If You Won The Lottery Jackpots This Week, What Would You Do?

Ozlotto jackpot is $70m tonight and Powerball $80m. If you won either (/both!) what would you do? Would you tell anyone? Would you keep working? What would you invest in?


  • +28 votes

    You're some kind of crazy person if you wouldn't give up your job (I think these people have not a whole lot else in their lives and scared of free time).

    Me, I would tell my closest of people only. I'd tell everyone else I made it all on crypto.

    I'd give a lot to friends and family, but none to charity. I'd buy a very nice house, a holiday house and cars to play with.

    I'd invest in projets I really believe in (renewable energies and environmentally sensitive packaging) and live off passive income for ever.

    • +13 votes

      One reason not to quit your job is to not draw attention to yourself. It'd be pretty weird if a friend of mine quit their job then suddenly started buying new cars and gadgets and stuff, started dressing nicer, etc.


      I wouldn't quit my job. I'd go part time, sure, so I could find more balance, but I actually love being a teacher and making a difference in kids' lives. I have lots of other things in my life, but actually feel a calling.

    • +1 vote

      or… some people have jobs that they are actually passionate about and its not really about the money for them so they continue doing what they love ?

      I wouldn't quit. It has nothing to do with being scared of free time. Id go on vacation a lot more sure and work less.


      I wouldn't quit my job, I'd like to bumped up in the hierarchy though :P

  • +16 votes

    I wouldn't work (for anyone else). I'd be out the door as soon as I could be.

    I'd certainly share with key people, and I'd buy two or three houses / flats in certain cities / locations and move between those during each year aligned with my ideal weather, etc.

    The bulk of the winnings would be invested to generate income for expenses. But I couldn't see myself living a highly lavish lifestyle, just comfortable and content.

  • +3 votes

    Not buying a ticket. It's a lot of money. More than I could ever use in my lifetime.

    I would rather have a better chance of winning a much smaller amount.

    Yes it would change my life. I wouldn't invest much time trying to make it grow. I'd rather enjoy my time. I'd just put most of it into a managed fund and live off the income it generates. I'd end up donating a lot of it.

  • +9 votes

    Hire a lawyer.

  • +15 votes

    Id take a nap for about a week. Then consider what to do after.

    But you have to be in it to win it. I'm not in it.

    • +28 votes

      The odds of winning are approximately the same for you anyway.

        • +6 votes

          Chances of winning if you buy a ticket are 1 in 45,379,620, or close to nil. Chances of winning if you don't buy a ticket are also close to nil.
          I've been saying this to the kids for years, and they have always argued that win chance IS nil if you don't enter. Then one day we were pulled up at the lights and an old bloke jay-walked through the cars in front of us after emerging from the newsagency. From his armful of magazines and papers slipped a white lotto ticket.
          I opened the car door and called out to him that he had dropped it, then got back in and said "If I had picked up that ticket is how you can win the lotto without entering." I prepared for the Dad mic drop, but the kids just rolled their eyes.

        • +6 votes

          problem is not one but two winners now share 35 million, had they have had your mindset they wouldn't have won.

        • +1 vote

          @mskeggs: No, chances of you winning if you don't buy a ticket is nil. Not close to nil. Your wording is all wrong.

        • +9 votes

          Chances I find a ticket blowing down the street and it wins are approximately equal to the chance of buying a ticket and it winning.
          I have close to nil chance of winning whether I buy a ticket or not.

          Consider other areas in your life if you took the same approach:
          - My car fuel tank isn't empty, it has 1/4500000 of its capacity.
          - I am not going without dinner, I am dining on 1/45000000 of a burger
          - This bullet in the head leaves me with 1/45000000 chance of survivng

          In any other area of your life, such a tiny chance has a meaningless difference to nil.
          After all, you have a much better chance of being Prime Minister of Australia (there are 8 living in our 25m population!) than winning the lotto.

          The lottery relies upon collecting small amounts from many, many people, to reward one lucky buyer. I think it is fine to spend a dollar to buy a dream of wealth, but it horrifies me to see people putting $20 or $50 or $100 into the lottery as they retain approximately the same likelihood of winning, but they just dropped money that could have been used for something useful.

        • +1 vote


          I bet there is a lot more than 8 Lotto Winners living in Australia, so your logic is wrong.

          Being born is probably a pretty significant 'other area' of your life. Odds of 1 in 400 trillion for that.

        • -2 votes


          Not how logic works.

          You have used a red herring followed by a straw man.

          Please follow the links above to find out why you are wrong.

  • +4 votes

    I'd run a charity and keep admin fees to a minimum so the money goes to where it's needed.

    • +15 votes

      Just watch that charity delivers the best outcome in the long-term. Very often charity ends up in dependency and can prohibit people from helping themselves.

      E.g. People want to help Africa, send clothes to be given out in Africa for free: African entrepreneurs & clothes manufacturers go out of business.

      People want to help Africa, send food to feed the starving, those helped go on to have 6 children, many more people starve in the next famine.

      People want to help single mothers and introduce single mother welfare, rates of single motherhood in American black families goes from 17% to 73% in one generation, seeing many more children deprived of two parental figures and increase the net number of women living in poverty (welfare not sufficient to rise above poverty, no longer have two incomes or one large male income to support the family).

      People want to help Africa, allow a huge number of refugees into Europe to make a better life (helped by NGO charities to cross borders), deliver a rape crisis in Europe…

      About the only charities that may clearly do net good are environmental ones… (although even then potential to increase bushfires, over preserve one species to the detriment of another, prevent slightly damaging mining in one place only for the company to mine somewhere else and deliver much greater damage than they would have).

      • +4 votes

        don't bother about charity

        china will liberate africa

        • +7 votes

          Why's everyone knocking on about Africa and China? If anything I'd probably have a charity for Australian veterans.

        • +13 votes


          It's because charity is corruptible.
          However, I've come to the sense that there are few select options where it is less likely to be corrupted.

          Me personally, I would grab a shovel and a track-loader and make a synthetic river. Nothing too fancy just 5 metres deep and 20 metres wide (100m2). It would go from Onslow to Bandya to Lajamanu to Durham to Rockhampton*. Cutting through the heart of Australia. Making a large "W" shape. Even if its just saltwater, it would provide moisture, nutrients, current, and life throughout the harsh desert.

          As I'm digging through 10,000km's of land, at each point amassing 100m2 of dirt. And if each 100m2 dirt weighs 140 tonnes, I would then amass 1.5 Million Tonnes. With this we can split it into three "mountains" one for Bandya, one for Lajamanu, and one for Durham. This triangle of "mountains" will further help air currents trap warmth/cool and provide more stability for life. Although at only 65.6498 metres tall its not much of a mountain, but it is around 135 metres long. The mountain construction is difficult but no-where near as much as the whole digging part.

          The next stage would be to plant desert-resistant and saline tolerant tree/shrubs along this river. Maybe one plant every 10 metres. That's 1,000 trees. On both sides, that makes 2,000 trees. This is the easiest part. Within a few months/years the whole ecosystem would begin to liven, to look from something like Mars to something on Earth.

          This is Plan A. Once I complete this, next step is North Africa. And after that is Asia (Mongolia-Khazakstan). Would be easier with Superman/DragonballZ powers, sigh. Wish me luck!

          *(1,000km + 1,400km + 1,600km + 1,000km = 5,000km "crows flight" = 10,000km curved)

        • +3 votes

          @Kangal: Wow, I'm really impressed. Brilliant!

        • +3 votes

          @Kangal: you've obviously thought about this before :)


          @idonotknowwhy: Sort of, I'd imagined to take water and disburse it from one of the many lakes under the Earth though.

        • +2 votes

          @Kangal: I'd like to see a cost estimate for this project. One of the most expensive engineering projects of all time, I would imagine.

          Don't forget you'll have to dig down to seal level minus 5m at each point, so quite a lot more digging than you've calculated.

          BTW, you're doing calculations on 100m2, but that's a 2D area and has no mass.
          If 140 tonnes per 100 cubic metres is a reasonable number (I've no idea), you'd actually end up with something like:

          10 000 000 (length in metres) * 20 * 5 * 1400 (kg/m3 of dirt) = 1.4 * 10^12 kg = 1.4 BILLION tonnes

          (again, without accounting for the fact that much of this land is above sea level)

        • +1 vote


          I did the same maths you did above, BUT, you're right I stuffed up the calculation when I mixed Km's with metres.
          Rookie mistake.

          The mountains now rise up to 2,255 metres…with a girth of ~5,000 metres. That's the theoretical side. Practically, I would estimate it to be longer and shorter since the dirt isn't as heavy/stackable as natural made mountains. I based the density of the soft red dirt that we have plentiful in the heart of Australia. It's close to 1.3T/km2, whereas something more "normal" is about 1.6, and the rubble of mountains are usually closer to 2.2T. So practically its probably going to be 1,300 metres but its hard to say without doing a "larger" scale testing.

          The three mountains can be as high as Mt Kosciuszko or as short as Mt Meharry. Now they're definitely of the size to have a measurable effect on the ecology. The sea level isn't a big issue, since we are talking about a relatively small river (20 metres wide) so we can bend it around any hills or obstacles in our path. A gradual shift in the land height would make an impact which we cannot circumvent, but as far as I can tell it is relatively flat. And there are lands that are both higher and lower than the sea level through the path which evens it out. I would think it would still add up to slightly extra digging and extra dirt, however, I've already estimated for this when I've doubled the traveled distance from 5,000km to 10,000km's. So it should be fine.

          As for the cost… I will try and calculate it later. I need more data on how long it takes to dig say a 5m depth, 20m width, and 10m length. Then scale this up. I would need the mins and maxes. Then estimate the cost of manpower, machinery, fuel, and the cost for employment. I'd think plating the 2,000 trees would be relatively free… mountain creation would be quite pricey, but its the actual digging that would cost the most. I think overall it would be worth it, though not from a short-business perspective.

        • +1 vote

          @Kangal: Your idea wins the coolest thing I've seen on the internet for this month.

          But you're talking about many billions. $35m these days gets you a feasibility study, wouldn't even get you a detailed project plan.

        • +1 vote


          Alright, the cost analysis was the hardest part.
          I've estimated that the minimum cost is $100,000 to excavate a 100 metre section of the synthetic river (20m wide, 5m deep). So if we multiply that by x10, its $1Mil to do one kilometre. And if we multiply $1 Million by 10,000km…. we get a grand cost of $10,000,000,000 (or $10 Billion dollars).

          The maximum cost works out to $1.5Mil to excavate the 100 metre section. In other words, around x15 fold dearer. So the grand cost, based on the maximum, will work out to $150 Billion Dollars. Cue Dr Evil Montage.

          To put those monetary values into perspective, Apple's quarterly profit is around $20 Billion dollars, their yearly total revenue is around $320 Billion dollars, Australia's yearly pure-tax revenue is around $400 Billion dollars, and USA's military expenditure in 2017 was around $6,000 Billion dollars, and the Global Revenue is $100 Trillion Dollars. So if Australia spent one-third of its money for a single-year from pure-tax (not affecting other income streams), the funding would be secured to finalise the project from start to finish. Or if we got a donation from USA's military budget, but only the full amount of 9 days from the entire year.

          So in terms of building it, yes we can!
          And I estimate that spending $10-$200 Billion, will truly be a High Yield Investment, where we can expect a long-term benefits and opportunities that create new and increased revenue streams that fan out to $1 - $10 Trillion dollars. It would be akin to finding oil reserves here in our backyard… mostly because we would be increasing our habitable land from 10% to around 30%.

          P.S…..sorry for the long-wait for this answer, it was a little more complex than I had anticipated.


          @Kangal: How'd you get the $100k per 100m?

          I reckon it would cost you about $100k to just move the spoil from 100m (100m X 20m X 5m = 10,000m³) of the river for the mountains. Remember you'll be digging through a mix of soil types, rocks, clay etc. Some of that (sandstone) is very expansive to dig/blast through.

          That's assuming the land is pan flat for your river. Then you have the issue of terrain, what if the river needs to cross a hill? Or even worse, a valley? Are you going to tunnel into everything or build aqueducts? What if you need to cross an existing river?

          What about all the supporting infrastructure for the project? You'll need roads for the vehicles etc etc etc…

          You'd be looking at trillions

          edit: moving the spoil
          bottom of the page lists what is likely to be the largest vehicle available: B-DOUBLE (TRUCK, A-TRAILER, B-TRAILER) = 80m³ MAX or 42.5ton MAX

          42.5tonnes of sand/gravel = 25.76m³ using this "sand with gravel, dry" = 388 trips for a B-double to move 10,000m³. Each single trip is likely to cost thousands in just the truck and personnel, I think I underestimated the cost at $100k.

          Probably a lot cheaper to build a railway along the river.

        • +1 vote

          If there's a hill, or difficult terrain or earth… just move around it is the best solution. Existing rivers will need to be avoided in the far east and far west banks, so to avoid mixing salt water with freshwater. Towards the central, mixing wouldn't be a problem since water will naturally filter itself to become fresh over the hundreds of kilometres of earth, though I would still avoid it, but there are almost no rivers anyway and the existing/seasonal ones are small so they can be avoided during the excavation.
          In terms of land flatness, its quite consistent and where you get some elevation you also get a de-elevation so it mostly cancels out. Although not entirely, but I think overall it won't have a huge net effect.
          Roads and infrastructure weren't calculated here, sometimes they will be crucial but most times they won't be, the aim of the goal is to dig the channel as fast as possible and move on, not to develop a long-term base and live their for years.

          Different soil types is what causes the differences in the cost from the minimum to the maximum.
          The prices I got were from businesses that have a healthy profit margin, and have to deal with the added overheads of working in metropolitan councils. These will be non-existent, and with "economies of scale" the entire project would become much cheaper than you would anticipate. This goes doubly with the earth movement. Overall, its still costing thousands and thousands of millions of dollars.

          If I were to include profit margins, inefficiencies, endorsements, corruption, and crony politics…. yes, it would cost trillions. Just look at the NBN. It still doesn't affect the conclusion: its a doable job, and it can be cheap, but is anyone willing to do it?


          @Kangal: I don't think 10,000km is doable on any sort of reasonable scale, even if we just look at the time:

          Say you want to finish it within 20 years (7,300 days). You have to get through 10 million meters, that's 1.37km every day…. You'd be lucky to get 100m per day. You could probably be working on multiple areas at once I guess, but it's still epic in size.

          RE: Soil types, even dry un-compacted earth weighs 1.2tonne per m³. So that's 282 trips per 100m and you need to be doing 1370m per day to finish in 20years, so 3,863 trips per day from river to hill



          Hmmm, interesting perspective.
          Thanks for doing some of the maths, what was the weight limit you gave per truck run?

          Also, would it be more simple if you dug out the 20m x 5m of dirt… then put it 20 metres away from the edge of the cliff to construct a long stretch of hill (14m x 7m) alongside the synthetic river. And maybe only plant the shrubs between the river and the hill, so one-layer of greenery instead of two-layers. This makes the other side of the river just blank and opens directly to the desert.


          As a side question/hypothetical, say you had 10,000 men (working for free) and each had their own track-loader. And if a single person was responsible to excavate a hole 5m x 20m x 1Km. How long would it take if everyone worked at the same time, and at equal average rate, how long would it take for them to dig their hole? A week? A month? Six months? A decade?

          Cheers in advance
          PS I can't see any replies coming, so I have to keep checking manually if there were replies, so if I don't respond quickly thats why.


        Ighulm raises a good point, but it is better to do both. If someone is starving, it is ok to give them food. If they are cold, to give them clothes. But it also good to do as Ighulm says, and help the big picture stuff (which could include stopping your country from exporting munitions etc)


        These are some very disingenuous statements you've made. The only one I've seen evidence for is your first point. All the rest are way too complex to blame on "charity"

  • +5 votes

    i live near a coastal mountain. i'd build a lair

    • +3 votes

      I think you're underestimating how much a mountain would cost to buy….. you're winning $150million, not $150 Billion haha.

      • +1 vote

        8 million dollaaaaass


        The Waltons seemed to own a mountain, and they were meant to be poor.

        One of my favourite bloopers was John Boy saying "You can't hang him by his balls on the Christmas tree" rather than "YOu can't hang him like a ball on the Christmas tree".

  • +22 votes

    I'd tell absolutely no one (except my lawyer and accountant to get it squirreled away into various investments with different levels of liquidity and risk/returns).

    Probably keep working my day job to be honest, start planning more holidays, buy some aftermarket parts for the car, buy a property (but still take out a loan, just with an offset facility), put some money into some family members' mortgage offset accounts (and explain it as "Oh, I got a really good deal on my loan, but I had to borrow a lot more than I needed, etc).

    Oh, and update my will.

    The key to winning the lottery is not to let it change your spending habits or daily routine until the initial shock has passed and you've had time to consider it in depth. Otherwise you turn into one of those horror stories where someone who wins $50 Million is broke about 5 years later.

    Edit: Forgot this - buy a yacht and import a dozen Eastern European supermodels. But keep everything else the same.

    • +3 votes

      Same here. Won't even tell my best friend re. this. People do change once they know you're filthy rich coz of lotto


      "buy a property (but still take out a loan, just with an offset facility)"

      Why would you still take out a loan, out of curiosity?

      • +1 vote

        A few reasons actually - first, because property transactions are basically public record, if you bought even a moderate home straight out with cash, it'd raise eyebrows for anyone who checked. Having a loan looks a lot more normal, and no one can check into how much you have in your offset account.

        Secondly, mortgage rates are still very low (especially as a now-high networth individual) that taking out the home loan and then parking the same funds at most other places, including many long-term term deposits even, will make you a profit.

        And lastly just for added flexibility. You buy a house with cash, the money's locked in there. You buy it with a loan, you can move cash around as you want to. Not that you should be having cashflow issues after winning the lotto, but flexibility's always good.

        • +1 vote

          The people saying they'd try and hide it are being ridiculous. It's impossible and why would you bother.

          First they're saying friends 'change' when you win money - but I say, it's not the friend with the problem if you're thinking that way… Who could possibly be so greedy as to not help and go as far to HIDE IT from people SUPPOSEDLY their 'friends' when you have $70 or $80M!? Are their friendships really that insecure/shallow!?

          Second if they do the dirty on you somehow, better to know now than decades later - and go and get some new friends. Better than wasting time in some pointless rat race job, getting things on loans, leasing cars… when: a) you have so much money you could never spend it all in 10 lifetimes, b) you could be traveling the world TOGETHER with EVERY FRIEND YOU HAVE for THIRTY YEARS, helping other people together, buying people's votes in another country to overthrow their corrupt government, etc.

          These people will have $70 or $80M, but they're seriously not going to buy things just to keep up the facade until they die!? LOL… Get real! At the pitiful interest rate of 2.87% at UBank, $80M would provide something like $44,000 in weekly interest. And that's the most unlikely scenario… It's more likely to be put into the stock market in strong companies with regular dividends, which would probably produce more like 9% pa, which turns into $144,000 interest per week. A rough halving of that for the government to put their hand in your pocket still leaves $72,000 per week - and that's without ever touching the principal.

          You'd get sick of keeping up the facade in 6 months, tops.

        • +1 vote

          @GregMonarch: Stop talking sense Greg. It may ruin the illusion for many;)

        • +1 vote

          @GregMonarch: It's far from impossible and most self-made millionaires live like normal people that you'd never know were that rich looking at them.

          And people aren't saints. I'd risk my life to help more than a few of my friends, but I don't want to deal with the awkwardness of someone even remotely needing some money and automatically coming to me for it. Or to have the awkwardness of "so, do I pay for everything now when we go out as a group?" etc. It's not just for my benefit, most people don't like hanging around people 1000x their net worth either.


    I'll probably play it like I do when it jackpots.

    But dreaming is free and that's all it is.

  • +4 votes

    G63 6x6 and explore the entire country and beyond. Maybe a drive around the world trip.

  • +2 votes

    The greatest challenge for me would be giving away large sums of money, while concealing the fact that you have any money, from everyone.

  • +7 votes

    wait until it cleared in the bank. Keep my day job until it sank in (I work in the public interest anyway so I'd continue working in the public good eventually). Probably pay of any debts, keep quiet about it, maybe do a PhD in something I'm really passionate about, travel a lot more, maybe buy properties in several countries I'd visit regularly where family are, so I have a bse to operate from. It's only AU$80m and could become eroded very quickly. Also, would set up safety nets but not fund kids lifestyles etc, as would want them to understand a strong work ethic and not rely on luck/handouts/divine intervention but learn from mistakes.

    And I'd buy dogs, lots and lots of dogs.

    Of course, in Australia, you could just do a Turnbull and buy the prime ministership! (Dual nationality saga notwithstanding!)

  • +34 votes

    If one wins $70m tonight.

    • Tell virtually no-one about it. This is top priority, one of the major causes of lotto winners going broke is because they get a sudden entourage of Pilot Fish / Leeches.
    • Tell the wife you won $35m. Enjoy $35m lifestyle, knowing she can never get to the other $35m.
    • I will never quit 'working', but I would invest that money wisely and manage it closely.
    • Diversify your investments. Don't even trust term deposits, see Greece example.
    • Once the above is in place and there is significant passive income from the arrangements made :

    • Strippers.

    • Hookers.
    • Russians, Czech Republic, Hungarian, Polish, Slovakian, Norwegian, Swedish, Swiss, German, Spanish…all of it.
    • +2 votes

      European porn is where the tsunamisurfer rolls…

    • +1 vote

      Given that you already don't trust your wife - could I steal her away from you with my charm and then she and I can share in the $17.5m lifestyle, but with no lies? win-win-win.

    • +3 votes

      Tell the wife you won $35m. Enjoy $35m lifestyle, knowing she can never get to the other $35m.

      If that's the case, you may as well divorce before winning. Because one or both of you are so shallow even $1M will split you a week later.


    All interesting points! I have daydreamed about what I would do with the winnings for a few days now.

    I think I would not do anything with it until I have thought about it properly. Definitely get a lawyer/account. I agree trying to keep it quiet while wanting to quit working/travel will be hard to explain!

    Give away a bit of it to my family, but will have to tell them we only won a much smaller amount. Set up trusts for kids/nieces/nephews. Give some to charity.
    Pay off debt, buy a nicer house and maybe some holiday houses overseas.
    I'll stop working my current job and travel for a bit, and when I come back set up some businesses, or go back to study something I was interested in, or do some charity work overseas. I can live off any passive income.

    Oh and finally fly first class somewhere!

  • +7 votes

    I would have 1 hr massages daily. for as long as I live. I will pay for parent to have long long holidays. they aint extravagant travellers so there will be lots left.

    with the rest, I would try to address address problem of homlessness and emergency accomodation in Melbourne. hopefully sustainable and self sustaining.

  • +20 votes

    I'll buy my the company I'm working for secretly. And then make rules and decisions that I know will make my boss go crazy LOL

    of course it's only if the company is sold cheaply :P

  • +26 votes

    I'll get off OzBargain, once and for all. :)

  • +1 vote

    Put my notice in and manage my new funds to keep me going for life. Tell no-one except my parents and siblings, start spending incrementally lavishly from 1 year onwards after winning :)

    Also hit the lawyer and hire a gym (lol)

  • +3 votes

    give some to my siblings. .

    give some to my in-laws. buy a chunk of land near my inlaws so they have more land for grazing (I like my in-laws).

    buy an old house in Japan and live there with the kids -restore the house as I go. then have an airbnb. -just for the hell of it.


    give money to certain grass roots charities - i.e. stepping stones school in Cambodia, etc

  • +1 vote

    I would put the whole winnings into a very safe investment(HISA) or term deposit for a year, and continue working for one year. This is to

    a) give me time to figure out a plan on how to invest the winnings properly eg. Put it into trust, move it offshore, ETFs, property, etc. by giving it one year, I wouldn't be doing anything without properly thinking about it and researching, etc
    b) the return from that 1 year safe investment will be quite a fair bit already, so if I spend that money for play money, I won't be eating into my capital
    c) I earn enough from my current job that I can now spend whatever I earn for that year(healthy six figures) without any thoughts of saving and still get a feeling of living a life of luxury. Currently I don't do that, and save/invest what I earn so that it can provide for the future, if the future is already taken care of by the lottery winnings, I can splash the cash and not feel guilty

    By forcing myself to not touch the money for one year, I'm hoping it'll give me ample time to consider all options and not rush into things, and make decisions so that I don't end up losing majority of the money. If you read the statistics of lottery winners, majority of the winners lose all their winnings within a relatively short amount of time. I feel like a major cause of this is because they are ill-prepared to deal with the windfall and are not fiscally educated enough to keep the money working for them.

  • +1 vote

    I'd keep going to work and see how long I could get away with doing as little work as possible. Eventually they'd be forced to let me go.

  • +16 votes

    I'd probably do an OzBargain AMA.


    Buy $100m worth of stuff by using OzB discounts

  • Top