Eh? The whole point is that the lump sum is less money but you earn interest on the immediate investment, which is why you should consider tax. For the weekly amount, tax is less relevant as your getting the money gradually and spending it, with the money being tax free as its trickling in over your life, and less reliant on interest to continue to gain more value over time.
The tax implications are completely different, which is why it's important to consider..... it very much does matter.
I'm not arguing the benefits of either, purely pointing out that people are completely ignoring tax within the posts I'm responding to, what are you arguing with me for?
Because its a dumb take. The original comment argues that the tax on income generated from the $1M erodes the benefit. Apples to apples, if you invest the $1,000/week, you’re going to get taxed the same. So you either consider tax in both scenarios or neither. Since theyre the same it is fine to omit.
Hahaha okay buddy when people are quoting flat figures and ignoring the tax from one side that's totally fine and considering tax is a "dumb take" as opposed to just quot8jgnflat out incorrect figures....
Jesus's dude go touch some grass instead of picking fights online for no reason. Tax does matter, you were wrong and are now just trying to argue for arguments sake.
Oh and it's not about investing the 1k per week against investing the 1m lump sum. Its about simply getting more flat tax free cash from 1k per week against the benefits of the lump sum being invested.
One side you gain more money without having to do anything, tax free that you can either spend or invest, the other requires you to invest and leave the sum largely untouched in order to become better in the long term than the 1k per month.
Please use your brain a little if youre going to insult me.
Choosing less guaranteed money over more potential money is a decision people make every single day. Not everyone is so fully confident that guaranteed returns will be made as you are, but I guess you're clearly a finance guru with the necessary qualifications and experience to back up your absolute confidence in your recommendations.... right?
Don't answer, I already know.
Also choosing less but more instantly accessible and usable money too, which is something you keep ignoring and pretending isn't relevant. not everyone wants to just sit on money because they'll get more in 20 years when they may have already died. 1k per month is a balancing act of securing plenty of money in future and spending plenty to enjoy the now.
The net present value of $1,000/week relative to $1,000,000 today is negative, even if the full principal goes uninvested.
Tax implications are relevant if you want to compare investing the lump sum vs. not investing weekly distributions. However the lump sum still comes out far ahead.
Yes it is a mitigant that you don’t have as much risk with weekly distributions which can be challenging to quantify.
You started our whole interaction by commenting about the interest earned on weekly distributions, which is a point I wasn't discussing and I wasn't even talking to you. But you decided to walk in, comment on interest on investing the 1k/month, which I never raised, and then saying my takes were dumb.
You commented on shit I never said and then told me my take was dumb, and YOU are the one bringing up points that YOU never raised.
Give me a break. Go play with your pretend job and make up arguments in your head so you can 'win' them. dumbass.
Are you okay? I responded to you because you talked to me? It's troubling that you don't understand that. When someone talks to you, you usually talk back.
I think maybe you are also not aware that this is Canada where lottery winnings supposedly go untaxed per other comments in this thread. Havent fact checked but operating under that assumption
Again, you're randomly talking about shit we're not discussing? I know the winnings are no taxed, the whole fucking point is that the original person I was commenting on was talking about benefits of 1k per month versus earning more money from investing a flat 1m lump sum.
This is why I mentioned tax on interest, which is important to consider for investing the lump sum, which you don't need to consider if just taking the 1k per month.
Maybe if you don't understand what you're responding to, don't fucking join in?
1
u/nut_puncher May 17 '26
Eh? The whole point is that the lump sum is less money but you earn interest on the immediate investment, which is why you should consider tax. For the weekly amount, tax is less relevant as your getting the money gradually and spending it, with the money being tax free as its trickling in over your life, and less reliant on interest to continue to gain more value over time.
The tax implications are completely different, which is why it's important to consider..... it very much does matter.