dogfacedgremlin34
Will Kick Your Ass At Fantasy Football
Joined:  Fri Feb 8th, 2008 
Location:  Massachusetts USA 
Posts:  10020 
Status: 
Offline


srossi wrote:
Quattro wrote: dogfacedgremlin34 wrote:
Well, it really depends on how accurate your numbers are. The two main variables involved are estimated tax rate and potential rate of return. Using a Present Value of Annuities calculation with your numbers, $12.4M/year over the course of 30 years is the equivalent of $373.2M lump sum today, assuming 0% annual growth. With that in mind, you'd be better off taking the $375M, since 375>373.2. You would need to get $12.5M/annum for 30 years to be the equivalent of $375M at 0% growth.
That said, I notice you're using taxation of about 36.5%. I'm not sure how taxes work on this sort of thing, but that seems kind of high to me. I would imagine any accountant worth his salt should be able help you retain more than that. If we bump the taxation rate down to, say, 33%, that gives you about $13.2M/yr to play with. Over the course of time, that's the equivalent of $396M lump sum today, assuming 0% annual growth. Using these numbers, you'd be better off taking the annuity, since 396>375.
In both the examples above, I used 0% growth. Anybody should be able to get growth thoughworst case scenario, even if you're laddering your dough incrementally in a CD, you can probably pull 11.5% if you shop aroundand keep in mind, rates are at all time lows at the moment. They're only going to go up in the future. It may not be next month or next yearin fact it probably won't be for another couple years, minimumbut eventually they will go up.
Anyway, using a 1% growth and going back to your original $12.4M annuity, the present value of the annuity is the equivalent of about $321M. Using my $13.2M example with 1% growth, the equivalent would be in the neighborhood of $340M. In both these examples, you'd be better off taking the lump sum assuming a 1% annual growth.
Now let's say you have a really great accountant and somehow he's able to get you an overall tax rate of 25%. That would mean your annuity would be around $14.76M. With that annuity and a 1% annual growth rate, the present value of your annuity is suddenly $381M. You'd be better off taking the annuity, since 381>375.
So what does all this mean? Well, if any one of us ever is fortunate enough to have to make this decision, find yourself a great accountant and a great financial planner. They should be able to maximize your retained earnings. But in general, if your $375M lump/$12.44M annual annuity numbers are accurate, you'd be better off taking the lump sum if you think you can get any type of return at all on it.
You are only considering today's tax rate. Everyone's assumption is taxes will have to rise in the future due to the nation's financial situation. Therefore, those future payments will be taxed at higher and higher rates. The uncertainty of that fact alone means one answer  take the lump sum.
Taxes only go in one direction. Besides, unless you're an undisciplined moron the level of Ric Flair or a boxer, you can do about as well or better yourself if you take the lump sum and invest most of it. There's no need to take basically an allowance unless you think you're gonna blow it all quickly.
But the tax variable will be taken out of the equation if I understand correctly. My understanding is that they tax everything up front, and then your annuity is the net amount. If that's the case, it makes determining what to do a helluva lot easier.
Everybody's saying "take the lump sum, take the lump sum, anything else is stupid!" but simple math proves this just isn't true. There's other factors to consider, including what your own personal goals are. Beej is afraid his money would outlive him, so he'd take the lump sum. Fair enough. But others might have children or a family to take care of or, as somebody already mentioned, be afraid they'd blow through it in a year like so many other lottery winners.
Point is, a self imposed allowance might not be the worst thing in the world when other factorsnot the least of which is the time value of moneyare considered.Last edited on Tue May 21st, 2013 10:45 am by dogfacedgremlin34
____________________ "I'm putting your worthless fucking ass on ignore so I don't have to read anymore of your pompous arrogant New York big shot bullshit. Good fucking riddance, fuckhead."Angelic Assassin to rossi
