Speakeasy forum


Should newspapers publish Lottery Winners names

by JP Bill / January 4, 2013 4:53 AM PST
Should lottery winners' names be kept secret?

PHOENIX (AP) - When two winning tickets for a record $588 million Powerball jackpot were claimed from the Nov. 28 drawing, the world focused on the winners.

A Missouri couple appeared at a press conference and held up the traditional giant-sized check. The Arizona winner, however, skipped the press conference where lottery officials announced last month that someone had claimed the second half of the prize.

The differing approach to releasing information on the winners reflects a broader debate that is playing out in state Legislatures and lottery offices nationwide: Should the winners' names be secret?

Lawmakers in Michigan and New Jersey think so, proposing bills to allow anonymity because winners are prone to falling victim to scams, shady businesses, greedy distant family members and violent criminals looking to shake them down.

I say "NO WAY...Don't publish names."
Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Should newspapers publish Lottery Winners names
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Should newspapers publish Lottery Winners names
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Agree. One's legal income is a private matter
by Steven Haninger / January 4, 2013 5:16 AM PST

and so is how it's distributed...tax records included.

Collapse -
That's not quite what I said.
by JP Bill / January 4, 2013 5:24 AM PST

Publishing names has nothing to do with tax records.

I have a good idea where you're headed though.

IF you are running for public office....and are going to be making financial decisions that affect how taxpayers money is spent....I want to know where your financial interests are...AND I don't believe in 'Blind Trusts", I'd have to be "blind".

Is that where you were headed?

Collapse -
It could depend on the office being sought
by Steven Haninger / January 4, 2013 6:46 AM PST

Some officials make law and some are there to uphold it. If you're there to make law, I want to know what laws you want to make. If you're there to uphold the law, I want to know that you're personal activities are within those laws.

Collapse -
(NT) So I was right...
by JP Bill / January 4, 2013 11:07 AM PST
Collapse -
You added the political aspect
by Steven Haninger / January 4, 2013 6:17 PM PST
In reply to: So I was right...

and asked me to respond to that portion of it. I did so. Responding to your specific question doesn't make you right about anything as to where I was "headed". I'm of the opinion that a person's financial status is their own business. If a lottery winner has no contractual obligation to release his/her identification upon winning, they should be allowed privacy if desired. The media will also press them to say what they'll do with the money. They will probably spend and invest some of that. Some will be taxed. How those winnings are to be distributed is also, IMO, a private matter. That's my expansion of the answer to your original question. If you feel you've uncovered some other message from my response, feel free to have your thoughts. I won't waste further time commenting regarding your dissection of it.

Collapse -
(NT) Publishing names has nothing to do with tax records.
by JP Bill / January 4, 2013 7:24 PM PST
Collapse -
It has to do with their new financial position
by Steven Haninger / January 4, 2013 10:55 PM PST

What you have, how you got it and how you distribute it are not public business.

Collapse -
That's right it does
by JP Bill / January 5, 2013 3:31 AM PST

Publishing names has nothing to do with tax records.

Collapse -
Tax records are sources of information
by Steven Haninger / January 5, 2013 3:58 AM PST
In reply to: That's right it does

about how one's wealth is derived and distributed. Charitable giving, investments, etc., need to be itemized on the many and varied forms that may need to be attached to one's 1040. Another tax record generated in the US is the 1099. It comes in many species but is a tax record of income derived from a variety of sources. It's part of a person's personal financial picture. It is relevant to my statement that one's financial doings are not public business. End of discussion. I'm done.

Collapse -
Publishing names has nothing to do with tax records
by JP Bill / January 5, 2013 4:15 AM PST

Whether they put a picture of me holding a symbolic cheque and publish my name in the news has NO affect on tax records IF I was American and won a lottery.

Up here they don't tax us on winnings...only taxed on the income we make "from the winnings". They do publish names and pics of big winners.

I've never been photographed holding a large symbolic cheque :(...BUT I'm quite content.

Collapse -
So, you only want
by James Denison / January 4, 2013 11:11 AM PST

rich people to serve in office? After all,if you want those with fiscally sound methods, that would be the rich.

Collapse -
RE: fiscally sound methods, that would be the rich.
by JP Bill / January 4, 2013 11:19 AM PST
In reply to: So, you only want

You don't know anyone that isn't rich and has a comfortable lifestyle?

Do YOU have a comfortable lifestyle?

Collapse -
fiscally sound has nothing to do with rich
by Roger NC / January 4, 2013 11:46 AM PST
In reply to: So, you only want

however you define rich.

There have been plenty of rich that weren't fiscally sound, they may not have stayed rich.

There are many that by no one's definition are financially rich have been fiscally sound.

Collapse -
but the rules in many state say
by Roger NC / January 4, 2013 6:54 AM PST

that when you buy a ticket, you are agreeing to appear in promotionl ads if you win to promote the lottery. So if you live in those states, you enter a contract to appear in an ad in return for your winnings. A huge pay scale for a 30 sec ad maybe, but there you are. If you don't want to appear, don't claim you winnings.

I rather be anonymous as possible myself. Huge prize winners even have to worry about the safety of their kids and family after their names and pictures are shown so widely.

I read some past stories of the lottery winners. I like the one that hired a lawyer to establish a investment trust, then the lawyer was hired by the trust to claim the prize in the name of the trust, which then paid out monthly income to those chosen by the original winner.

Collapse -
That is correct and also goes for such as
by Steven Haninger / January 4, 2013 6:58 AM PST

the publisher's clearance house sweepstakes drawings. Your entry requires that your prize be received in a way it can be advertised.

Collapse -
I told someone I rather win the one after the "big one'
by Roger NC / January 4, 2013 7:03 AM PST

for only about 12M than the big one.

Everyone would still be talking so much about the big winners you could collect your money and go away with little media notice.

Even if shown, winning $12M compared to a very recent prize of 500+ $M just wouldn't excite people.

Collapse -
They have to to prove the Lottery is not a scam. It's proba
by Ziks511 / January 4, 2013 8:08 PM PST

probably part of the law making Lotteries legal. Otherwise they could collect all that money, issue a statement that there have been 12 winners, and pocket all the money. It's the price of playing the Lottery, you have to cry all the way to the bank.


Collapse -
not even close to required
by Roger NC / January 4, 2013 9:17 PM PST

all they have to do is let the regulators see their bank accounts and where the money went, they don't have to take pictures handing out a 6 foot check.

Only regulators and the IRS needs to know the winners legally, not everyone.

That said, I understand they want to advertise the winners. It does keep conspiracy lovers from claiming the scenario you just expounded. But more importantly showing "ordinary" people getting millions helps sell the idea that you could win and encourages everyone to go buy a ticket.

I play myself, but sadly there has been evidence that those who can afford it least are the most likely to spend the most on lotteries, hoping to drastically change their desperation to celebration.

It's been said lotteries are a tax on those that can do math. It's more of tax on those that have the least. Their choice, their responsibility, but it does cast a shadow over playing for fun and even over the winners.

Collapse -
You might have a point
by Steven Haninger / January 4, 2013 10:59 PM PST

I've worked charitable gambling events when our church had them in the past. The personality of many gamblers is quite a bit different from that of other people. If a progressive jackpot had been hit on another night than the current one, the players would want to know the name of the winner.

Collapse -
They have to...
by Willy / January 5, 2013 2:26 AM PST

Someone has to win and then become "public knowledge", otherwise, the lottery people can say, Mr. Smith has won and just keep the money. Public disclosure is meant to say that winning were distributed and all fell into the rules, etc.. Otherwise, when it comes to money good intentions become mucked-up all too fast. Which is why gambling even under illegal circumstances, pays off because once the gambling public(or private) find a crooked house, bets/sales are to be lacking.

Of course, winners have to use what ever God given talents they have to protect themselves. What they can't do, then allow someone else to provide it. ------Willy Happy

Collapse -
there are states that allow anonymous claims
by Roger NC / January 5, 2013 3:15 AM PST
In reply to: They have to...

of course the state officials vouches who wons and the IRS gets their SS# along wth their names, just like any other money you received.

Collapse -
My ticket or not
by Willy / January 5, 2013 4:51 AM PST

I find it amazing and even down right crooked when it comes to pay outs. Where was the govt. or anyone else when I put "my money" to buy a ticket, 100% my dollar. yet, when you win, EVERYONE gets a cut of the winnings. Yeah, i know this and that, but where was their money mixed with mine, I didn't see a govt. official, shop keeper, or what have you place their bets with mine. Some local govt's also passed hesitation in order to get a share as well that weren't on the books before, usually city govt. or township.

Plus, if you asked for the X-amount that was to be the winning payout, you don't get the full amount. Excluding the tax side but immediate payout rather than annuity payout, its much less. So, it seems they protect themselves rather well. -----Willy Shocked

Collapse -
the advertised pot is what the cash will earn
by Roger NC / January 5, 2013 5:01 AM PST
In reply to: My ticket or not

you if you take the long term payout.

Some argue that you can take the lower cash payout, pay the taxes, and invest it yourself and make as much. Maybe, who knows who will win with different investment stragedies.

But don't forget, they get to invest the entire amount, income tax is only incurred when they pay it to the winner.

So if the advertise pot is 100 million, the cash is 60 million, after tax it's 40 million. That's a generous estimate. So they get to invest 60 million, you only get to invest 40M. Actually your cash will probably be closer to 35 than 40, maybe even less, down to 30M.

As far as everyone getting a cut without putting into the ticket price, the government doesn't go to work with you every day either but they take that cut, they don't put the money in savings but they take that cut, etc. Why would we expect a lottery to be any different.

Are lottery winning subject to or exempt from the so call windfall taxes? I don't know.

Popular Forums
Computer Help 49,613 discussions
Computer Newbies 10,349 discussions
Laptops 19,436 discussions
Security 30,426 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 20,308 discussions
Windows 10 360 discussions
Phones 15,802 discussions
Windows 7 7,351 discussions
Networking & Wireless 14,641 discussions


$16,000 used SUVs

Whether you like your SUVs cute or capable, or some blend of the two, we've got a wide variety of choices in Roadshow's first collection of Editors' Used Picks.