The dumbest Stuff or Herald headlines (& other news media)

Forums › Off topic › The dumbest Stuff or Herald headlines (& other news media)

1 | ... | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | ... | 291

Smpl Mnmlst
8855 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2284531 27-Jul-2019 12:27

NZH today: “A Tauranga Lotto Powerball winner has spent millions since his win“.

Really? How very dare he! What gives him the right to do that? Very surprising. Wow.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

kingdragonfly

11196 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2284550 27-Jul-2019 13:39

I suspect people who "invest" heavily in lottery tickets are unlikely to ever read this post, but a number of studies show s good number people who come into large amounts of money unexpectedly after 10 years are either broke or unhappy.

Here's a tragedy that would make a great movie

https://www.thedailybeast.com/he-won-dollar19-million-in-the-lotteryand-became-a-bank-robber

He Won $19 Million in the Lottery—And Became a Bank Robber

Jim Hayes won the jackpot of a lifetime and spent big on Lamborghinis and Vegas gambling trips. Then his life went south and he turned to crime.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-comparing-yourself-to-others-can-improve-your-financial-well-being-2018-03-14

Neighbors of lottery winners are more likely to go bankrupt

Neighbors of lottery winners may want to mentally prepare themselves, too. They’re more likely to go bankrupt, a 2016 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia found. Researchers theorized that neighbors of lottery winners were unconsciously trying to match their spending and going broke in the process.

“Income inequality induces poorer neighbors to consume more visible (rather than invisible) commodities to signal their abilities to ‘keep up with the Joneses’ to their richer neighbors,” wrote economists Sumit Agarwal, Vyacheslav Mikhed and Barry Scholnick. “This tendency can lead to additional and unsustainable borrowing among the relatively poor to finance this additional conspicuous consumption, which can eventually result in financial distress and bankruptcy.”

floydbloke

3523 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2286367 31-Jul-2019 12:10

If you are intending to learn how do this by turning to a tabloid website, please stay home instead....for the sake of other people's lives.

Did Eric Clapton really think she looked wonderful...or was it after the 15th outfit she tried on and he just wanted to get to the party and get a drink?

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2286370 31-Jul-2019 12:21

The man has spent $6.5 million of $10.3 million in two years. At that rate he won't have much left soon. His choice.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2286396 31-Jul-2019 12:54

I saw a documentary some time ago on lotto winners. One man interviewed had spent it all and was on a benefit, I think. His only remaining possession from his considerable winnings was a big piece of polished wood that he paid a ridiculous price for. There was an air of resigned sadness about him.

I personally think the lotto is criminally irresponsible for the way they pay out winnings. I know they offer financial advice and the usual cautions, but winners are still given the option to take it all in a lump sum. I think that should be eliminated, except possibly in exceptional circumstances on a one by one basis. Some people know how to handle windfalls and deal with it in a sensible manner, but many from poorer backgrounds get overwhelmed or taken advantage of and can't cope with the sudden rain of money. Measures are being suggested to limit the amount of money that can be spent on pokie machines in a single session. There should also be a limit on the amount that can be paid out from big winnings.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

SheriffNZ

671 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2286399 31-Jul-2019 12:55

All of this talk of lotto reminds me I need to buy a lotto ticket...

SheriffNZ

671 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2286450 31-Jul-2019 13:19

Not a headline but in this article (https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/film/114636098/im-old-im-fat--kelly-mcgillis-on-why-she-wasnt-asked-to-be-part-of-top-gun-2) which has additional reporting from Stuff - ie , they apparently made some changes, they failed to note that the movie isn't actually coming out this Summer, but next winter , at least according to the rest of the internet.

Dingbatt

6756 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2286455 31-Jul-2019 13:29

Rikkitic:
I saw a documentary some time ago on lotto winners. One man interviewed had spent it all and was on a benefit, I think. His only remaining possession from his considerable winnings was a big piece of polished wood that he paid a ridiculous price for. There was an air of resigned sadness about him.

I personally think the lotto is criminally irresponsible for the way they pay out winnings. I know they offer financial advice and the usual cautions, but winners are still given the option to take it all in a lump sum. I think that should be eliminated, except possibly in exceptional circumstances on a one by one basis. Some people know how to handle windfalls and deal with it in a sensible manner, but many from poorer backgrounds get overwhelmed or taken advantage of and can't cope with the sudden rain of money. Measures are being suggested to limit the amount of money that can be spent on pokie machines in a single session. There should also be a limit on the amount that can be paid out from big winnings.

Yep. Let's tell people how to live their lives. Save them from themselves because the 1% that start with nothing, win a lot, blow it and end up where they started, should mean everybody's dream is affected.

And "criminally irresponsible" is a massive stretch.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2286458 31-Jul-2019 13:35

Feel free to disagree but I don't see how you do someone any favours by dumping a ton of money on them and watching them disintegrate.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Dingbatt

6756 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2286471 31-Jul-2019 13:44

Rikkitic:
Feel free to disagree but I don't see how you do someone any favours by dumping a ton of money on them and watching them disintegrate.

Yes. Instead of dumping a truckload of cash in your driveway, you would think the Lotteries Commission might;

Provide the winner with a commission staff member to take them through the process,
Offer counselling,
Provide a contact for professional financial advice,
Allow time for preparation prior to money being transferred to a bank account.

Oh wait............they do.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2286482 31-Jul-2019 14:16

Rikkitic:

I saw a documentary some time ago on lotto winners. One man interviewed had spent it all and was on a benefit, I think. His only remaining possession from his considerable winnings was a big piece of polished wood that he paid a ridiculous price for. There was an air of resigned sadness about him.

I personally think the lotto is criminally irresponsible for the way they pay out winnings. I know they offer financial advice and the usual cautions, but winners are still given the option to take it all in a lump sum. I think that should be eliminated, except possibly in exceptional circumstances on a one by one basis. Some people know how to handle windfalls and deal with it in a sensible manner, but many from poorer backgrounds get overwhelmed or taken advantage of and can't cope with the sudden rain of money. Measures are being suggested to limit the amount of money that can be spent on pokie machines in a single session. There should also be a limit on the amount that can be paid out from big winnings.

Yeah, NZ's richest man Graham Hart didn't get as rich as he did by spending money like a drunken sailor.

I remember hearing of a NZ couple who won millions and pissed it all away on luxury cars.

Pinky promise lotto NZ, if you'd be good enough to give me ten mil, I'll spend it wisely and frugally. :P

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2286489 31-Jul-2019 14:29

Dingbatt:
Rikkitic:

Feel free to disagree but I don't see how you do someone any favours by dumping a ton of money on them and watching them disintegrate.

Yes. Instead of dumping a truckload of cash in your driveway, you would think the Lotteries Commission might;

Provide the winner with a commission staff member to take them through the process,
Offer counselling,
Provide a contact for professional financial advice,
Allow time for preparation prior to money being transferred to a bank account.

Oh wait............they do.

All good but the problem is that people who don't know better or don't care are still given the option of taking a ruinous amount of cash. Sure, an argument can be made for free choice and the right to be stupid, but there is also a duty of care.

There is a front page article in our local paper this morning about a businessman in his thirties who actually drank himself to death at a private club. Others at the club were aware that he was drinking so much but no-one felt able to intervene, though apparently someone did help him get home. He died in bed that night of alcohol poisoning.

Now questions are being asked about how he was allowed to consume so much alcohol. I think the article said he was 7 times over the drink drive limit, or something like that.

Sure, you can argue that he had a right to do what he did and he just paid the price for his stupidity, but that is a fairly harsh judgement. Without knowing the details of his life, he apparently had things that made it worth living, like a loving partner and a good professional occupation. No doubt he was also raging alcoholic or well on the way so maybe wouldn't have had a good life if he had survived, but that kind of speculation is pointless. If someone had intervened, he would not have died that night. What might have subsequently happened on other nights is not relevant.

Our society accepts the principle in general that we have a duty of care to our fellow human beings, it just isn't always applied equally. Bars are not supposed to serve you if you are obviously drunk. Clearly an imposition on your right to get dangerously hammered but intended to prevent harm and even save lives. What is wrong with that? You are expected to stop at the scene of an accident and render assistance if necessary. It doesn't matter if the accident was the fault of the driver. You don't just snort that she got what she deserved and keep on going. At least not if you have any civilised values.

We all have a duty of care to our fellow human beings. The only question is where the line should be drawn. How do you protect people from their own foolishness without imposing unreasonable constraints on their freedom to live the way they want to? In the specific case of lotto, it would be easy to change the terms so winners know they cannot take a lump sum but will be paid out in generous installments. They still get the whole amount, just not all at once. Winners could still buy mansions and sports cars and anything they wanted by special arrangement or taking out loans against their future income, they would just be doing it in a slightly more regulated fashion designed to curb the worst excesses of impulse buying. I don't see that as an unacceptable attack on personal freedom.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

geoffwnz

1590 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2286584 31-Jul-2019 14:56

Without mega quoting the above, I think the ridiculously big US jackpots are either lump sum of a much smaller amount, or installments over a few years. I believe the expectation is that the lump sum should be able to be invested to achieve the total jackpot.

MotorDrive Rallying

floydbloke

3523 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2286626 31-Jul-2019 15:42

Rikkitic:

... In the specific case of lotto, it would be easy to change the terms so winners know they cannot take a lump sum but will be paid out in generous installments. They still get the whole amount, just not all at once. Winners could still buy mansions and sports cars and anything they wanted by special arrangement or taking out loans against their future income, they would just be doing it in a slightly more regulated fashion designed to curb the worst excesses of impulse buying...

Sounds like you're looking to treat the winnings like some sort of trust fund. Effectively saying: "it's your money, but we will tell you when you can spend it and on what".

IANAL but I expect that would need a law change and meet some pretty stiff opposition in the process...nanny state and all that...

Did Eric Clapton really think she looked wonderful...or was it after the 15th outfit she tried on and he just wanted to get to the party and get a drink?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2286630 31-Jul-2019 16:02

My point is that the winners only have a claim to the money because of lotto's rules, i.e., if you get all the numbers we will give you this. I don't see why the rules couldn't be modified if there was a will to do so.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | ... | 291