How to invest £45.5m

Gymgenius

musehead wrote: »

I'd try and keep it a secret from most people. Can you decline all publicity?

I suppose most of the money would go into non-cash investments.

You can, but the daily rags offer rewards to anyone who calls in to reveal the winner's identity don't they.

musehead

That would make me pretty paranoid if i'd only told my close friends/family and suddenly the papers knew about it.

I can see how winning that much could cause problems!

ed123_2

...the prize structure is crazy......match 5, 62k, 4+2, 3.1k and 4+1, £158.....

StevieJ

tonytsdiver wrote: »

Check those tickets folks.So just how do you invest £ 45.5 m then ? If it was me I'd give £40 m away. Somebody is waking up to a huge problem this morning but it's not me

You could buy a house with no mortgage

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-23337670.html?locationIdentifier=POSTCODE^639302&i nsId=1&radius=10.0&pageNumber=1&fromSummary=true&b ackToListURL=%2Fproperty-for-sale%2Ffind.html%3FlocationIdentifier%3DPOSTCODE%2 55E639302%26insId%3D1%26radius%3D10.0

Myrmidon_J

Dr_Funkenstein wrote:

buy glasgow rangers

Aye, and sell all the players to Hibs for £1.

sh856531

RayWolfe wrote: »

Crucified?
If someone can't give back something after getting a windfall of that size, what have we come to? If you had it and were too mean to help others the answer is a simple one: don't invest any of it, live on the capital, pay NO tax, let others provide your services for you!

Letting the government take half of your assets is not "giving back".

I'm all for "giving back". However I'm *not*for the government thinking its entitled to half of my earnings/property/assets so that it can go pi$$ it away on one of its idiotic social experiments or quangos.

As such, I would have no qualms whatsoever about using every trick in the book to ensure that the government doesn't get hold of that cash, so that I could in turn distribute it to those that *I* think deserve it.

I'd probably give away or or otherwise allocate to charity about 43 million of it. I'd keep maybe 2 million to myself and even then I'd still have probably "paid my way" 10 times over....

Best Regards

S

Aegis

sh856531 wrote: »

Letting the government take half of your assets is not "giving back".

I'm all for "giving back". However I'm *not*for the government thinking its entitled to half of my earnings/property/assets so that it can go pi$$ it away on one of its idiotic social experiments or quangos.

As such, I would have no qualms whatsoever about using every trick in the book to ensure that the government doesn't get hold of that cash, so that I could in turn distribute it to those that *I* think deserve it.

I'd probably give away or or otherwise allocate to charity about 43 million of it. I'd keep maybe 2 million to myself and even then I'd still have probably "paid my way" 10 times over....

Best Regards

S

You wouldn't lose half of your assets. The 50% tax is on the income generated through interest payments. The actual cash value of your basic assets would still be increasing through interest payments, though inflation would reduce the real value of that cash.

RayWolfe

sh856531 wrote: »

Letting the government take half of your assets is not "giving back".

Who asked to take 50% of your assets?
Do you understand the difference between capital and earnings? If not, I could explain ... but I doubt you'd really be interested with any facts.

Myrmidon_J

Aegis wrote:

You wouldn't lose half of your assets.

You would if I was in government, comrade! :cool:

Anyway - what's the IHT liability on £45.5m?

amcluesent

>the daily rags offer rewards to anyone who calls in to reveal the winner's identity<

£45M should buy some serious 'muscle' to keep the lower-orders away...

"But I'm his Nan!"
"Your name's not on the list, you're not coming in."