Awww, poor town isn't entitled to Lotto winner's cash...

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: sandorski
That city kinda put their foot in their mouth. Once they realized their error they should have STFU about it, now she may have reason to move, though she may move anyway for other reasons. Though they can't tax her lotto winnings, they could(most likely) get taxes from other sources of income, such as investment income or property taxes, etc. That would make them as much, but it would get them more than if she chooses to leave.

As for should she give the money to the city anyway? That's her choice, maybe she would have or maybe she would have, over time, given much more. By turning this into a public issue she may choose not to give 1 red cent.

I kinda agree with others, that the amount in question is small and she would not be hurt by paying that at all, but it's her money and her choice whether to donate it or not. Personally, I'd probably give the money to particular programs or projects. Such as: after school sports/activities, community centres, skateboard park, United Way/Salvation Army/other social org, etc.

Yeah, I'm with you: I'd find specific programs I care about and donate that money--probably a whole helluva lot more than 1.4 million, to be honest. What's sad is the way the city people dove for the money; that's the *really* telling feature of this issue, they're like guppies racing to the top of the tank when someone even has the food bottle in hand whether they were planning to feed them or not.

I read somewhere not long ago (and now I'm too tired and lazy to search for the link) that most Lotto winners end up broke anyway, so there's a pretty good chance that some city government will get that 1.4, and probably more than that, just because the newly-rich woman is likely to blow her wad like crazy.

I didn't think it was an issue worthy of 24 posts, I just thought it was kinda funny is all

Jason

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: athithi

Originally posted by: KK
She doesn't have to give a damn thing to the city, and 95% of you wouldn't either. Who the fvck cares what the city was going to spend the money on. Just like I should care about what the liar that said she won the lottery was going to rehire laid off cleveland police officers.

Geez, most of you guys are like a bunch of feeding lemmings. Trying to get your greedy hands what is not yours. And what the hell do you care in the first place.

KK

You really believe that's how the world works? Everyone keeps what they get? That aside, I have a right to mock her just as she has a right to hide that money (the $1.4M) from the needy. If anything, I have a slight moral edge

You are missing one vital element here, she is not required by law to give any of the money to the city based upon the city's own tax code. If it was in the city tax code to have winnings from the lotto included in whats taxable to the city, and she didn't give the money, then that would be wrong and I would want her to be held liable. But that's not the case here, so if your morals include stealing money, then yes you have more morals than I.

KK

 

[Dissipate]

This is another instance of bureaucratic greed. Athithi: are you so ignorant about government to think that the $1.4 million would have been spent on parks and sidewalks? The first thing the bureaucrats would have done with that money is give each other all pay raises.

 

[athithi]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: athithi

Originally posted by: KK
She doesn't have to give a damn thing to the city, and 95% of you wouldn't either. Who the fvck cares what the city was going to spend the money on. Just like I should care about what the liar that said she won the lottery was going to rehire laid off cleveland police officers.

Geez, most of you guys are like a bunch of feeding lemmings. Trying to get your greedy hands what is not yours. And what the hell do you care in the first place.

KK

You really believe that's how the world works? Everyone keeps what they get? That aside, I have a right to mock her just as she has a right to hide that money (the $1.4M) from the needy. If anything, I have a slight moral edge

You are missing one vital element here, she is not required by law to give any of the money to the city based upon the city's own tax code. If it was in the city tax code to have winnings from the lotto included in whats taxable to the city, and she didn't give the money, then that would be wrong and I would want her to be held liable. But that's not the case here, so if your morals include stealing money, then yes you have more morals than I.

KK

OK, point out where I claimed that she was required to give the money. Also, apparently you find it difficult to comprehend slightly complex sentence formations. I, partly in jest, claimed to have a moral edge over her in that I believed $1.4M would not increase the quality of life for me in any significant manner that $67M wouldn't. I am not inquisitive about your morals.

That translates to: I was jokingly comparing my morals with hers. Not yours.

 

[athithi]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
This is another instance of bureaucratic greed. Athithi: are you so ignorant about government to think that the $1.4 million would have been spent on parks and sidewalks? The first thing the bureaucrats would have done with that money is give each other all pay raises.

Really? You know for a fact that your present form of Government is an abject failure? What have you done about it recently?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: athithi

Mr.Wannabe-Peikoff:

...referencing Peikoff is a nice touch and quite impressive (providing you didn't just do a 'google search' and used the first name associated with Rand just to woe me with your impressive knowledge of the Objectivist community). I think, however, that I missed the point of your post.


I asked you to outline the standards by which you applied to valuing/measuring happiness for individuals; you, however, want to play ad hominem games...predictable (and typical).

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Who got the other 95 million?

Uncle

holy crap, whats the tax rate ????? How can she walk away with 67mil outta 160? Thats more than 60% tax...

You only get the full 162 million (pre tax) if you decide on a 20 year payout. There is a lump sum option which is typically less than the listed jackpot. Not sure how they figure that out.

They use a formula similar to the "Rule of 17" regarding investments.
the lottery system figures that they can invest a set amount of money and over 20 years it will be worth $160M.
Therefore, they will pay a lump sum and "allow" the winner to chose to invest it to make it worth the $160M.
Assume the the base amount if $100M.
Now Uncle comes in and wants the $35M as tax on the unearned income.
The state may also be able to get their hands on a chunk of change.

Now they have $60+M to spend to get into the poor house.

 

[TheGameIs21]

I think that many people are missing an obvious problem with the article....

1.

The news came at a bad time for South Euclid, which laid off six workers and made other cuts to help bring its $16.5 million budget down to $13 million, Welo said.

2.

South Euclid city officials were stunned to learn that they can't collect $1.4 million in income taxes from the winning Mega Millions

3.

The city had planned to use the windfall to rehire some workers and improve parks and recreation programs.

They cut 3.5 million out of their budget (It would be good to know how much of a deficit are they operating under?) and they were going to hire back workers and improve parks programs off of a one time tax collection $1.4 million. I don't know why the city of South Euclid handles taxes on a year to year basis so differently than any other city in the country. You are going off of the taxes you are going to collect for that year and that is what you spend. They would have had to lay off the 6 workers all over again next year unless they are counting on Rebecca Jemison winning it again.

 

[athithi]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: athithi

Mr.Wannabe-Peikoff:

...referencing Peikoff is a nice touch and quite impressive (providing you didn't just do a 'google search' and used the first name associated with Rand just to woe me with your impressive knowledge of the Objectivist community). I think, however, that I missed the point of your post.


I asked you to outline the standards by which you applied to valuing/measuring happiness for individuals; you, however, want to play ad hominem games...predictable (and typical).

LOL No, I find Peikoff amusing. I think he is the very anti-thesis of Rand's exalted human. The parallels between the Peikoff-Rand relationship and Wet Nurse-Rearden relationship are positively hilarious

Rand's biggest mistake is in assuming that people are capable of equal intellect. The contradiction I expected you to present was in asking for an understanding of superior intelligence, which is typically where all Objectivist arguments lead to. The paradox is that intelligence is not capable of understanding superiority. If you knew what constituted being smarter, you would be smarter. Due to this paradox, people like Eddie Willers cannot exist and people who actively pretend to be such, end up like Peikoff - condensing objectivity to an easily repeatable mantra. A lot of absolute presumptions made by these people are as much out of blind faith as any fervent believer of God.

People who are literally gifted $67 million and still see a need to retain an additional $1.4 million, which if not for a technicality would belong to an entity supposedly involved in abstracting tasks and duties that cannot be performed by a single individual in the capacity of an individual, will never know happiness no matter in what form, shape or size it comes in. By what standard would such a winner of the lottery decide that $68.4 million increases happiness that $100 million would not better? Then, by what standard would such a winner know that $68.4 million would give what $67 would not? If anything, she would reduce the risk of tripping over cracks in the sidewalk while on her way to the nice neighbourhood park where she can take her exotic dogs for a walk if she didn't hold back the $1.4 million. Conversely, she might want to purchase a really expensive security system with that $1.4M to protect the rest of her $67 million stashed away in a cupboard in her dingy apartment.

Rand is not the sum total of all knowledge in the world. One learns to appreciate her writings even more when one realizes that.

Please don't bring up the Collective vs Individual argument to debate that I am giving the city council way more credit than it deserves. I already know that. I am arguing because I am bored.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: athithi


LOL No, I find Peikoff amusing. I think he is the very anti-thesis of Rand's exalted human.

I, too, find Peikoff to be "the anti-thesis of Rand's exalted human." He is the legal "Heir to the Throne" of her philosophy, which regards people who are dependent upon others and benefit as a result of other's hardwork as "bottom-feeders." Yet, he is riding on the back of her hardwork for his own gain, though he has contributed nothing to her philosophy.

The contradiction I expected you to present was in asking for an understanding of superior intelligence, which is typically where all Objectivist arguments lead to. The paradox is that intelligence is not capable of understanding superiority. If you knew what constituted being smarter, you would be smarter.

Firstly, I rarely make mistakes Further, I disagree with your proposition--"If you knew what constituted being smarter, you would be smarter." This, of course, assumes people have an equal capacity for processing information/gain knowledge/learning (or, in layman's terms, one could simply "will" themselves smarter, so long as they know what constituted being smarter. Or, analogously, one could become King of England if they knew what it took to become the King of England.). Extending your argument to its logical absurdity (which isn't a long trip), one could conclude that people with learning disabilities, and an inability to process/gain knowledge, could simply "will" themselves smarter so long as they know "what constituted being smarter," which is what you presuppose.

By what standard would such a winner of the lottery decide that $68.4 million increases happiness that $100 million would not better? Then, by what standard would such a winner know that $68.4 million would give what $67 would not?

..by their standards, of course, as the recipients of the money and as rational, autonomous agents. Moreover, each person derives a different level of utility from money, so to use your hierarchical structure of happiness, believe it or not, would be illogical, given that you clearly derive less utility from money than, say, I do...or she does. Further, if she derived the same level of happiness from money that, say, you do, clearly she would have given the $1.4M to the county/town/Jerry Lewis/whomever. Simply put, you would prefer that she applies your standards in place of her own, which is what you see from most so-called Kantians/Cosmopolitans/Collectivist/herds/fill-in-the-blank-with-those-who-want-others-to-place-society-before-self.

Rand is not the sum total of all knowledge in the world. One learns to appreciate her writings even more when one realizes that.

I am not sure what inferences you are making here...if you are asserting that view her work as "the sum total of all knowledge," you, once again, are clearly mistaken. In fact, there are a myriad of points that I disagree with her on, abortion instantly comes to mind (she considers the fetus to be a "parasite" naturally...until actual birth and the cord is cut). While I agree with the lion's share of her epistemology, it is clearly, as you suggested, not gospel.

Please don't bring up the Collective vs Individual argument to debate that I am giving the city council way more credit than it deserves. I already know that. I am arguing because I am bored.

..would have gone the "bottom-feeder" route when addressing the city council, but as they say, all roads lead to Rome.

 

[athithi]

Firstly, I rarely make mistakes Further, I disagree with your proposition--"If you knew what constituted being smarter, you would be smarter." This, of course, assumes people have an equal capacity for processing information/gain knowledge/learning (or, in layman's terms, one could simply "will" themselves smarter, so long as they know what constituted being smarter. Or, analogously, one could become King of England if they knew what it took to become the King of England.). Extending your argument to its logical absurdity (which isn't a long trip), one could conclude that people with learning disabilities, and an inability to process/gain knowledge, could simply "will" themselves smarter so long as they know "what constituted being smarter," which is what you presuppose.


Here's a rare occasion then "If you knew what constituted being smarter, you would be smarter" is an example of a paradox. You just didn't spend enough time on that paragraph. Heck, I first said Ayn Rand's biggest mistake was to assume that people are capable of equal intellect...you just repeated it thinking I meant the opposite!

Extending your argument to its logical absurdity (which isn't a long trip), one could conclude that people with learning disabilities, and an inability to process/gain knowledge, could simply "will" themselves smarter so long as they know "what constituted being smarter," which is what you presuppose.

Extending my argument to mean the opposite is indeed absurd - on your part, not mine

..by their standards, of course, as the recipients of the money and as rational, autonomous agents. Moreover, each person derives a different level of utility from money, so to use your hierarchical structure of happiness, believe it or not, would be illogical, given that you clearly derive less utility from money than, say, I do...or she does. Further, if she derived the same level of happiness from money that, say, you do, clearly she would have given the $1.4M to the county/town/Jerry Lewis/whomever. Simply put, you would prefer that she applies your standards in place of her own, which is what you see from most so-called Kantians/Cosmopolitans/Collectivist/herds/fill-in-the-blank-with-those-who-want-others-to-place-society-before-self.

To prove me wrong, you would have to prove that the lottery winner's happiness was optimal at $68.4 million dollars. If not, she is going to be as unhappy with $100 million as she would be with $67 million. Ergo, "$1.4M is not going to buy you any happiness that $67M doesn't". Unassailable truth


I am not sure what inferences you are making here...if you are asserting that view her work as "the sum total of all knowledge," you, once again, are clearly mistaken. In fact, there are a myriad of points that I disagree with her on, abortion instantly comes to mind (she considers the fetus to be a "parasite" naturally...until actual birth and the cord is cut). While I agree with the lion's share of her epistemology, it is clearly, as you suggested, not gospel.


Good for you I've met enough people who believed they understood Rand better than anyone else because they imagined themselves to be a Howard Roark or a John Galt (you can see why I believed you to be like that too ). As a matter of fact, I opposed the 'life begins at conception' philosophy until my cousin had a miscarraige recently. They lost a baby, not a fetus I still don't believe life begins exactly at conception.....second trimester maybe?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: athithi


Here's a rare occasion then "If you knew what constituted being smarter, you would be smarter" is an example of a paradox. You just didn't spend enough time on that paragraph. Heck, I first said Ayn Rand's biggest mistake was to assume that people are capable of equal intellect...you just repeated it thinking I meant the opposite!

I stand corrected and apologize for misreading your argument. You are correct; I argued the same thing you did [that Rand is wrong in assuming equal intelect]. I should have read your post again--my mistake.

Good for you I've met enough people who believed they understood Rand better than anyone else because they imagined themselves to be a Howard Roark or a John Galt (you can see why I believed you to be like that too ).

I've read everything she has ever written (to include the Objectivist newsletters), I believe...everything published and available to the general public, that is. ...all of Plato...a great deal of Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, et al....but yes, Rand is by far my favorite (and the closest to truth, in my opinion)...selfishness is a tough sell when people begin with misconceptions of its meaning (according to Rand) and flawed premises...one can't go wrong with Roark or Galt, though

As a matter of fact, I opposed the 'life begins at conception' philosophy until my cousin had a miscarraige recently. They lost a baby, not a fetus I still don't believe life begins exactly at conception.....second trimester maybe?

Logically, I can not defend my position on abortion, so this is the rare instance when I must break from philosophical reasoning and logic (which is irrational)?I just value human life, whether ?actual or potential? far too much. Perhaps I oppose abortion because for far too long I have seen it used as a means to admonish one?s self from responsibility?woman (and men) have a right to choose?you can choose whether or not to have safe sex. With regards to our friend Keikoff, here?s a little of his argument:

We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman?s choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman?s body. If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous.

If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an "unborn child," we could, with equal logic, call any adult an "undead corpse" and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Here's a rare occasion then "If you knew what constituted being smarter, you would be smarter" is an example of a paradox. You just didn't spend enough time on that paragraph. Heck, I first said Ayn Rand's biggest mistake was to assume that people are capable of equal intellect...you just repeated it thinking I meant the opposite!

As far as I'm aware, Rand never posited that humans are all capable of equal intellect, but that they have equal *rights*, much as John Locke did several centuries before. The difference is that Locke claimed it on the basis that God gave man Reason and Reason gave man rights; Rand just observed that man has Reason and that man has rights as a result, which in no way implies equal capability.

On abortion, I stand as pro choice for the first Trimester, and I waver in uncertainty beyond that. During the first trimester there is *no* brain activity whatsoever, therefore no possibility of Reason, therefore no rights.

Now I'm going to bed. Goodnight.

Jason

 

[daclayman]

lol

I think Ms. Jemison should spend $1.4 million on a mayoral candidate that can beat the fuzzhead that would publicly make that statement. Then she should move.

 

[dmcowen674]

The Lottery is not always a "good" thing:

1-25-2004 Indiana Man Dies Hours After Winning Lottery Game, Hit By Truck

Hours later, Atwood was hit by a truck as he walked to the grocery store where he bought the winning ticket near his home in Elwood, about 40 miles northeast of Indianapolis.