Posted on 06/05/2009 4:39:06 PM PDT by Justaham
PIERRE, S.D. — A 23-year-old rancher whose family has fallen behind in their taxes and recently had a mobile home repossessed claimed a $232.1 million Powerball jackpot on Friday, one of the largest undivided jackpots in U.S. lottery history.
Neal Wanless, who lives on his family's 320-acre ranch near Mission, S.D., bought the winning ticket in the nearby town of Winner late last month during a trip to buy livestock feed. He will take home $88.5 million in a lump sum payment after taxes are deducted.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
He better hide it on the Ranch.
I predict that in 10 years, he will be broke, and in jail for something or other. effortless wealth destroys the soul, and leads you into temptation.
(not to throw cold water on an otherwise upbeat thread)
Good for you Neal congrats to you and your family!!!!
Spend and save wisely...troubled dark days lay ahead
You can take a lotto winning in one of two ways in most states. Monthly paymenst, in which the gov takes about 30 percent of a lump sum, in which the total you get is less than the actual sum that was won, then you get taxes deducted from that. In other words the total of 232 was BS because he elected to take a lump sum. Still, 88 mil is not a bad payday.
Great story, they sound like they really needed a boost, but we just can’t get past the neighbor’s name... Assman. Hey, I’ve got a teenage boy and a husband acting like a teenage boy...I’m currently hearing them saying they want to see a Dumbass/Assman wedding - with a best man named Asspride..... see, I told you I have Bevis and Butthead living in my house. ;^)
“Dave Assman, who owns farmland next to the Wanless’ ranch, said he’s happy they won’t have to worry about money again.”
Touche’ Mr. ASSMAN ...touche’
outch
Last post was confusing so here goes again: Lump sum payments are less than the actual total of the winnings. If you take a lump sum, even without taxes, you get less than the announced winnings. 232 was for monthly payments, of which about 30 percent would have been taken(still more than the government deserves)but with a lump sum the total is less, then you have the taxes on top of that.
True that, but I could be quite content and happy with $88 mil...
At least he wont go brokeback.....
I read somewhere that 97% of lottery winners of $1,000,000 or more do quite well managing their money. The remaining 3% have newspaper articles written about how they squandered the money.
I also read that 97% of all lottery winner stories are about how the winner squandered their winnings.
....Bob
88
Congratulations to him. 61.9% tax is sick, but hey, don’t turn down the rest.
“...during a trip to buy livestock feed.”
Purina Cow Chow ?
If I interperted the other posters correctly, it’s more like 24% tax. He only gets half the total if taken as a lump sum rather than an anuity. In other words, he can have $116.05M (pretax) today or 11.605M annually for twenty years. (11.605 x 20 = 132.1). After tax, 116.05M is 87.5M with 24% taxes. I’d jump on it rather than getting paid in 0bama dollars in 2029, with God-knows-what tax rate.
I read somewhere that 98% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
What a nice story for a change.
But.....but....but the rich don't pay their fair share!!
Haven't you been listening to the Democrats?
"I want to thank the Lord for giving me this opportunity and blessing me with this great fortune. I will not squander it," he said.
Wanless said he intends to use the money to help those in need. "My family has been helped by the community and I intend to repay that help many times over."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.