Indeed. - Adam Boulton’s presumption, getting the better of him on this occasion.
I would expect that an Autumn election is possible if the likes of Morgan, Soubry and others cause problems and / or problems with the election expenses. 4th May was never going to happen - too close to serving A50
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Seeing as we already talked about income yesterday... My total net worth is about 9 million, according to valuations of my company taken out when I bought out a minor shareholder last year. (And assuming I could find a buyer, well who knows?!)
It isn't spendable cash obviously, but it doesn't change your life that much really. You still speak to the same people, drive on the same roads, etc. My elderly next door neighbour has a knighthood instead of a bull terrier these days, but he generally talks about the same stuff: the weather and the bins.
Not that I would give it up, I wouldn't say it was pointless... far from it... but it doesn't really make that much difference.
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.
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
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".
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.
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.
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
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.
I notice no-one is suggesting supporting either their children to get on to the ladder or (ahem) paying for their elderly parents to go on an expensive cruise.
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.
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
I notice no-one is suggesting supporting either their children to get on to the ladder or (ahem) paying for their elderly parents to go on an expensive cruise.
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.
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....:
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......
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".
I think @Sean_F was thinking about "allocating" a windfall rather than "spending" it.
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.
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.
Haha no. I thought he was almost certainly on a wind up.. but it made me check my numbers I admit that
People with that level of money (£70m) should be personally arranging for food to be sent en masse to famine riven countries. Reminds me of the tragic story of Peter Green from Fleetwood Mac. Once they were worth a few quid, he decided they had enough and should spend the rest personally delivering sandwiches to Biafra.. the others wouldnt have it, and he was later diagnosed as schizophrenic.. but it does strike me that his idea was sane and the others were mad
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.
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....:
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......
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
I see the government has plumped for march 29th for A50, so just after the rome treaty celebrations on the 25th - a small conciliatory gesture towards the EU perhaps?
which means March 29th 2019 will be the day that Britain sails outward to rule the waves / slopes off into a corner to die alone (delete as applicable)
I wonder if there will ever be some sort of holiday to mark the occasion (or maybe that would be June 23rd)?
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.
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......
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.
I see the government has plumped for march 29th for A50, so just after the rome treaty celebrations on the 25th - a small conciliatory gesture towards the EU perhaps?
which means March 29th 2019 will be the day that Britain sails outward to rule the waves / slopes off into a corner to die alone (delete as applicable)
I wonder if there will ever be some sort of holiday to mark the occasion (or maybe that would be June 23rd)?
Would be as sensitive as an Orangemen's parade on the anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne in Catholic areas of Ireland.
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 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.
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.
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.
Haha no. I thought he was almost certainly on a wind up.. but it made me check my numbers I admit that
People with that level of money (£70m) should be personally arranging for food to be sent en masse to famine riven countries. Reminds me of the tragic story of Peter Green from Fleetwood Mac. Once they were worth a few quid, he decided they had enough and should spend the rest personally delivering sandwiches to Biafra.. the others wouldnt have it, and he was later diagnosed as schizophrenic.. but it does strike me that his idea was sane and the others were mad
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
I don't think that's really true. There is some truth in the adage that money is power; the most obvious example being the billionaires in the US who fund PACS... or even their own presidential campaigns. One might argue about the amount of power they wield (though not so much the orange one), but that they significantly influence policy is undeniable.
Then, of course, those who channel their megalomania to more constructive ends, from Elon Musk through to Bill Gates.
If I had a couple of billion in the bank, I could certainly find constructive ways to spend it without giving it away.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Cheers, couldn't find a waycist angle
Well he was asked a question and what he said aligned with the thoughts of parents of people with disabilities
Of course, the passengers of the outwage bus saw a chance to wet their pants and seized it. Political capital at the expense of the disabled, oh well at least they feel good about themselves
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!
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.
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.
Haha no. I thought he was almost certainly on a wind up.. but it made me check my numbers I admit that
People with that level of money (£70m) should be personally arranging for food to be sent en masse to famine riven countries. Reminds me of the tragic story of Peter Green from Fleetwood Mac. Once they were worth a few quid, he decided they had enough and should spend the rest personally delivering sandwiches to Biafra.. the others wouldnt have it, and he was later diagnosed as schizophrenic.. but it does strike me that his idea was sane and the others were mad
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.
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.
5...4...3...2...1...Justin Short Straws tells us that because of the Grimsby Local Council elections of 1936, that Labour really isn't in that bad a position and can still win in 2020.
Sky as part of the story of Mao-mentum have been showing a load of footage of their demos. It is just me or are they more white than the Lib Dem parliamentary party?
"An extremist who stored his secrets on USB sticks disguised as cufflinks is facing jail after admitting being an ISIS terrorist.
Samata Ullah, from Cardiff, admitted membership of ISIS and confessed to being involved in terrorist training and preparation of terrorist acts.
Then 34-year-old was a key member of a group calling itself the 'Cyber Caliphate Army' and gave other members of ISIS advice on how to communicate using sophisticated encryption techniques.
When his home was raided last October, Ullah was found with 30 metal cufflinks from a batch he had bought on a Chinese website, using the name Cardiff Trader.
Last week the SNP was asking for an assurance that the devolved governments would be given advance notice of the triggering of article 50. Now the devolved governments, along with everyone else, have been given advance notice, but the SNP’s Brexit minister, Michael Russell, seems to be complaining that he wasn’t given advance notice of the advance notice.
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.
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.
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
Comments
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.
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
It isn't spendable cash obviously, but it doesn't change your life that much really. You still speak to the same people, drive on the same roads, etc. My elderly next door neighbour has a knighthood instead of a bull terrier these days, but he generally talks about the same stuff: the weather and the bins.
Not that I would give it up, I wouldn't say it was pointless... far from it... but it doesn't really make that much difference.
I will stop talking about money now...
* £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
edit: "no one has much use for it".
Mr. Lennon, that makes sense. High primes pave the way to a minutely increased chance of being a solo winner!
The security of having a pre-tax income of £350,000 per year would worth a huge amount
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
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.
People with that level of money (£70m) should be personally arranging for food to be sent en masse to famine riven countries. Reminds me of the tragic story of Peter Green from Fleetwood Mac. Once they were worth a few quid, he decided they had enough and should spend the rest personally delivering sandwiches to Biafra.. the others wouldnt have it, and he was later diagnosed as schizophrenic.. but it does strike me that his idea was sane and the others were mad
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.
which means March 29th 2019 will be the day that Britain sails outward to rule the waves / slopes off into a corner to die alone (delete as applicable)
I wonder if there will ever be some sort of holiday to mark the occasion (or maybe that would be June 23rd)?
https://youtu.be/8uA2bLrl_9Q
Oh wait...
Anyway, I need to be off.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/15/welfare-reform-minister-disabled-not-worth-minimum-wage
'“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.”
Conservatives: 45% (+1)
Labour: 26% (-2)
Ukip: 10% (- 1)
Lib Dems: 9% ( +1)
Greens: 4% (-1)
Conservative lead: 19 points (up 3)
https://youtu.be/gtTDl6P64UY
The PB discussion!
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/10/17/the-pollings-not-all-good-for-ukip-see-this-worrying-data-for-farages-party-from-yougov-and-ipsos-mori/
So they sit staring at the tv all day instead of engaging with the rest of society
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.
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 some truth in the adage that money is power; the most obvious example being the billionaires in the US who fund PACS... or even their own presidential campaigns. One might argue about the amount of power they wield (though not so much the orange one), but that they significantly influence policy is undeniable.
Then, of course, those who channel their megalomania to more constructive ends, from Elon Musk through to Bill Gates.
If I had a couple of billion in the bank, I could certainly find constructive ways to spend it without giving it away.
"If I were a rich man..."
ICM asked people which team they thought was better able to manage the economy properly. The results were:
Theresa May and Philip Hammond: 44% (up 1 from Guardian/ICM two weeks ago)
Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell: 11% (down 1)
Neither: 31% (up 2)
Don’t know: 14% (down 3)
Conservative lead: 33 points (up 2)
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.
After a terrible set of headlines on NIC for Hammond & May, the public raise 2 fingers, to McDonnell and Corbyn.
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.
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
"When 18-24s split 41% vs 29% for the Conservatives, Labour can only be in some sort of historic mess."
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.
Well he was asked a question and what he said aligned with the thoughts of parents of people with disabilities
Of course, the passengers of the outwage bus saw a chance to wet their pants and seized it. Political capital at the expense of the disabled, oh well at least they feel good about themselves
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!
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.
Great for Labour shadow cabinet to get away from Westminster Bubble with away day trip to Central London.
Basically, it gives you options but not fulfilment.
https://twitter.com/labourwhips/status/843811744401313792?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=sNAPCHAT+value&*
As predicted here.
Again.
Samata Ullah, from Cardiff, admitted membership of ISIS and confessed to being involved in terrorist training and preparation of terrorist acts.
Then 34-year-old was a key member of a group calling itself the 'Cyber Caliphate Army' and gave other members of ISIS advice on how to communicate using sophisticated encryption techniques.
When his home was raided last October, Ullah was found with 30 metal cufflinks from a batch he had bought on a Chinese website, using the name Cardiff Trader.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4331030/Extremist-terror-files-USB-disguised-cufflinks.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK
But Islandlwana of course, not Rorke's Drift.
Last week the SNP was asking for an assurance that the devolved governments would be given advance notice of the triggering of article 50. Now the devolved governments, along with everyone else, have been given advance notice, but the SNP’s Brexit minister, Michael Russell, seems to be complaining that he wasn’t given advance notice of the advance notice.
https://twitter.com/Feorlean/status/843798760320876544
NEW THREAD
ie the white man?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm0DxSBjPXE
PS: given I will never have 5 Million it is of little matter mind you but nice thought