What Would You Do With £170M

[Tangled Metal]

The other issue is that the majority of posters on here probably need less money than us relative youngsters. You might need a million but I might need 17 million.

[mumbojumbo]

Postby Tangled Metal » 10 Oct 2019, 6:33pm

One more point. I remember at the time of the first big rollover win there was discussion about how much money was needed to live a millionaire lifestyle with private jet use, big house, fancy cars, holiday home and 4 star hotel use. Back then it was calculated that in order to not reduce the capital you'd need at least £10 million to live such a lifestyle. I wonder what it's like now!

I would think million would enable you tio affiord a millionaire lifestyle-and I hardly consider the use of a 4* hotel signifies a weathy customer-I knbow many cleaners who use such accommodation as amatter oif course ,on budget holidays.

[mercalia]

The other issue is that the majority of posters on here probably need less money than us relative youngsters. You might need a million but I might need 17 million.

well I will be able to afford to give you a helping hand in that case all those girl friends you are running do cost a bit

[Vorpal]

The odd thing is that most people, after splashing out on some luxury or other, would give the rest away. Which rather makes the whole point of having a Euro-millions a bit pointlesss IMV.

I don't need the money, and IMO, it would do far more good, spread out to help lots of folks who do need a bit of help than on luxuries I don't need. I would keep enough to live comfortably on (conservative) investment earnings, but that's only a couple million. And TBH, I don't know if I'd spend that much.

[Mick F]

I don't know why there is so much of a prize money winnings.
Instead of one person getting 170M, why not have 170 people get a million each?

........... or 1,700 people getting 100grand each?

Not looked at a Lottery ticket for years, but if my memory serves me correctly, if you matched three numbers, you won a tenner. Four numbers was a bigger figure and five was a big win. All six for the jackpot of course.

What would be wrong in sharing the prize money downwards?
Three numbers for £25 or even £50 ..................... and cut down on the obscene jackpots?

[Cugel]

I'd do that in someone else's garden in the middle of sunset when they're gardening in all their spare time. It's a good idea.

Gambling is an addiction like anything else. Prohibition didn't work with alcohol in America and the laws relating to gambling in the UK prior to the relatively recent relaxation of the laws by Blair's government in a bid to make the UK a world leader in online gambling didn't stop gambling and gambling addiction.

Does illegality with drug dealing stop drug addiction? With the increase in use of beak for leisure shows prohibition doesn't work.

However the gambling legislation was completely wrong headed and allowed for gambling to become faster paced. Blair was cosied up to by betting companies and their lobbyists. Fixed odds machines, thousands of online betting games, offshore gambling companies, Gibraltar gambling companies to avoid tax, etc. Gambling aware like alcohol aware is the industry's pathetic veneer of dealing with problem gamblers. Truth is both "aware" umbrella groups give out of date information and don't help those with gambling problems.

Most children 11 to 16 have gambled a proportion of those develop problem gambling. Scratch cards are part of the problem even though those in that age group can't actually gamble legally. The industry needs to be controlled imho but not banned. There's so many people who gamble without having problems. Those minority who develop problems are addicts probably it could be drugs or alcohol.

As to amount won well rollovers do result in more people taking part it generates more money for all. Some might think that's positive considering charity gets a certain percentage of the stake.

When I were a lad, 264 years ago, gambling was illegal. Small gambles occured at the whippet races, one of which was held just roond the corner from wor hoose, by the traditional teeny men in flat caps, whippets on bits of string. I fondly recall going there each Sunday just to watch the blokey wind madly at an old bicycle wheel contraption that dragged a bit of bunny fur along the ground for the mad-eyed racers to chase.

Every now and then a polis would come and there'd be scurrying-about a bit. No one seemed to get hurt, become addicted to the gambling or otherwise come to harm. I believe a shilling was regarded as a high stake. After all, nobody had more than that.

I believe there were a few (a very few) other high stake gambling addicts who got into to debt to the Kray-types then lost a finger or even more, when they failed to pay.

But there wasn't anything like the amounts of gambling addiction now seen; or the associated widespread damage to the gamblers and to their families. Nor did even the Krays gain a billion pound yearly income from their activities, as do the now legal overlords of the current gambling organisations.

When something of the highly addictive type is formalised, legalised and turned into a business, it amplifies the damages done immensely. Consider alcohol or fags. But because its now "a business" the damage is swept under various carpets or blamed on the victims. After all, if huge profits can be made, this is a boon to all kinds of aristocrats, from "businessmen" to "politicians". Bugger the peasants and their degraded existence. It's their own fault for being addicts, eh.

Anyway, we can send them to the NHS if they get ill as a result of their addiction. Better than damaging the aristocrat's profits!

Cugel

PS And what about the mental damage done by gambling, which teaches us that there's nowt at all dangerous or wrong about getting immense rewards for doing nothing of any value or effort whatsoever beyond buying a ticket.

[100%JR]

I don't know why there is so much of a prize money winnings.
Instead of one person getting 170M, why not have 170 people get a million each?

........... or 1,700 people getting 100grand each?

Not looked at a Lottery ticket for years, but if my memory serves me correctly, if you matched three numbers, you won a tenner. Four numbers was a bigger figure and five was a big win. All six for the jackpot of course.

What would be wrong in sharing the prize money downwards?
Three numbers for £25 or even £50 ..................... and cut down on the obscene jackpots?

Why obscene?
The Rollover Euromillions is capped at €190m/£169m.It's been at that figure for a few weeks.Personally i don't think it should be capped at all.Why £169m and not £269m...or £569m Millions all over Europe play Euromillions to win a large amount.If someone wins it and thinks it's "obscene" then they can do what they want with it to make a difference....or not.It's a game.If you don't play it then that's up to you.
Tonight's EuroMillions jackpot is £15m.Tuesdays was £169m.Would I be annoyed if I won tonight?No as I'd still have £15m.Is £15m obscene/less obscene?
The organisers are getting far more paid in than they're paying out and the UK Lottery funds/has funded 1000s of projects.Would as many play if the EM jackpot was capped at say £15m?I doubt it.

[Vorpal]

There are a number of problems with identifying a history of problem gambling. Firstly aspects of gambling which were illegal, or discouraged were generally not done in public. Only in private, and not talked about.

Attitudes about such things, as with other mental illnesses have changed greatly with time. Problem gambling has only been considered an illness in the last 2 or 3 decades. Prior to that, it was a moral failing, with a social taboo on discussing such things.

Prior to the first gambling prevalence survey in 1999, there were very little data. Since then, the percentage of people who are considered to have problems with gambling, or are at risk has not changed very much over time. Even though more people gamble now, and in particular, more women gamble, the proportions of the population that are problem or at risk gamblers is similar today to what they were in 1999.

[mercalia]

I see you can now do it online, dont have to go down to a news agents any more?

https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/games/euromillions

[Debs]

It's a hypothetical question that doesn't need to be answered.

The real life implications of coming into such a huge sum would leave 99.99% completely boggled.

I believe that one would have to actually win the amount firstly in order to find out how one really does in reality.

It would definitely be a massive life-changing event, and not only for the dippy-dozy gambling individual, but for their family; immediate and even future family who will become born into a wealthy world of privilege, better education, opportunity. The legacy of a sudden financial fortune would blossom future branches of the family tree for centuries to come...

However it is very sad symptom of modern society to normalise and justify someone completely undeserved getting rich quick.
It suggests very strongly that life should and can only be happy if one is stinking rich.

I'd by far prefer to live in a society where no one is unjustifiably loaded with too many pointless millions and no one is forced into a life-struggle with poor pay and high rent, low quality of life, social stagnation, etc...
For far too long political ideology exists to deliberately create a huge pool of poverty so the greedy piggy rich can carry on getting even richer.

Sadly giving X number of millions to lucky numpty numb-nuts gambler only helps to maintain the status quo which creates a dire world that far too many struggle to live to consequences of...

[Tangled Metal]

The other issue is that the majority of posters on here probably need less money than us relative youngsters. You might need a million but I might need 17 million.

well I will be able to afford to give you a helping hand in that case all those girl friends you are running do cost a bit

I've never run multiple girlfriends. I'm offended by that. I hate infidelity in relationships. Having said that I'm of the generation where girlfriends insist in paying their own way. The very idea of me running them would result in me losing the boyfriend status and possibly coughing up my nuts in the process of change.

Of course if you are the winner I'm completely happy if you wanted you run with my community forest idea for providing centres around how country to encourage kids and families to get into nature and learn to appreciate it. Forest schools, conservation projects, environmental education in a fun way, etc.

There's a good local woodshare project near me in association with national trust and a local bushcraft company (woodland planning consisting, education and craft company). £15 annual membership and you get heavily discounted firewood packs with each time you join community forest work days. You help bring forests into sustainable use for the benefit of nature and environment. That's part of the idea I have. Not fully worked out I'm afraid.

[JohnW]

When I look around my town - at any time day or night - and I see destitute and homeless folk huddled in corners in the rain - and I meet the folk from the local charity who do all they can to help and provide a hostel - I know of a good place to spend £170M.

A lottery win is a lottery win, and good fun and we'd all enjoy and benefit from a lottery win, but in the face of the kind of deprivation which has snowballed since the Thatcher regime, an unearned £170M is a bit obscene.

[Cugel]

It's a hypothetical question that doesn't need to be answered.

The real life implications of coming into such a huge sum would leave 99.99% completely boggled.

I believe that one would have to actually win the amount firstly in order to find out how one really does in reality.

It would definitely be a massive life-changing event, and not only for the dippy-dozy gambling individual, but for their family; immediate and even future family who will become born into a wealthy world of privilege, better education, opportunity. The legacy of a sudden financial fortune would blossom future branches of the family tree for centuries to come...

However it is very sad symptom of modern society to normalise and justify someone completely undeserved getting rich quick.
It suggests very strongly that life should and can only be happy if one is stinking rich.

I'd by far prefer to live in a society where no one is unjustifiably loaded with too many pointless millions and no one is forced into a life-struggle with poor pay and high rent, low quality of life, social stagnation, etc...
For far too long political ideology exists to deliberately create a huge pool of poverty so the greedy piggy rich can carry on getting even richer.

Sadly giving X number of millions to lucky numpty numb-nuts gambler only helps to maintain the status quo which creates a dire world that far too many struggle to live to consequences of...

Ha ha - so true: people are always saying what they would do in such & such a future scenario but in fact they have no idea and are only painting some romanticised picture of the idealized image they have of themselves. In practice, their dark and mysterious sub-conscious will be prompted to puppet them into who-knows-what dark desires. Maybe even an enlightened act. (Less likely).

It's also been observed that the richer people are, the more they tend to isolate themselves from others then go down some incredibly self-centred, self-indulgent path, often causing harms rather than goods. For that reason alone, I personally would arrange matters so that a society cannot contain rich people (define rich, mind) so that there cannot be these various harms wrought by the money-avid. SInce the motive of lust for money would reduce the opportunity to serve the lust for power, perhaps there might be time and opportunity for other less baneful human motives to have a bit of wriggle room?

Cugel

[Mick F]

When I look around my town - at any time day or night - and I see destitute and homeless folk huddled in corners in the rain - and I meet the folk from the local charity who do all they can to help and provide a hostel - I know of a good place to spend £170M.

A lottery win is a lottery win, and good fun and we'd all enjoy and benefit from a lottery win, but in the face of the kind of deprivation which has snowballed since the Thatcher regime, an unearned £170M is a bit obscene.

Yes.
Obscene.

[100%JR]

Yes.
Obscene.

I take it then if you were offered £170m you'd turn it down?
What would you see as an "unearned amount" to be less obscene?
It's a LOTTERY.Anything won is "unearned"