Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Lotto Winners give money away

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Gamer2010
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22 ✭Gamer2010


    Calibos wrote: »
    Given the cost of Healthcare in the US, that 700,000 they kept won't last long

    They're Canadians ;)


  • #33
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Calibos wrote: »
    All those saying fairplay at giving away 98% or 6 million whichever the case may be, just want to appear 'right on'. What they did was insane and there is no two ways about it.

    Depends, could be they have no kids, and no close family. Better they give it away to good causes so they can see the benefits of their gift while still alive.


  • #34
    MazG
    Closed Accounts Posts: 237 ✭✭MazG


    Calibos wrote: »
    Its unclear whether they gave 98% of the remainder after looking after their family or 98% of the total, keeping 2% to look after the family. Then again it says they kept 700,000 which is more than 2%

    I love my parents but if they did that I don't know whether I would be able to talk to them for a while, "Ye bat**** crazy oul...."

    Look, I can totally understand the likes of Bill Gates not wanting to create a multi century Gates dynasty where all his decendents might end up lazy wasters still living off the mega billions he made centuries before and thus he is giving it all away bar 10 million dollars for each of his kids. However I cannot understand parents giving away financial security for their offspring. If they had 4 kids thats just over 2 million each. Thats not 'ruining' your kids with money, thats just setting them up without money worries for life. I'd have said fairplay maybe if they kept half and gave away half. This isn't about no prospect of Ferrari's or McMansions for the family, this is about financial security. Given the cost of Healthcare in the US, that 700,000 they kept won't last long if the mother gets cancer again or the daughter gets a brain tumour etc etc

    All those saying fairplay at giving away 98% or 6 million whichever the case may be, just want to appear 'right on'. What they did was insane and there is no two ways about it.


    But why would they be obliged to set their children up for life? For all we know, their children may already be very successful and well off in their own right. Or they may be living modestly and feel the same as their parents.

    Look, if you were to win the lotto and keep a large amount of it for the reasons outline above, I'd think, 'fair enough, it's Calibos's money and it's his/her business'. I certainly wouldn't accuse you of being insane


  • #35
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Dayton Silly Utopia wrote: »
    but if they didn't keep a little nest egg they're idiots IMO.

    Perhaps they already had one ?
    prinz wrote: »
    I wonder if they have any kids? :pac: ... they probably wouldn't be too happy.

    Perhaps they were planning to leave all their money to the dogs home anyway.

    Why is a sense of entitlement considered okay when its in relation to inherited wealth ?


  • #36
    MazG
    Closed Accounts Posts: 237 ✭✭MazG


    Ooh ooh ooh!

    OR

    Their kids are thoroughly unpleasant and giving the money away is a big 'f-you' from the parents...

    Just another theory why their actions may be sane ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Calibos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 7,929 ✭✭✭Calibos


    prinz wrote: »
    Depends, could be they have no kids, and no close family. Better they give it away to good causes so they can see the benefits of their gift while still alive.

    Does the original article not mention 'looking after the family'?

    If they were childless and given their age then that changes things big time and their decision becomes a very rational one. Keep enough for their remaining decade or so of life and make direct financial contributions to their own community rather than the state claiming the fortune when they die and everyone in the country benefiting to the tune of 10cent each :D


  • #38
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Biggins wrote: »
    Fair play to them.

    I nearly though tthe same then:

    wrote:
    The elderly pair gave the money to churches, fire departments, cemeteries, the Red Cross and hospitals, where Ms Large has undergone cancer treatment..


    This is the main problem with old peopel and money, they give it to the bloody church.


  • #39
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Stekelly wrote: »
    I nearly though the same then...

    This is the main problem with old peopel and money, they give it to the bloody church.

    I can understand the consternation by some but maybe, just maybe they know of a local decent church organisation that is actually doing some very good work (they do exist of that I have no doubt).
    Also someone was not happy that some of their money went to a cemetery.
    Well maybe there is fund there that involved paying for graves that some might not be able to afford? We just don't know.

    We do know a few things however.
    We know they gave most of their money away in a big hearted gesture of decent kindness.
    We know that others will benefit in some way, big or small, from their own good luck.
    We know they refused to let their millions rot away doing no possible good, sitting in a bank account.
    We know that they are still happy and content with life, their luck and with each other.

    ...Now if we all could could be so lucky as them in general. I still say fair play to them. :)


  • #40
    karlog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,563 ✭✭✭karlog


    It's great when good people win the lottery. Last thing we need is another story like Michael Carroll, the lottery winning chav.


  • #41
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,369 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    They probably had three billion Dollars to start with.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    squeakyduck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,766 ✭✭✭squeakyduck


    Wouldn't be into doing that myself. If I won the lotto tomorrow I'd put it all in a high interest savings account and watch it grow! :D


  • #43
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,339 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Allen and Violet Large...

    That was big of them.


  • #44
    epgc3fyqirnbsx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,228 ✭✭✭epgc3fyqirnbsx


    Wow, great people is all I can say. The personal satisfcation they'll receive off that will be better than anything, and they still have $700k so happy days


  • #45
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,529 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    Why do the lotto if you are going to do that?

    Money cant buy you happiness but they got alot of satisfaction/happiness from helping out their own families and local community. Money can buy happiness and I rather spend it on ME, My Enjoyment!


  • #46
    Terry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,073 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    Duggy747 wrote: »
    Faith restored in humanity = 5%

    Faith lost in humanity as this thread progresses = 0%. It's AH after all.


    As things stand in this country, if you need more that €40,000 a year to live a comfortable life, then you're doing something seriously wrong.


Advertisement
Advertisement