+22 @hotdeck Take lump sum and set up a trust so you don’t spend all at once. The returns over the next 30 years will easily beat the annuity. The annuity would make sense to control the irresponsible spending when someone suddenly has a lot of money.

+15 @wuvvtwuewuvv You pay more in taxes if you take the annuity, plus there's the uncertainty of future tax rates: will you end up having to pay much higher tax rates in the future? Even if you invest every annual check, remember that it'll still take many years to get to where the lump sum is, and if you start investing with the lump sum amount from the beginning (with better rates of return than the small rates the annuity gives you), you'll be at least that many years ahead of the annuity. By the time the annuity pays out the final, full amount in 30 years, the lump sum would have already surpassed that amount by far, especially when you remember, again, that the market usually has higher rates of return than the annuity does. Unless the annuity interest rates get crazy high, which they never will because that goes against the government's interest and will impact their ability to repay their debts and the dollar will come crashing down and nothing you do here will matter anyway, then there is no real reason to choose the annuity over the lump sum. However, the cash 4 life prize may be a different story. The lump sum can still give you more, but this prize also offers guaranteed financial security for the rest of your life, unlike the powerball which is only 30 years and can lose it all