This is great for the winner, but how would you prevent collusion here? Suppose all winners of every lottery were anonymous -- how would you know the lotteries are even legit?
1. You might argue that auditors and other government officials would enforce integrity. However, it would be trivial to bribe them. In addition, without total transparency you couldn't have confidence in what they're saying, anyway. It's too easy for them to lie.
2. Perhaps the real winners name would be in some book somewhere, e.g. a tax log, but the real name is out of public sight. This would also be easy to rig. If it's anonymous what's stopping the lottery commission and state government from creating a fake winner?
3. Perhaps the biggest argument in favor of a pro-anonymous lottery is that you already can be anonymous by setting up a trust. This is true, but doesn't answer the question -- how do you know it's legit?
Maybe we should just cap the winnings at 10K, an amount that people wouldn't bug you so much for and change the odds such that the revenue the state gets is the same.
Then everyone wins, no? So, in this case, instead of a single winner of 580M you could've had 60 thousand people win 10K instead. Sounds pretty good. An amount high enough that you'd give it a shot for a buck, but not so high that you'd annoy them if they won.
> 1. You might argue that auditors and other government officials would enforce integrity. However, it would be trivial to bribe them.
This seems like a very casual way to dismiss governmental integrity. Can't you apply this argument to any financial gain you could get from the government? e.g. "You might argue that auditors and other government officials would force people to pay taxes. However, it would be trivial to bribe them."
In Dutch we have a saying: As is the inkeeper does he trust his guests.
I'm always surprised by this pattern of extreme paranoia. In most of the world lottery winners are anonymous, because people wouldn't even consider cheating with this sort of thing. It would just not come to their mind. Perhaps because we don't all default to immediately assume the worst of each other? Because that pattern of thinking makes it easier to morally justify when you screw some one over as well. If enough people think somebody would cheat like this, enough people would have the moral flexibility to cheat.
This case is actually far more narrow in scope-- unlike most states, NH allows private trusts to receive the award, but the woman had already signed her real name to the ticket (the standard advice since the ticket is essentially a bearer bond). Most states don't allow a trust to claim the winnings. So this case is more about the spirit of NH law applying to her situation.
Regarding your point #2: I'm pretty sure that even anonymous winners of lottery prizes are identified in some way to the applicable US / state / local tax authorities, when the prize is $600 or more.
For those sorts of prizes, US federal law requires the payor to collect a taxpayer identification number, to file an IRS Form W-2G with the federal government, and to furnish a copy of that form to the payee. Therefore they can ensure that taxes get paid on it.
Now, the payee on Form W-2G can be a trust or a legal entity - they get taxpayer identification numbers just like individuals do. But if the government doesn't see a tax return come through corresponding to a $560 million lottery jackpot, you can be sure the IRS will use all their investigative power, including the ability to pierce through the entity to the humans responsible for it, to track that down.
The main point of lotto anonymity is to hide from unwanted public harassment and invasions of privacy, not from paying taxes.
A $10K lottery is a horrible idea. Most people know that on average you will lose money by buying lottery tickets. What makes it worth playing (for some people) is the (very small) chance of winning fuck you money. If I win $10k, I would be excited and happy about it, but it's going to have very little long-term effect on my lifestyle.
One potential solution is to have an independent third party verify that the winner is legitimate and not linked to the lottery agency. The judge is essentially playing that role here.
>This is great for the winner, but how would you prevent collusion here?
Well the implication here is by publishing the person's name you have a public / crowdsourced validation process, right?
But how do you prevent collusion and abuse by the general public if they're really part of the validation process? Both have the same solution - you need trusted parties to validate the process, people who were themselves validated and vetted to do the work. Isn't that already in place? I believe so.
You don't need the name of the winner. You need to verify the drawing is not rigged, the machines printing the ticket etc. But who in the end has the ticket is irrelevant.
And yet the comments from her lawyer detail reveal how much money she's donated to which charities. So much for anonymity! Between that, her gender, her home town, and even the name of her lawyer, there's WAY too much PII to pretend her identity is a mystery.
In Austria, and Europe afaik, it is common practice not to disclose the name of the winner, only the location. It is done so for privacy reasons. I was always wondering why in the US this was different and always found it a bit strange. But I do understand now.
We Americans love the ol' "poor old man ascends from the ashes of the lower-middle class because he grabbed a PowerBall ticket with his sixer of Miller Lite" story. It sells more tickets.
"The state had argued that the names of lottery winners must be disclosed to ensure that prizes are distributed fairly and that winners are not related to lottery employees."
First, they know who they are writing the check to so the whole "not related to lottery employees" part seems rather bogus.
I thought the whole point of disclosure was publicity, but this got plenty and being able to gamble without telling the world you won probably will sell more tickets anyway which is the whole point of the publicity.
The point of disclosure isn't to get a first order effect of preventing corruption (I don't know of any sensical mechanism that means publishing a name ensures it's not on a certain list). Obviously the government (should) knows if a winner is related to a government employee, but the only way to enforce that is to allow the public to verify that (or so the argument goes).
There is something about lottery winning (easy money perhaps?) that attracts trouble. There are so many millionaires in tech world of acquisitions and IPOs that made so much more. Most never got into lottery winner kinds of trouble.
How is it that people worth a lot more money manage to walk the earth among us mere mortals without being preyed upon like these lottery winners? 24x7 security detail? light sabers? both?
I'm mostly curious to see what the impact is of this is on future court cases. Presumably in New Hampshire winners won't need to create a trust in order to get the winnings anymore.
Is there anything stopping the lottery from creating rules to disqualify anyone who wants to collect anonymously? I feel there are some contracts you shouldn't be able to sue to get out of.
I get the notion than it doesn't seem fair, that no person is using a $300m share of the state's resources. But math just doesn't back it up.
The US federal budget is somewhere around 4 trillion dollars. A quick google suggests income tax is 47% of federal revenue. The US has a population of about 323 million. Plugging these all together gives me a federal revenue of about $6k per person, per year.
The alternative to it being "fair" to ask a lottery winner for $300m tax, is for it to be "fair" to tax every man, woman and child that $6k per year.
That almost sounds doable, but that's $6k per retiree, $6k per one-year-old. $6k per unemployed or student. There's a lot of people you simply can't get that money from - so it has to come from somewhere else.
It isn't fair, it's reality.
(For the lottery in particular, there's a simple solution. Lottery winnings aren't taxed here, the ticket is. Not only does this mean no $300m tax bill on a $500m win, but it also means all those silly little wins are taxed fairly too.)
From what I understand about this case, she wrote her name on the ticket, and once you do that, the state is in charge of whether or not that name gets revealed because removing the name would invalidate the ticket, legally.
So a judge basically said, "Well, we can break the law here and force the state to keep your name private because I say so; I'm a judge."
All the arguments about privacy and stuff, were really about whether it would be fair to break the law or now, not necessarily because they had some sort of legal standing.
No wonder people don't have faith in the American legal system.
[+] [-] _m8fo|8 years ago|reply
1. You might argue that auditors and other government officials would enforce integrity. However, it would be trivial to bribe them. In addition, without total transparency you couldn't have confidence in what they're saying, anyway. It's too easy for them to lie.
2. Perhaps the real winners name would be in some book somewhere, e.g. a tax log, but the real name is out of public sight. This would also be easy to rig. If it's anonymous what's stopping the lottery commission and state government from creating a fake winner?
3. Perhaps the biggest argument in favor of a pro-anonymous lottery is that you already can be anonymous by setting up a trust. This is true, but doesn't answer the question -- how do you know it's legit?
Maybe we should just cap the winnings at 10K, an amount that people wouldn't bug you so much for and change the odds such that the revenue the state gets is the same.
Then everyone wins, no? So, in this case, instead of a single winner of 580M you could've had 60 thousand people win 10K instead. Sounds pretty good. An amount high enough that you'd give it a shot for a buck, but not so high that you'd annoy them if they won.
[+] [-] CGamesPlay|8 years ago|reply
This seems like a very casual way to dismiss governmental integrity. Can't you apply this argument to any financial gain you could get from the government? e.g. "You might argue that auditors and other government officials would force people to pay taxes. However, it would be trivial to bribe them."
[+] [-] ralfn|8 years ago|reply
I'm always surprised by this pattern of extreme paranoia. In most of the world lottery winners are anonymous, because people wouldn't even consider cheating with this sort of thing. It would just not come to their mind. Perhaps because we don't all default to immediately assume the worst of each other? Because that pattern of thinking makes it easier to morally justify when you screw some one over as well. If enough people think somebody would cheat like this, enough people would have the moral flexibility to cheat.
[+] [-] mobilefriendly|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jkaplowitz|8 years ago|reply
For those sorts of prizes, US federal law requires the payor to collect a taxpayer identification number, to file an IRS Form W-2G with the federal government, and to furnish a copy of that form to the payee. Therefore they can ensure that taxes get paid on it.
Now, the payee on Form W-2G can be a trust or a legal entity - they get taxpayer identification numbers just like individuals do. But if the government doesn't see a tax return come through corresponding to a $560 million lottery jackpot, you can be sure the IRS will use all their investigative power, including the ability to pierce through the entity to the humans responsible for it, to track that down.
The main point of lotto anonymity is to hide from unwanted public harassment and invasions of privacy, not from paying taxes.
[+] [-] dfrey|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fred_is_fred|8 years ago|reply
http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-lottery-insiders-brother-a...
[+] [-] mikeash|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] technofiend|8 years ago|reply
Well the implication here is by publishing the person's name you have a public / crowdsourced validation process, right? But how do you prevent collusion and abuse by the general public if they're really part of the validation process? Both have the same solution - you need trusted parties to validate the process, people who were themselves validated and vetted to do the work. Isn't that already in place? I believe so.
[+] [-] sschueller|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jack9|8 years ago|reply
of course all of the money is tracked by the IRS and state.
[+] [-] dnautics|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] intopieces|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stonemetal|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] txsh|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dpweb|8 years ago|reply
- Public source code program used to pick a random winner among public keys.
- Private key holder has access to the winnings.
- Govt takes their taxes before disbursing the funds.
- Everyone can verify funds were disbursed.
- Winner can stay anonymous.
[+] [-] davidcamel|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m3kw9|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slovette|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevindqc|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrleiter|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marpstar|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdtsc|8 years ago|reply
To promote the lottery."So and so won, I saw her on TV, I can win too" is a lot more convincing than "Someone from another town somewhere won".
[+] [-] BrandoElFollito|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] protomyth|8 years ago|reply
First, they know who they are writing the check to so the whole "not related to lottery employees" part seems rather bogus.
I thought the whole point of disclosure was publicity, but this got plenty and being able to gamble without telling the world you won probably will sell more tickets anyway which is the whole point of the publicity.
[+] [-] hirsin|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mobilefriendly|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kvhdude|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m3kw9|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] steffan|8 years ago|reply
Not sure why it would change my current and future relationships, but if that's the case, I owe her thanks.
[+] [-] mrhappyunhappy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AlexCoventry|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dowwie|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DoreenMichele|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] losteverything|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jamestimmins|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] msie|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Sniffnoy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HedgehogAmp|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HedgehogAmp|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lalaithion|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jessaustin|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AckSyn|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] inteleng|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yubiox|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soneil|8 years ago|reply
I get the notion than it doesn't seem fair, that no person is using a $300m share of the state's resources. But math just doesn't back it up.
The US federal budget is somewhere around 4 trillion dollars. A quick google suggests income tax is 47% of federal revenue. The US has a population of about 323 million. Plugging these all together gives me a federal revenue of about $6k per person, per year.
The alternative to it being "fair" to ask a lottery winner for $300m tax, is for it to be "fair" to tax every man, woman and child that $6k per year.
That almost sounds doable, but that's $6k per retiree, $6k per one-year-old. $6k per unemployed or student. There's a lot of people you simply can't get that money from - so it has to come from somewhere else.
It isn't fair, it's reality.
(For the lottery in particular, there's a simple solution. Lottery winnings aren't taxed here, the ticket is. Not only does this mean no $300m tax bill on a $500m win, but it also means all those silly little wins are taxed fairly too.)
[+] [-] recursive|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] almostApatriot1|8 years ago|reply
So a judge basically said, "Well, we can break the law here and force the state to keep your name private because I say so; I'm a judge."
All the arguments about privacy and stuff, were really about whether it would be fair to break the law or now, not necessarily because they had some sort of legal standing.
No wonder people don't have faith in the American legal system.
[+] [-] detaro|8 years ago|reply
What law is being broken? The state not getting it's will doesn't mean a law has been broken.