Abaddon's Weird News of the World!

[GinandTonic]

I think someone discovered the company that makes the update stickers doesnt ask any questions when you rock up and ask for Narnia, Middle Earth, Gotham City. The council probably just need a can of solvent and a pallet knife.

 

[Silurian]

It would be cheaper and easier just to cover them over.

It is a lot easier just to stick up a ladder, climb it and quickly press on a bit of plastic.

Too apply solvent you are going to need a tower scaffold.
You could not safely scratch it off from a ladder because you would have your face in the solvent or have to wear a mask, and working off a ladder for any lenght of time would not be accepted.
And when you finished you will have scratched the sign and will have to put some plastic over the scratches anyway.

 

[Arakhor]

It's not particularly weird, but it is mathematically interesting. A Canadian teenager wins the lottery and has the choice of a $1 million lump sum or $1000 per week for life.

 

[Hrothbern]

It's not particularly weird, but it is mathematically interesting. A Canadian teenager wins the lottery and has the choice of a $1 million lump sum or $1000 per week for life.

I hope for her she chooses for the 1,000,000 lump sum

If that teenager would live another 60 years the lump sum of 1,000,000 breaks even with 1000 a week at 5% interest.
That 5% is higher than a bank interest rate but less than the average annual return on shares

 

[GinandTonic]

The annuity is tax free though. And 5%?

 

[rah]

Yeah, taxes changes that equation considerably. I'd bet on living long, especially because if you didn't, you wouldn't really care.

 

[metatron]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43418891

The names! The photo! Priceless.
All weird news should come with a photo this good.

 

[Arakhor]

Yeah, taxes changes that equation considerably. I'd bet on living long, especially because if you didn't, you wouldn't really care.

The fact that she's literally just turned 18 also makes the regular income a much better idea.

 

[Kyriakos]

The names! The photo! Priceless.
All weird news should come with a photo this good.

I blame the installment of the statue of Satan, in Oklahoma. The fiend is behind this. The fiend named Gin (as Poe would say).

 

[Hrothbern]

The annuity is tax free though. And 5%?

the math was without tax because I assumed both would be without tax (at the moment you get the money).
but if not.
does anyone know the tax rate(s) involved ?

 

[Arakhor]

According to the article, any money drawn from the lump sum would be taxable, whereas the weekly stipend is specifically tax-free.

 

[Takhisis]

I'd go for the tax-free lifelong income, myself. It's $52k a year!

 

[shadowplay]

I thought all winnings in Canada were tax free..

 

[Traitorfish]

I hope for her she chooses for the 1,000,000 lump sum

If that teenager would live another 60 years the lump sum of 1,000,000 breaks even with 1000 a week at 5% interest.
That 5% is higher than a bank interest rate but less than the average annual return on shares

Doesn't that rely on her not spending a penny until she reaches the age of 78?

 

[Samson]

I'd go for the tax-free lifelong income, myself. It's $52k a year!

And you would be right (according to the beeb):

• If she spends nothing and invests the weekly payments ($52,000 a year), compared to taking the $1m lump sum and investing it, she would be better off by the age of 68. By the age of 82, she would have $24.9m compared to $23.8m
• If she chose the $1m lump sum and withdrew $52,000 a year, she would run out of money at the age of 83. Given Canadian life expectancy is 82, according to the World Bank, the withdrawals would last for her lifetime. However, it is important to note that the $52,000 would be taxable versus the tax-free weekly prize, which is the crucial point
• If she spends half of the $52,000 each year and invests the rest she would reach the $1m level by the age of 39 and by the age of 82 would have a lump sum of $12.5m
• Alternatively, if she had invested the $1m lump sum and taken the same withdrawal each year of $26,000 she would be worse off by age 75 and her fund value at age 82 would be marginally lower at $12m. In addition, the $26,000 would be taxed as income whereas the weekly prize is not

All this means that, for someone aged in their early 30s or older, the choice would be much tougher than it was for Miss Lagarde.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

The most important aspect -far more important that the taxes imho- is that she's still a teenager and it's very likely she'd waste a lot of money on stupid stuff as young people do. That's why so many musicians and athletes who become millionaires in their twenties end up broke and with huge depts later in life. With the stipend she could still waste three thousand dollars a month and always have a steady income.

All this means that, for someone aged in their early 30s or older, the choice would be much tougher than it was for Miss Lagarde.

I'd probably take the lump sum and invest it in a business or two. I never cared for status symbols and there's not much stuff I want and better food, gaming hardware and brandy won't increase my current expenses by more than three hundred euros a month.

 

[Takhisis]

And you would be right (according to the beeb):

• If she spends nothing and invests the weekly payments ($52,000 a year), compared to taking the $1m lump sum and investing it, she would be better off by the age of 68. By the age of 82, she would have $24.9m compared to $23.8m
• If she chose the $1m lump sum and withdrew $52,000 a year, she would run out of money at the age of 83. Given Canadian life expectancy is 82, according to the World Bank, the withdrawals would last for her lifetime. However, it is important to note that the $52,000 would be taxable versus the tax-free weekly prize, which is the crucial point
• If she spends half of the $52,000 each year and invests the rest she would reach the $1m level by the age of 39 and by the age of 82 would have a lump sum of $12.5m
• Alternatively, if she had invested the $1m lump sum and taken the same withdrawal each year of $26,000 she would be worse off by age 75 and her fund value at age 82 would be marginally lower at $12m. In addition, the $26,000 would be taxed as income whereas the weekly prize is not

All this means that, for someone aged in their early 30s or older, the choice would be much tougher than it was for Miss Lagarde.

Actually I was thinking along the same lines as GoodSarmatian. I wouldn't know what to do if somebody just walked in, left a million dollars on the sofa, and then left.

However, a steady income is something I've lacked forever. I could do a lot of things in Canada with $1,000 a month to start with.

 

[mitsho]

It entirely depends on how comfortable and self-confident you are. You can buy a lot with 1 Million (house, small corporation, NOT investing in the stock market), but it needs you to know what you are doing. And it helps a lot if you already have some wealth on the side, freeing you up for that. What the 1000 per week on the other hand allow you is to educate yourself with not having to work on the side or draining your parents savings. And that freedom is probably worth a lot more than just the financial balance at the end. You can either go for a high-paying job or have more liberty to do something you really do. It‘s safer and requires less thinking and the flow don‘t stop after finishing your education.

On second thought, this probably would be prime advertisement for the Universal Basic Income.

 

[Arakhor]

On second thought, this probably would be prime advertisement for the Universal Basic Income.

Absolutely! It's far too generous for a state UBI of course, but it's the same general principle.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Actually I was thinking along the same lines as GoodSarmatian. I wouldn't know what to do if somebody just walked in, left a million dollars on the sofa, and then left.

However, a steady income is something I've lacked forever. I could do a lot of things in Canada with $1,000 a month to start with.

And where did you have in mind to do this? There are places in Canada where you actually can live comfortably (albeit not with a lot of extras) on $1000/month. But there are lots of places where that money would mean needing 2-3 roommates in a run-down apartment, and that's not even considering anything else like utilities, food, or transportation.


In the case of this teenager, her lottery win came at just the right time to ensure that she won't have any immediate worries about some of her college/university expenses (assuming she plans on post-secondary education). At least rent, food, books, and transportation will be taken care of.