Share

How much money per week would you consider Set for Life?

redhot7's avatar - SetforLifeLogo

The California Set for Life advertise their jackpot from $500 to $5,000 per week for 25 years.

How much money per week would you consider Set for Life? Make your own number.

For the sake of argument, just assume you would receive money per week.

savagegoose's avatar - ProfilePho

5k  a week is sounding pretty ok, 500 a week is  still looking  like  hard choices.  i would be very  happy for 5k a week.

Avatar
In response to redhot7

We've got that scratch-off here in NC too...5,000 a week for life 2,500 a week for life 1,000 a week for life and $500 a week for life....I'd love to win the 5,000 but there's only one left in that top prize....I also think it would be super cool to have a $20 scratch-off that was 10,000 a week for life...now I'd seriously love to win that one LOL

maringoman's avatar - images q=tbn:ANd9GcTbRxpKQmOfcCoUqF2FyqIOAwDo7rg9G-lfJLAALPGWJWwiz19eRw

Given the choice of $500 to $5,000 a week for life, which option do you think 99.9% of the people would choose? ahahaha only a monk would choose $500 for he has to choose hard life of self denial and sacrifice and abstinence. The rest of us live by the YOLO philosophy. At least I do Thumbs UpBig Grin Cheers

Avatar

5000 would be nice. ;D

Romancandle's avatar - moon
In response to redhot7

Illinois has similar games too... although they recently switched from CASH FOR LIFE to the GOOD LIFE (a 20 year annuity or lump sum) which changed that whole "cash for life" concept in a big way IMO... liked the original concept better.

Seems to me, 5K and up are the only ones that would qualify as "set for life" IMO.

Anything less than that, is good for the early part of the annuity, but as time wears on, your purchasing power starts to drop quickly at the lower JP prize tiers.

$500 and $1000 is nothing to sneeze at, but if your young... you won't necessarily be "set for life" per se.

Avatar
In response to redhot7

It all looks good with the $5000 a week deal- but factor in Uncle Sam and you clear a little over $12, 000 a month.Are you set for life , maybe maybe not.

Avatar

We don't have many win for life tickets in the UK, I think there is only one or two not sure as I don't play them but it's tax free here so I guess it would be possible to retire if you won.

Avatar

The biggest problem with jackpot winners, in the good ol' US of A, is that they get the living daylights, taxed out of them upfront.  To be set, you will need at least $25000.00 per week, unless you consider an extra hamburger a luxury item.

Avatar
In response to maringoman

30 years ago when a decent wage was $10 an hour and $500 a week looked like a person would be set for life. Today if you make $500 a week you're close to poverty levels. 30 years from now, who knows what $5000 a week will be worth?

OldSchoolPa's avatar - Lottery-057.jpg
In response to redhot7

Well, first you have to define what "set for life" means for you. I think one would be hard pressed to say they are set for life on $500 a week in California! Set for life means I never have to work for a living. So 5k per week would qualify but 10k per week would be even better. 20k per week would be outstanding, but I cannot see myself dropping $20 on a scratch off. If I spend $20 on a scratch off, I would be pissed if I won Nothing. I would only play if such game at least offered $10 as a minimum prize even on loser tickets. I would then be able to play $100 in my quest to hit the jackpot...otherwise, that Benjamin would only net me 5 tickets if all I was buying were no prize losers.

One other thing I take issue with is it says set for life, but put time limit of 25 years on payout period. So a 20 year old winner would not be set for life.

OldSchoolPa's avatar - Lottery-057.jpg

If I were to get elected to Congress, I would push for simplifying the tax code, a flat tax and no tax on income or lottery winnings. All tax would be on business and retail goods. Bye bye IRS. Since there would be no income taxes, there would be no need for retirement account limits or even designation of retirement accounts per se, though I would allow them to continue to exist in the event we gehappy ax and spend happy president and congress.

Avatar
In response to OldSchoolPa

Congress has debated your " push for simplifying the tax code"- Forbes when running for President tried that l believe and it got no traction. Heck there is even word of Congress trying to tax the Internet.Your idea is DOA at present.

 As for the guy who won in 2008 hitting the JP- they all have hit the JP going back as far as the eye can see.

All make promises that they do not keep.Take Nixon..

" Nixon did not understand the students’ protests against his Vietnam War. He saw himself as a man wanting to end the war, so to him there was nothing to disagree about. Nixon indeed conducted all his Vietnam politics in order the end the war, but in order to end the war once the United States were in a position to end it “honorably”. In other words, to end the war, he carried it further and intensified it."

rdgrnr's avatar - nw barkeep.jpg
In response to noise-gate

Nixon should have bombed the dikes.

And I'm not talking about Democrat wimmins.

veganlife125's avatar - Lottery-061.jpg
In response to OldSchoolPa

Many are being cafeful with IRA's.  Savers think they are dodging taxes getting a free bee.  The congress could change the laws to tax ira's more heavily in the near future when you take it out.  Worse they could confiscate it to spread the wealth around and give you worthless bonds.  Politicians get desperate to stay in power when the money runs out and can't pay the voters free checks.  Many are taking the early penalty to get it all out.  Who can say.

Welcome Guest

Your last visit: Sat, Jul 2, 2022, 12:22 pm

Log In

Log InCancel

Forgot your username?

Forgot your password?