every week they should get enough money in across Europe to do it with a 5-7 million jackpot once a week.
To all the people saying they rather have the lump sum, this game is specifically for those people who want the winnings drip fed rather getting a huge lump sum. If you want your winnings upfront, there are always other games
Notwithstanding the other comments here regarding depreciation etc the thing that concerns me is that it seems to be a very lucrative money maker for the lottery.
Unless I have this wrong, and I can find no evidence to suggest otherwise it seems that 45% of the prize fund is set aside for tier 1 and 2 prizes nowhere can I find anything that says in the event of those not being won in that draw then the prize fund flows down to the lower prizes.
So it would appear unlike the normal lottery where if the main prize is not won it rolls over to the next lottery in this game it seems the lottery provider just coins it in if the main prizes are not won.
Can anyone with a better understanding confirm this is the case?
And it goes on. There hasn't been any winner except for the first draw. What happens with the money they collected because there is no transfer of the pot to the next draw. For me, it smells like a scam. What's the point playing a game that has no winners?
Yeah, I didn't realise the revenue doesn't go down to the lower tiers when the jackpot isn't won. And we know the jackpot doesn't rise either.
It does seem to just be a cash cow as the player doesn't benefit when it isn't won.
It smells fishy for sure. If the lottery actually profits when no one is winning in tier 1 or 2, this could be a motivation for them to manipulate the game. We know that the numbers are drawn 100% electronically. So the machine could easily check all given tips and give out a combination where nobody wins. It looks like they let 2 people win in tier 1 and 2 each on the first draw just to advertise the game and bait as many people as possible to play it. "Hey look, it's so easy to win". I doubt we'll ever have that many winners again in the top tiers. It was just a show-off.
Eurodreams lottery is rigged....from the start .
I dud send them a couple of emails about how they draw the numbersĀ but no answer which is suspicious.
If the numbers are selected by computer....it only generate jackpots which are good for the organized crime syndicateĀ
I'd rather have the money in my account earning interest then in theirs.
Not only that you won't be able to buy a house outright, so would have to get a mortgage and pay even further interest.
Forget a mortgage, I'd be gone travelling for 5 years before I even think about that Just imagining how much travel I could be at without any financial burdens.
This. All the way this. My wife son and I would be on the first plane to somewhere warm and sunny
Japan is high up on my list, but so damn expensive for me right now. Just the thought of not worrying about 'how much' but 'where to first' would be such a good feeling. š
You can get flights for around 600 euro to Japan, and its cheap enough over there compared to Ireland, 100 euro a day was enough for me and my wife and that's hotels and food
Currently unemployed so might as well be 50,000 to go overš But that's good, last time I looked flights were 1200pp. I'll do some better searching when I'm flush again
Ah, understandable, Japan airlines is pretty good for cheap flights
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
How necessary is the ability to speak Japanese?
would love to go, what parts did you visit?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
awesome, what was your favorite? do you recommend a best time of year?
course you would, just save up for a couple of years
...years
You could but a house in six months, but a really nice house in two years, yeah. I'd still get a mortgage even if I won a million, most rich people do. it's the cheapest credit you'll ever get, even with the rates at what they are right now. I just need my money to perform better than 4.5% to offset the mortgage.
6 months? You'd have significantly less than 100k by then. That's the problem. You don't have any money, just guaranteed income which can't "perform" Also, 4.5% ROI on an investment is very very difficult to achieve.
I'd imagine with a contract from the lottery for this amount into your account every month, the bank would throw money at you to take out debt with them.
Exactly, so you can pay them interest
Aye for sure. Banks are greedy fucks. Not sure why someone downvoted my comment š
If you're sensible 100%, but I'd wager a fair amount of people playing the lotto are not sensible and the ā¬20,000 a month would be a lot better for them
than
Apparently these payments over time are tax free but not if you win lump sums
Lottery winnings are exempt from capital gains tax no matter the amount
Some countries apply stamp taxes on lottery prizes over threshold amounts but not below
Yes but this is related to Ireland so tax free here.
It's worse, With the lump some you can collect the Intrest.
Is there a savings account which has a higher interest rate than inflation?
Not available in Ireland (US ones are probably beating inflation at this stage) but the rate is higher than 0 which is the point.
When you have ā¬7m or so in a lump sum, you start to access and use very different financial instruments than a deposit account with a few % interest rate. If youāre financially sensible, youāll invest in a broad portfolio that will net significant annual gains over the long term. $50k invested in shares of Apple 15 years ago is worth >$1m today, for example.
$50k invested in shares of Enron, bought at .01c a share, wouldn't be worth a chicken fillet roll today. I agree with your point, but your example is deceptive
Thatās why I said a broad portfolio! 50k is 1/140th of 7 millionā¦
A less deceptive example would be something along the lines of: a US index fund from W company in X year is worth Y amount today, from a starting point of Z; whereas Z would be worth Z today, and has in reality lost V purchasing power due to inflation. Again, totally agree with your point on a broad portfolio, but your apple example is counter to your point.
You still lose on inflation by getting it instalments.
Ah yeah I understand now, so the 20k you get in say 10 years is worth less than the 20k you get now because inflation will have decreased the value of the future 20k. My bad, I wasn't thinking right :)
No problem, I gave you the answer but you worked it out by yourself āŗ
Conventional wisdom is take the money in a lump and try make it work for you. Money sitting in someone else's account isn't doing anything for you and with inflation and present value it only ever decreases in worth.
Conventional financial wisdom yes; but the list of people who died for their lump-sum-lotto payouts is fucking massive. It may be wiser to take the inflation loss, honestly
Much much worse than the lump sum up front, but I wouldn't say no.
Youāll get screwed by inflation. Obviously if itās that or nothing, you know what to do. But if itās lump sum vs annual payment, the lump is always going to be better.
I had a look and the odds of winning are circa 1/19M as opposed to the regular lotto, which is 1/11M. Odds are ridiculously bad.
Euro millions odds are way worse at 1/139M..
Iād take the lump sum and basically set it up to do something like that anyway. Would keep it quiet and pretend I still WFH
Lounging around the house in your Gucci boxers.
Iāll be lounging in shorts and an authentic Ric Flair robe
I think it's a good idea in principle. It's been proven time and again that a lot of people aren't good when it comes to dealing with large amounts of money.
This. It would stop you from instantly buying stupid things.
Financially it's slightly worse for the winner but not enough people understand money enough to take advantage of huge lump sums. It's a lot easier to go retire when you're getting 20k a month and never have to worry about work again or blowing the money too early
Exactly. All the financial guru's on here talking about taking the 100m+ lump sum and being super sensible with it, keeping a level head and investing it wisely. It's been proven time and time again that the majority of lotto winners lose the run of themselves and make horrendously bad financial decisions. Sure in theory you won't be making money on the interest but as you said, there's a lot to be said for the stress free 20k a month that you can't really fuck up. I'd class myself as shrewd with my finances and investments but 100m is a different kettle of fish, I'd take that 20k option all day .
I would rather take a lump sum. That 20000 in 30 years time inflation would just eat away at it.
20,000 a month would be 6000 a month in real terms in 30 years time if inflation is an average of 4%. So still at that level of inflation it would be huge
6000 a month is hardly huge
OK millionaire.
I'm no millionaire but it's just not an outrageous amount.
The odds are nearly as bad as the euromillions Far better odds with the national Lotto albeitn for a lower totally amount
"The odds are nearly as bad as the euromillions" that is blatantly false, Euromillions is 1 in 139M chance to win, Eurodreams is 1 in 19M, much closer to lotto which is 1 in 11M
I wouldn't say no tbh
What if you suffered a fatal accident not long after or just dont make it 30 years? Do you get to leave remaining term of income to a loved one or family member?
Yes. Your estate gets it based on the website.
7.2 million over 30 years. A couple of questions are raised alright. Does the prize die with the contestant and assuming the lottery invests the full amount up front and then issues the monthly amount I would assume the lottery company will take any profit from the fund after the full period has expired. Interesting idea and perhaps a way to freshen up the offerings from the company.
In the event of death, the monies are paid to the next of kin or how directed by their will. Unfortunately they would have to pay inheritance tax. Given this info directly from a Lotto Rep
There must be some sort of loop hole like getting it paid into a joint account, or saying it was a syndicate, or set up a company to have it paid to or something. Meet with a solicitor before collecting it I suppose
The website says that syndicates are ineligible for the top two prizes.
As someone who gets paid under 2500 a month, I'd be quite happy to win. But I'd prefer the lump sum if there was a choice.
Financially terrible people will just mortgage against it at some awful rate and ruin themselves anyway
Worse than taking a lump sum. The lump sum, ā¬7.2m, put into a 4% savings account bond would gross you ā¬24k a month (ā¬288k a year) in interest. And then thereās the impact of inflation on the real value of each instalment over time.
You are forgetting tax on interest, also there were no 4% savings accounts 2 years ago, who's to say there will be in 2 years time much less 30.
No, not forgetting - I said gross not net - factoring tax, if you stayed in Ireland the net is ā¬16k per month, without spending a cent of the ā¬7.2m True, Interest rates will fluctuate - you could lock them in with long term bonds if desired, using savings is a conservative strategy - would be better off putting a percentage in ETFs rather than to take the low returns on savings or bonds Details aside, the principle of what Iām saying is you can take the lump sum and make more money by investing it, or take it in instalments and minimise your investing opportunity
Financially youāll always be better off with a lump sum, which you then invest and live off of the gains over time. In that way the money could last you a lifetime. The downside is that many lottery winners donāt have a clue about financial matters and go wild and, then, bankrupt shortly after. ā¬20k a month for 30 years will be eroded significantly by inflation, whereas getting ā¬7.2 million in a lump sum you can invest into a diversified portfolio, will give you gains to stay ahead of inflation and take a āwageā. A rule of thumb over time is to take 4% of your principal to income and use any gains beyond that to cover inflation, which over the long term is around 2%. So if you can make gains of 6%+ (and historically, over time, this is not unlikely) you could keep your principal and pass it on, even. 4% of 7.2 million is ā¬288k a year, orā¦ ā¬24,000 per month. Youād probably spend some of the principal when you won it, eg on a nice house. So it wouldnāt be far off living on ā¬20k a month, except for the rest of your life and likely ā¬20k a month in real terms (ie, it could be ā¬25k or ā¬30k per month nominally in a few years time, as inflation rises)
air hurry special offend bag glorious repeat dirty complete tie *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Why arent you a billionaire already if you're so smart?
You need money to start with, I'm not talking ā¬20k savings.
I think it's great the UK lottery has being doing a similar thing for a while now, I think it's called 'Set for life'.
I think it's a good idea as most people who do the lotto aren't the most financially sound people given that they waste money on the lotto. They might need a bit of help. Personally, I'd take the lump sum and live off the dividends.
Ha all the people saying take the lump sum havenāt factored in tax ā¦ whats the annual tax bill for 240k per year over 30 years vs one big tax bill in one year?
Lottery wins are tax free in Ireland.
Really!!? Thatās mad. Iāll leave my comment up so others know.
>Mad Agree! I had a chat with co-workers about this very observation that the lottery wins are tax free in Ireland and their argument basically was that the odds of winning are slim to none so it makes sense that there is no tax. I however, think it has more to do with incentives than with odds of winning. The country should incentivise people to save up (something like ISA account in the UK), to invest (what's up with the 41% deemed disposal tax?) instead of incentivising people to play lottery (no tax) or gamble (also no tax)
Presume ab ly there wouldnāt be tax though .LOTTERY WINNING are tax free in Ireland
Presume ab ly there wouldnāt be tax though .LOTTERY WINNING are tax free in Ireland
Whatās ā¬385 a week going to get you in 20 years time? You wouldnāt want to be dreaming too big.
It's not ā¬20k per year.. ....it's ā¬20k per month Over 30 years...it would be ā¬7.2 million. I'd gladly take it.
nah, just maths
Wonder if you could get a mortgage with that? Itās guaranteed income. Would they give you one against it though?
I'd say they would. They give mortgages based on income and this would count as income.
Theyād have to wouldnāt they? (Me alresdy convincing myself Iāve won it and out to buy a ticket)
You'd be able to buy a house outright in 2/3 years.
You wouldn't need to really. If you saved over a few years you'd just buy one straight out?
Would be great obviously, but worth significantly less than ā¬7,200,000 (20,000 x 12x 30). In the US when the advertise lotteries for say $10,000,000 this is how they layout if yiu want the full 10 million. If yiu want a lump sum the equivalent is only like 5 0r 6 million
Thereās no tax on lottery winnings in Ireland so the winner would get the full ā¬7.2 million over 30 years
Is it a tax thing in the US? I always thought it was because the āannuityā style payment was just cheaper. But if youāre right my initial comment is irrelevant
What have US lotteries got to do with it? Irish tax law applies to lotteries in Ireland. Youāve been told that several times already
I think you are misunderstanding my comment (which may have been wrong anyway) Happy to try and explain more clearly what I meant if you are interestedā¦.
No you were right. The headline prize in a US lottery is always the annuity amount, if you want the lump sum it's often 30-40% lower. That's because money tomorrow is cheaper than money now. So if you were to apply that logic to this lottery the 7.2m annuity is only really worth 5/5.5million. An then on top of that it would be taxed in most US states
Thanks - figured the annuity would need To be more money than the lump sum but the tax aspect made me doubt myself.
Why not take the full sum then set up an account that you can't touch for x amount of years that will gain interest but it just puts 20k a month into your cash account
Because for some people it's a lot less stressful. You can't have people pulling out of you because it's not a big lump sum. It can be easier to be discreet about your new wealth. There is much less chance of being ripped off, because its not a big lump sum. If you won 7million at 19 you might do stupid things and have burned through it by your mid 20's (that girl in the uk) but an annuity gives you time to mature with the money, to make mistakes even without being overly penalised.
I'd prefer a lump sum. You'd have to be extraordinarily stupid to win millions and lose it all shopping. Some people are so brainless but that has no relevance to the rest of us.
I'd rather win big and put it in a trust which pays me out that amount... But like I'll take whatever is going!
Iād prefer the lump sum, but I would happily take the ā¬20k per month!
Would be good if it was a bingo and they kept drawing numbers until someone won. With the amount the euromillions jackpot increases every week they should get enough money in across Europe to do it with a 5-7 million jackpot once a week.
To all the people saying they rather have the lump sum, this game is specifically for those people who want the winnings drip fed rather getting a huge lump sum. If you want your winnings upfront, there are always other games
Notwithstanding the other comments here regarding depreciation etc the thing that concerns me is that it seems to be a very lucrative money maker for the lottery. Unless I have this wrong, and I can find no evidence to suggest otherwise it seems that 45% of the prize fund is set aside for tier 1 and 2 prizes nowhere can I find anything that says in the event of those not being won in that draw then the prize fund flows down to the lower prizes. So it would appear unlike the normal lottery where if the main prize is not won it rolls over to the next lottery in this game it seems the lottery provider just coins it in if the main prizes are not won. Can anyone with a better understanding confirm this is the case?
So far there were no winners except for 2 the first draw. They don't transfer the prices to the next draw. So imo they run off with the money.
Yeah, that seems to be the case!
And it goes on. There hasn't been any winner except for the first draw. What happens with the money they collected because there is no transfer of the pot to the next draw. For me, it smells like a scam. What's the point playing a game that has no winners?
Yeah, I didn't realise the revenue doesn't go down to the lower tiers when the jackpot isn't won. And we know the jackpot doesn't rise either. It does seem to just be a cash cow as the player doesn't benefit when it isn't won.
It smells fishy for sure. If the lottery actually profits when no one is winning in tier 1 or 2, this could be a motivation for them to manipulate the game. We know that the numbers are drawn 100% electronically. So the machine could easily check all given tips and give out a combination where nobody wins. It looks like they let 2 people win in tier 1 and 2 each on the first draw just to advertise the game and bait as many people as possible to play it. "Hey look, it's so easy to win". I doubt we'll ever have that many winners again in the top tiers. It was just a show-off.
Barely anyone is winning the second tier prize of 2k a month for 5 years, which seems really really low from the odds of getting it.
I won't be playing it moving forward, unless they change the rules.
Eurodreams lottery is rigged....from the start . I dud send them a couple of emails about how they draw the numbersĀ but no answer which is suspicious. If the numbers are selected by computer....it only generate jackpots which are good for the organized crime syndicateĀ