Boston man wins $160,000 lottery prize from this $2 game
Kelvin Pippins, of Roxbury, won his prize from the '$200 A Week For Life' scratch ticket game released in February. Each ticket costs $2, and there's still six $200 a week for life top prizes remaining as of June 27.
Pippins, who won $200 a week for life on his ticket, opted to receive his prize in the form of a one-time payment of $160,000 before taxes. He told the lottery he plans on helping his mother and children with the winnings.
Pippins bought the winning scratch ticket at Uphams Corner Market at 521 Columbia Rd. in Dorchester. The shop will receive a $2,080 bonus for selling the winning ticket.
Mass. State Lottery winner: Player claims $200 a week for life prize
Mass. State Lottery winner: $1 million prize won in 'Monopoly' game
Mass. State Lottery winner: Cumberland Farms sells $100,000 ticket
Mass. State Lottery winner: Mobil gas station sells $100K ticket
Read the original article on MassLive.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
13 hours ago
- Fast Company
This old-school hobby is helping Hasbro defy economic headwinds
Hasbro Inc (NASDAQ:HAS), the brand responsible for iconic games like Monopoly, Jenga, Magic: The Gathering, saw its shares tick upwards over 3% in pretrading on Wednesday. The uptick came just after the company reported its second quarter earnings of $1.30 per share for the second quarter, beating the analyst expectations of $0.78 per share. And, despite a 1% year-over-year decrease, Hasbro's adjusted revenue was posted at $980.8 million, also beating analysts' $874.66 million projection. While sales have been notably down for toy and gaming companies, Hasbro has managed to offset some of the volatility due to financial strains and tariffs. 'While tariffs represent a headwind for the business, we are compensating for these costs through a combination of cost reductions, rebalancing our marketing spend, diversifying our supplier mix and implementing some targeted pricing actions,' Hasbro's CEO, Chris Cocks, said on the company's earnings call, per CNBC. The brand is also clearly leaning into its digital games, most notably, Monopoly Go! The game, which launched in 2023, has quickly become the most popular digital board game. It contributed $44 million in the second quarter. But the biggest driver of Hasbro's recent earnings has been Magic:The Gathering. That's thanks to a recently released Magic set: Final Fantasy Universes Beyond Expansion. The set dropped in June and almost instantly shattered records, earning $200 million in one day to become the fastest-selling expansion in Magic history. The Wizards of the Coast and Digital Gaming segment of Hasbro, which encompasses both Magic games and Monopoly Go!, saw overall revenue increase 16% year-over-year. Last year, Cocks spoke to the popularity of digital games and what it meant for the brand. 'As we look at the business of play, it's clear that digital is here to stay and a bigger factor than ever in how successful toy and game companies will grow and strengthen their brands,' Cocks said, noting that the brand was 'years ahead' of its competitors.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Two Social Security checks are coming next month for some. Here's what to know
Some Social Security beneficiaries will notice a change in their payment schedule in August due to a quirk in the calendar. The Social Security Administration (SSA) shifts the payment schedule whenever the first of the month falls on a weekend or holiday. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a needs-based program that provides monthly payments to people with limited income and resources who are age 65 or older or have a disability. Children with disabilities or who are blind may also qualify. Since Sept. 1 is Labor Day, SSI recipients can expect to receive two checks in August: one on Aug. 1 and the other on Sept. 1, according to the administration's calendar. Two SSI payments will also be issued on October 1 and on October 31. The same applies to December. This does not mean extra money is being offered to beneficiaries. The latest from MassLive Police determine barricaded suspect threat not connected to Worcester New mental health clinic opens in Springfield, seeing patients and hiring Arrest warrant issued for Brockton double fatal shooting suspect on the run 'Defending migrants 'cuz the Pope said so': How faith leaders are risking everything at the U.S.-Mexico border Walmart yanks popular brand from Target and Amazon with new exclusive deal Read the original article on MassLive. Solve the daily Crossword
Vox
3 days ago
- Vox
How Trump is making America hungrier
The Congressional Budget Office estimates more than 3 million people in the United States will likely be dropped from the accessing SNAP the next few years, states will have to decide how much of the SNAP costs to absorb, which totaled over $100 billion in 2024. The CBOe predicts that some states will scale back or drop SNAP benefits altogether. Food banks throughout the country are already raising the alarm that they won't be able to meet the food demands created by cuts to the program. In addition to shifting the cost to states, the legislation will change the enrollment requirements for SNAP, such as raising the working age to 64, and requiring able-bodied parents with children over 14 to work in order to receive benefits. Some critics of the bill argue the provision prevents SNAP from serving its purpose of feeding low-income Americans. On the Today, Explained podcast, co-host Sean Rameswaram dove into the history of SNAP, the program's controversies since its inception, and how the legislative bill will prevent the program from being able to deliver on its original goals with Tracy Roof, an associate professor of political science the University of Richmond who focuses on domestic policy who is writing a book about the history of food assistance in the United States. Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There's much more in the full episode, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. What's the history of food assistance in the United States of SNAP? Whose idea was this and why did we want to do it? In the 1950s, you got more attention to certain pockets of poverty in the United States. One of the areas that got the most attention was Appalachia with coal miners who were losing their jobs. You were starting to see more mechanization of coal mines, as well as competition from things like oil. And all of these coal miners were losing their jobs in the middle of areas that didn't have other economic opportunities. And because you had able-bodied workers in the household, a lot of these families didn't qualify for cash assistance. John F. Kennedy, when he was running for president in 1960, toured some of these areas and saw how widespread the problem of starvation was. At the same time, members of Congress made the argument that we were spending all of this money to store surplus grain, and we could not find enough places to sell that grain. So we started sending some of it abroad to starving people in other countries, but we had starving people in the United States who were not getting access to that food. And so the idea came about of trying to get some of these surplus commodities to people. When Kennedy came into office, his very first executive order was to create a pilot program. People were given coupons that looked like Monopoly money that they could take into grocery stores and use to buy any food within the grocery store. You couldn't get alcohol, you couldn't get cigarettes, but pretty much any consumable food you were able to purchase with it. Then during the mid- to late 1960s, you started to see more and more attention to the plight of tenant farmers in the South. A documentary from CBS called Hunger in America came out, and it showed starving children. When Nixon came in, there was a very famous speech where he pledged to end hunger. That ultimately led to the creation of a permanent program in 1964 that was expanded over the course of the late 1960s, and ultimately every jurisdiction was required to have it by 1974. It was set up such that the federal government would cover all the cost of the benefits, and the states would still be responsible for administering it, but a lot of the cost would be borne by the federal government. So that's the origins of the program. Epic. Yeah. This isn't the first time that people have wanted to cut or curtail or prevent certain people from accessing this program. That's been a long-established history as well. Pretty much from the beginning, there've been critics of the program. I mean, there were people in Congress that just didn't think it was necessary, or they thought that it should be treated as a welfare program and not as a nutrition or agricultural program because it was always put into the Farm Bill. But as inflation grew in the 1970s, enrollment really started to take off. And you saw people like Ronald Reagan in his run for the presidency become very critical of people becoming overly dependent on it. The argument was very similar to what we've just heard, that we needed to protect the program for the truly needy and get people that can fend for themselves off of it. Is this most recent cut to SNAP the most drastic cut we've ever seen? Yes, it's likely to be the biggest cut we've seen. But it isn't an elimination. It's saying, 'States, you gotta figure this out, your move.' Exactly. Is it going to affect Democrats, Republicans, white people, Black people, Asian people, poor people, tall people? A lot of that is gonna be up to the states. So rather than Congress coming in and saying, 'We're going to eliminate eligibility for these categories of people,' it's telling the states, 'You're going to have to bear a larger share of the benefits. And if you can't cover that, you're going to have to figure out how you reduce enrollment in the program or come up with ways to cover the additional cost.' You know, some of the bluer states are probably going to try to make up those differences and maintain assistance to people. Some of the poorer states are probably going to cut back. People will be hungry. Why let people go hungry? We're the richest country on Earth. Why do people want to cut food aid for the poor? You always have a number of people that could be getting something like SNAP, but they don't apply, either because of the stigma associated with it, or because they don't want to go through all the paperwork, or for whatever reason they don't know they're eligible. Back in the 1990s in the midst of welfare reform, the participation rate fell such that only 57 percent of eligible participants participated in SNAP. And then over the course of the George W. Bush administration, that number came up into the 70s. As they tried to make the program more accessible — and that took off during the Great Recession — what you saw was a steep increase in the percentage of people that were on SNAP. It went up to 15 percent of the population at the peak in 2013. But it remained pretty high, even as the economy started to recover. That was largely because it took a long time for the economic recovery to hit low-income workers, and partly because of the decline in stigma. And so that criticism became really loud in Congress once Republicans took control of Congress during the Obama years, and it carried over into the Trump administration. This isn't the first time that the Trump administration has tried to cut benefits. They tried to do it in the wake of the 2016 election as well, they just weren't successful. How much of a shakeup do you think this is of food aid in the United States ultimately? Most states have to have balanced budgets either because of their constitutions or because of state laws. They can't just sell more Treasury bonds the way the federal government does. That means that when we slip into a recession, states face really tough choices because they need to fund education, they need to fund Medicaid, and they need to fund all the other services that states provide. They're going to face some really tough choices about where they allocate their resources.
