Just read on the front page of AOL that a Missouri man won a $258 million dollar (USD) PowerBall Lottery. That's approximately 167.7 million pounds sterling. Yay! (Grrr!) Here's the question: These big-daddy lotteries always give the option of taking all the money at once or spreading it out every a period of time. In this case the payment option is for 30 payments across twenty nine years. Choose that option and you get all the money. Or you can take one lump sum. Always a smaller amount. In this case it would be $124 million and some-odd change. Approximately 80.6 million pounds sterling. I've had this discussion with my mum who is an accountant and she has her opinion, I have mine. What's your opinion?
I would take the lump sum. It'd be nice to have all the money at once, plus you would make a ton of money off interest.
Payments but I would have them put in my child/grandchild's name. That way, if I kick the bucket, the family gets the money not the state. Also, this thread made me want a Now AND Later:
Payments here. That's still around 8.6 million a year. I could live with that. Would definitely do what Kyle says too.
I would want it all at once. Never know if you are going to die tomorrow, three weeks from now, or fifty years. Get the lump, invest some, pay everything off and live!
An obscene amount of money, either way you cut it, juxtaposed with the hardship and poverty that is all around us. I'd take enough to keep myself and those who matter most to me comfortable for the rest of our lives (no more than a tenth of that total) and I'd give the rest to deserving causes, spreading the wealth.
This was nearly word for word my mum's reasoning. Her explanation was that payments left for the future were in fact speculative and thus dodgy because who knows what will happen either to the person receiving or the agency giving. To her it was a better bet to take the smaller sum (though in this case, small is hardly the word) and make the gain tangible and real instead of speculative. My mum is a CPA.
Living in Australia i'd take it all and invest in the booming land, housing property because it becomes unbuyable. (Well for the mass majority). Plus i might be dead next year or the one after.
I'd have the money now, in a lump sum. That way, I could invest, save, and spend as I wish, and when I wish to. Also, I could make sure it goes to the right people if I died tomorrow. I think releasing smaller amounts over time would be good for somebody that couldn't be trusted to use their money wisely, but I actually happen to be excellent at saving, and budgeting
I would take the payments, and designate a large part of each payment to go into a tax-sheltered account such as an IRA. For one thing, the lump sum payment is not just a little less. It's half the face value, before taxes. I would designate a trust fund for my kids in the event I die before the payments end. It would make a nice, steady income, even if I lived on the interest alone, and never touch the principal. Even so, I would have to spread it out over multiple financial institutions, because the federal insurance only insures to a certain level from any one bank, and banks do fail. If the government itself fails, the banks won't be any better a place for the money.
Oh, hang on! I didn't read this properly. You say you get a much smaller sum if you take it as a lump? Heck no! Installments then.....Or would I? It's still a lot of money.... Oh, poop.
Mmm. In installments, I think. Seems like the better idea, and there's no way I could spend even a thirtieth of it, anyway. All right, yes, there is. Which is why it would be smarter for me to have it a bit at a time.
When I had the convo with mom, this was my reason as well. I know myself only too well. The amount of trouble I could get into is directly proportional to my capacity to afford it. :redface:
So, if you took one large chunk (which already gets cut away with taxes until it's almost halved) it still gets the crap beaten out of it again with more taxes once you recive it. Eeep. Installments might be better.
I live in Missouri also and just saw this in the local paper today at the library. I'm all for lump sum also and for the very same reasons your Mom gave.
Payments, man. I don't need all that money, and I wouldn't quit my job anyway (I need my job...I love my job...ignore my last post in the unhappy thread), so it's not like I would need any of the money. I would essentially do what Cog said, with a few minor tweaks. There are ways to make sure that the money continues going to someone you care about if you die, and then at least someone gets to enjoy all the money, instead of just taking half of it.
The temptation would be too great to spend it if I had the lump sum, plus it's smaller and just gets smaller..... NO. Payments, please.
Payments! Definitely.. I wouldn't be able to live with the smaller lump, knowing I could get more. I'm greedy like that
I would take the lump sum, then I would buy myself a decent house with a nice car, then strap the rest to the side of a balloon and have it out of my reach until I'm old enough to be responsible with it.
