But it's a million dollars today or 2 million over a period of time. Then of course, winnings can't be transferred (if they are payments) so if you only live 1 year, you never see the rest! If you take 60% up front, you can transfer it, give it away, invest it, or burn it :o) I'd take the 60% up front I think and pay the taxes outright. :o)


>But if you take the lump sum you can begin earning interest on the whole amount right away. That's the reason for the discrepancy in total payout. A million dollars today is worth more than an income stream of a million dollars paid out over a period of time (barring the possibility of deflation).
>
>
>>True, but you get more winnings in the longrun if you take the payments. The total prize is larger. If you take the lump sum, I think it is only somewhere from 40-60% of the advertised jackpot. If you take the payments, then you get the full amount over time. You pay taxes on the total amount you receive though like you stated. Now there are companies that will 'buy' your winnings. You take the payments (to receive the full advertised winning amount) and sign over your rights to a company who then gives you a check for some amount between the cash prize and payments prize. For example, if the jackpot is 5 million over 40 years and the cash prize is 2.5 million up front, the company will pay you 3.5 million and then they get the difference but have to take it overtime for 40 years as you would.
>>
>>
>>
>>>No, you pay taxes on the payout. It doesn't matter whether it's one lump sum payment or a series of annual ones.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Isn't it that you pay close to 50% in taxes?
>>>>
>>>>>One possibility is that there was another winning ticket.
>>>>>
>>>>>Another possibility is that the winning amount is described as the total amount of a series of payments (usually over 20-30 years depending on the particular lottery). You have an option on getting either the annuity or cash value.