[QUOTE=Paul in Saudi]
That is to say 254 million, if taken over 20 years, but only 120 million if taken as a lump sum?
I hate taxes.
[/QUOTE]
That discrepancy is NOT due to taxes. The taxes would be paid on the $120 million.
The difference between the 254 million and the 120 million is essentially based on the difference between an annuity over 20years, and a lump sum.
So, if you wanted to buy an annuity that would pay out about $12.52 million a year over 20 years (for a total of $254 million), the current price for that would be about $120 million.
I’m sure that most winners don’t complain very much, but the way they advertise lottery winnings is, in my opinion, extremely deceptive. What other product or service advertises its value based on depreciating money that won’t actually be paid out for up to 20 years?
It’s like if you borrowed $20 from me, and i told you that i’d pay you back at $1 a year over 20 years. Sure, i’m giving you back $20, but it’s not worth the same as $20 was when you loaned it to me. I think that, when advertising the amount of the lottery prize, they should have to advertise the lump sum amount.
Of course, as i said, if i won the “$250 million” lottery, i would complain too muuch about the $75 million cash after tax.
[QUOTE=Paul in Saudi]
Hey! Wait a cotton-picken minute! If he claimed he and his three sons had a long-standing agreement to play the powerball as a group, then the pay-out (however taken) would be granted one personal exemption for each of the four, lowering the total tax load?
[/quote]
Not really much of a saving at all.
The maximum income tax rate kicks in before $100,000, so the total tax on $120 million (for one person) and on, say, $30 million each for four people, wouldn’t actually be much different.