The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-27-2012, 08:56 PM
drillrod drillrod is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Lottery Winnings - Annuities vs Lump Sum

An earlier thread was discussing lottery winnings and this link was referenced, which compares the powerball payout as a lump sum payout vs the 30 year annuities option. Looking at the numbers, the first reaction is that by taking the lump sum, a lottery winner is screwing themselves out of approximately $40 million dollars. But are they?

A friend insists that taking the lump sum is the much better deal for a few reasons. For this we'll be using the Virginia figures, since that's where we live. The lump sum payout, after federal and state taxes is just shy of $65 million, received in 2012. Compare this to an annuity of about $3.5 million per year for 30 years, totaling $103.5 million in 2042. First off, my friend says money today is worth more than money tomorrow. By 2042, inflation and the cost of living and such will decrease the final real worth of the winnings, making the lump sum payment that much more valuable. Further, investing the $65 million and using the magic of compound interest will certainly make the lump sum payment worth more, in 2042 dollars, then the annuities option.

I get the argument, but that seems like an awful lot of ground to make up. However, I'm not sure how to calculate the power of the two payment options, in order to take into account inflation and a reasonable expectation of return on that kind of wealth.

What say you dopers? Which is the better deal and more importantly, why?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:01 PM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 19,928
Compound interest has nothing to do with it; compound inflation everything.

Let's say you invest your $65M in the stock market. You get about 3% dividend from your stocks for a gross income of about $2M. In America you pay about 15% tax on dividends, if I've read previous threads correctly, for a net return of $1.7M, or half the annuity. That doesn't sound so good. But assume 5% inflation and nil net real growth. After 30 years inflation means that your income is now over $7M (that's the equivalent of $1.7M today). And you still have the $65M (which is now over $280M), and you still get income in years to follow. Whereas with the annuity, you get $3.5M per year for 30 years, but in 2042, that $3.5M will be the equivalent of about $800K today. And then you stop getting it.

Of course, you could invest the $65M badly and lose the lot.

It's risk versus reward.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:07 PM
Duckster Duckster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by drillrod View Post
What say you dopers? Which is the better deal and more importantly, why?
Without looking at the requirements of a particular lottery, it's hard to answer. Are annual payments under an annuity equal? Or are they on a sliding scale, starting very small and ending with a massive balloon payment in the last year of the annuity? And once your get into the several million dollar winner category, what's the big deal? How many lottery winners have the money management acumen to make a permanent better life for themselves?

FWIW, I'll take the lump sum. It will last me my lifetime and beyond. Besides, in this economy I prefer having the cash in hand and I will invest my money as I see fit.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:15 PM
Sitnam Sitnam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
The amount of lotto winners who end up bankrupt is staggering, what kind of life does the average American dream of having that $3.5 million a year isn't enough?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-28-2012, 12:30 AM
J Cubed J Cubed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Duckster, try clicking the link.

Dex went into some detail. John Lottery thinks you should take the annuity.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-28-2012, 03:55 AM
aruvqan aruvqan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Eastern Connecticut
Posts: 15,331
I always thought it would be fun to take lump sum and put it into a non interest bearing account. Rationale: The government taxes you on it when you get it. Then they will tax any interest that it earns every year. They can not tax you on an income that does not exist. No interest, no income. You then do not pay an income tax to anybody ever again, however you do pay the taxes on property so you are best not buying the expensive toys - ultra sports cars, big boats, huge houses. So if you stay with sensible cars, moderate toys, moderate house and *maybe* a vacation property you can basically screw the government out of money. [I would also take a certain amount in cash and stash it in a well hidden safe in the house and not let anybody know that it is there.]

Realistically, I would probably go for the annuity, and still live moderately. As fun as it would be to have a stable of sports cars, I would be happy with a brand new jetta and perhaps a Jensen FF for fun. I might buy that missile silo in the Adirondaks that has been for sale for the past few years - though I am not sure what I would do with the runway and airplane hangar, maybe learn to fly?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-28-2012, 08:53 AM
Baffle Baffle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by aruvqan View Post
I always thought it would be fun to take lump sum and put it into a non interest bearing account. Rationale: The government taxes you on it when you get it. Then they will tax any interest that it earns every year. They can not tax you on an income that does not exist. No interest, no income. You then do not pay an income tax to anybody ever again, however you do pay the taxes on property so you are best not buying the expensive toys - ultra sports cars, big boats, huge houses. So if you stay with sensible cars, moderate toys, moderate house and *maybe* a vacation property you can basically screw the government out of money. [I would also take a certain amount in cash and stash it in a well hidden safe in the house and not let anybody know that it is there.]

Realistically, I would probably go for the annuity, and still live moderately. As fun as it would be to have a stable of sports cars, I would be happy with a brand new jetta and perhaps a Jensen FF for fun. I might buy that missile silo in the Adirondaks that has been for sale for the past few years - though I am not sure what I would do with the runway and airplane hangar, maybe learn to fly?
You know, you're screwing yourself out of more money, and you're a lot more likely to notice.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-28-2012, 09:59 AM
Tim R. Mortiss Tim R. Mortiss is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
I'd take the lump sum on the theory that my state is tottering on the edge of insolvency. Get it now before it goes "poof!"
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-28-2012, 10:52 AM
Ají de Gallina Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
I'd take the lump and invest it and use it even if economically suboptimal in the long run. No one can predict 10 or 20 years into the future.
Of course, if you know yourself and know you couldn't stop yourself form buying 100 Ferrairs 458, then take the annuity

Weren't there companies who would get you ticket for a larger lump sum than offered by the lottery itslef? I remember reading/watching some ad 15 years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-28-2012, 11:17 AM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: 847 mi. from Cecil
Posts: 28,719
This biggest argument for taking the annuity is the difference between the principal the state has to invest on your behalf, and what you have to invest on your own, due to taxes. You have $65 million, but the state has $100 million, because they do not have to pay any taxes before they invest the money. Smaller principal equals much smaller capital gains over the twenty years of the annuity. The state probably invests in less risky financial instruments than individuals, which may work in your favor if you take the lump sum. But if you had invested in the stock market before the recession of 2008-2009, you would have lost a large chunk of your principal, so risk is a big factor in who would make more.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-28-2012, 09:40 PM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 19,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by J Cubed View Post
Duckster, try clicking the link.

Dex went into some detail. John Lottery thinks you should take the annuity.
That assumes that the annuity increases every year, which is a wholly different ballgame.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-28-2012, 10:54 PM
silenus silenus is online now
Hoc nomen meum verum non est.
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 40,477
Lump sum, move to New Zealand.

That was easy.

I wouldn't trust the state to keep up their end on an annuity. Give me the lump sum, and I'll do the money management.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-29-2012, 01:47 AM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Actually, if you have a year to claim your prize, is it worth trying to fast-track getting citizenship in another country with lower (or no) taxes on winnings? How long would it take for an American to get Canadian citizenship, and would it matter if he was a U.S. citizen at the time of the draw (as opposed to at the time of the claim)?

Assuming Canadian citizenship can't be arranged quickly, are there suitable alternatives? Can one get a Somali passport, for example, for a relatively minuscule "processing fee", i.e. bribe?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-29-2012, 02:08 AM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 34,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by aruvqan View Post
I always thought it would be fun to take lump sum and put it into a non interest bearing account. Rationale: The government taxes you on it when you get it. Then they will tax any interest that it earns every year. They can not tax you on an income that does not exist. No interest, no income. You then do not pay an income tax to anybody ever again, however you do pay the taxes on property so you are best not buying the expensive toys - ultra sports cars, big boats, huge houses. So if you stay with sensible cars, moderate toys, moderate house and *maybe* a vacation property you can basically screw the government out of money. [I would also take a certain amount in cash and stash it in a well hidden safe in the house and not let anybody know that it is there.]
Actually, you'd be giving the government more money. You are paying the highest marginal rate on your winnings - X, where X is where the highest rate cuts in. If you take the annuity, you are paying the below the highest rate on Y * X, where Y is the number of years in the annuity.
And of course you only pay taxes on what you make from investing your winnings.If you feel that negative about taxes, you should quit your job and become homeless. That will show Uncle Sam!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-29-2012, 02:11 AM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 34,399
The answer depends strongly on whether you think you can get more from safe investments than the annuity pays you. I'd guess you probably could. However, there is another factor. While you can invest almost all of the lump sum, unless you plan to fully spend the annuity every year, you can invest part of that to support you when the annuity runs out. How well you do depends on how much you expect to spend every year.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-29-2012, 06:42 AM
Mean Mr. Mustard Mean Mr. Mustard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Lump sum.

Anyone who thinks they can manage 65 mil adequately enough to last until they're tits-up - then can't - deserves to live in under an overpass.

Myself included.

(and if you don't think you can: annuity)

mmm
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-29-2012, 07:03 AM
hajario hajario is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 13,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Actually, if you have a year to claim your prize, is it worth trying to fast-track getting citizenship in another country with lower (or no) taxes on winnings? How long would it take for an American to get Canadian citizenship, and would it matter if he was a U.S. citizen at the time of the draw (as opposed to at the time of the claim)?

Assuming Canadian citizenship can't be arranged quickly, are there suitable alternatives? Can one get a Somali passport, for example, for a relatively minuscule "processing fee", i.e. bribe?
It doesn't work that way. The money was "earned" in the US so the US Govt will take their cut.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-29-2012, 07:20 AM
El_Kabong El_Kabong is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Smack Dab in the Middle
Posts: 10,812
One thing no one has mentioned is the age of the recipient. Much as I hate to admit it, I'm getting to an age where it is no longer a relatively sure thing I'd last out the duration of an annuitized settlement.

For my circumstances, I'd take the lump sum every time. I would probably annuitize some or most of that, but most likely on a different schedule than offered by the State.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-29-2012, 08:55 AM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: 847 mi. from Cecil
Posts: 28,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Kabong View Post
One thing no one has mentioned is the age of the recipient. Much as I hate to admit it, I'm getting to an age where it is no longer a relatively sure thing I'd last out the duration of an annuitized settlement.
The annuity is paid to your estate after you die. I suppose if you need to spend as much as possible before you die, the lump sum makes sense.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-29-2012, 09:16 AM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajario View Post
It doesn't work that way. The money was "earned" in the US so the US Govt will take their cut.
Well, actually there are nuances to it (for Canadians, at least) which would allow a refund of the withheld tax, if, it seems, you were not a resident of the U.S. at the time, which would rule out my proposed scenario but covers situations where a vacationing Canadian buys a winning lottery ticket in the U.S.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-29-2012, 09:31 AM
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 16,814
If a vacationing Canadian buys a lottery ticket, they pay US income tax on any winnings. You're not liable for US income tax because you're a citizen of the US, you're liable because you recieved income in the US. If you were a Canadian who gets a job in the US you have to pay US taxes on your salary, yes?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-29-2012, 09:35 AM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
In the short term, yes, but the withheld taxes on lottery winnings are refundable, according to my research.

Last edited by Bryan Ekers; 01-29-2012 at 09:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-30-2012, 02:16 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Compound interest has nothing to do with it; compound inflation everything.

Let's say you invest your $65M in the stock market. You get about 3% dividend from your stocks for a gross income of about $2M. In America you pay about 15% tax on dividends, if I've read previous threads correctly, for a net return of $1.7M, or half the annuity. That doesn't sound so good. But assume 5% inflation and nil net real growth. After 30 years inflation means that your income is now over $7M (that's the equivalent of $1.7M today). And you still have the $65M (which is now over $280M), and you still get income in years to follow. Whereas with the annuity, you get $3.5M per year for 30 years, but in 2042, that $3.5M will be the equivalent of about $800K today. And then you stop getting it.

Of course, you could invest the $65M badly and lose the lot.

It's risk versus reward.
When you choose the yearly payout on a lottery, the lottery actually buys an annuity for you and pays you from that annuity. You can do the exact same thing yourself with your lump sum payment and you should get similar results.

The real reason to take the lump sum (assuming the lottery hasn't created a real incentive to take one over the other on a present value basis) is so that you can buy a smaller annuity (say $1 million/year for the next 30 years for say $25 million or something like that) and have $40 million left over to invest or spend as you please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Actually, if you have a year to claim your prize, is it worth trying to fast-track getting citizenship in another country with lower (or no) taxes on winnings? How long would it take for an American to get Canadian citizenship, and would it matter if he was a U.S. citizen at the time of the draw (as opposed to at the time of the claim)?

Assuming Canadian citizenship can't be arranged quickly, are there suitable alternatives? Can one get a Somali passport, for example, for a relatively minuscule "processing fee", i.e. bribe?
You cant get around paying the tax on the original winning amount. You can avoid the tax on income earned on the after tax amount. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_tax

So if you took the lump sum, you are only going to get the after tax lump sum amount but you can expatriate so that any interest you earn on that amount will not be subject to US taxation (of course you cannot spend more than a month in the USA per year for the next 10 years).

If you took the annuity amount, I think you can defer your taxes until you got the annuity payments, so (I think) you would get some time value by paying your taxes later.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-30-2012, 02:57 PM
It's Not Rocket Surgery! It's Not Rocket Surgery! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sitnam View Post
The amount of lotto winners who end up bankrupt is staggering
I think this is because the kind of people who invest heavily in lottery tickets are, by and large, they kind of people who aren't into prudent money management.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-30-2012, 03:35 PM
shiftless shiftless is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,929
I think here in Virginia they pay out 50% of the gross, in theory. So the $100 million powerball jackpot represents $200 million in tickets sold. Check my math:

VA sells $200 million in lottery tickets.

The winner can choose to get 3.5% of the jackpot for 30 years or he can take $65 million. So, he only really won $65 million. The $100 million is pure illusion. What a scam.

A lot depends on interest rates. Basically, if you take the annuity, you are loaning Virginia your $65 million for 30 years at about 5% interest, then they keep the whole thing at the end! If you can make that 5% or so on the money I would say the lump is better because you get the principle at the end.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-30-2012, 03:40 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: 847 mi. from Cecil
Posts: 28,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiftless View Post
The winner can choose to get 3.5% of the jackpot for 30 years or he can take $65 million. So, he only really won $65 million. The $100 million is pure illusion. What a scam.
If it is a scam, it is a very poorly kept secret. The cash value is displayed right at the top of the PowerBall website, right under the jackpot value. I don't think it is any secret that the jackpot value is the sum of the 20 year annuity.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-30-2012, 07:39 PM
John Lottery John Lottery is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
First, thank-you J Cubed for the mention and link to my blog article above.

Yes, I very much advocate that people who win the lottery take the annuity. I, like many others, originally believed the cash was better. But, after I laid out the cash flows, deducted the taxes, and tried to duplicate the annualized payments, I realized that a conservative investor (like myself) could not replicate the lotteries offerings.

Also, I thought about the folks I know who have become financial planners (wealth managers). Many are either kids right out of school, or others who have switched professions because the economy is bad. Neither of these groups has much to offer except by promoting their companies research.

While some can say they don't trust the states with the investment, the lottery by-laws typically require that sufficient money be invested in US Treasury Strips (the only allowed investment security) in order to guarantee the annuity payment. So, if the government goes belly up (a possibility these days), you lose your money - otherwise you win. Even if the state goes bankrupt, you'll get your money. And, if you die, the payments go to your estate.

Those are only a few reasons I advocate the annuity. Thanks again to all for the mention and for reading my blog article! JL .....

Last edited by John Lottery; 01-30-2012 at 07:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-30-2012, 08:14 PM
just_some_guy5 just_some_guy5 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
In the OP's hypothetical example, from a pure financial perspective it's really just a question of what rate of return you can earn on the lump sum versus the implicit return built into the annuity payments (which comes to 3.42%). Sure, the OP might expect to earn north of 3.4% in the stock market - but this is a poor comparison since we're comparing a risk-free option (the annuity, which is backed by treasury bonds) to a risky one. Given that 30 year treasuries currently yield 3.01%, the annuity appears to be the better option.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-30-2012, 08:25 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: 847 mi. from Cecil
Posts: 28,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by just_some_guy5 View Post
In the OP's hypothetical example, from a pure financial perspective it's really just a question of what rate of return you can earn on the lump sum versus the implicit return built into the annuity payments (which comes to 3.42%). Sure, the OP might expect to earn north of 3.4% in the stock market - but this is a poor comparison since we're comparing a risk-free option (the annuity, which is backed by treasury bonds) to a risky one. Given that 30 year treasuries currently yield 3.01%, the annuity appears to be the better option.
Especially in light of the stock market of the last four years. We still haven't recovered to the Oct 2007 level, so that's over four years of lost earnings. Willing to bet we won't have another recession in the next 20 years?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-30-2012, 10:21 PM
Duckster Duckster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Lottery View Post
Yes, I very much advocate that people who win the lottery take the annuity. I, like many others, originally believed the cash was better. But, after I laid out the cash flows, deducted the taxes, and tried to duplicate the annualized payments, I realized that a conservative investor (like myself) could not replicate the lotteries offerings.
From a purely investment view, and not considering anything else, your approach makes sense. I will still take the lump sum. I can manage my money. And if I decide to bury the lump sum in the back yard the alleged "lost income" really means squat to me. That's because the lump sum, tied in with the actuarial tables of approximately the life expectancy until my demise means a yearly spending pattern on a gargantuan scale to my current spending habits. As I said, I can manage my money. OK, minus the outlay for a fully paid house and other niceties that I may initially indulge, and I will still have a gargantuan-1 amount that will last me the rest of my life.

YMMV. Mine is a lump sum. A bird in the hand and all that.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-31-2012, 12:18 AM
JWT Kottekoe JWT Kottekoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
This reminds me of the Polish lottery. One million dollars, paid as one dollar per year, for a million years.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-31-2012, 01:17 AM
Ambivalid Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Would it have to be an either/or situation or could you split the lump sum and annuity as percentages of the total winnings?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-19-2012, 05:19 PM
Safe Money Tony Safe Money Tony is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Your friend is correct. Take the lump sum. No one knows what tomorrow brings, but betting on inflation is a good bet. Each future payment is worth less than the last, even if they graduate the payments up because the annuity company can't predict how much money the Fed will print.

Also you don't know if you will be around to collect the final payments or if the entity making future payments will be solvent. A bird in the hand is worth more in the bush.

Some types of annuities are great tools for some. But immediate annuities for lottery winners are usually not.

On a final note, I speak from experience on this. My ex wife won California's super lotto. 6 of 6 on a quick pick. Every December we received more than 120K in the mailbox. (Back then the annual payments were the only way you could get your winnings.) Last payment came two years ago. Today she is broke. There is the mindset some get from these payments that they will always be there. Sadly the day comes when no check arrives.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-21-2012, 12:58 AM
Waterman Waterman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Several facts to also consider:
  • Cash Value of Jackpot
  • Length of annuity payout
The current low interest rates result in both lotteries (Mega Millions and Powerball) offering cash value (lump sum) payouts that range from 65-75% of the lottery jackpot. 5 years ago, when interest rates were much higher, the lump sum cash value was much lower since the state required less principle to purchase the annuity. The current Powerball jackpot is 110 million and the cash value (lump sum) is 71.9 million. You still have to pay taxes on the winnings so the actual after tax payout is reduced by another 28-35%.

Powerball pays the annuity over 30 years and Mega Millions over 26 years. You would get a higher annual payout winning Mega Millions.

Somewhat related question - Can lottery winners remain anonymous or can they claim the prize through an attorney thus avoiding disclosure of their identity?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-21-2012, 03:54 AM
bengangmo bengangmo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
personally, I would be taking the lump sum. I haven't done the math, but on gut feel it should work out better having the money in hand.

But more to the point - does anyone else find it pure insanity that gambling gains are taxed? Are there any other countries beside America that do that ?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-21-2012, 04:24 AM
Olentzero Olentzero is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Sweden's lottery winnings are tax-free.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-21-2012, 10:12 AM
al27052 al27052 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,331
Basing this on what would happen to the stock market is kind of oversimplifying. Who invests all their money in stocks? What about real estate, government bonds, art, antiques, etc.? Diversify yo' portfolio, and whatnot.

I'd take the lump sum. I might want to do something interesting with 5 or 10 million of it, right up front. Not all, or even most of it, but maybe 5 or 10 million.

I am also smart enough with money to avoid excessively risky investments, and smart enough to diversify well. A little Costa Rican beachfront real estate (it appreciates FAST in the better areas), a little South Florida real estate (it's cheap now, but it's already going back up), a few thousand shares here and there of solid companies that pay good dividends (in different industries), some fine antiques/art that appreciate in value well, some T-bills, etc..

Also, you may want to create a family trust to avoid the estate tax. You probably also want to put a sizable chunk of your assets in untouchable sources overseas, like OJ Simpson did, in case you are successfully sued, like he was.

I can definitely understand why some people should choose the annuity, though. Most Americans just don't have the good sense to invest/spend intelligently. The proof of that is the fact that so many lottery winners go bankrupt.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-21-2012, 12:26 PM
Frostillicus Frostillicus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
[QUOTE=aruvqan;14714852]I always thought it would be fun to take lump sum and put it into a non interest bearing account. Rationale: The government taxes you on it when you get it. Then they will tax any interest that it earns every year. They can not tax you on an income that does not exist. No interest, no income. You then do not pay an income tax to anybody ever again, however you do pay the taxes on property so you are best not buying the expensive toys - ultra sports cars, big boats, huge houses. So if you stay with sensible cars, moderate toys, moderate house and *maybe* a vacation property you can basically screw the government out of money. [I would also take a certain amount in cash and stash it in a well hidden safe in the house and not let anybody know that it is there.]QUOTE]

By all means, pass up the chance to earn X amount of interest on your money, so that you don't have to pay 30% of X to the government each year. That'll show them!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-21-2012, 12:46 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 14,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by bengangmo View Post
But more to the point - does anyone else find it pure insanity that gambling gains are taxed?
No, I don't think it is insane at all. Quite the opposite. Why should income from hard work be taxed, but income from pure, blind luck be considered too special to question? Plus, if one is part of that small profession of professional gamblers, why should they get to live income tax-free, while plumbers, accountants, and professional football players live under a normal tax code?

Now, I know that some states do not tax lottery winnings. Well, whoop-dee-do. I don't understand why a lottery winner who gets, say, $100 million in found money should be upset that the state they live in gets its cut of $10 million or so. What, $90 million (minus the Fed's take) isn't sufficient for you?

But to the larger question, I don't consider it an automatic decision on whether to take the cash or the annuity. Just because I can manage a small office doesn't mean I could manage a Fortune 500 company; just because I can manage my current budget doesn't make me qualified to manage a portfolio of nine figures. If I won, I'd consult finance professionals first, evaluate their advice, and make a decision. There's certainly a minor tax benefit for taking an annuity, for example, but I couldn't calculate on the back of an envelope how much that really adds up to.

Last edited by Ravenman; 05-21-2012 at 12:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-21-2012, 01:22 PM
Pessemist Pessemist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard View Post
Lump sum.

Anyone who thinks they can manage 65 mil adequately enough to last until they're tits-up - then can't - deserves to live in under an overpass.

Myself included.

(and if you don't think you can: annuity)

mmm
I want Mr Drysdale to manage my money.

Pesse (Anyone good enuf for Jed is good enuf for me.) Mist
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 05-21-2012, 01:43 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 34,399
Since this thread got revived.

I wouldn't trust myself to manage the money directly - but I can hire someone to do that. There are an awful lot of investment opportunities which open up to you with that much money, and you'd need advice on balancing your portfolio.

Age hasn't been mentioned much. I'm old enough now to probably take the lump sum. It isn't that the annuity wouldn't be enough to retire on, but that in 30 years (or even 20) I'd be old enough to not spend the money coming in even f I was still alive. Taking the money now, spending more of it now when I can enjoy it, and figuring out how to give a bunch to our kids now not later would be preferable.
If not, do the math like JohnLottery did. An answer based on pure intuition is pretty useless.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-21-2012, 01:53 PM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 19,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olentzero View Post
Sweden's lottery winnings are tax-free.
Don't they pay tax on the ticket instead?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.