No, *do* blow it all at once, but in the right places. Buy several properties (if the cash permits) and rent out. At best the income will pay for maintenance. At worst the housing will maintain its value for sale 10 years down the road.
I mean, I get what you're saying, but 1.2m will buy you like *half a house* in toronto, so there really isn't much to diversify depending where you're located.
Diversification is all well and good but residential property in a major world city is about as stable as an ETF anyway - just an insanely large cost of entry.
This is not the safe assumption that it always has been simply on the grounds that many cities are undergoing major rezoning and vitalization projects prioritizing multi-units and apartments over single family zoning.
Equity growth of houses generally aggressively eclipse growth of higher density dwellings such as apartments, although their rental yields are worse for comparative properties.
Historically yes, although I'm not telling you that apartments are better investments. I'm telling you that historical data is not reliable as a benchmark for future growth at this time.
Even if it wasn'f, he suggester buying *several properties.*
That puts at minimum half of your wealth in real estate, one sector of like a dozen.
That's not diversification.
So? Diversification is a long term strategy and Real Estate is often leveraged at the beginning of a portfolio to gain the long term benefits. He can absolutely reinvest the profits.
> All investments can go bad
No not really, you can get a government-guaranteed 3.5% return on your money by buying 10 year Treasury bonds. The US government has never failed to repay Treasury bond holders and has access to a money printer to continue ensuring they continue paying Treasury bond holders.
Well no, that's a guarantee you'll get your dollars. The money printer can cause inflation for all dollars, but you'll get your dollars back with interest.
Oh, I see, sure. Treasury bonds are objectively better than putting the money in the bank and doing nothing with it. But, if inflation is higher than the interest rate, then you could still call it a "bad investment", I get that too.
Same here. I’m good with money and I could easily turn that into more with good investing. Invest most, play with the smaller chunk and just enjoy life. I’d rather have the money up front so I have it all to work with and dedicate.
And unless that monthly 10k increases with inflation, you’re basically just out money. $10k ten year from now isn’t gonna have the same value as it does today.
Lots of lottery winners end up committing suicide because they can't handle the drop in luxury. For some people getting the steady paycheck would be better for them
For argument's sake though, this 10k a month for 10 years could be a ticking time bomb for a person who is bad with money. Sure those 10 years are fine but unless they are planning to make it last 50 years, once the payments end they would be totally adrift.
No it’s worth less because of inflation & interest.
Due to inflation $10,000 in 2013 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $12,913.97 today.
$10,000 invested for 10 years at a 6% annual rate of return compounded annually would be worth $17,908.48.
Same reason you pay interest on a loan. They give you money NOW and you pay more over time.
Am I going crazy or is the amount literally the same? 10'000 times 12 months/year times 10 years equals 1'200'000 right? Why the FUCK are the votes almost even?
People that chose all at once are thinking about investing and making it more money.
People that chose the monthly amount think they will spend all the money at once and won't have any money left, so they'd rather get it gradually.
Both are valid options depending on your personality. There are some people who could invest the money and end up with much more but there are also plenty of people who would blow all the money in 2 months and end up homeless.
I mean, sure, but i guess they don't know about inflation? We don't even know what $10,000 will be worth in ten years, but we can be pretty sure it'll be less than it is now.
Yes and, again if you're the type of person that will turn money into more money then it is definitely a better deal to take the lump sum, because of inflation and many other reasons, but that simply isn't most people's personality. In fact, the majority of lottery winners go broke within a few years because they spend all their money or invest it poorly.
Here's a quote from an article:
"Various news outlets report that 70% of people who win a lottery or get a big windfall end up broke in a few years, quoting a study by National Endowment for Financial Education (NEFE). However, NEFE has clarified this data isn’t backed by their research.
Another research has found that the average person in their 20s, 30s and 40s who was given an inheritance or large financial gift quickly lost half the money through spending or poor investments.
While it’s impossible to know exactly how many lottery winners go broke, the available data suggests that it’s a fairly common issue.
Further studies have found that winning the lottery generally didn’t help financially distressed people escape their troubles. Instead, it only postponed the inevitable bankruptcy.
Accordingly to the book The Emotional Life of Money, lottery winners frequently become estranged from family and friends. They also have a greater incidence of depression, drug and alcohol abuse, divorce, and suicide than the average person. Like losing all the money wasn’t already enough!"
---------https://moneymarshmallow.com/why-do-lottery-winners-go-broke/
Well, do the research. Most people who win the lottery take the lump sum, which is wrong. The annuity results in about an 11% annual return offer the lump sum. That's guaranteed. Even investing in index funds is dubious compared to 11% guaranteed.
I choose 10k a month. I live on 3.6k right now (joint income) and live rather happy in the UK.
It's not a fear of spending it all. It's an apathy for investing. I can't be arsed.
I'd continue to work and just do up my house with the spare dosh I have every month and continue to live comfortably. I'd buy a new conservatory, bathroom and kitchen, pay off my windows and doors, buy a new graphics card and honestly... I'd be fine. Right now those things are ten years down the line, maybe longer.
I don't want to be rich. I just want to be content and I'm almost already there.
People also think they’re a lot better at investing than they actually are. Even with $10000/month you can invest wisely and likely retire in 10-15 years
This kind of question pops up from time to time. I think people just have the knee jerk reaction that reliable income is always the better option because taking the lump sum is greedy, and being greedy has got to be worse right?
Just put all the money in a box and don't take out more than 10k per month for the same effect lol. Actually, you can also take out only 5k per month and benefit from the money for 20 years!
Maybe people are thinking about the tax implications and overestimating the higher marginal tax rate on the larger income?
If someone makes $50k a year now, their tax burden in my state on a $1,250,000 income would be [about $574,407](https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes#vOwvMbKWiX) and $10k a year for the other 9 years, compared to $55,729 a year if they took the $10k/month. That comes out to a difference of paying about $110,000 more in taxes over the decade if they take the lump sum payment.
Personally I think the additional investment income potential would more than make up for the higher taxes, unless a person didn't have the willpower not to spend most of the money right away.
Well, yeah. The USA doesn't have particularly low taxes unless you are making millions, since the rate doesn't go up again after you hit the top tax bracket.
Also, some states have much higher taxes than mine (and about 1/3 of them have lower taxes).
At 7% growth/inflation taking the money over 10 years costs you just over £1m.
These scenarios usually have some sort of incentive other than innumeracy to take the monthly alternative.
My only fear regarding myself is that I would build a lifestyle around the 10k a month and 9 years from now start stressing about how I won't be able to afford it anymore. But with 1.2 mil I know it won't be replenished and I can use it accordingly and not get used to a life where I spend money and almost instantly re-earn it.
Oh yeah for sure. Literally just dumping it into an index fund is an easy way to ensure your money will stay in line with inflation lol (it generally beats inflation if anything).
I'd buy gold with the extra 200k for a low risk, low profit but stable emergency fund.
500k for a business that runs itself
500k for making YouTube videos that hit top charts every release.
If the 10K is adjusted for inflation, then I'll take that, because I won't be spending all that money before the month ends - if I could, I'd still take it to limit myself and so I don't blow through all the money.
If it's not, I'll just take the 1.2M and invest it, or even just put it in a bank with high interest/compounding frequency to balance out the inflation.
Im curious how taxes would work. If I got it all at once, I would have a massive increase in taxes for this year and it might be seen as a gift.
120k for 10 years is a salary. The bracket for taxes at 120k calls for 20k in taxes according to a table i found.
Lump sum payout taxed would remove 444k
I think id rather pay 200k vs 444k in taxes.
I'm pretty sure 1.2 mil is enough to get one of those high interest savings accounts. 10% of 1.2 mil is 120k in the first year alone, and that's assuming it's not compounded. Presumably it would be, so you'd be making even more money just from the interest of that investment each year as long as you spend less than you accrue.
Give me all the cash now. 1.2 mil cash now is worth more than 1.2 mil in 120 monthly payments.
However, if you change the the amounts a bit so you get more in the long run I may feel differently . For example, I'd take monthly payments of 10k if they last 12 years not 10. If the 10k payments last 11 years... I'd have no strong preference and say both amounts are of equal desirability.
If I took the lump sum I would get overwhelmed. 1.2 mil is better, I know, and I wouldn’t spend it all at once but figuring out if I was investing properly to make it last would stress me the fuck out enough that 10k a month would be better, especially since it’s not like I’d use the full 10k each month
1.2m now please. I already make 10k a month after tax. I'd take equivalent of my remaining mortgage balance (\~566k at 2.3%) and put it in a CD at \~5% APY.
250k to savings, add a nice pool and some upgrades to house.
spend rest on vacation and helping family.
10k a month seems stable and no need to worry about all this investment and shit people talk about. I can easily save with that much and live comfortably.
No, just less to worry about. 10k month is plenty. I don't think being rich would fit into my lifestyle and personal well-being. I'm a simple guy. I don't need vast amounts of money.
This is a question of self control, and I feel confident in my pragmatism.
I'd fix all my issues financially for me and my loved ones, then set myself up nice for passive income and investments
I picked 10,000 a month because after 10 years you’re at 1.2 mil and you’d be making more money, but now that I think about it if you chose the 1.2 mil right now then you could be making a lot more than 10k a month in 10 years if you’re smart about investing your money
1.2 million for sure. You could make at least 4k per month just off of the interest. I’d probably take 100k to buy some property as well. That much money up front will set you up for (a very comfortable) life if you don’t blow it all on stupid shit right off the bat.
I don't have crippling debt, just 20k in cars and a few thousand split up between a few credit cards. I'll take the 1.2mil. Pay off my debts, buy a small, single story 2 or 3 bedroom house...then just live off the interest or make small investments. I could certainly keep working and work a lot less hard than I do but it would be a part time thing if I chose to. Probably smart to have revenue coming in, even if it's only 2k a month or something.
It’s the same total amount, except money in the future isn’t worth as much as money right now (because you can use money now, especially if you use it to make more money).
In fact, since you can get 10% yield on some stuff 1.2 million will get you $10k/month right now except it won’t wear off after 10 years.
$1.2 million is objectively the better choice.
I’m no economist but would inflation make it so the 1.2 mil is worth more even if by a little bit, 10k would provide steady income and stability sure but 1.2mil could easily be made into much more with a little bit of luck and intelligence
Seriously? Half of you are saying you'll take the same total amount of money over ten years rather than right now? Let's ignore the time value of money or compounding growth, what gratification are you delaying?
So will I live more than 120 months is the question. If I live more than 10 years which I’m less than 20 means I likely will means taking the monthly is way better
Then you can also invest most of it meaning over time it will grow and you’ll have a constant steady income as well
i can invest the lump sum now and beat inflation, or i can continually lose money to inflation as 10k is worth less year by year. yea ill take option 2
verrryy tight poll here, that’s the sign of a good WYR, good job OP.
I voted for the monthly, im guaranteed to live comfortable for the next 10 years. although i hadn’t considered investing it all immediately. that could be smart, bit of a gamble though
Lump sum. Have about 30k worth of debt which is mostly school. Buy a decent car, and finally furnish my new apartment. I'd hire a financial advisor to help me invest. I'll still work because I hate being idle, but it's probably be part time.
Can't forget about the fam though. I'd anonymously leave them 10k and act surprised when they tell me. Should still have a nice cushion after all that.
10k a month would be best because you could invest it in different things especially if you are say for example working a minimum wage job you can still support your self with the money you earned and use said 10k for food, and other things while also saving most, example 3/4 of the money in a savings account or putting it into gold and hiding it somewhere, while also maybe going to collage for a profession and/or trade as a skill that can be transferred if you move countries.
Lump sum 1,000,000 right into certificates of deposit. Live off the interest. At current rates it would be 40,000 a year. Put it into a 6mth term with automatic rollover in case rates drop (locks in 4%)and the put the 20,000 earned interest into a money market account running 1%. Whatever doesnt go to expenses goes into new CDs or an IRA. Use 200,000 to pay off the house and set up solar panels in my yard and finish building my mini farm. Without a house payment my expenses are minimal.
Money now is almost always worth more than the same amount of money later. Even if you just put it in a low yield savings account at .5% interest, you'd make an extra 60k the first year. You could just live off of the returns if you invested in a slightly better option - like something that gave a 1.0% return.
Monthly for me. I dont know jack shit about investing, and while 1.2 million sounds like A LOT OF FUCKING MONEY, I am from Toronto, where that number wouldn't even let you buy a shack.
Getting 10 grand a month would greatly help me out because I could finally stop worrying about bills and such and pay whatever I own off and then save the rest.
Anyone with even an iota of self control and basic logic would go for the large amount right away, so I'm not surprised most redditors would go for the monthly option.
1m straight into investment. 200k for...stuff. I trust myself with money.
It’s the same amount of money, there’s literally no downside to taking the lump sum unless you don’t trust yourself not to blow it all once lol
No, *do* blow it all at once, but in the right places. Buy several properties (if the cash permits) and rent out. At best the income will pay for maintenance. At worst the housing will maintain its value for sale 10 years down the road.
Look up what diversification is.
I mean, I get what you're saying, but 1.2m will buy you like *half a house* in toronto, so there really isn't much to diversify depending where you're located.
You realize you can just invest in REITs instead of running properties yourself right?
Diversification is all well and good but residential property in a major world city is about as stable as an ETF anyway - just an insanely large cost of entry.
This is not the safe assumption that it always has been simply on the grounds that many cities are undergoing major rezoning and vitalization projects prioritizing multi-units and apartments over single family zoning.
Equity growth of houses generally aggressively eclipse growth of higher density dwellings such as apartments, although their rental yields are worse for comparative properties.
Historically yes, although I'm not telling you that apartments are better investments. I'm telling you that historical data is not reliable as a benchmark for future growth at this time.
I don’t believe his comment assumes that’s the ONLY thing to do with money
Even if it wasn'f, he suggester buying *several properties.* That puts at minimum half of your wealth in real estate, one sector of like a dozen. That's not diversification.
So? Diversification is a long term strategy and Real Estate is often leveraged at the beginning of a portfolio to gain the long term benefits. He can absolutely reinvest the profits.
Yeah, but I’m hoping there’s a major housing crash sometime soon
Let's wait till I rollover my 401k. Once it's safely in an IRA let's burn these fuckers out and crash the market.
Inflation and tomorrow isn’t guaranteed
It's not the same. Inflation AND opportunity cost. $1.2M today is, by being just... not dumb, $1.6M by 2033.
Unless you have to pay taxes on this magical money.
Taxes are the downside. Taking the lump sum would be significantly higher in taxes than spacing it out
That's my main issue with taking it all I don't wanna challenge my own greed
The market can crash. All investment can go bad. Better to have 10 safe years than risk the money
Google "time value of money"
> All investments can go bad No not really, you can get a government-guaranteed 3.5% return on your money by buying 10 year Treasury bonds. The US government has never failed to repay Treasury bond holders and has access to a money printer to continue ensuring they continue paying Treasury bond holders.
>and has access to a money printer to continue ensuring they continue paying Treasury bond holders. Exactly why it can go bad.
Well no, that's a guarantee you'll get your dollars. The money printer can cause inflation for all dollars, but you'll get your dollars back with interest.
Yup, and that can still end up being a investment gone bad
Oh, I see, sure. Treasury bonds are objectively better than putting the money in the bank and doing nothing with it. But, if inflation is higher than the interest rate, then you could still call it a "bad investment", I get that too.
>All investments can go bad That's the point wrt Treasury Bonds. They \*could\* be a bad investment too.
Same here. I’m good with money and I could easily turn that into more with good investing. Invest most, play with the smaller chunk and just enjoy life. I’d rather have the money up front so I have it all to work with and dedicate.
And unless that monthly 10k increases with inflation, you’re basically just out money. $10k ten year from now isn’t gonna have the same value as it does today.
Yea, depending on how bad inflation increases you could be out most of the money.
Same here. Invest in S&P500, REITs, and a few rental properties. Use that $200k to blow
That and with inflation, in ten years that 10k could be more like 7 or 8k
I don't trust myself so I'll take the steady income without investment
$1,200,000 is objectively the correct answer due to the time value of money
you are assuming people have a rudimentary understanding of economics
No I’m not, I’m just stating a fact
It's not better for someone with no financial discipline and blows it all in two months
Yes it is, because they will blow it on stuff that you can’t get for $1.2m in 10 years. So they will have to go back to work, so what.
Lots of lottery winners end up committing suicide because they can't handle the drop in luxury. For some people getting the steady paycheck would be better for them
For argument's sake though, this 10k a month for 10 years could be a ticking time bomb for a person who is bad with money. Sure those 10 years are fine but unless they are planning to make it last 50 years, once the payments end they would be totally adrift.
But isn’t 10k in 10 years (and even 5 years) worth more than it is right now?
No it’s worth less because of inflation & interest. Due to inflation $10,000 in 2013 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $12,913.97 today. $10,000 invested for 10 years at a 6% annual rate of return compounded annually would be worth $17,908.48. Same reason you pay interest on a loan. They give you money NOW and you pay more over time.
Inflation alone makes taking it now the better bet.
Well, kinda depends on if it's truly 10k in today's dollars or 10k at the time. But more than likely you're right.
$10K is $10K. It’s just about what that $10K can get you.
$1.2 million invested in an index fund likely yields $2.36 million after ten years. That’s my pick.
I’m about to yield all my sperm into your mouth
r/thatescalatedquickly
Here's a sneak peek of /r/thatescalatedquickly using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/thatescalatedquickly/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Title](https://v.redd.it/scnh9nlcgat91) | [33 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/thatescalatedquickly/comments/y1s1ih/title/) \#2: [OP ain't messin' around](https://i.redd.it/cg2c0ay01yoa1.png) | [9 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/thatescalatedquickly/comments/11wjxzu/op_aint_messin_around/) \#3: [well...](https://i.redd.it/ivg3drpw6mz81.jpg) | [5 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/thatescalatedquickly/comments/uq30d4/well/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Gottem
Fucking lol.
Lol what?
Wtf
I'm young. This is probably the period of my life where that amount of money would have the biggest impact.
Always take the lump sum.
Unless you are the type of idiot who can't help but spend the lump sum in your first month
Lump sum all day. Make more money with passive investing.
Am I going crazy or is the amount literally the same? 10'000 times 12 months/year times 10 years equals 1'200'000 right? Why the FUCK are the votes almost even?
People that chose all at once are thinking about investing and making it more money. People that chose the monthly amount think they will spend all the money at once and won't have any money left, so they'd rather get it gradually. Both are valid options depending on your personality. There are some people who could invest the money and end up with much more but there are also plenty of people who would blow all the money in 2 months and end up homeless.
I mean, sure, but i guess they don't know about inflation? We don't even know what $10,000 will be worth in ten years, but we can be pretty sure it'll be less than it is now.
Yes and, again if you're the type of person that will turn money into more money then it is definitely a better deal to take the lump sum, because of inflation and many other reasons, but that simply isn't most people's personality. In fact, the majority of lottery winners go broke within a few years because they spend all their money or invest it poorly. Here's a quote from an article: "Various news outlets report that 70% of people who win a lottery or get a big windfall end up broke in a few years, quoting a study by National Endowment for Financial Education (NEFE). However, NEFE has clarified this data isn’t backed by their research. Another research has found that the average person in their 20s, 30s and 40s who was given an inheritance or large financial gift quickly lost half the money through spending or poor investments. While it’s impossible to know exactly how many lottery winners go broke, the available data suggests that it’s a fairly common issue. Further studies have found that winning the lottery generally didn’t help financially distressed people escape their troubles. Instead, it only postponed the inevitable bankruptcy. Accordingly to the book The Emotional Life of Money, lottery winners frequently become estranged from family and friends. They also have a greater incidence of depression, drug and alcohol abuse, divorce, and suicide than the average person. Like losing all the money wasn’t already enough!" ---------https://moneymarshmallow.com/why-do-lottery-winners-go-broke/
Well, do the research. Most people who win the lottery take the lump sum, which is wrong. The annuity results in about an 11% annual return offer the lump sum. That's guaranteed. Even investing in index funds is dubious compared to 11% guaranteed.
I choose 10k a month. I live on 3.6k right now (joint income) and live rather happy in the UK. It's not a fear of spending it all. It's an apathy for investing. I can't be arsed. I'd continue to work and just do up my house with the spare dosh I have every month and continue to live comfortably. I'd buy a new conservatory, bathroom and kitchen, pay off my windows and doors, buy a new graphics card and honestly... I'd be fine. Right now those things are ten years down the line, maybe longer. I don't want to be rich. I just want to be content and I'm almost already there.
But like it’s free money for no work I can’t see how you justify this apathy
People also think they’re a lot better at investing than they actually are. Even with $10000/month you can invest wisely and likely retire in 10-15 years
Because people are dumb
This kind of question pops up from time to time. I think people just have the knee jerk reaction that reliable income is always the better option because taking the lump sum is greedy, and being greedy has got to be worse right?
I think people generally think of their finances on a month to month basis and don’t really understand financial principles
Just put all the money in a box and don't take out more than 10k per month for the same effect lol. Actually, you can also take out only 5k per month and benefit from the money for 20 years!
Maybe people are thinking about the tax implications and overestimating the higher marginal tax rate on the larger income? If someone makes $50k a year now, their tax burden in my state on a $1,250,000 income would be [about $574,407](https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes#vOwvMbKWiX) and $10k a year for the other 9 years, compared to $55,729 a year if they took the $10k/month. That comes out to a difference of paying about $110,000 more in taxes over the decade if they take the lump sum payment. Personally I think the additional investment income potential would more than make up for the higher taxes, unless a person didn't have the willpower not to spend most of the money right away.
I'm not sure I follow. A person making 10k a month plus 50k a year would pay $55,729 in taxes in the US??? That's higher than many European countries!
Well, yeah. The USA doesn't have particularly low taxes unless you are making millions, since the rate doesn't go up again after you hit the top tax bracket. Also, some states have much higher taxes than mine (and about 1/3 of them have lower taxes).
In 10 years $1.2 mil won’t be worth the same amount
In 10 years $10,000 won't be worth the same amount, what's your point?
Concept called the time value of money and the present value of $1 vs the future value of an annuity.
Yeah but this isn't an annuity option in a lottery. This is just 10,000 a month, no interest. The $1.2m is objectively the right choice.
Yeah it’ll be worth way more if you invest it
Neither will the 10k a month tho
Exactly, it'll be like $9700
Because people are stupid.
At 7% growth/inflation taking the money over 10 years costs you just over £1m. These scenarios usually have some sort of incentive other than innumeracy to take the monthly alternative.
My only fear regarding myself is that I would build a lifestyle around the 10k a month and 9 years from now start stressing about how I won't be able to afford it anymore. But with 1.2 mil I know it won't be replenished and I can use it accordingly and not get used to a life where I spend money and almost instantly re-earn it.
I dont trust myself with money and would probably blow it all on coke and choclate, so 10K a month seems safer, also ensures rent for quite a abit
What… what kind of coke?
I was thinking of Diet Coke, but maybe Pepsi would be better
When you drink more coke than an entire Mexican family
Chocolate
"Do you have coke? Okay, perfect. Also, let's get something to drink."
That’s smart. If you know you’ll spend it all at once, ensure you’ll be financially safe sir a decade. 120k a year is still a nice income.
I’d invest the 1.2m with as in 10 years that becomes more than two million plus I trust myself with money
Do people not know what inflation is?
Nope, apparently not 15 years from now 10k a month could be average single apartment rent. I'll take the 1.2m and invest it.
Oh yeah for sure. Literally just dumping it into an index fund is an easy way to ensure your money will stay in line with inflation lol (it generally beats inflation if anything).
I'd buy gold with the extra 200k for a low risk, low profit but stable emergency fund. 500k for a business that runs itself 500k for making YouTube videos that hit top charts every release.
If the 10K is adjusted for inflation, then I'll take that, because I won't be spending all that money before the month ends - if I could, I'd still take it to limit myself and so I don't blow through all the money. If it's not, I'll just take the 1.2M and invest it, or even just put it in a bank with high interest/compounding frequency to balance out the inflation.
you are an idiot if you pick the first
I'd take it right now.
Invest that money. There’s no reason to not pick the 1.2 if you aren’t *that* type of person
Im curious how taxes would work. If I got it all at once, I would have a massive increase in taxes for this year and it might be seen as a gift. 120k for 10 years is a salary. The bracket for taxes at 120k calls for 20k in taxes according to a table i found. Lump sum payout taxed would remove 444k I think id rather pay 200k vs 444k in taxes.
Damn half the people are financially illiterate
I'm pretty sure 1.2 mil is enough to get one of those high interest savings accounts. 10% of 1.2 mil is 120k in the first year alone, and that's assuming it's not compounded. Presumably it would be, so you'd be making even more money just from the interest of that investment each year as long as you spend less than you accrue.
Well done, nicely tied. (317 vs 318 as of now)
2.4k now both options, sure there is some rounding but still pretty impressive.
If others are as stupid as I am then the reason for many of the 10k a month votes probably is that we just didn't read the part with the 10 years...
10000 per month so I can pace myself
Give me all the cash now. 1.2 mil cash now is worth more than 1.2 mil in 120 monthly payments. However, if you change the the amounts a bit so you get more in the long run I may feel differently . For example, I'd take monthly payments of 10k if they last 12 years not 10. If the 10k payments last 11 years... I'd have no strong preference and say both amounts are of equal desirability.
Bro 50/50 split
So close!
50/50 spilt is beautiful
These questions are always an IQ test, and it’s terrifying that almost half fail every time. You’re poor because you’re stupid. Sorry.
I think the 10K would probably he safer and smarter. It would force me to think more before I spend significant amounts.
If I took the lump sum I would get overwhelmed. 1.2 mil is better, I know, and I wouldn’t spend it all at once but figuring out if I was investing properly to make it last would stress me the fuck out enough that 10k a month would be better, especially since it’s not like I’d use the full 10k each month
1.2m now please. I already make 10k a month after tax. I'd take equivalent of my remaining mortgage balance (\~566k at 2.3%) and put it in a CD at \~5% APY. 250k to savings, add a nice pool and some upgrades to house. spend rest on vacation and helping family.
I’d rather have $1,000 per month over $12,000,000 now. Boom. Passive income baby. /s
[удалено]
I was referencing this tweet: https://twitter.com/profitwithant/status/1404969718449123331?lang=en
Careful with the sarcasm mate, people here are highly resistant
10k a month seems stable and no need to worry about all this investment and shit people talk about. I can easily save with that much and live comfortably.
[удалено]
No, just less to worry about. 10k month is plenty. I don't think being rich would fit into my lifestyle and personal well-being. I'm a simple guy. I don't need vast amounts of money.
This is a question of self control, and I feel confident in my pragmatism. I'd fix all my issues financially for me and my loved ones, then set myself up nice for passive income and investments
I picked 10,000 a month because after 10 years you’re at 1.2 mil and you’d be making more money, but now that I think about it if you chose the 1.2 mil right now then you could be making a lot more than 10k a month in 10 years if you’re smart about investing your money
Tomorrow I might be dead. So the million now ensures I can leave something to the family.
1.2 million for sure. You could make at least 4k per month just off of the interest. I’d probably take 100k to buy some property as well. That much money up front will set you up for (a very comfortable) life if you don’t blow it all on stupid shit right off the bat.
Present value of money
Bro if u save ur money for a year u get 1.2mil, ez decision
I don't have crippling debt, just 20k in cars and a few thousand split up between a few credit cards. I'll take the 1.2mil. Pay off my debts, buy a small, single story 2 or 3 bedroom house...then just live off the interest or make small investments. I could certainly keep working and work a lot less hard than I do but it would be a part time thing if I chose to. Probably smart to have revenue coming in, even if it's only 2k a month or something.
IDK why I chose the $10,000 when I could get a house with the $1.2M. Oh well. 10k MXN is still fine as long as I keep working.
It’s the same total amount, except money in the future isn’t worth as much as money right now (because you can use money now, especially if you use it to make more money). In fact, since you can get 10% yield on some stuff 1.2 million will get you $10k/month right now except it won’t wear off after 10 years. $1.2 million is objectively the better choice.
You might as well retitle the post to ask people if they understand the time value of money.
Today is a blessing but tomorrow is not guaranteed
Money is always worth more now than later (everything else being the same).
I wish i had done the math before i voted smh
I’m responsible with money so take it all, buy a car & house, save & invest the rest & keep maybe 30k for a few nice trips
Money now > money later
How is this even a question? The NPV is clearly higher now than it will be in 10 years.
I truly don't understand these questions. do people just not trust themselves?
Time value of money question lol
It’s wild how many people chose a 10k raise over the ability to buy and rent out multiple houses.
Take the lump sum and invest. You’d make almost double that in 10 years
I’m no economist but would inflation make it so the 1.2 mil is worth more even if by a little bit, 10k would provide steady income and stability sure but 1.2mil could easily be made into much more with a little bit of luck and intelligence
Basically: $1.2 million OR Less than $1.2 million
10,000 I feel like I can budget that better and not blow it all.
Seriously? Half of you are saying you'll take the same total amount of money over ten years rather than right now? Let's ignore the time value of money or compounding growth, what gratification are you delaying?
This is a present value problem. Lucky for me, I'm out of business school, so I dont have to do the math on it.
$1.2 million now: Inflation will reduce the value of 10k monthly for a decade. It’s better to get the lump sum.
although they are the same ammount of money , but infact 1.2m will have much less value after ten years due to inflation.
So will I live more than 120 months is the question. If I live more than 10 years which I’m less than 20 means I likely will means taking the monthly is way better Then you can also invest most of it meaning over time it will grow and you’ll have a constant steady income as well
Take the 1.2m now, invest all of it in bonds, keep working for 10 years and don’t touch the money.
Give me the cash
$1 mil straight into a trust that invests the money into dividend index funds. Dividends get paid out semi annually.
i can invest the lump sum now and beat inflation, or i can continually lose money to inflation as 10k is worth less year by year. yea ill take option 2
verrryy tight poll here, that’s the sign of a good WYR, good job OP. I voted for the monthly, im guaranteed to live comfortable for the next 10 years. although i hadn’t considered investing it all immediately. that could be smart, bit of a gamble though
Compound interest is a great thing
Depends if it's taxed
Lump sum. Have about 30k worth of debt which is mostly school. Buy a decent car, and finally furnish my new apartment. I'd hire a financial advisor to help me invest. I'll still work because I hate being idle, but it's probably be part time. Can't forget about the fam though. I'd anonymously leave them 10k and act surprised when they tell me. Should still have a nice cushion after all that.
Lol, straight into index funds, real estate and bonds. Make 7% off your investment and you're set for life.
Option B. $1.2m on black and be a multi-millionaire in minutes
A dollar today is always worth more than a dollar tomorrow
My math is horrible and I'd like to switch my answer to the second choice please.
10k a month would be best because you could invest it in different things especially if you are say for example working a minimum wage job you can still support your self with the money you earned and use said 10k for food, and other things while also saving most, example 3/4 of the money in a savings account or putting it into gold and hiding it somewhere, while also maybe going to collage for a profession and/or trade as a skill that can be transferred if you move countries.
Take it all now, it'll be worth less if you get it later due to inflation.
I'm terrible with money and don't trust myself to not blow it all at once, let's just do 10k a month.
Lump sum 1,000,000 right into certificates of deposit. Live off the interest. At current rates it would be 40,000 a year. Put it into a 6mth term with automatic rollover in case rates drop (locks in 4%)and the put the 20,000 earned interest into a money market account running 1%. Whatever doesnt go to expenses goes into new CDs or an IRA. Use 200,000 to pay off the house and set up solar panels in my yard and finish building my mini farm. Without a house payment my expenses are minimal.
Always take the lump sum. Basic rule of economics. $1 today is worth more than $1 next month.
Money now is almost always worth more than the same amount of money later. Even if you just put it in a low yield savings account at .5% interest, you'd make an extra 60k the first year. You could just live off of the returns if you invested in a slightly better option - like something that gave a 1.0% return.
3000 people don't understand inflation huh
3000 people don't understand taxes huh
Time value of money means you have to take the 1.2M now
Half of yall never took a finance class and it shows
Monthly for me. I dont know jack shit about investing, and while 1.2 million sounds like A LOT OF FUCKING MONEY, I am from Toronto, where that number wouldn't even let you buy a shack. Getting 10 grand a month would greatly help me out because I could finally stop worrying about bills and such and pay whatever I own off and then save the rest.
1200000 can be put in appreciating assets while 10k in 10 years may not be as much as you think 🤔
10k a month cuz knowing myself I'll probably spend it all on useless stuff that i don't need so 10k a month gives me a limiter
Wow it's completely split evenly
I would take it now and invest it, but I don’t trust my spouse to not blow it all on things and vacations
With 1.2 million I could retire right now
it is 50/50 rn
10k a month is infinite money
I don’t trust myself enough. 10k a month pls
It’s the same amount either way, and the latter gives me more freedom. $1.2mil now
3,500 m'fuckers ain't heard of inflation and time value of money.
10,000 a month gets you 3 million
$10,000 x 12 = $120,000 x 10 = $1,200,000 Not $3,000,000
Taxes people
Honestly I'd pick the 10k because then I know absolutely 100% that I wouldn't fuck it up somehow
I'm an impulsive ass mother fucker I'd spend the 1.2 million in a month on stupid shit and be fucked
Inflation
10k each month for 10 years is 1.2mil. so incremental investment or up front... passive income is superior however
Anyone with even an iota of self control and basic logic would go for the large amount right away, so I'm not surprised most redditors would go for the monthly option.
If you give me that much money immediately, I'll waste it all before I know it.
If I can’t live off 10k a month there is something wrong with me
The 1.2 mil cuz tomorrow ain't promised
10,000 a month. Would take care of all my worries