Structured Settlements 4Real® Blog: Structured Settlements | Settlement Planning News and John Darer Reviews

Should You Be Able To Use Taxpayer Money on Lottery Tickets?

The PPI Cash Blog reports that the Tennessee legislature "has looked to make living difficult for those reeling under poverty". A committee hearing on Wednesday is likely to discuss a bill which would prevent anyone receiving federal or state assistance (i.e. welfare) from winning $ 600 or excess in Tennessee state lottery payments.

The gist of the proposed bill is that those who cannot afford basic necessities and rely on public assistance should not be spending money on lotteries.  PPI says that "people say that the government need not tell them how to spend their money".  PPI suggests the Bill is inequitable because it treats those who are unemployed and those on welfare differently.

PPI goes on to say that "recent studies have concluded that the poor spend most percent of their income on lottery tickets than wealthier people. It's the old "dollar and a dream" concept, an effort to get out of poverty, even if winning odds are extremely slim.

According to PPI, the State of Tennessee review has found that nearly 50% of those individuals who received food stamps from state purchase lottery tickets. Nearly half of them are expected to stop playing if the bill is passed. PPI hopes the Tennessee legislature will not try to expand bill that prohibits large lottery winnings to those people who get state unemployment checks. The operative quote is "though remaining unemployed is difficult enough, remaining poor and unemployed is still worse".

Comment

So let me get this straight. It's not OK (and gives rise to Congressional hearings) for public corporations who take "welfare" (a/k/a TARP) from the United States Treasury to spend money on business development that could potentially create jobs, but it's OK for some poor bastard to spend the government's money on a one in $%^&ing million chance at a fortune. And if he or she doesn't win the taxpayer will have to pay anyway.

Boy, the way Glenn Miller played. Songs that made the Hit Parade.

Guys like us, we had it made. Those were the days.

Didn't need no welfare state. Everybody pulled his weight.

Gee, our old LaSalle ran great. Those were the days.

And you know who you were then. Girls were girls and men were men.

Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.

People seemed to be content. Fifty dollars paid the rent.

Freaks were in a circus tent. Those were the days.

Take a little Sunday spin, go to watch the Dodgers win.

Have yourself a dandy day that cost you under a fin.

Hair was short and skirts were long. Kate Smith really sold a song.

I don't know just what went wrong. Those Were The Days.

Lyrics: Lee Adams and Charles Strouse

Structured Settlements In California... The Truth About Julie-Ann Amos

This UK based shill for Prosperity Partners has written "The Truth About Structured Settlement Awards". Her Linked In profile shows all sorts of interesting things including the unfortunate proof that Julie-Ann Amos has no bona fides on the subject of structured settlements.

Factoring company Prosperity Partners has registered a number of state specific web domains including structuredsettlementscalifornia.com. Even though it has its own talented writers, it seems to be hiring content generators to compete with the content being generated by "primary market" commentators. The problem with hiring ghost writers who have no background in your subject is that the lack of background may result in errors and factual inaccuracies which reflect poorly on your company. Moreover, it puts you on the radar of the stuctured settlement watchdog.

I would also like to stress to content generators like Julie-Ann Amos that if you intend to write about structured settlements you better research what you write, or you will be open to critique.

The author of "Hacking Reality," Amos,  incorrectly states that "The total amount a court awards a plaintiff in a structured settlement is actually a life-time worth of payments, and not a sum the insurance company issues a one-time check for. It’s true, over time, you do get the total amount of the settlement, but you receive it in small increments which some people find just isn’t enough to make ends meet. You do have options however.

Comments

1. Structured settlement is a settlement not an award. That's why it's called a structured settlement and not a structured award.
2. Structured settlement may include a  "life-time worth of payments" if  a life annuity is agreed to. There are many other types of structured settlement payments.
3. Amos' sentence construction masks the fact that the insurance company (or if applicable qualified settlement fund trustee or administrator) DOES issue a one time check to a qualified assignment company which includes the cost of the single premium structured settlement annuity.
4. Passing off Julie-Ann Amos' piece as "the truth about structured settlement awards" is a poor reflection on Prosperity Partners. The company is more than capable of writing its own factually based content.

Julie Ann Amos posts are flooding the Internet on Prosperity Partners blogs in Georgia, New York, Arizona, Illinois as part of Prosperity partner's blitzkreig strategy. Once again  Julie Ann Amos (picture above) has no credentials that qualify her as a structured settlement expert. She is simply a content generator, nothing more.

What Prosperity Partners Says Supports Claims of Advertising FRAUD Against Tort Victims

by Structured Settlement Watchdog

A thank you is due to Prosperity Partners for providing subject matter expertise that supports our theory that "cash now" advertising is a FRAUDULENT inducement to some of the most vulnerable consumers, tort victims with structured settlements. Among other things Prosperity Partners warns structured settlement recipients of:

• "False promises.  This is a big one in the industry among unscrupulous settlements buyers; they promise fast funding and expedited returns, when in fact they have LITTLE POWER over the speed of the process because court approval is involved.  The average time for court approval is 90 days, with some states being quicker (45 days is about the bare minimum) so beware of companies claiming that they can process your purchase in a matter of weeks.  No one can speed up the courts!  The only thing that will expedite your processing is efficient, accurate preparation and application".

If I have one criticism of the Prosperity Partners is its ironic use of "cash now" advertising**. Although it is not as blatant as Stone Street Capital, J.G. Wentworth, Woodbridge Investments, Peachtree Settlement Funding, Imperial structured Settlements, Structured Settlement Investments and Novation Capital is it not false advertising, or "false promises" as Prosperity Partners' Director of Marketing Jason Rigler has so aptly put it?

We encourage the factoring industry and its members to STOP COMMITTING FRAUD! The "fraudsters" include the supposed leading members of the the National Association of Settlement Purchasers, an association which "cash now pusher" Imperial Structured Settlements (on its website) reminds us is "the trade association that determines best practices and provides strength and credibility to the industry".
 

On a technical note Prosperity states in its introduction  "You have chosen to sell structured settlement payments because you have a distinct financial need that your settlement plan is not meeting.  So it is imperative that those needs are met through the “sale” of your payments.  In order to do that you will need to protect yourself and avoid the pitfalls that can impact people who sell structured settlement payments".

Not everyone who has a structured settlement has a settlement plan.

Not everyone who has a structured settlement has a financial plan.

If they have a plan, not everyone who has either one keeps up with their plan.

Read  Most People Who Sell Structured Settlements Do So To Pay Their BIlls

**Download Cash now structured settlements AOL-Google Search 12122008

"Non-Qualified Annuities Rule!"- Insider Info from PPI Cash Needs Clarification

On July 16, 2008 PPI Cash, a factoring company out of Lake Worth , Florida has published a blog called "Non- Qualified Annuities Rule" offering tips "to structured settlement annuity recipients and lottery winners" ,in following up to the recent IRS Private Letter Ruling obtained by IFS. The post needs some clarification to correct some errors in fact and context.

PPI Cash: In a nutshell (which is hard to do with cases of these types) the non-qualified annuity can be used in a taxable damage case for the first time.

FACT: Non qualified structured annuities have been used for many years. The PLR simply clarifies the tax treatment governing a specific set of facts, involving an employment related settlement, which are set forth in the ruling.

PPI Cash: For those who don’t know, the non-qualified taxable annuity is one that is outside of any pension plan.

FACT: In this context a non qualified annuity is one that is used to fund payment of damages that do not fall within the tax exemption qualifications of IRC 104(a)(1) or 104(a)(2)

PPI Cash: Employment cases are notorious for dragging on and on in court while racking up plenty of legal fees. Once agreement is reached the person then at least has the option of selling the structured settlement to get the cash due them quickly.

QUESTION: Is PPI suggesting that a structured settlement agreement be reached and THEN the person immediately contact PPI or any other factoring company to sell the structured settlement? I certainly hope not.

COMMENTS:

1. Don't over structure! Make sure there is some liquidity! Avoid unnecessary factoring.
2. A non qualified assignment or non qualified structured settlement offers a solution to a wide variety of disputes or claims for damages that do not fall within the realm of damages under IRC 104(a)(1) or 104(a)(2). For more information please click here 
3. The tax exemption to structured settlement rights purchasers under IRC 5891 does not apply to non qualified structured settlements
4. Transferability might invalidate the entire non qualified structured settlement, since cashing out even a portion would seem to violate the cash-equivalency doctrine. According to an IRS Audit techniques guide published in 2005, "the cash equivalency doctrine provides that, if the right to receive a payment in the future is reduced to writing and is transferable, such as in the case of a note or a bond, the right is considered to be the equivalent of cash and the value of the right is includible in gross income".

MESSAGE TO FACTORING INDUSTRY: if you are going to hold yourself out as an authority in a putative effort "to take up shelf space" on the search engines at least do your homework