FF43 said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Very occasionally the lottery becomes value to play - a lucky dip on a multiple rollover might just have an expected return higher than 100%...

Obviously the variance is massive still (Which is the appeal !)

As a curmudgeon, I view the lottery as tax on poor people, but I only play it when it is a multiple rollover.

A lot of people do the same and I find the logic curious. So £70m-odd would change your life but £12m is neither here nor there?

I could imagine (more or less) how I would spend £12m. £70m is unimaginable.

I read an article about successful lottery winners. Successful in the sense they didn't fritter it away because they couldn't cope. You buy the nicest house in your area, a couple of top of the range cars, go on a couple of upmarket cruises. The rest goes on keeping a horse. They are successful precisely because they don't have much imagination.

Most are not successful, at least in the US, and the money destroys many a good life.

That is unimaginable to me. I would not need to live lavishly, but with a fund to provide an annual income to explore my areas of interest without having to sell those ideas to funders - that would be wonderful.

Pulpstar said:

Tissue_Price said:

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

Very occasionally the lottery becomes value to play - a lucky dip on a multiple rollover might just have an expected return higher than 100%...

Obviously the variance is massive still (Which is the appeal !)

You can always play reverse lottery: pick six numbers, don't buy a ticket and pray like mad they don't come up.

I picked a set of numbers 8, 17, 23, 39, 46, 47 for no good reason in the first few days of the lottery. I have no idea how much I'd be ahead or behind on those !
Haven't played in years.

Well, you'd have had a 1/3 share of a £9.6m jackpot in June 2003. Other than that, not much to write home about.

But http://lottery.reevo.com/# informs me I'm up £1166 by not playing the lottery with those numbers :>

Worth a try... I used this site which suggests you are £1,898 down:

http://lottery.merseyworld.com/cgi-bin/lottery?C=B&X=1&Y=0&D=1&R=1&A=Tables&M=0&B=8+17+23+39+46+47

Tissue_Price said:

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

Very occasionally the lottery becomes value to play - a lucky dip on a multiple rollover might just have an expected return higher than 100%...

Obviously the variance is massive still (Which is the appeal !)

You can always play reverse lottery: pick six numbers, don't buy a ticket and pray like mad they don't come up.

I picked a set of numbers 8, 17, 23, 39, 46, 47 for no good reason in the first few days of the lottery. I have no idea how much I'd be ahead or behind on those !
Haven't played in years.

Well, you'd have had a 1/3 share of a £9.6m jackpot in June 2003. Other than that, not much to write home about.

That's mean.

isam said:

Pulpstar said:

Tissue_Price said:

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

Very occasionally the lottery becomes value to play - a lucky dip on a multiple rollover might just have an expected return higher than 100%...

Obviously the variance is massive still (Which is the appeal !)

You can always play reverse lottery: pick six numbers, don't buy a ticket and pray like mad they don't come up.

I picked a set of numbers 8, 17, 23, 39, 46, 47 for no good reason in the first few days of the lottery. I have no idea how much I'd be ahead or behind on those !
Haven't played in years.

Well, you'd have had a 1/3 share of a £9.6m jackpot in June 2003. Other than that, not much to write home about.

But http://lottery.reevo.com/# informs me I'm up £1166 by not playing the lottery with those numbers :>

I'm up £980 by not playing

Might go in again now the losing streak is over

Gambling fallacy #23234 DUE a win !

Charles said:

Tissue_Price said:

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

Very occasionally the lottery becomes value to play - a lucky dip on a multiple rollover might just have an expected return higher than 100%...

Obviously the variance is massive still (Which is the appeal !)

You can always play reverse lottery: pick six numbers, don't buy a ticket and pray like mad they don't come up.

I picked a set of numbers 8, 17, 23, 39, 46, 47 for no good reason in the first few days of the lottery. I have no idea how much I'd be ahead or behind on those !
Haven't played in years.

Well, you'd have had a 1/3 share of a £9.6m jackpot in June 2003. Other than that, not much to write home about.

That's mean.

Ah, but I knew @Pulpstar wouldn't believe me. I wouldn't have tried it if I'd thought he might have.

Charles said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Very occasionally the lottery becomes value to play - a lucky dip on a multiple rollover might just have an expected return higher than 100%...

Obviously the variance is massive still (Which is the appeal !)

As a curmudgeon, I view the lottery as tax on poor people, but I only play it when it is a multiple rollover.

A lot of people do the same and I find the logic curious. So £70m-odd would change your life but £12m is neither here nor there?

I could imagine (more or less) how I would spend £12m. £70m is unimaginable.

Above about £20 million* no one has much use for it. So the trick is to give it all away.

* £5m for a London house. £2m for a holiday home. £2m to fund education/deposit on a flat for the kids, £10m to generate an annual pre-tax income of about £350,000 for living expenses and £1m for a @SeanT style blowout

Capital doesn't count.
edit: "no one has much use for it".

isam said:

Tissue_Price said:

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

Very occasionally the lottery becomes value to play - a lucky dip on a multiple rollover might just have an expected return higher than 100%...

Obviously the variance is massive still (Which is the appeal !)

You can always play reverse lottery: pick six numbers, don't buy a ticket and pray like mad they don't come up.

I picked a set of numbers 8, 17, 23, 39, 46, 47 for no good reason in the first few days of the lottery. I have no idea how much I'd be ahead or behind on those !
Haven't played in years.

Well, you'd have had a 1/3 share of a £9.6m jackpot in June 2003. Other than that, not much to write home about.

Tell me youre lying?

What is the website where you can check?

The stuff of nightmares.

Mr. Matt, Dragon Age: Origins was my first Bioware game. It remains the best.

Mr. Lennon, that makes sense. High primes pave the way to a minutely increased chance of being a solo winner!

Sean_F said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Very occasionally the lottery becomes value to play - a lucky dip on a multiple rollover might just have an expected return higher than 100%...

Obviously the variance is massive still (Which is the appeal !)

As a curmudgeon, I view the lottery as tax on poor people, but I only play it when it is a multiple rollover.

A lot of people do the same and I find the logic curious. So £70m-odd would change your life but £12m is neither here nor there?

I could imagine (more or less) how I would spend £12m. £70m is unimaginable.

The talk last night of earnings and what to do with 6 figures wages was a bit surreal. My family income is circa 40 grand a year, and we live comfortably enough!

Ours is somewhat more, but you're quite right. I'm sure it's great to have a sufficiently large income that you don't need to work for a living, and there's fun to be had in investment, managing an estate, running a business, or charitable work, but other than those things, I'd have thought possessing lots of wealth would be subject to a law of diminishing returns. A £300 bottle of wine should be better than a £20 bottle of wine, but not fifteen times better. A £60,000 cruise should be better than a £5,000 cruise, but not 12 times better and so on.

You have a cardinal scale of utility? How Victorian.

Tissue_Price said:

Charles said:

Tissue_Price said:

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

Very occasionally the lottery becomes value to play - a lucky dip on a multiple rollover might just have an expected return higher than 100%...

Obviously the variance is massive still (Which is the appeal !)

You can always play reverse lottery: pick six numbers, don't buy a ticket and pray like mad they don't come up.

I picked a set of numbers 8, 17, 23, 39, 46, 47 for no good reason in the first few days of the lottery. I have no idea how much I'd be ahead or behind on those !
Haven't played in years.

Well, you'd have had a 1/3 share of a £9.6m jackpot in June 2003. Other than that, not much to write home about.

That's mean.

Ah, but I knew @Pulpstar wouldn't believe me. I wouldn't have tried it if I'd thought he might have.

You seem to have hooked @isam by accident though!

Charles said:

geoffw said:

Charles said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Very occasionally the lottery becomes value to play - a lucky dip on a multiple rollover might just have an expected return higher than 100%...

Obviously the variance is massive still (Which is the appeal !)

As a curmudgeon, I view the lottery as tax on poor people, but I only play it when it is a multiple rollover.

A lot of people do the same and I find the logic curious. So £70m-odd would change your life but £12m is neither here nor there?

I could imagine (more or less) how I would spend £12m. £70m is unimaginable.

Above about £20 million* no one has much use for it. So the trick is to give it all away.

* £5m for a London house. £2m for a holiday home. £2m to fund education/deposit on a flat for the kids, £10m to generate an annual pre-tax income of about £350,000 for living expenses and £1m for a @SeanT style blowout

Capital doesn't count.
edit: "no one has much use for it".

Not sure what your point is?

The security of having a pre-tax income of £350,000 per year would worth a huge amount

Acquiring capital is not the same as "spending".

Charles said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Very occasionally the lottery becomes value to play - a lucky dip on a multiple rollover might just have an expected return higher than 100%...

Obviously the variance is massive still (Which is the appeal !)

As a curmudgeon, I view the lottery as tax on poor people, but I only play it when it is a multiple rollover.

A lot of people do the same and I find the logic curious. So £70m-odd would change your life but £12m is neither here nor there?

I could imagine (more or less) how I would spend £12m. £70m is unimaginable.

Above about £20 million* no one has much use for it. So the trick is to give it all away.

* £5m for a London house. £2m for a holiday home. £2m to fund education/deposit on a flat for the kids, £10m to generate an annual pre-tax income of about £350,000 for living expenses and £1m for a @SeanT style blowout

Someone should invent a computer program or app which allows rich people to give their money away equally to every family/person in the country. So for example if you had £66m to spare, everyone would get £1 each.

Sean_F said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Very occasionally the lottery becomes value to play - a lucky dip on a multiple rollover might just have an expected return higher than 100%...

Obviously the variance is massive still (Which is the appeal !)

As a curmudgeon, I view the lottery as tax on poor people, but I only play it when it is a multiple rollover.

A lot of people do the same and I find the logic curious. So £70m-odd would change your life but £12m is neither here nor there?

I could imagine (more or less) how I would spend £12m. £70m is unimaginable.

The talk last night of earnings and what to do with 6 figures wages was a bit surreal. My family income is circa 40 grand a year, and we live comfortably enough!

Ours is somewhat more, but you're quite right. I'm sure it's great to have a sufficiently large income that you don't need to work for a living, and there's fun to be had in investment, managing an estate, running a business, or charitable work, but other than those things, I'd have thought possessing lots of wealth would be subject to a law of diminishing returns. A £300 bottle of wine should be better than a £20 bottle of wine, but not fifteen times better. A £60,000 cruise should be better than a £5,000 cruise, but not 12 times better and so on.

I enjoy being able to explore my hobbies to their maximum (I just had a massive koi pond fitted, I have a full room of Warhammer stuff and a couple of nice cars). I also like being able to take friends and family on holiday, buy my mum and dad stuff that makes their lives easier (car and flat etc).

I also set up a little social enterprise on the side in the field of children's social care which is doing quite well.

I haven't reached the point where I feel like more money is pointless yet, but if I never get any richer I will be happy.

FF43 said:

malcolmg said:

FF43 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/843783700886290432

I suspect most people will filter this out. The SNP is doing what it always does and those that think it good will continue to do so, as will those that think it bad.

The first sentence can certainly be challenged. "The Scottish people can best determine the form of government best suited to their needs". We did that just two years ago and decided for the opposite of what the SNP proposes. Therefore they don't have a mandate.

This isn't a trivial point. The fact we previously made a decision against will matter.

Rubbish , they stated in their manifesto that if Brexit came along it would be a major change and result in need for a referendum. That has happened and as usual they are keeping their promise. Unlike other parties they do what they say.

"They" aren't the Scottish people, who have actually decided on this. I accept from the SNP's point of view they can keep pushing because they have never accepted the decision made by the Scottish people. It is just one factor in a complicated situation but it is relevant.

They are the government charged by the Scottish people to look after their interests. They think this materially changes the deal that people agreed to in 2014 and it needs reaffirmed by the Scottish people if that changes their minds that what they voted for is now being taken away from them against their wishes.

CarlottaVance said:

Charles said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Very occasionally the lottery becomes value to play - a lucky dip on a multiple rollover might just have an expected return higher than 100%...

Obviously the variance is massive still (Which is the appeal !)

As a curmudgeon, I view the lottery as tax on poor people, but I only play it when it is a multiple rollover.

A lot of people do the same and I find the logic curious. So £70m-odd would change your life but £12m is neither here nor there?

I could imagine (more or less) how I would spend £12m. £70m is unimaginable.

Above about £20 million* no one has much use for it. So the trick is to give it all away.

* £5m for a London house. £2m for a holiday home. £2m to fund education/deposit on a flat for the kids, £10m to generate an annual pre-tax income of about £350,000 for living expenses and £1m for a @SeanT style blowout

There is a wonderful Dorothy Parker short story 'That Standard of Living' in this vein....:

https://www.esuus.org/esu/programs/english_in_action/newyork/BookClub/The_standard_of_Living_by_Dorothy_Parker_and_Girls_in_summer_dresses_by_Irwin_Shaw:en-us.pdf

That's a good story, with a decent message. I'm just too pragmatic for my own good

AndyJS said:

Charles said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Very occasionally the lottery becomes value to play - a lucky dip on a multiple rollover might just have an expected return higher than 100%...

Obviously the variance is massive still (Which is the appeal !)

As a curmudgeon, I view the lottery as tax on poor people, but I only play it when it is a multiple rollover.

A lot of people do the same and I find the logic curious. So £70m-odd would change your life but £12m is neither here nor there?

I could imagine (more or less) how I would spend £12m. £70m is unimaginable.

Above about £20 million* no one has much use for it. So the trick is to give it all away.

* £5m for a London house. £2m for a holiday home. £2m to fund education/deposit on a flat for the kids, £10m to generate an annual pre-tax income of about £350,000 for living expenses and £1m for a @SeanT style blowout

Someone should invent a computer program or app which allows rich people to give their money away equally to every family/person in the country. So for example if you had £66m to spare, everyone would get £1 each.

There are much more impactful things you can do with excess capital.

I can't talk about it yet, but I think the team have done something really special in unlocking a great opportunity for a relatively small investment to prove the concept.

isam said:

BBC Daily Politics Soap Box today is about the affect on mentally disabled people of the minimum wage.. The mother (Rosa Monckton) of a lady with downs syndrome on how it stops them getting work. Didn't a Tory say something similar a couple of years ago and get an absolute hammering Angela Eagle on QT went for his jugular?

Yes.

Mr. Isam, jein. The press tore him to shreds, from memory, the QT audience was actually quite sympathetic as were others when the situation was explain beyond a (horrendous-sounding) headline.

isam said:

BBC Daily Politics Soap Box today is about the affect on mentally disabled people of the minimum wage.. The mother (Rosa Monckton) of a lady with downs syndrome on how it stops them getting work. Didn't a Tory say something similar a couple of years ago and get an absolute hammering Angela Eagle on QT went for his jugular?

Actually quite an interesting argument on both sides, alas, I don't have time to follow it up today.

justin124 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Cyclefree said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Theuniondivvie said:

A sad loss to British politics.

https://twitter.com/LeanneSpurs/status/843739922926391296

At the invitation of the PM of Hungary, to be fair. "Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban says his country will open its arms to west Europeans fleeing mass immigration and “the lords of globalist politics”. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/02/11/hungary-will-welcome-true-refugees-germans-french-others-seeking-europe-lost-homelands/

Just imagine if a bienpensant UK Remainer had a second home in Hungary, and Griffin moved in next door. What a sitcom that would make.

I wonder if Nick will be taking his pigs (if they haven't been finally solved) Anne and Frank with him? Which would be worse for the bien pensant, Nick gurning over the garden fence or the smell of pig shit?

Edit: I see the piggies are long ago consumed. Still, Nick has hilariously transferred the names to his two rotweillers.

Golly. I knew he was horrible, but not that horrible.

Apparently, he went to Cambridge University.

Can't produce Prime Ministers but can produce traitors & Nick Griffin......

Stanley Baldwin went to Cambridge!

Since WWII its 10-0 to Oxford.....

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Isam, jein. The press tore him to shreds, from memory, the QT audience was actually quite sympathetic as were others when the situation was explain beyond a (horrendous-sounding) headline.

Ah yes.. Eric Pickles has just mentioned it was Lord Freud. Rosa Monckton is saying she has had the most awful trolling over her Spectator article, but has been sustained by the emails from other parents in the same boat.

malcolmg said:

Charles said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Very occasionally the lottery becomes value to play - a lucky dip on a multiple rollover might just have an expected return higher than 100%...

Obviously the variance is massive still (Which is the appeal !)

As a curmudgeon, I view the lottery as tax on poor people, but I only play it when it is a multiple rollover.

A lot of people do the same and I find the logic curious. So £70m-odd would change your life but £12m is neither here nor there?

I could imagine (more or less) how I would spend £12m. £70m is unimaginable.

Above about £20 million* no one has much use for it. So the trick is to give it all away.

* £5m for a London house. £2m for a holiday home. £2m to fund education/deposit on a flat for the kids, £10m to generate an annual pre-tax income of about £350,000 for living expenses and £1m for a @SeanT style blowout

First £5M wasted , how many sensible people would want to waste money on a house in London when you can chose anywhere, London would be way way way down most people's lists.

Depends on your view of the London housing market, surely? You might not actually want to live in it.

Floater said:

malcolmg said:

FF43 said:

malcolmg said:

FF43 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/843783700886290432

I suspect most people will filter this out. The SNP is doing what it always does and those that think it good will continue to do so, as will those that think it bad.

The first sentence can certainly be challenged. "The Scottish people can best determine the form of government best suited to their needs". We did that just two years ago and decided for the opposite of what the SNP proposes. Therefore they don't have a mandate.

This isn't a trivial point. The fact we previously made a decision against will matter.

Rubbish , they stated in their manifesto that if Brexit came along it would be a major change and result in need for a referendum. That has happened and as usual they are keeping their promise. Unlike other parties they do what they say.

"They" aren't the Scottish people, who have actually decided on this. I accept from the SNP's point of view they can keep pushing because they have never accepted the decision made by the Scottish people. It is just one factor in a complicated situation but it is relevant.

They are the government charged by the Scottish people to look after their interests. They think this materially changes the deal that people agreed to in 2014 and it needs reaffirmed by the Scottish people if that changes their minds that what they voted for is now being taken away from them against their wishes.

But if you get independence you leave the EU - whilst claiming the referendum is ot keep you in the EU......

No guarantee that we leave , could be interim measures and eventual rejoining full membership etc. EU would be very keen.

Carolus_Rex said:

malcolmg said:

Charles said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Very occasionally the lottery becomes value to play - a lucky dip on a multiple rollover might just have an expected return higher than 100%...

Obviously the variance is massive still (Which is the appeal !)

As a curmudgeon, I view the lottery as tax on poor people, but I only play it when it is a multiple rollover.

A lot of people do the same and I find the logic curious. So £70m-odd would change your life but £12m is neither here nor there?

I could imagine (more or less) how I would spend £12m. £70m is unimaginable.

Above about £20 million* no one has much use for it. So the trick is to give it all away.

* £5m for a London house. £2m for a holiday home. £2m to fund education/deposit on a flat for the kids, £10m to generate an annual pre-tax income of about £350,000 for living expenses and £1m for a @SeanT style blowout

First £5M wasted , how many sensible people would want to waste money on a house in London when you can chose anywhere, London would be way way way down most people's lists.

Depends on your view of the London housing market, surely? You might not actually want to live in it.

I just mean that I can think of hundreds of places I would buy before London. It was buying for personal use not investment in previous comments.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Isam, jein. The press tore him to shreds, from memory, the QT audience was actually quite sympathetic as were others when the situation was explain beyond a (horrendous-sounding) headline.

Shame then that his party and leader disowned the comments. Not sure a headline made them sound any more horrendous.

'“You make a really good point about the disabled. There is a group where actually, as you say, they’re not worth the full wage.”

Guardian ICM poll (changes from a fortnight)

Conservatives: 45% (+1)

Labour: 26% (-2)

Ukip: 10% (- 1)

Lib Dems: 9% ( +1)

Greens: 4% (-1)

Conservative lead: 19 points (up 3)

malcolmg said:

Carolus_Rex said:

malcolmg said:

Charles said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Very occasionally the lottery becomes value to play - a lucky dip on a multiple rollover might just have an expected return higher than 100%...

Obviously the variance is massive still (Which is the appeal !)

As a curmudgeon, I view the lottery as tax on poor people, but I only play it when it is a multiple rollover.

A lot of people do the same and I find the logic curious. So £70m-odd would change your life but £12m is neither here nor there?

I could imagine (more or less) how I would spend £12m. £70m is unimaginable.

Above about £20 million* no one has much use for it. So the trick is to give it all away.

* £5m for a London house. £2m for a holiday home. £2m to fund education/deposit on a flat for the kids, £10m to generate an annual pre-tax income of about £350,000 for living expenses and £1m for a @SeanT style blowout

First £5M wasted , how many sensible people would want to waste money on a house in London when you can chose anywhere, London would be way way way down most people's lists.

Depends on your view of the London housing market, surely? You might not actually want to live in it.

I just mean that I can think of hundreds of places I would buy before London. It was buying for personal use not investment in previous comments.

Fair enough. Each to his own.

Theuniondivvie said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Isam, jein. The press tore him to shreds, from memory, the QT audience was actually quite sympathetic as were others when the situation was explain beyond a (horrendous-sounding) headline.

Shame then that his party and leader disowned the comments. Not sure a headline made them sound any more horrendous.

'“You make a really good point about the disabled. There is a group where actually, as you say, they’re not worth the full wage.”

According to the mother of a mentally disabled woman, other people in her situation agree with her, but nothing ever gets done about it because virtue signallers scweaming

So they sit staring at the tv all day instead of engaging with the rest of society

TheScreamingEagles said:

Guardian ICM poll (changes from a fortnight)

Conservatives: 45% (+1)

Labour: 26% (-2)

Ukip: 10% (- 1)

Lib Dems: 9% ( +1)

Greens: 4% (-1)

Conservative lead: 19 points (up 3)

Martin Boon, director of ICM, says that, as well as being the highest Tory lead since the general election, a 19-point Conservative lead has only been beaten by three polls in the Guardian/ICM series going back to 1983: in two polls giving them a 20-point lead, in 1983 and 2008, and in one giving them a 21-point lead, in June 1983.

Boon says the Electoral Calculus website suggests these figures would translate into a Conservative majority of 140. And he says the detailed figures are also gruesome for Labour.

It’s so desperate for Labour that it’s also nearly a ‘full house’ across standard demographics. Only members of non-white communities offer up a Labour lead over the Tories, with DEs tied. When 18-24s split 41% vs 29% for the Conservatives, Labour can only be in some sort of historic mess.

There is an awful lot of daydreaming going on here today!

"If I were a rich man..."

Charles said:

AndyJS said:

Charles said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Very occasionally the lottery becomes value to play - a lucky dip on a multiple rollover might just have an expected return higher than 100%...

Obviously the variance is massive still (Which is the appeal !)

As a curmudgeon, I view the lottery as tax on poor people, but I only play it when it is a multiple rollover.

A lot of people do the same and I find the logic curious. So £70m-odd would change your life but £12m is neither here nor there?

I could imagine (more or less) how I would spend £12m. £70m is unimaginable.

Above about £20 million* no one has much use for it. So the trick is to give it all away.

* £5m for a London house. £2m for a holiday home. £2m to fund education/deposit on a flat for the kids, £10m to generate an annual pre-tax income of about £350,000 for living expenses and £1m for a @SeanT style blowout

Someone should invent a computer program or app which allows rich people to give their money away equally to every family/person in the country. So for example if you had £66m to spare, everyone would get £1 each.

There are much more impactful things you can do with excess capital.

I can't talk about it yet, but I think the team have done something really special in unlocking a great opportunity for a relatively small investment to prove the concept.

A sponsor or philanthropist funding, managing and running their own special project or public work (which could cost them in the tens or hundreds of millions) can be very effective.

isam said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Isam, jein. The press tore him to shreds, from memory, the QT audience was actually quite sympathetic as were others when the situation was explain beyond a (horrendous-sounding) headline.

Shame then that his party and leader disowned the comments. Not sure a headline made them sound any more horrendous.

'“You make a really good point about the disabled. There is a group where actually, as you say, they’re not worth the full wage.”

According to the mother of a mentally disabled woman, other people in her situation agree with her, but nothing ever gets done about it because virtue signallers scweaming

So they sit staring at the tv all day instead of engaging with the rest of society

Cameron was virtue signalling about his personal experience of having a disabled child?

Perhaps politicians (whose words are their currency) should be smart enough not to say really stupid things that distract from the issue.

Well done on the virtue signallers scweaming btw, top work.

AndyJS said:

Charles said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Very occasionally the lottery becomes value to play - a lucky dip on a multiple rollover might just have an expected return higher than 100%...

Obviously the variance is massive still (Which is the appeal !)

As a curmudgeon, I view the lottery as tax on poor people, but I only play it when it is a multiple rollover.

A lot of people do the same and I find the logic curious. So £70m-odd would change your life but £12m is neither here nor there?

I could imagine (more or less) how I would spend £12m. £70m is unimaginable.

Above about £20 million* no one has much use for it. So the trick is to give it all away.

* £5m for a London house. £2m for a holiday home. £2m to fund education/deposit on a flat for the kids, £10m to generate an annual pre-tax income of about £350,000 for living expenses and £1m for a @SeanT style blowout

Someone should invent a computer program or app which allows rich people to give their money away equally to every family/person in the country. So for example if you had £66m to spare, everyone would get £1 each.

It would probably end up back in the hands of the same rich person inside 18 months. If you punted it to the Exchequer it would have a similar highly limited effect.

Best thing is to target a meaningful amount to a special purpose project to make a specific life-changing difference, and hold delivery accountable to KPIs and tangible benefits realisation.

https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/843814595856908289

Re: disabled employment.

My wife is disabled, but is very clever and has multiple qualifications. She's been looking for work for two years now.

We've filled in multiple application forms and always tick the 'disabled' box - She always get rejected and she has only managed one interview in two years. In at least one case, we got a rejection email twenty four hours after submission. The only problem was she submitted it sometime online on a Saturday night - it was rejected on Sunday evening. I'm not saying it was an auto rejection, and my wife firmly believes someone must've been working on Sundays and read the application form (she's a bit naive like that).

The NMW is a disaster for her. Why would any employer in their right mind employ someone for £15,000 per year to do a job when they can employ someone else who will take half the time to do it?

I appreciate some disabilities aren't that noticable, or can be managed relatively easily but some can't, and my wife's can't. Anyone employing her would have to spend huge sums of money making workplace adjustments before she even came through the door.

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Very occasionally the lottery becomes value to play - a lucky dip on a multiple rollover might just have an expected return higher than 100%...

Obviously the variance is massive still (Which is the appeal !)

As a curmudgeon, I view the lottery as tax on poor people, but I only play it when it is a multiple rollover.

A lot of people do the same and I find the logic curious. So £70m-odd would change your life but £12m is neither here nor there?

I could imagine (more or less) how I would spend £12m. £70m is unimaginable.

The talk last night of earnings and what to do with 6 figures wages was a bit surreal. My family income is circa 40 grand a year, and we live comfortably enough!

Ours is somewhat more, but you're quite right. I'm sure it's great to have a sufficiently large income that you don't need to work for a living, and there's fun to be had in investment, managing an estate, running a business, or charitable work, but other than those things, I'd have thought possessing lots of wealth would be subject to a law of diminishing returns. A £300 bottle of wine should be better than a £20 bottle of wine, but not fifteen times better. A £60,000 cruise should be better than a £5,000 cruise, but not 12 times better and so on.

It depends what lifestyle you want.

Based upon what I'm seeing on this thread, people want a nice family home in a nice area, to be able to educate their kids well, and provide for them, have a nice bolthole or secluded holiday home in an area they like - far from the maddening crowds - to be able to have a bit of fun, and to be able to do satisfying work without long and tedious commutes.

All of that is fair enough.

I know it sounds counter intuitive but I don't think 'unlimited' money makes people really happy. I find that having to save for a 'treat' heightens the expectation and eventual pleasure. If everything is instantly available, the joy is reduced as it becomes commonplace.

It may be a sign of my background but I remember when a tin of John West salmon was a real treat to be had on holiday!

Blue_rog said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Very occasionally the lottery becomes value to play - a lucky dip on a multiple rollover might just have an expected return higher than 100%...

Obviously the variance is massive still (Which is the appeal !)

As a curmudgeon, I view the lottery as tax on poor people, but I only play it when it is a multiple rollover.

A lot of people do the same and I find the logic curious. So £70m-odd would change your life but £12m is neither here nor there?

I could imagine (more or less) how I would spend £12m. £70m is unimaginable.

The talk last night of earnings and what to do with 6 figures wages was a bit surreal. My family income is circa 40 grand a year, and we live comfortably enough!

Ours is somewhat more, but you're quite right. I'm sure it's great to have a sufficiently large income that you don't need to work for a living, and there's fun to be had in investment, managing an estate, running a business, or charitable work, but other than those things, I'd have thought possessing lots of wealth would be subject to a law of diminishing returns. A £300 bottle of wine should be better than a £20 bottle of wine, but not fifteen times better. A £60,000 cruise should be better than a £5,000 cruise, but not 12 times better and so on.

It depends what lifestyle you want.

Based upon what I'm seeing on this thread, people want a nice family home in a nice area, to be able to educate their kids well, and provide for them, have a nice bolthole or secluded holiday home in an area they like - far from the maddening crowds - to be able to have a bit of fun, and to be able to do satisfying work without long and tedious commutes.

All of that is fair enough.

I know it sounds counter intuitive but I don't think 'unlimited' money makes people really happy. I find that having to save for a 'treat' heightens the expectation and eventual pleasure. If everything is instantly available, the joy is reduced as it becomes commonplace.

It may be a sign of my background but I remember when a tin of John West salmon was a real treat to be had on holiday!

Surely you pivot from financial goals to other goals, such as fitness, health or other hobbies. You therefore get the expectation and eventual pleasure from this instead.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I owe Mike a thread, I think I might do a thread on this

Ukip seen as most dishonest of the main political parties, poll suggests.

Conservatives

Honest: 19%

Dishonest: 26%

Net score: -7

Labour

Honest: 13%

Dishonest: 24%

Net score: -11

Lib Dems

Honest: 11%

Dishonest: 25%

Net score: -14

Ukip

Honest: 8%

Dishonest: 38%

Net score: -30

Hang on - tories most honest - truly the end of days

Floater said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I owe Mike a thread, I think I might do a thread on this

Ukip seen as most dishonest of the main political parties, poll suggests.

Conservatives

Honest: 19%

Dishonest: 26%

Net score: -7

Labour

Honest: 13%

Dishonest: 24%

Net score: -11

Lib Dems

Honest: 11%

Dishonest: 25%

Net score: -14

Ukip

Honest: 8%

Dishonest: 38%

Net score: -30

Hang on - tories most honest - truly the end of days

They've been ahead on this type of questions before under Dave too.

danielmawbs said:

Alistair said:

MarqueeMark said:

Where are those who said Brexit would never get triggered by the end of March?

That reminds me, I have Betfair bets on Article 50 trigger date. But I can't check at work. Can anyone tell me what the boundaries are?

End of June I think. I know I get £15 either way

Sweet, I assumed Spring 2017 so I'm all good.

Blue_rog said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Very occasionally the lottery becomes value to play - a lucky dip on a multiple rollover might just have an expected return higher than 100%...

Obviously the variance is massive still (Which is the appeal !)

As a curmudgeon, I view the lottery as tax on poor people, but I only play it when it is a multiple rollover.

A lot of people do the same and I find the logic curious. So £70m-odd would change your life but £12m is neither here nor there?

I could imagine (more or less) how I would spend £12m. £70m is unimaginable.

The talk last night of earnings and what to do with 6 figures wages was a bit surreal. My family income is circa 40 grand a year, and we live comfortably enough!

Ours is somewhat more, but you're quite right. I'm sure it's great to have a sufficiently large income that you don't need to work for a living, and there's fun to be had in investment, managing an estate, running a business, or charitable work, but other than those things, I'd have thought possessing lots of wealth would be subject to a law of diminishing returns. A £300 bottle of wine should be better than a £20 bottle of wine, but not fifteen times better. A £60,000 cruise should be better than a £5,000 cruise, but not 12 times better and so on.

It depends what lifestyle you want.

Based upon what I'm seeing on this thread, people want a nice family home in a nice area, to be able to educate their kids well, and provide for them, have a nice bolthole or secluded holiday home in an area they like - far from the maddening crowds - to be able to have a bit of fun, and to be able to do satisfying work without long and tedious commutes.

All of that is fair enough.

I know it sounds counter intuitive but I don't think 'unlimited' money makes people really happy. I find that having to save for a 'treat' heightens the expectation and eventual pleasure. If everything is instantly available, the joy is reduced as it becomes commonplace.

It may be a sign of my background but I remember when a tin of John West salmon was a real treat to be had on holiday!

Money doesn't make you happy. It can stop you from being abjectly miserable.

Basically, it gives you options but not fulfilment.

Grabs popcorn


https://twitter.com/labourwhips/status/843811744401313792?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Offtopic: Whoever sold Snapchat on day one is basically laughing now :

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=sNAPCHAT+value&*

As predicted here.

Again.

Pulpstar said:

Offtopic: Whoever sold Snapchat on day one is basically laughing now :

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=sNAPCHAT+value&*

As predicted here.

Again.

Another totally over-valued tech company with no unique tech in the fickle and overstaturated social media space. What could possibly go wrong.

TheScreamingEagles said:

To use a well known psephological term, Labour under Corbyn are fucked. The next GE will the electoral equivalent of the Anglo-Zanzibar War.

For a second there I thought you wrote Anglo-Zulu War.

But Islandlwana of course, not Rorke's Drift.

Casino_Royale said:

Stark_Dawning said:

There's actually a school of ethics which says that you should give as much of your income to the Third World as possible. Of course, if you gave it all away you'd starve and couldn't hold down a job, so the idea is that you keep enough for yourself only so that it won't impinge upon your capacity to donate - other than that you give it all away.

Whilst well-intentioned I'm not convinced at how effective throwing money at the third world actually is other than emergency disaster relief.

It seems far more important to achieve political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimise government corruption and pro-market policies.

Then you let PPP and private sector investment let-rip, supplemented by NGO activity on public services infrastructure particularly on education and health.

But achieving political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimising government corruption and pro-market policies don't just happen by themselves. They are all things one can influence. They are all things where one could give money to appropriate organisations who would promote those things (in addition to giving money to improve public services infrastructure, particularly education and health). So that's not really an argument against donating the money, just over precisely how to do it.

nunu said:

Lyuben Vachkov‏ @VLubev
Great for Labour shadow cabinet to get away from Westminster Bubble with away day trip to Central London.

LOL

bondegezou said:

Casino_Royale said:

Stark_Dawning said:

There's actually a school of ethics which says that you should give as much of your income to the Third World as possible. Of course, if you gave it all away you'd starve and couldn't hold down a job, so the idea is that you keep enough for yourself only so that it won't impinge upon your capacity to donate - other than that you give it all away.

Whilst well-intentioned I'm not convinced at how effective throwing money at the third world actually is other than emergency disaster relief.

It seems far more important to achieve political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimise government corruption and pro-market policies.

Then you let PPP and private sector investment let-rip, supplemented by NGO activity on public services infrastructure particularly on education and health.

But achieving political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimising government corruption and pro-market policies don't just happen by themselves. They are all things one can influence. They are all things where one could give money to appropriate organisations who would promote those things (in addition to giving money to improve public services infrastructure, particularly education and health). So that's not really an argument against donating the money, just over precisely how to do it.

"give money to appropriate organisations"

ie the white man?

Charles said:

malcolmg said:

Charles said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Very occasionally the lottery becomes value to play - a lucky dip on a multiple rollover might just have an expected return higher than 100%...

Obviously the variance is massive still (Which is the appeal !)

As a curmudgeon, I view the lottery as tax on poor people, but I only play it when it is a multiple rollover.

A lot of people do the same and I find the logic curious. So £70m-odd would change your life but £12m is neither here nor there?

I could imagine (more or less) how I would spend £12m. £70m is unimaginable.

Above about £20 million* no one has much use for it. So the trick is to give it all away.

* £5m for a London house. £2m for a holiday home. £2m to fund education/deposit on a flat for the kids, £10m to generate an annual pre-tax income of about £350,000 for living expenses and £1m for a @SeanT style blowout

First £5M wasted , how many sensible people would want to waste money on a house in London when you can chose anywhere, London would be way way way down most people's lists.

£5m will get you a nice house anywhere - London is my bailiwick but fundamentally I was thinking of a principal residence.

I could buy an estate and have large part of that left.
PS: given I will never have 5 Million it is of little matter mind you but nice thought