Moderator: ZS Global Moderators
)
Gonna party like it is 2008!raptor wrote:Three strategies:
1)Buy 30 day "out of the money" put and/or calls on stocks not likely to be in the money. Upon expiration the puts and/or calls simply evaporate. In the event that they are in the money when they expire then repeat for the next 12 months until the money is gone.
Just about any gambling scheme will work well. The house always wins.2) Go to a casino and go to the roulette wheel and keep betting on '00' until the money is gone. On those odd times you win throw that money back on the table. You could also get them to waive the house limit and put it all on one spin of the wheel.
3) Buy 1,000's of lottery tickets with the same number. With the same number your odds of winning remain at silly unlikely levels. You will not be able to buy 10 million in one week but if you pay 100 people $1,000 per week to buy 1,000 tickets per week at $2 per ticket unless you win the jackpot you will be through the $10 million in less than a year.
It is not gambling when you on the house.Stercutus wrote: Just about any gambling scheme will work well. The house always wins.
Halfapint wrote:There are some exceptions like myself and jeepercreeper.... but we are the forum asshats. We protect our positions with gusto
zero11010 wrote:The girlfriend is a good shot with a 10/22.
Her secondary offense will be nagging.
SMoAF wrote:You could have your very own Trunk SMoAF. That'd HAVE to have some practical value for you.
Good plan but in the movie there was no spouse and no children. You could also do this more simply by hiring the kids at the pay rate $1 million per day and simply avoid the whole complexity of the trust and trustee. However if they are minors you technically have some control of the assets even in the trust as the parent. You would have to emancipate them if they were minors.Murphman wrote:Where there are legal stipulations, there are legal loopholes.
Based upon your rules, I would set up irrevocable trusts for my children for $4.9mm each (after attorney fees and gift tax return fees), fund them (money spent on investments contributed to the trusts) and call it a day. I would make sure my most trusted non-family member is the trustee to avoid any possible doubts of control.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/irr ... etrust.asp
Brewster's Millions was a turd. The attorney who became the girlfriend should have known 10 other easy ways to get around such an inane idea.
Rules also stated no purchasing something to destroy it. (He bought a expensive rare stamp and used it to mail a postcard to the law firm, thus negating its value without destruction). I'm not sure gifts were allowed, you had to "get value" for the money somehow. Which still leaves a lot of room to play.raptor wrote:[I have a better idea...buy a car with the cash, put the remaining $10 million in cash in your car, have a friend take the car and the money and set fire to the car ..."Cash? What cash? It is gone!"
If the friend happens to take the cash with him before the car burns and does not tell you, well what can I say.
Yes you are correct on all counts.duodecima wrote:Rules also stated no purchasing something to destroy it. (He bought a expensive rare stamp and used it to mail a postcard to the law firm, thus negating its value without destruction). I'm not sure gifts were allowed, you had to "get value" for the money somehow. Which still leaves a lot of room to play.raptor wrote:[I have a better idea...buy a car with the cash, put the remaining $10 million in cash in your car, have a friend take the car and the money and set fire to the car ..."Cash? What cash? It is gone!"
If the friend happens to take the cash with him before the car burns and does not tell you, well what can I say.
I think the bigger problem was that in the movie it was more money in a lot less time and you were forbidden to tell anyone, so in my case my family would think I'd lost my mind. (Then I could pay the lawyer for the competency stuff as an expense!!!).
Ok so would writing a check to the US government for a $30 million voluntary reduction in the deficit qualify. He would get nothing of value, it is not a charity, it is not services and he cannot reclaim the money.Brewster is challenged to either take $1 million upfront, or spend $30 million within 30 days to inherit $300 million. If he chooses the former, the law firm becomes the executor of the estate and divides the money among charities (after taking a sizable fee). In the latter case, after 30 days, he may not own any assets that are not already his, and he must get value for the services of anyone he hires; he also cannot buy anything with the intent to destroy it. He may donate only 5% to charity and lose 5% by gambling. And he is not allowed to tell anyone, even Spike. Brewster decides to take the $30 million challenge. Angela Drake, a paralegal from the law firm must accompany him to keep tabs on all spending.
*For an insignificant fee.raptor wrote:BTW anyone who wants to make such a payment, PM me first...I will get you drug tested and talk you out of it.*
But you would get significant value for the money!!!KGBrick wrote:*For an insignificant fee.raptor wrote:BTW anyone who wants to make such a payment, PM me first...I will get you drug tested and talk you out of it.*
That was my thought on the PSA's, you think you couldn't drive some folks nuts with them? (The original and the remake of the movie were both done pre-Citizen's United.wamba wrote:For example one thought I had was to hire protesters to annoy people/groups that either irritate me or that I feel need taking down a peg or two.
) The estate would have to deal with the tax issue of the $10 million given to you. However, once it was in your control you become responsible for the gift tax issues. It is likely though to simplify the tax issues that the estate would give you authority to disburse the funds on its behalf and thus retain any tax issues for gifts, etc.thus making it harder to capture the gift tax as part of the disbursements.duodecima wrote:
Raptor, it could be 11:59th hour move if somehow you had NOT significantly ditched enough money. I had been thinking of income tax implications (there goes 4.6/10M under ordinary income tax) before I remembered it was inheritance and the estate should take care of the estate taxes before the money came to me.
Fleet #: ZS 0180vyadmirer wrote:Call me the paranoid type, but remember I'm on a post apocalyptic website prepared for zombies.
The sums adjusted to 2014 - would be a need to spend $66 million to get $660 million.Mikeyboy wrote: Its neat to see how the values and time frame was has raise over time. I wonder if the amount would need to be raise to match the 2015 dollar?
In the 1985 version Brewster needed to spend, $30 million within 30 days to inherit $300 million. Also he could only give 5% to Charity and Gamble up to 5% (5% of $30 million is 1.5 million)
The 1945 version Brewster needed to spend, $1 million within 2 months (his 30th birthday) to inherit $8 million
The original 1902 book he needed to spend $1 million over the course of 1 year to inherit $7 million
You're making it sound like you think saving money, potentially instead of buying things, is a bad idea.raptor wrote:BTW let that sink in ...the dollar that you saved in 1985 (29 years later) today buys ~ $.54 worth of goods today.
Not at all. What I am saying is if your money around sitting around safe in a non-interest bearing account for 29 years your safe money would have lost 46% of it value. I am also saying that even at low inflation rates your money's value is being eroded away daily.zero11010 wrote:You're making it sound like you think saving money, potentially instead of buying things, is a bad idea.raptor wrote:BTW let that sink in ...the dollar that you saved in 1985 (29 years later) today buys ~ $.54 worth of goods today.
