Poll : 30 November - 13 December 2022

After reading everyone's comments it became clear that everyone should choose lump sum only.

Why?

Simply put you could easily create your own annuity instead of relying on the lottery's choice of annuity providers.
Then you would be in charge of the annuity
That allows you to move it to more profitable choices and create a trust for inheritance.
Not all lotto annuities are transferable through any means (Read the fine print).

Think about it.
Best solution!

I would take the annuity.  That way there would be no chance it would all be blown (as many large jackpot winners have been known to do).  I would get the last payment when I turn 81.

In addition to what Jackie says about your own control over annuities, I would take the lump sum because of taxes. Trump era tax cuts are set to expire in January 2026 and unlikely to be renewed*. I would want to pay the taxes now before they go higher.

*even if a republican is elected president in 2024, fiscal realities make it unlikely that more tax cuts would be practical.

Is always greater today than in the future! Always take the lump sum! Those taking the annuity are the same people who think its better the government keeps their money so they get a 'refund' when they do their taxes every April.

My solution is to buy two identical tickets for each drawing.  That way, when I win, I'll take one annuity and one lump sum.  The best of both worlds.

Age at time of jackpot; life plans going forward; spouse/kids to provide for; current and projected financial status.  I appreciate all the viewpoints/info previously expressed which makes this a not-so-simple decision.

Me, I doubt I'll make it to 105 y/o; No kids and I'm predicting my spouse will pre-decease me; I have sibs and their kids, etc., but none I feel obligated to; none will be needy.  I would donate to my church and well organized/recognized charities, which, if done right has the potential for tax benefits.

But, I'll go with Jackie's advice and take the lump sum.  Get it over with (the decision, not the money!).  Get the best finance advisor available.  After all, when in hell have I ever had this much money to enjoy for the rest of my life?

Candy

I'm in my mid-60's.  For years, I favored the annuity for the even flow and the lessened chance of blowing it all.  Now I favor the lump sum, since it's likely that I won't live through even 2/3 of the annuity period.

So pay the taxes on thhe lump sum, invest almost all of the remainder, live well, control the money.  Hire a good lawyer and a great tax accountant, put a lot of the money in irrevocable trusts benefiting specific individuals and charities when you're gone, live on the income, ignore all those "long lost friends" and "distant cousins", enjoy!

The annuity can result in MUCH lower taxes if you invest in municipal bonds or other tax-free securities. Plus, you can be a mini-Trump and start up "businesses" that record "losses" and those are tax-deductible. Bottom line, there's more maneuvering room over twenty years.

Another consideration: make sure your heirs know that if you die, the annuity goes to charity. Otherwise, they'll have you whacked.

IF I win, I will ask all of you to advise me. I'll weigh everything you say, and then I'll decide. By the way, those of you who say to get the taxes paid now will have to pay additional taxes on the earnings of your lump sum unless you stuff it in a mattress.

The odds (since the Advisor is about gambling) are against my being around for another 30 years. Take it now, after conferring with a tax lawyer, CPA and a reputable financial advisor.  At least I'd be able to get a better room when going to Las Vegas.  

Although, I don't quite understand how a $2 billion+ jackpot involves a choice between $630 million now or $1.890 billion over time, I would take the annuity.  I live in a state with 5% income taxes and would be moving to a state with no income taxes.  The state tax savings alone would be significant.  Although I can't count on living 30 more years, it would be a heck of an incentive to live as long as I can if I am receiving a $63 million check every year.  Also, since, as I understand it, you can't borrow based on the future income, it is pretty hard to end up living in a gutter like other lottery winners have. You can make terrible choices for the first 5 years and still have plenty of dough coming your way.

My understanding is that if you take the annuity, they are not equal payments.  They start low and go up 5% every year.  I have not done the math, but the first year would be much less than half the 63 million. I am sure this was done to make the "fake" jackpot much higher.

So if I hit $10 mill on Megabucks what is the lump sum payout they give you??

AS AN OCTAGENERIAN --'GIVES' ME THE MONEY ! AS A BREATHING 25 YEAR OLD - LATER GATOR .  I've 'GOTS' da time ====== (i hope) PEACE .

Decades ago, a professional player was discussing this --- when it was only a 20-year payout for a multi-million-dollar payout.

His strategy would have been to take the longer payout -- let's say $500k a year. He would then generate fake gambling losses every year, so his net gambling win would end up being maybe $100k --- and pay taxes on that.

This was easily accomplishable in his mind. Generating fake $10 million in losses in one year not so much

Choosing the annuity only makes sense if you're highly sure that you'll live long enough to be around for all the yearly payouts. I'm 71 and don't expect to reach 81, so an annuity would be a bad choice for me and anyone else in my position. Taking the lump sum would automatically be the wiser choice.  Now, if you're only 30 or 40, you probably will live long enough to collect all years' payouts; but remember, that's not guaranteed: You could die from an accident or a medical problem, or even be murdered, and thus, what you collected and what you have around to leave to beneficiaries would be less than a lump sum would've given you.

I live in a high tax state. If I win, could I delay receiving the winnings, move to a low tax state and then collect in order to reduce my taxes? Or, as Harry Belafonte sang, could I take the cash and "Run Venezuela?"

It makes sense to take the lump sum for one big reason, you control it and most of the money will get invested for some period of time unless the winner is totally ignorant of taxes and investing.

"The annuity can result in MUCH lower taxes if you invest in municipal bonds or other tax-free securities. Plus, you can be a mini-Trump and start up "businesses" that record "losses" and those are tax-deductible. Bottom line, there's more maneuvering room over twenty years."

Lewis, you off your TDS medication again? Orange man lives in your head, most amusing.  

In regards to your point, if you're going down your TDS political obsession rants once again, and talking about "or other tax-free securities": Isn't it better just to be the "big guy" and get yer tax-free "10%" cut, hmm?