Let's say you got a call from a lawyer. Your second cousin twice removed who had no heirs left you a million dollars. You can choose to have it placed in a trust fund paid to you over a 30 year period at 4.5% interest (ING's current rate for their basic savings account) or you could have the million all at once.

What would you choose and why? (keeping in mind the tax implications and your own personality.)

__________________

Well...I don't know how much I would receive annually by doing the 30 year ING option. I suppose that would make a difference. (It's too early to do that kind of math).

Any idea as to how much that would be?

__________________
The mighty oak started out as a nut that held its ground.

I would want it all at once and then invest it on my own. I will have more control over it AND I could put it in my own savings account if I wanted. My MMA is earning 5.25% right now so I would rather have it there.

Now, if I got it at once at a LOWER amount (like they do for the lottery), I might keep it over 30 years, but at 37, probably not.

I am a control freak, I guess.

If I won the lottery and it was much much more than one million dollars, I'd take the annuity payments over thirty years. But since we're only talking about one million dollars, I'd take it all now. Pay off all our debts and our house, tithe, invest toward retirement and DS's college, DH would probably quit his current job and buy a small plane and do flight instruction full time.

__________________

Trust God. Whatever risk there is in doing so, the risk of not trusting in him is far greater. - Spurgeon

I'd take it all now. Period.

__________________
Stacey

The moment we begin to fear the opinions of others and hesitate to tell the truth that is in us, and from motives of policy are silent when we should speak, the divine floods of light and life no longer flow into our souls. ~ Elizabeth Cady Stanton

I would take the full amount now. I'm like Claire.. when it comes to money, I'm a control freak!

I would take it over a 30 year period and give each of my children $11,999 each a year so I would get the tax write off and they would not have to report it. Therefore, my tax liability in the long run would be lower and I know that I will have a check coming in each year. I would also put the max into the IRA's for myself and hubby in addition to starting ones for the kids so they would not have to worry about money when they get older.

I would still put the left over $12,000+($1,000+ a month) into CD's so I would have a check a month when hubby retires in addition to his pension.

It would seriously break my heart to pay the government that much money in taxes in a lump sum.

Over 30 years at 4.5% using up the entire million would pay you

just over $5000 a month :happy dance:

__________________

Show me the money!

I would want it in a lump sum.

__________________
"I've been rich and I've been poor but independently wealthy is where it is at."

I would take the amount in monthly payments assuming that if I died the payments would be paid to whoever was in my estate.

For me the bottom line is financial security. For others it's control. There is no right or wrong answer. Most people could do better than 4.5% investing on their own. But then in the US, I think you have an inheritance tax? (Correct me if I'm wrong). We don't in Canada although we are taxed on any growth of that money so any interest earned (either in the trust or in an investment account) would be taxed.

I love the idea of having a set amount of income coming in for the next 30 years. I think having a fluctuating income over the years has caused me to desire security more than the average person might.

__________________