Ohio Suburb Can't Claim $1.4M Lottery Tax (yeah THAT lottery ticket)

[underpants]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=817&e=2&u=/ap/mega_millions_tax
Tue Jan 20, 6:24 AM ET
SOUTH EUCLID, Ohio - Rebecca Jemison, who emerged as the true winner of last month's $162 million lottery drawing, is suddenly even richer. This Cleveland suburb is suddenly much poorer.

South Euclid city officials were stunned to learn that they can't collect $1.4 million in income taxes from the winning Mega Millions ticket since the city charter wasn't updated to include lottery winnings as taxable income.

Rebecca Jemison took the lump sum payment option of the $162 million jackpot, walking away with $67 million. Now, she's $1.4 million richer.

The news came at a bad time for South Euclid, which laid off six workers and made other cuts to help bring its $16.5 million budget down to $13 million, Welo said. The city had planed use the windfall to rehire some workers and improve parks and recreation programs.

The tax mixup is the latest plot twist in an unusually eventful lottery drawing. Days after the Dec. 30 drawing, another woman filed a police report saying she lost the winning ticket and was later found guilty of filing a false police report.

[RUexperienced]

1. Good for Rebecca

Power to the people!

[liberalhistorian]

3. Oh, really?

I live near South Euclid, and they desperately, DESPERATELY, need the money. They've had to lay off workers and cut the service department down to the bone, while at the same time dealing with angry residents who won't pay more taxes but who still want something for nothing and who seem to think that an endless, bottomless supply of money just appears naturally in the city coffers.

The workers they had to lay off had families to support, and were thrown into a completely moribund job market where they'll be lucky to find a minimum wage job flipping burgers. The city had planned to rehire the laid off workers once they received its share of the lottery windfall. If she had any decency at all, she'd give them the money anyway. She'd still have around 64 million dollars, and it's not as if she can't live on that, you know.

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. Charity

I imagine she might have her own ideas what charities she intends to support. Not the government mandated kind.

[blurp]

8. When people want something, they'll pay

I have to ask, if the services that have been cut were needed so badly, why do residents still think they're paying too much in taxes?

Seems to me that is they REALLY wanted those services, they'd pay the money. There are a lot of things I can casually say I need, but when it comes time to actually put up the money, I'm much more honest with myself about what is important.

Since you live near there, what services have they cut?

[liberalhistorian]

12. They've cut the service department down to the

bone, so I guess the residents don't mind not having streets plowed, roads maintained and repaired, etc., etc. And the people who will complain the loudest are those who refuse to pay their fair share, but they still want to benefit from the services. People take such things for granted until their city can't afford to do it anymore.

[forgethell]

10. "If she had any decency at all, she'd give them the money anyway. "?

This sounds pretty judgemental to me. Maybe she has a charity she would rather give it to? Maybe she has a use ofr it herself? Maybe she can be convinced that they are not going to waste it; maybe she can't. But, in any event, it is HER money. The town missed its chance to pick her pocket. And who are we to judge.

[liberalhistorian]

13. Yes, it's HER money, as you say,

but she benefits from city services, everything from the duties of the service department (streets plowed, roads maintained and repaired, garbage pick-up, etc.) to police, fire, and EMS services, to the administrative duties necessary to run a city/town/village. Everyone wants these things, but no one wants to pay for them.

And everyone takes them for granted until their city can't afford to provide them. And with Smirk's tax cuts starving so many state and municipal governments, it's only going to get much worse. You can't get something for nothing, as everyone seems to want. Everyone wants the services taxes pay for, and that they benefit from, but no one wants to pay for it.

And, I'm sorry, but I really don't think that a million dollars out of sixty-five million dollars is that much of a sacrifice. And yes, I pay my fair share of my township's taxes, and yes I don't mind voting in favor of levies, either. And no, I don't make a whole helluva lot of money for a college graduate and single mother, around $25,000/yr.

Yes, the city certainly did drop the ball when it came to changing the charter, and yes, they should have done it years ago after they were first told by the Ohio Supreme Court that that's what they had to do in order to collect taxes from lottery winnings. But that doesn't mean the city's residents should pay for it. The point is that it's no great sacrifice on her part to help maintain her city and the basic services it has to give its residents

[michaelwb]

16. Paid taxes

but she benefits from city services, everything from the duties of the service department (streets plowed, roads maintained and repaired, garbage pick-up, etc.) to police, fire, and EMS services, to the administrative duties necessary to run a city/town/village. Everyone wants these things, but no one wants to pay for them.

So you are arguing that she never paid taxes in the past? You're implying that she somehow got a free ride in the past. But if she paid her taxes up to date then she has been paying for these services. The lottery winning aren't taxable in the city, so it's really a separate issue.

[RUexperienced]

20. Your picture of Robert Kennedy makes me wonder why

you don't ask people like them to pay more taxes.

Why do rich liberals pay accountants thousand and tens of thousands of dollars to reduce their tax bills?

For many of the reasons you stated, I would like to see more of them put their money where their mouth is and VOLUNTEER to pay more taxes instead of hiring lawyers and accountants to reduce their taxes.

[liberalhistorian]

23. Yes, that's true,

I've always totally agreed with that. Where did you get even the slightest impression that I didn't? The rich should always pay more taxes, regardless of whether or not they're liberal, conservative, middle-of-the-road, etc., etc. That's simple fairness.

And you are, indeed, correct that people should put their money where their mouth is or they're hypocritical. Again, where did you ever get the impression I thought differently? I make $25,000/yr., I'm a single mother (I chose NOT to have an abortion when I could have, if that makes you, a pro-life male, happy) and I pay my fair share and contribute my fair share and have no problem doing so.

[RUexperienced]

29. My issue is with the RFK picture

The Kennedy family has all of the family millions locked tight in tax free trust funds for generations to come, while at the same time Ted Kennedy has worked overtime to block every tax cut for me and my family.

[liberalhistorian]

31. Where did you get that information?

I'm going to need to see some solid proof before I believe that, because that sounds like RW wingnut propaganda to me.

[RUexperienced]

34. Try a google search

Kennedy, tax shelter, Pure Trust

then take your pick of sources.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

40. BS Alert

I found this on my Google search: http://www.asgoldstein.com/contrust.html. Follow the links at the bottom of the page for more information.

And then ask yourself this question. Do you really think that if Ted Kennedy has never paid income taxes in his life (because all his assets were in a "Pure Trust"), don't you think that would have become a political liability for him at some point in his career. Don't you think that his Republican opponent would have been jumping up and down and screaming about it?

And since Ted Kennedy has been a longtime advocate of raising the minimum wage and the Earned Income Credit, the other half of your equation is equally dubious.

[liberalhistorian]

42. That's exactly

what I was thinking!

[RUexperienced]

43. I never said that Ted Kennedy

never paid "any" taxes.

I said his family money is stored in tax free family trusts. And at the same time he has opposed tax cuts to help me and my family.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

45. Please

If it's "tax free" then it would be fair to assume that he doesn't pay taxes.

And just FYI, either the trust as an entity pays the taxes or the benficiaries of the trust (i.e., the individual members of the Kennedy family) pay them. There are no free lunches, and anybody who says otherwise is a con artist.

[liberalhistorian]

46. As a paralegal,

I can definitely confirm that.

[RUexperienced]

49. Why would a family dynasty like the Kennedy's keep their money in a trust

if it did not reduce or eliminate their taxes?

[liberalhistorian]

51. Because money in a trust GROWS

and is therefore available in the future for future generations, it doesn't mean that the money isn't taxed!

[RUexperienced]

56. Are you saying that money kept in family trusts pay full inheritance tax?

Part 2... And when that money grows in a trust versus a family business, is it taxed at the full corporate or individual rate?

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

57. It reduces some taxes...

...but that's a far cry from eliminating them. Funds held in trust are also protected from the effects of bankruptcy and divorce proceedings (none of that in the Kennedy family), and creating a trust is an effective (and entirely legal) way of reducing inheritance taxes.

[RUexperienced]

66. Good enough to make my point

Why are proud liberals hiring lawyers and accountants to find, albeit legal, loopholes to the taxes they push on the rest of us?

[northzax]

68. So what you are saying is the following:

1: the Kennedy family uses legal trusts to ensure multi-generational wealth (for a family that hasn't made much money in two generations, being public servants and all. A senator does quite well, but it ain't megamillions)

2: Ted Kennedy voted against legislation that would eliminate his need to have trusts.

Why don't you hire a lawyer to find the same loopholes? do you use a tax preparation service to help you find deductions? do you take a mortgage deduction? student loans? anything? If you have ever paid a tax prep service, or an accountant, or bought TurboTax or a book on taxes, then you are doing the same thing as the Kennedy family, using every method at your dispoal to legally minimize your tax bill. don't let the green monster let you get away with blaming others for doing the same thing as you, just on a larger scale.

[liberalhistorian]

69. Excellent!

Couldn't have said it better myself. And let's not even get into all of the rich conservatives (the Bush Family, anyone) who take great delight in finding ways to pay as little taxes as possible, and in helping corporations avoid paying almost any taxes at all (Enron, WorldCom, et al., anyone)?

Enron paid NO TAXES for the last two years before it filed for bankruptcy, (that's right, NO TAXES, thanks to the setting up of "offshore headquarters"), thus shifting the bulk of the burden onto joe and jane sixpack, who can least afford it.

And as far as the Kennedys are concerned, I've about had it with such criticism. They have been in public service for decades, and have paid the highest price possible, TWICE, for such service. They've endured the murder of a brother who happened to be the president, and, just five years later, the murder of another brother who happened to be a senator running for president; both assassinations being just horrible, horrible, things for them to endure that have left deep wounds and scars to this very day (if you've ever seen the footage of either or both, you'll know exactly what I mean).

Now, will you please name me ONE OTHER POLITICAL FAMILY that has had to endure even ONE assassination, let alone two? I don't see the damn Bushes ever having to deal with something like that, or any other family, for that matter. So you'll get nowhere with me at all as far as criticism of the Kennedys is concerned. And if it hadn't been for Ted Kennedy helping to hold the line, and often leading those attempting to hold the line, against the repuke wingnuts and their totally fascist, nutball legislation and attempts to destroy every single advance in economic, environmental, legal, employment, etc., etc., legislation, life would be a helluva lot bleaker than it already is in this country for the average and low-income person.

[RUexperienced]

74. Very trajic story of the family, no doubt

But that does not give them the right to increase my taxes.

[liberalhistorian]

79. THEY DO NOT INCREASE

YOUR TAXES! I just don't know how much clearer I can make that. You obviously have a "thing" against the family, so there's probably no point in even arguing the point with you.

[RUexperienced]

73. Yes, I take all those deductions

and do not support higher taxes. No inconsistancy on my part.

But Kennedy and others have pushed for higher taxes on the rest of us so the government would have more money while doing every in his power to give the government less of HIS money.

Reminds me of the millions that billionaire Soros dumped into McCain Feingold law to limit campaign donations from "special interests."

But the same law allows him a loophole so he can give $12 million to defeat Shrub.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

77. BS Alert, Part II

Kennedy has worked, more conspicuously than most congresssional Democrats, to oppose the Bush tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy -- while raising taxes on working families by the time you figure in the tax hikes at the state and local level.

"Once again, it's been left to Ted Kennedy to remind the party of what it supposedly stands for, just as he did in the wake of the disastrous 1994 off-year election. Only Kennedy has been willing to back up liberal rhetoric with liberal action, calling for a legislative rollback of the worst excesses of the GOP raid on the Treasury. Under the Massachusetts senator's proposal, the estate tax, abolished in its entirety last year, would be reimposed on estates valued at over $4 million, thereby returning $130 billion to federal coffers over the next decade. In addition, Kennedy would postpone marginal rate cuts scheduled for the years after 2004, cuts benefiting only those families earning over $130,000 a year, an additional savings of $220 billion over ten years. If Democrats can't back this plan, which is economically sensible, morally justifiable, and politically defensible, they should join the other party. Wayne O'Leary -- writing in The Populist

Kennedy has also worked tirelessly throughout his political career on the twin issues of raising the minimum wage and improving public education. Your summary of his nearly forty years in the U.S. Senate barely rises to the level of sophomoric.

And McCain-Feingold limits contributions to political candidates. Soros provided his millions to Americans Coming Together, which is a non-profit organization. McCain-Feingold was never intended to limit the political activities of non-elected persons or organizations.

I'm sure you are what passes for an intellectual on Free Republic, but I'm less than impressed.

[smb]

50. Fair Share

she benefits from city services, everything from the duties of the service department (streets plowed, roads maintained and repaired, garbage pick-up, etc.) to police, fire, and EMS services, to the administrative duties necessary to run a city/town/village

Well, if they strew the street in front of her house with rose petals, individually pick up direct from her fingers any items she cares to discard, and have policemen and firefighters right at her door awaiting her beck and call, then it might be justifiable to charge her $1.4 million for such services.

If, however, they just provide more of less the same services they provide to people in general, she ought to pay what people in general pay (as she will, since I presume that she pays property tax in the town where she lives).

[liberalhistorian]

52. Jesus, what are we always

arguing in favor of on this board, and what do the vast majority of members here believe? Taxes should be paid ACCORDING TO INCOME. If you have more, you should pay more, it's as simple as that. If you don't make as much, you should pay less, again, it's as simple as that.

I make $25,000/yr., and I'm sure I pay less taxes than someone making $50,000/yr., which is only fair. I don't have any problem paying taxes, the problem I have is with the people who have a lot more who don't want to pay their fair share, thus putting the burden more on those who have less and who can least afford it. And the fact that there are people on DU who don't believe that the more you make and have, the more you should pay your fair share and not push the burden onto those with less than you is really amazing to me.

And if you're a corporation, then you shouldn't be able to hide behind all kinds of loopholes and corporate welfare statutes, either, of course, since when have corporations ever paid their fair share.

[Buffler]

55. Taxes should be paid

Jesus, what are we always arguing in favor of on this board, and what do the vast majority of members here believe? Taxes should be paid ACCORDING TO INCOME. If you have more, you should pay more, it's as simple as that. If you don't make as much, you should pay less, again, it's as simple as that.

True. But taxes should also be paid according to the law. And according to the law, not a single dime in income taxes is owed on the lottery winnings.

And why do you keep mentioning your income?

the problem I have is with the people who have a lot more who don't want to pay their fair share

And just what is ones "Fair share"? Specifically.

[liberalhistorian]

59. A share commensurate with their

income, just like the rest of us have to pay. And I was not disputing the fact that, under the city charter, they cannot collect taxes from lottery winnings, nor was I disputing the fact that it's entirely the city leadership's fault for not amending the city charter to specifically include lottery winnings as taxable income, as they were told they had to do back in 1996 by the Ohio Supreme Court.

[Buffler]

61. What is that share?

A share commensurate with their income

And what would be that "fair share" commensurate with their income? 1%, 5%, 10%, 50%, 75%? Seriously. I always see the term "fair share" thrown around but no one ever actually puts a real number on it. whats the number?

[smb]

78. Taxes should be paid as approrpriate to the tax

Taxes should be paid ACCORDING TO INCOME.

Such a one-size-fits-all rule is simply not rational. In some cases, a case can be made for taxation in proportion to income (e.g. police protection is more valuable to someone who has a lot of stuff that could be stolen). In other cases, some other variable should be used (e.g. it makes sense to pay for roads with gas taxes, so that someone with a $40k income and a Hummer pays more than someone with a $100k income and a Prius -- the former is putting more wear and tear on the road, and ought to pay for it).

[forgethell]

85. police protection is more valuable to someone who has a lot of stuff that

I disagree. Nobody has anything more valuable than their life. And all human lives are infinitley valuable. Besides, police protection is MORE needed on the rough side of town than in the gated communities of the fabuloulsy wealthy. Just where they are not getting it.

[forgethell]

83. No great scrifice, no

but it's her choice whether to do so, or not. The city missed its chance. The city's residents are NOT paying for anything. They didn't have the money before, they haven't got it now. No harm, no foul.

To expect her to just give it to the city is, well, judgmental, as I said. She can do it and we all will praise her, but if she doesn't, she hasn't done anything wrong.

[Buffler]

15. Desperately need the money

I live near South Euclid, and they desperately, DESPERATELY, need the money.

How much have you sent the city to help fulfill this desperate need?

If she had any decency at all, she'd give them the money anyway.

How much decency do you have and how much have you given them?

On edit: I am asking in addition to any taxes you are required to pay to the city. Have you gone above and beyond your minimal requirement?

[liberalhistorian]

17. I don't live IN South

Euclid, I live in another nearby community which has had to raise its own taxes in order to continue to provide even basic services, taxes that I've gladly paid even though I only make $25,000/yr and not sixty-five million dollars. One more time, I simply do not consider one million dollars out of sixty-five million dollars to be any kind of a sacrifice at all.

[Beaker]

63. "I simply do not consider one million dollars out of sixty-five million.."

to be any kind of a sacrifice at all..."

in that case, when you get 67 million dollars, then you can give your town $1.4 million in xtra taxes over what you're required to pay...

BTW- that $67 million is the after-tax amount.

[liberalhistorian]

70. If that were to ever happen to me,

you'd better believe I would do that. And then it would be the district school's turn (I'm the daughter of teachers, so don't even get me STARTED on the subject of the public schools and funding), and then the county human services department (they pretty much saved my life at a particularly low point ten years ago). Because I really wouldn't see any problem with having to live on "only" sixty five instead of sixty seven million dollars, and I'd have a really hard time imagining anyone else having a problem with it, either.

[Beaker]

76. but where does it end?

in your opinion.

remember- the lottery jackpot that she won was supposedly $163 million...but by opting for a lump sum payout rather than a 20-year annuity(a very wise choice), and having a lot of taxes upfront(about a third of the lump sum) she's down to $67 million- and you see fit to say that another couple of million chiseled of won't hurt...well, by that logic, why not another $5million, or $10million- after all how much difference is there really between having $67 million to live on and having $57 million??

How much do you feel people should be satisfied with when winning a lotto jackpot?

[liberalhistorian]

80. Forgive me if I don't shed

any tears over her having taken the lump sum (which means she actually got more than she would have in the long run), or if she only had 57 million instead of 65 million. With so many desperate people unemployed and/or unable to find work or without health care and/or in danger of losing their homes and/or going hungry and/or........well, you get the picture, I'm really not shedding any tears at all over her having "only" 65 million, or if she reduced that by five or ten million making "only" 57 or 55 million or so. Geez, what a hard-luck thing to have to deal with, having "only" 55 million dollars or so! We should all be so lucky.

[Beaker]

84. you didn't even TRY to answer the question-

where does it end?

In your opinion, how much money should people be allowed to keep from their lottery winnings?

[RUexperienced]

19. $14 million for 6 jobs???

She should simply employ them herself as housekeeper, lawncare, pool maint., etc, give them a raise and save over $12 million.

[liberalhistorian]

25. It's not just the six jobs,

it's maintaining service and other basic departments, as well as police, fire, EMS departments and workers, etc., etc., you know, unimportant, trivial stuff like that that no one really benefits from.

[RUexperienced]

28. If the city wants the money in that way, they should present

their requests to the public as any other charity does.


spelling edit

[liberalhistorian]

33. Oh, so you consider the basic

services your municipality provides to be a "charity?" I suppose you consider police, fire and EMS services, and infrastructure maintenance and other such unimportant, trivial things to be just "charity?" I sure hope you don't think that if your house is being robbed or is burning down, or you or a family member is having a heart attack.

[RUexperienced]

35. If they want more money than the law allows,

then yes, they should ask for the money like a charity does.

[Beaker]

64. 1 POINT 4 million...

1.4 million, not 14 million...

[liberalhistorian]

2. I saw this on the front page of

my local paper, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, this morning. Maybe she'll do "the right thing" and give them the money anyway, but I very highly doubt it.

You know the law director's going to catch heat for his statement that "we were all very excited about it, until we went to get the money and learned we weren't entitled to it." Now, granted, South Euclid has a desperate need for the money, but I can just hear all of the howling now from the wingnuts who hate ALL taxes, but who still want all the services it pays for, they always want something for nothing.

[kysrsoze]

4. That certainly would be a nice gesture. I'd do it.

Of course, she's not legally required. She just just buy the whole town and be done with it.

[underpants]

7. I wouldn't it's their own fault for not changing the charter

I hope that I would give some to charity but definitely not to the city. Sorry I just wouldn't.

[liberalhistorian]

18. Then don't bitch

when they lay off police, fire, and EMS workers, and can't keep the streets plowed and clean, etc., etc., etc.

[RUexperienced]

21. I hope you are pro-choice about this topic

After all its her money.

Women should be able to make their own decisions.

[liberalhistorian]

22. Oh, for God's sakes,

that has nothing to do with anything, and you know it!

[RUexperienced]

27. She is an articulate, intelligent woman

Let her choose.

[SoCalDem]

67. They have had ample time to amend their laws

Lotto has been around for a long time.. Perhaps their legislators are not doing their jobs.. Maybe they eliminated the wrong people..

If she wanted to be benevolent, she could put the 1.4 in an account and give the city the interest... She is under no "obligation" to give them the money though ..

She had a streak of magnificent luck, and from the get-go people have tried to taint it for her.. Fist by the lowlife who claimed it was hers, and now the city is trying to make her out to be a skinflint..

Now that she has all that money, she might even move away.. That's what I would do.. :)

[liberalhistorian]

71. Frankly, with that kind of money,

you'd never ever ever again have to worry about what ANYONE thinks, for ANY reason, certainly not a boss, lol!

And yes, the first thing I would do would be to move the hell away from there. I don't live in South Euclid, but I live near, it's all considered Northeast Ohio, and this area is going straight to hell VERY fast. I've lived here thirty years, and I've NEVER seen it like this before. If I could, I'd get the hell out, too.

Actually, if I'm ever in that position, the first thing I'd do would be to head off to the Black Hills in South Dakota and find a cabin to buy, and then buy one of the businesses that cater to the tourists, to buy. Hell, I'd buy a hotel, too. Double hell, I'd probably be able to buy the entire town of Custer, right in the Hills!

[blurp]

5. What services would the city have given her in return?

It seems odd to me to think the city feels entitled to some of this money. What services would she be paying for?

She bought the ticket and the city had nothing to do with it.\

[liberalhistorian]

14. Excuse me, but

where do you think the money for service departments (you know, little things like keeping the streets plowed and cleaned and maintained, garbage pick-up, unimportant stuff like that), and police, fire, and EMS services come from? We're not talking about the city needing money to throw lavish after-hours parties at city halls here. Shrub's tax cuts have starved state and municipal governments so that many of them can't even afford these basic services, and THAT'S what she's getting in return.

Everyone wants these services, but no one wants to pay for them, and I'm tired of that attitude. And, once again, I really don't consider a million dollars out of sixty-five million dollars to be that much of a sacrifice, especially since the laid-off city workers would love to have one-tenth of one-percent of that.

[FormerOstrich]

37. let me see...

you describe over and over again how there is a city full of people that want something for nothing. Then you take the stance that this woman should contribute her winnings to the city.

Wouldn't that qualify as an enabler? To enable this city full of people to continue to receive what they did not want to pay for.

Perhaps this city is horribly mis-managed. Should she still voluntarily contribute? The weren't competent enough to change their charter. Perhaps they are not competent period.

Why would you think that it is suddenly this woman's responsibility? That's rather utilitarian of you. Maybe if she had any decency at all she would just give the Feds the money because so many want services from them that they can't afford.

Your stance is ridiculous. I would think if her city is a great community that she will find ways to help bolster the community. Just handing over a chunk of change, with no oversight, to cover what the populace refuses to cover is not something I would advocate.

Think about what you are saying.

[liberalhistorian]

39. No, no, no, no,

NO, NOWHERE did I say ANYTHING AT ALL about her "handing over her winnings!" Please READ a post before you respond. I said that she should pay what the TAX portion would have been, around one million dollars. I don't consider one million dollars out of sixty-five million (the amount she received as a lump sum AFTER ALL OTHER TAXES) to be any kind of sacrifice at all.

[blurp]

54. You miss the point

Everyone wants these services, but no one wants to pay for them, and I'm tired of that attitude.

She's already paid for them -- in her other taxes.

There is nothing about her winning the lottery that justifies the city collecting more money from her for services she'll never use.

Besides, she's probably moving out anyway. The city will never provide her with any more services.

And your comment seems to imply that progressive taxation is wrong. After all, why should the lowest 50% of the people only pay 4% of the taxes? That sounds like your "everyone wants services, but no one wants to pay" comment.

[liberalhistorian]

60. Well, given how fast South Euclid

is deteriorating along with Cleveland and other nearby cities and communities, I sure as hell wouldn't blame her if she moved, in fact, I'd move as far away from here as I could, were I in a position to do so. Cleveland is laying off police officers and firefighters and EMS workers, as well as a ton of other city workers, it can't even afford trash pick-up anymore.

[missingthebigdog]

72. PROPERTY taxes!

The money to keep "the streets plowed and cleaned and maintained, garbage pick-up, unimportant stuff like that), and police, fire, and EMS services" comes from PROPERTY taxes. Should this woman choose to spend some of her winnings on a more upscale abode, she will pay a larger share of property tax.

I don't think I've ever lived anywhere that income was taxed at the local level. A portion of the income taxes paid into the state's coffers finds its way back to the local community, and local communities have sales taxes, but I would think that an income tax is unusual.

Since you don't consider the 1.4 million to be significant, I suppose you have written a check for a similar portion of YOUR income to your local municipality? If my calculations are correct, that would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $540.00. Go ahead. It's the decent thing to do.

[kath]

75. Actually, municipal income tax is not that uncommon in the East & Midwest

we paid it in St. Louis -I think it was 1%. I heard a few year's back that Philadelphia's was something like 5%-- can anyone verify?

[liberalhistorian]

82. Yes, it's very common for

municipalities to tax income, mine does and I've lived in other communities that have, as well. Come to think of it, I can't think of one municipality that DOES NOT tax income. And that's only fair because that tax income is used to support the services I've described above, they are NOT supported by property taxes, but INCOME taxes! Property taxes support the schools.

[liberalhistorian]

81. Actually, according to

the 1099 statement I just received from my employer yesterday, the amount of taxes withheld for my municipality was $603.00, which I have no problem with paying. Happy now?

And I have lived in communities that did, indeed, tax income, most of them do.

[NYYFan]

9. I'm starting to think this ticket is cursed

well, except for the actual winner. :shrug: Everyone else that has tried to benefit has failed.

[RUexperienced]

30. LOL!! The love of money....

And it is too early to tell if the money is good luck for the winner.

Maybe it will comeback to haunt her as well.

[liberalhistorian]

32. I don't know, I sure as

hell wouldn't mind the "bad luck" of having sixty-five million dollars, that's for sure!

[RUexperienced]

38. Someone once said that more people can handle poverty than

riches.

I don't know if that is true or not.

But I do think statistics do show that people who gain a lot of money quickly can have more difficulties than those who worked their whole life for it.

[liberalhistorian]

41. I don't know, that may be true,

but I sure as hell would have no problem at all with having sixty-five million dollars instead of struggling as a single mother on $25,000/yr.!

[RUexperienced]

44. I would like to test that theory.

If I win, I'll give you half and we can see if it corrupts us.

[liberalhistorian]

47. LOL!

And I'll do the same if it's the other way around, promise! Although I think we have a better chance of suddenly waking up and finding that we're the president than of winning that kind of money in the lottery.

[RUexperienced]

48. hopefully, we will do better than this guy...

Whittaker
robbed again
Lottery winner says $100,000
taken from car Saturday

Brad McElhinny <[e-mail]>
Daily Mail staff

Tuesday January 20, 2004; 12:13 PM

Lottery winner Jack Whittaker, who had more than half a million dollars stolen from his sport utility vehicle last year, had another $100,000 swiped from his vehicle over the weekend...

The robber stole a blue bank bag filled with about $100,000, according to police...

The Powerball winner told investigators he thinks the robber must be someone who knew the money would be there, Dailey said...

Whittaker, who won the largest Powerball jackpot in history on Christmas 2002, had more than $500,000 stolen when a briefcase was stolen from his vehicle outside the Pink Pony strip club last August...

http://www.dailymail.com/news/News/2004012058/

[liberalhistorian]

53. That's pretty stupid to leave

a money bag in his car YET AGAIN after having a money bag stolen from the car previously! Of course, he still has millions more where that comes from, so I'm not shedding any tears for him.

[0007]

87. It has also been said that most Rich Folks should be

pitied rather than envied.

[Frodo]

11. The question is "who's running this city??"

Eight years ago the state courts told them they could not tax lottery income unless they made changes to account for it. During that time they've given up taxes on (certainly smaller) other lottery income as well and never gotten their act together. There are people whose job it is to account for such things.

Who slipped up? Shall we guess which party runs this town? (ok, keeping my fingers crossed here hoping not to be embarrased)

[underpants]

24. That was what I asked too

Sounds like some new leadership is needed.

[liberalhistorian]

26. Yes, that would definitely appear to be the case,

and I'd be awfully nervous if I were an elected official in South Euclid right now.

[Frodo]

36. Lot's of people think local government is a cushy job.

But somone has to be minding the store.

[oldcoot]

65. They should be nervous

If I was a resident of South Euclid, I would be furious. I also would wonder what else they let slide.

[sendero]

58. Exactly.....

.... if people want to be mad, they should be mad at the slackers who didn't update the charter.

To address another point in the thread - IMHO, money is worth the effort it took to earn it. Many if not most big lottery winners prove the theory about a fool and his money all too well.

As they used to say, "easy come, easy go" :)

[liberalhistorian]

62. Well, I sure wouldn't mind being given

the chance to test that theory, lol!

[Beaker]

86. It sounds like she should use the money to move to a better town.

The city she's living in seems like a real cesspool.

[LiberalFighter]

88. Irresponsible financial planning on the part of South Euclid

So they receive $1.4 million in taxes for one year to rehire the workers that were laid off because the city failed on their part to put together a budget that is appropriate.

Will they always have a winner of the lottery from their city on an annual basis? Will they put together a budget that relies on lottery winners?

When I budget for the year I don't and shouldn't consider overtime hours. It is 40 hours a week.