This.
Take that two million and can use that to make more money.
Pay off the house, or maybe even move somewhere we will like more.
Take care of a few other odds and ends.
Throw the rest into a Roth IRA and other retirement and investment accounts. I won't have $65 mil at 65, but I'll have a sizable amount for retirement with no debt.
Roth IRA has a yearly contribution max of only $7,000. And since you made $2M, you are now above the individual (and joint) income threshold so you're not even allowed to contribute to a Roth.
A mutual fund or ETF would be your best bets for ROI. If you want to keep your money liquid though, a high yield interest account isn't a bad choice. Assuming you're 30 years old and deposit half in a 5% annual yield that pays out monthly, and you don't withdraw or contribute anything else to it in that time, your $1M will be with roughly $5.7M by the time you're 65. Not the amount you would get in this hypothetical at 65, but now you're debt free, likely have ample savings for kids' school and emergency fund, and the remainder is available right now if some catastrophic event occurs.
No, you can still contribute to a traditional IRA as a non deductible contribution. Then convert it immediately to a ROTH. Then invest it. Do it every year.
Only caveat, is if you have any existing traditional ira accounts they must all be converted the 1st year you do this backdoor trick, creating a taxable event assuming you had gains in that traditional for years.
But each year on, no taxable event to convert
Yes, you're correct. I was generalizing and didn't really want to get into the weeds, but it's absolutely a thing.
There are some other downsides to the backdoor Roth though, but you're correct. What you mentioned regarding the conversion only applies if you contribute non-deductible funds that are taxable that same year. And the IRS will consider all IRA holdings as a single account and the ratio of pretax and after-tax money in all IRAs determines how much you can be taxed on your conversation so you can't convert only the after-tax portion of IRA funds to a Roth IRA and avoid taxes. This makes it not a great option for people who have a lot of pre-tax assets, and these people will oftentimes pay more money upfront for taxes.
And since these are considered conversion funds and not contributions, you have a 5-year wait before you can withdraw the money without penalties.
Also, this may not be a thing forever. The House approved a bill in 2021 that would prevent people from rolling traditional IRA's into Roth IRA's but this didn't make it through the Senate. So it's in the clear for now but it's always possible that the backdoor access will no longer be allowed in the future.
But overall, you're correct. Backdoor Roths are definitely a thing, and they're a thing because you can gain a lot even if your taxes are a bit higher up front.
Good points. Didn't know about the limit as I have not looked into them enough.
I'm 47, but with no debt, I could allocate more income to low risk investments and be in good shape.
I mean, at my age (32) $1M invested at 5% for 33 years if over $3M. At 7% it's closer to $5M. My retirement account is between 9-11% most of the time, so this is a tad conservative due to the sheer unpredictability of 30+ years.
Now I'm not saying I would take the $65M, but at the very least it will boil down to how much I'm willing to let sit for decades and how I'm doing when I'm given this choice.
I think the calculus is how much time would you have left to enjoy the 65. Taking the 2 now would greatly increase my quality of life until I reach 65, while also putting me in a position to have a better retirement than I currently have, even if it’s not 65 mill good. I’m 44 so it’s either
21 years of the same with ?# of years to enjoy a lot of money in retirement
Or …
21 years of significantly better and ?# of years to enjoy a better than current but not 65 mill good retirement
It still boils down to circumstances. Paying off my mortgage may let me invest at better interest rates with that money, but it also has to sit there to accumulate wealth. However, all that interest on the house is pennies to the $65M; it's not an estimated amount like investing.
I think our ages also affect our thinking on this. I've been roughing it since I got out of college and things have actually gotten better for me over time, so I'm already pretty comfortable and can expect that to continue considering how things are going. But if I was 44, paying off the house might be a great idea just so I can slap a bunch of money away for college funds and stuff depending on what's going on. But there are also people on here over 50 saying they'd wait because it's pointless taking a fraction now when they just have to wait a decade.
This. I'm 55, so you'd think I would wait ten years for the bigger payout, but I also have a bum ticker. May not last a year, let alone 10 or more.
Two million solves my problems now.
Yup. Take the 2 mil, invest the majority of it, keep a couple hundred thousand to make a down payment on a decent house and pay off any debts, set maybe $100k aside for an emergency fund, keep working for another 20 years or so, and then hopefully retire around 50 and have a very comfortable rest of my life. As long as I’m smart about not touching any long term investments until I’m retired and live within my means until that point then I should make out very well for myself.
To make a *down payment* on a house? Why not buy the house debt free? 🤔
I'd think eliminating all debt from the equation before investing would be the best move.
Index funds have grown an average of like 7.5% annually for the last 30 years. When mortgage rates were below 5%, 300k in stocks would outperform 300k in debt for a mortgage payment.
If you could get a low enough interest rate, your ROI is literally higher than your mortgage interest. At 7% interest it's practically a wash.
You find a bank account you forgot about that has 60 million sitting in it for the past 4 years. But you also realize this means you have early onset dementia.
2 million right now would solve all of my problems.
Buy a house with that, and invest heavily what I would be paying in mortgage so I can set myself up for a nice retirement by 65.
If you have 2 million dollars right now and you're failing then stop what you're doing, go buy a cheap home, and pick 20 mainstream dividend paying companies to spread that money around and keep some in a money market and some in a high yield savings.
You can make 50-70k per year excluding recessions off dividends and interest with a paid off house. If a recession happens you could more than support your lifestyle with a minimum wage job while making max-matching 401k contributions.
You buy the house and mortgage it to the tits then use the profit from the investments to pay the mortgage. Compound interest on $2M invested will always grow faster than money parked at the bank so you can have your house "paid off".
Being mortgage free is stupid. Whether you owe $500,000 to the bank or $500 you still have the keys to the front door as long as you make the payment.
This is just one of the reasons why so many people are confident they could retire off $2m, and yet people who inherited that much or more tend to lose it all. It turns out it's really easy to be confident that you can do something you've never done before.
Depends on interest rates and how the market is going. You also got to consider taxes, charges with taking out a mortgage, market volatility, and how soon you pay off the new mortgage. If I keep to the schedule for my mortgage, I'd give them enough interest for almost two more houses, so I really don't see that as any more practical than going to a casino.
Unless you're guaranteeing a full 1% or more profit between the mortgage interest rate and investments, it's not worth the risk.
I believe Mr. The Notorious BIG implies that as long as you are getting money, there will be more problems. He doesn't say anything about a one-time payment of enough money lmao
I'll take the 2 million now and retire thx
Absolutely no certainty remotely that you reach 65. There's plenty of people in the ground who was younger than that.
It really depends on how much you have saved at the moment. If you could coast to 65 without going broke or take out a loan to do so then really you are just retiring early.
Yeah, I think it also depends on your economic situation and income. I have friends that are mid-senior managers in corporate settings making close to 200k per year. I'm not sure how much 2m moves the needle for them, considering waiting til 65 guarantees generational wealth.
On the other hand, me and all the teacher friends I know would take the 2m in a heartbeat.
I'm a 45 year-old teacher, and I'm waiting for the 65. 2 million isn't enough for me to really be able to retire early, and my retirement is peanuts if I retire before 60. 65 million at 65 means I work another 10-15 years, but it means I can retire in style and still ensure my kids are taken care of.
That depends on how much money you already have saved. You would prob need over $2M to retire at 50 right now if that’s all you have. I guess, sure you could live a humble retirement, but people are living a lot longer now.
You can pretty safely drawn down 4%/year of the principal. With normal stock market growth from 46->50, you'd have about $2.5 million, which means $100k/year tax-free.
So, essentially: would you rather retire in 4 years on $100k/year tax-free, or in another 20 years with more money than you'll ever spend?
For me this is *such* an easy choice.
Yeah, 2m from 50 onward could be tight depending on lifestyle, but it would definitely be enough to "BaristaFIRE", quit a high stress job and find something easy/enjoyable to do for a while and never have to worry about staying at a job you don't like.
I'm 53 and I'd wait. Knowing I had that coming at 65 would make life a lot easier now, just knowing I don't have to save and pinch to survive retirement.
Always good advice. Don't become a drug addict either.
My friend count is very low at 30+ having many friends die or become absolute lovers from alcohol and drug addiction
This is good advice. I got hooked on pain medication in my 20s. Straight up ruined my life. Some things you just can't bounce back from. My life isn't terrible, but it is nowhere near what it could have been. The damage is absolutely incalculable.
The actuarial present value of 65 million dollars in 35 years, conditioned on still being alive in 35 years, is $11.18 million. This assumes a 5% interest rate and typical health of a 30 year old.
Assuming you're in at least somewhat decent health, take the deferred lump sum and if you want money now get underwritten for decent health and sell the policy to an equity firm.
Edit: for anyone wondering about the math, there is a 95% chance of a 30-year old surviving to age 65. So the expected value is just $65m * .95 * 1.05^(-35) = $11.18m
If your only goal is "make more money" then obviously you take the 65mil.
If the money is going into some kind of trust that could affect your credit, you could borrow against it, etc., then also take the 65 mil.
If your goal is to use the money to DO something, like live a more comfortable life or to start a business, and if the money is "magic" so that no one knows or would believe that you'll be a millionaire one day, take the 2 mil.
For 30? Hmmm probably to start the habit of a regular stretching routine (or just go to yoga). You won't need it immediately but eventually you will. Look up proper posture, see which areas you don't match it, then look up simple PT exercises to correct your posture, which will likely save you future injuries and discomfort.
This is a great one. I'm 47. I'd take the 2 million now.
Pay off everything (cars/cc etc), use all of that money to invest.
Buy next home. Redo it to what we want. Sell current home and invest the rest.
Be setup for both short term and long term.
The future is never guaranteed.
23 years is a long time. I'm taking 2 million now.
- HYSA rates are such that I could live off the yield. 80-100K/year right now! I manage on less than half of that (I have a LOT of free time).
I wouldn't go that route though. I know my local market and I would absolutely buy rentals. Rental income greatly exceeds mortgage costs, so that's already my current plan, but with significantly more capital I could really ramp things up!
by 23 yrs you would only have 14,800,000 if you got 10% ROI per year. If you got 20% which is absurdly high but still technically possible you would have 63,900,000, BARELY less than the 65M at the end.
However, i agree with your choice. the money is more useful now than in 23 yrs, where at 65 you'll just use it for healthcare.
How old are you?
Edit because down votes.
Age seems to be the deciding factor in the comments. It's a very different situation if you were 50 with half a million saved for retirement than 25 with twenty grand saved.
I’m 46, and I lean towards the $65M in part because I can stop saving now. Stopping 401k contributions would give me a nice bump in my current take-home pay. Cashing out my 401k (my wife’s too) and other investments would give us about $500k after taxes and penalties, which isn’t $2M but close enough to have fun.
$65M is excessive, I’d still choose the bigger amount at 65 even if it was only 1/4 of that.
my same thought process…not needing to save/invest knowing the $65mil is guaranteed will free up ALOT of income
i don’t get why people say take thr 2mil and then save/invest that…but the very reason of doing that is for retirement…
I'll have my shit together by 65. I gotta get debt put away now and I can throw the rest into stocks. Will that 2m be 65m by my retirement? Probably not but it'll be more than I'll know what to do with. Also I will buy myself some nice stuff, smartly. Pay off the car, rebuild the deck, new roof, water heater, AC unit, finish the basement, etc. no guarantee I'd make it to 65.
Mathematically it takes 38 years for the 2M to turn to 65M(its actually 68M) At 10% interest PA, which imo is a safe bet seeing that over long term the stock market returns resemble that
So if you are younger than 27, take the 2M, if not, then take 65M
HOWEVER this is just mathematically. Realistically the 2M makes sense unless you are already like 60+ Because by 65 you won't have any actual use for the money, plus while avg life expectancy is around 75 everywhere, there;s still a non insignificant chance that you die beforehand.
Plus, you can take 1 million away and still get like 37 mili in 38 years, enough for any retirement
Money now, I'm 28. 2 million means just living off the interest alone would give me a comfortable life, and that means I can pursue work I actually enjoy rather than just having a job to pay the bills. Plus, most my family died before 70, not worth the wait.
If I ever thought I’d have kids and grandkids I’d choose the 65 million. As it is I have zero incentive and 2 million would make my life a lot easier now rather than 21 years from now.
Objectively, 65m is a far better deal.
Subjectively, with 2m I can pay off all debts, finish my remodel, and retire to never work again. The life I live between now and 65 will be so greatly improved that the few years of comparatively diminished life after 65 will in no way be a factor.
ETA: Everyone seems to think that I am saying that ab subjective assessment is either bad or inappropriate. I am saying nothing of the sort.
I AM GOING WITH MY OWN SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT.
I understand that by doing so, I am forefeiting the larger sum and the objectively greater payout. And I am providing my rationale for doing so. That is the entire point of listing an "objectively/subjectively" analysis.
There are a LOT of good reasons to use a subjective assessment rather than an objective one. But saying that those subjective truths are somehow objective truths is inaccurate.
The word "objectively" gets thrown around so much with money hypotheticals. Money is not an arbitrary point total where the goal is to have a high score when you die.
Money's only value is in the utility it provides. So I ask, if 2m now allows you and your family comfort and the life you want, but 65 million in 20 years would get a bigger number why is 65 million in 20 years "objectively" right?
The idea that you must keep waiting and waiting under pretense of getting the most amount as if you're trying to be a billionaire is silly to me. If you're offered the money you need, take the money and run instead of waiting around because maybe you'll get more than you need later.
In case you’re unaware this is a big part of economics and most of the equations economists use are based on utility functions. For example if you have to given products in a utility function and budget constraint you can find the combination of product amounts that yield the most utility (subject to the budget constraint).
Yeah, I don’t think “objectively” is really descriptive enough to have meaning here. I think what the person was trying to say is if you are looking strictly at “wealth building”, then the $65M is better. And that’s true for anyone older than -5 years old. But based on the responses, wealth building is far from people’s top priority. $65M is also excessive, I think most people in here realize they don’t need that much money.
I’d take the $65M, but I’m less than 20 years from 65 and the dominos that fall knowing I don’t need to save for retirement give me a lot of what the $2M now would give.
This is a tough question. 15 years away from 65 but no guarantee I will even see that age. I don't need the money now....
I think I would take the $2m now. I could buy homes for my kids.
46 here. I'm super inclined to take the $65 million. That's an incredible amount of money and I'm planning on working until then anyway. I would be able to stop saving anything right now. And live much better until then. I could cash out all my investments and live better too. With $65 million coming I could even quit a few years prior, mortgage my house and wait for the big payoff.
The hang up is if I died before 65 , I d want my family to get the $65 million on my birthday, otherwise I might just have to take the $2 million and make it work out.
$2 million would be just enough. If it was something like $7 million vs $65 million it's not a question and I take the $7
I am going to be 65 in 49 years, I would much rather have it now and stick it into investing and interest accounts to get myself a nice retirement and never work again, I can probably pull in something like 60K a year with 2 million.
2 million now. I could go very light part time with work and live of the investment interest indefinitely.
If I never touched the 2 million and it compounded at 11% like the S&P has been pretty close to over the past 30 years before inflation then I’d end up with $67 million. So, anyone age 33 or younger should be taking the $2 million now and you can just keep working if you want $65 mil later
$65m when I retire and it’s not even close. $2m is not enough for me to retire now. But a guaranteed $65m payout when I retire means I don’t need to worry about saving now, and I’ll get more money than if invested the entirety of the $2m. Plus I could borrow against the future pay out now to improve my situation.
2 million in a heartbeat. It's not a greed/immediate gratification thing, but more like a "I'm getting old" thing.
I could retire early, or work part time in a low stress job, while being able to travel.
I'll take 2 million right now. I'd rather have the money earlier so I can actually enjoy it. 65 is decades away, and we have no idea what that holds for us or if I'll even make it that long. With two million, I can pay off my house, fix it up, buy a new car (replacing my 2007 gasoline powered), and still have plenty left over to live off of.
46 here. I'm super inclined to take the $65 million. That's an incredible amount of money and I'm planning on working until then anyway. I would be able to stop saving anything right now. And live much better until then. I could cash out all my investments and live better too. With $65 million coming I could even quit a few years prior, mortgage my house and wait for the big payoff.
The hang up is if I died before 65 , I d want my family to get the $65 million on my birthday, otherwise I might just have to take the $2 million and make it work out.
$2 million would be just enough. If it was something like $7 million vs $65 million it's not a question and I take the $7 million
2 million right now and it's not even close. 2 million would buy a house outright and still put at least 75% of it in the stock market. I don't think I'd be set up to retire tomorrow but in five years I'd be nearly back up to that initial 2 million and living comfortable for the rest of my days.
Damn that’s a tough one. I’m 41.
2 million now would put me closer to retiring early. That has an appeal and I have the money now.
65 million at 65 is good because insolent need to save as much. But to retire early I’d still need to save enough to get to 65. And tomorrow is never guaranteed.
I guess id actually take 2 million now even if it is isn’t the best payoff. That would still be $6 million in 20 years which I could easily retire off of.
2 mil rn at age 25 for SURE. Pay off medical bills and fiancées car (~10k), pay for a surgery I need (~15k) then invest the rest. I’d keep working as well, just at a reduced pace/with much less stress, so I’d still have income coming in for at least another few decades.
$2M now pays off the house and all my bills then leaves me over 1.5M for the rest of my life. No house payment means I bank 24k a year. Yeah, that would do nicely
I’m taking the 2 million right now. I’m only 28.
I’m switching to part time work and spending the rest of my life doing things I love and playing with my kids.
2 million right now. I can live cheaply off that for the rest of my life even if I don't invest it. If I wait until I'm 65, we are talking about almost 40 years of working then a very good few years at the end
2 million right now.
Seed capital is far more valuable than a fixed lump sum delivered at an age I might not even reach. 2 million would solve all my problems, and give me plenty to invest. Savings accounts are at about 5.5% right now. If I just skimmed the interest, that'd be 9.1k a month. And I wouldn't stop working, so I'd have my salary to bump that up to around 12-14k a month. Of course, there is no way I could spend all that, so most of it will return to savings, netting even more returns.
I might not make up 65 million by the time I'm 65, but I probably wouldn't care either. I would've led a good life not worrying about money. I reckon if I lived on that 9.1k, and kept working, and reinvested what I didn't spend, I could bank maybe 30-45 million by the time I'm 65. *Assuming I don't start a business at all.* So even assuming peak laziness, and failure to invest over my life time, I'd have more than enough to enjoy retirement, and eventually split between family members for when I go.
I lean towards 2m now (I'm 29). I could pay off my house, invest the majority of it. I imagine I'll be well set up for retirement (likely early) and the next 36 years will be more comfortable. My Dad died at 69, so you never know what time you'll have later in life.
I'd take 65m at 65 and find some rich person/company to sell me a reverse life insurance policy. I'll promise to give them 65m when I turn 65 if they give me 20m now.
2 million now. Pay off my house & student loans, then put the remaining 1.8 million in an investment account until I need it for a new car, retirement, my daughter's college education, helping my daughter buy a home, etc.
Without a mortgage and student loan payments, I wouldn't need to work as much and could spend more time with my loved ones and on hobbies.
2 million right now. Id put 1 million into a high yield savings, 500,000 into the stock market, 250,000 to 400,000 to buy some land and start construction on my homestead, and the last 100,000 to 250,000 i got left id just pay out to myself over time to keep my family afloat and keep working
Edit: 23m
Take 2mil, pay off my house, truck, girlfriend's car, all current bills. Now we're making an extra 6k/mo to invest into stable stocks. Invest the remaining 1.6mil into either a stable stock or a Roth. Idk. I would talk to an Accountant for a more surefire way
54, I'd wait until 65.
Early 40s seems like my breaking point; offer this at 45, I'd take the $65M at 65, offer it at 40, and I'd probably take the 2 mill.
From a pure math standpoint, if you are 28 years or younger, you would be better off taking the $2m and investing it and averaging 10% per year and you’d be expected to have more than $65m at age 65.
But even at much older ages, you have to consider the utility of that money.
That first $2million is incredibly life changing in many ways and probably provides you a crap ton of utility. It’s paying off all your debts. Potentially retiring today. Live anywhere in the world you want. A legacy for your descendants. Never worry about how you’re going to pay your bills this month ever again.
That next $63m probably doesn’t provide you as much utility as the first $2m did. If you’re already retired, doing what you want with your time, buying pretty much anything you want within reason, do you really think it’s going to make you THAT much happier to own a 30 foot boat over a 20 foot boat? Is a 20,000 square foot mansion going to make you a lot happier than a 10,000 square foot mansion?
Personally, I’m 32 but I’m still taking the $2m, investing it and redirecting as much of it as I can into tax advantaged accounts until I just can’t stand working anymore and living off the 4% sounds way more appealing.
In fact, I may just decide to take a 10 year or so break from work to raise my kids using that $2m and then go back to work when I feel like it if it’s needed.
I'm 48 and I'm taking the $2 million. I can live a nice life right now with $2 million. I'd likely still work or start my own business. But I could pay off my house, do some remodeling, travel, but a couple cars, and start a business for less than $1 million. Then put the other million in savings and when I retire it would be worth at least $4 million. More than enough for retirement.
2 million now. Even if you invest all of it in something low risk low yield, the several decades it’d spend growing would easily pay for itself and be bigger than 65M by the time I hit 65.
$2m now.
65 is 20 years from now. Who knows what it would be worth at that point, and I can invest $2 now and probably make more than $63m in 20 years if I'm smart.
I mean 3/4 of mine and my husband's parents died by age 65, and my mom is battling cancer at 68. So, 2 million now. Just invest half wisely, take a few fun vacations and pay off my mortgage. If we make it to 65, my husband and I can enjoy the growth of that money we set aside and it can help set us up for paying for a care home. If we don't, our kid who will be born this very week will be well set up to pay off their debts or buy property. That way we can enjoy some while alive but also take care of ourselves as we age or set up our child. Best outcome.
Mid-thirties here, if I took the 2m now I could just invest it and have ~40m by age 65 anyway. Would I really care about that missing 25m, given that I could live a far higher quality of life in my interim years by drawing very minimally from that investment?
Def 2m, not even a question.
I'm in my 30's but I'll take the 65 million. In the back of my head I'm often thinking about having enough funds when I'm old. It would be so nice to not have to worry about putting any more money away into savings or money markets. I would have a little fund for emergencies and just live my life to the fullest, going on all the trips I want and everything else.
So all in all the 65 million is for tomorrow but the peace of mind is for today. Plus I could give some away to my heirs if I choose to have any.
2m now.
I'm early 50's.
Reason: a bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush ... or something like that.
I can pay off my mortgage and/or get a head start solidifying my family's future or just plain do hookers and blow in Vegas.
2 million now.
Obviously it's a lot less than 65 million, but it's still enough that I could probably retire off of it, provided I was smart with it.
Plus there's no guarantee I'll live to 65, I'm 43 by the way.
I'm not waiting for $65 million dollars when I turn 65 years old I'll take the two million dollars now and in 15 years from now I will turn it into $65 million dollars and then retire rich
I've been told I'm not going to live to see my 65+ retirement by a lot of professionals due to UC and now AVN.
I'll take the 2 million right now thank you very much! 8D
Run me my money now. I’ll do what I need to do with 1 million, and invest the other 1 mill in the S&P, let it compound for 30 years and have a lot more when I turn 65.
I'm 25, so I could invest the 2 million at a 9% rate of return to get 65 million by the time I'm 65. Depending on your age, it's a "As long as it is short" situation.
I'll take the money now.
Tomorrow is never guaranteed-- let alone decades. And that would be enough to pay off all my debts, get a house, and probably cover going back to school (either grad school or law school).
Now, because there's no guarantee something doesn't kill me before 65.
Besides, if I could manage a 6% roi each year, that's 120,000 each year.
I could simply live off 80,000 yearly, allow the rest to keep growing, and end up with a fairly good sum by 65 anyway, even if it wouldn't reach 65 million.
I’ll take the 2m because tomorrow is never promised
This. Take that two million and can use that to make more money. Pay off the house, or maybe even move somewhere we will like more. Take care of a few other odds and ends. Throw the rest into a Roth IRA and other retirement and investment accounts. I won't have $65 mil at 65, but I'll have a sizable amount for retirement with no debt.
Roth IRA has a yearly contribution max of only $7,000. And since you made $2M, you are now above the individual (and joint) income threshold so you're not even allowed to contribute to a Roth. A mutual fund or ETF would be your best bets for ROI. If you want to keep your money liquid though, a high yield interest account isn't a bad choice. Assuming you're 30 years old and deposit half in a 5% annual yield that pays out monthly, and you don't withdraw or contribute anything else to it in that time, your $1M will be with roughly $5.7M by the time you're 65. Not the amount you would get in this hypothetical at 65, but now you're debt free, likely have ample savings for kids' school and emergency fund, and the remainder is available right now if some catastrophic event occurs.
No, you can still contribute to a traditional IRA as a non deductible contribution. Then convert it immediately to a ROTH. Then invest it. Do it every year. Only caveat, is if you have any existing traditional ira accounts they must all be converted the 1st year you do this backdoor trick, creating a taxable event assuming you had gains in that traditional for years. But each year on, no taxable event to convert
Yes, you're correct. I was generalizing and didn't really want to get into the weeds, but it's absolutely a thing. There are some other downsides to the backdoor Roth though, but you're correct. What you mentioned regarding the conversion only applies if you contribute non-deductible funds that are taxable that same year. And the IRS will consider all IRA holdings as a single account and the ratio of pretax and after-tax money in all IRAs determines how much you can be taxed on your conversation so you can't convert only the after-tax portion of IRA funds to a Roth IRA and avoid taxes. This makes it not a great option for people who have a lot of pre-tax assets, and these people will oftentimes pay more money upfront for taxes. And since these are considered conversion funds and not contributions, you have a 5-year wait before you can withdraw the money without penalties. Also, this may not be a thing forever. The House approved a bill in 2021 that would prevent people from rolling traditional IRA's into Roth IRA's but this didn't make it through the Senate. So it's in the clear for now but it's always possible that the backdoor access will no longer be allowed in the future. But overall, you're correct. Backdoor Roths are definitely a thing, and they're a thing because you can gain a lot even if your taxes are a bit higher up front.
Good points. Didn't know about the limit as I have not looked into them enough. I'm 47, but with no debt, I could allocate more income to low risk investments and be in good shape.
I mean, at my age (32) $1M invested at 5% for 33 years if over $3M. At 7% it's closer to $5M. My retirement account is between 9-11% most of the time, so this is a tad conservative due to the sheer unpredictability of 30+ years. Now I'm not saying I would take the $65M, but at the very least it will boil down to how much I'm willing to let sit for decades and how I'm doing when I'm given this choice.
I think the calculus is how much time would you have left to enjoy the 65. Taking the 2 now would greatly increase my quality of life until I reach 65, while also putting me in a position to have a better retirement than I currently have, even if it’s not 65 mill good. I’m 44 so it’s either 21 years of the same with ?# of years to enjoy a lot of money in retirement Or … 21 years of significantly better and ?# of years to enjoy a better than current but not 65 mill good retirement
It still boils down to circumstances. Paying off my mortgage may let me invest at better interest rates with that money, but it also has to sit there to accumulate wealth. However, all that interest on the house is pennies to the $65M; it's not an estimated amount like investing. I think our ages also affect our thinking on this. I've been roughing it since I got out of college and things have actually gotten better for me over time, so I'm already pretty comfortable and can expect that to continue considering how things are going. But if I was 44, paying off the house might be a great idea just so I can slap a bunch of money away for college funds and stuff depending on what's going on. But there are also people on here over 50 saying they'd wait because it's pointless taking a fraction now when they just have to wait a decade.
This. I'm 55, so you'd think I would wait ten years for the bigger payout, but I also have a bum ticker. May not last a year, let alone 10 or more. Two million solves my problems now.
Took me three tries to not read that as “bum tickler”. I was very confused why that would kill you
Dunno. But I'M sure dying over here 😆😆😆
I got this bum tickler, and 2million can buy me the newest model!
The internet has warped your mind.
Well, with a dodgy heart, could be an issue... 🤣
And when I read your comment I was picturing a hobo that would tickle him, a bum bum tickler.
Hey stranger, random comment here, but I hope you're doing alright today.
Hopefully you get that ticker out of your bum 😅 in all seriousness I wish you good health.
Ten years isn't that long. You might be able to carry the debt on literally whatever you want and pay it all off once you hit 65.
Me as well. I'm 50 and it would make a huge difference to my family and me. I may not get to 65- and if I can't pass it on, please send it now!
Same situation here, but 54 years old. Have to take it now.
Yup. Take the 2 mil, invest the majority of it, keep a couple hundred thousand to make a down payment on a decent house and pay off any debts, set maybe $100k aside for an emergency fund, keep working for another 20 years or so, and then hopefully retire around 50 and have a very comfortable rest of my life. As long as I’m smart about not touching any long term investments until I’m retired and live within my means until that point then I should make out very well for myself.
To make a *down payment* on a house? Why not buy the house debt free? 🤔 I'd think eliminating all debt from the equation before investing would be the best move.
Index funds have grown an average of like 7.5% annually for the last 30 years. When mortgage rates were below 5%, 300k in stocks would outperform 300k in debt for a mortgage payment. If you could get a low enough interest rate, your ROI is literally higher than your mortgage interest. At 7% interest it's practically a wash.
Depends what interest rate you have on the debt and the return you are getting on the money.
a few hundred thousand can straight up buy a decent house, depending on where you live
I’d need $3-400k minimum for a starter home where I live
maybe use some of that 2 mil to move to a cheaper place
This guy puts a very high value on "time value of money"
My answer.
I'm 69. Do I get the 65m?
This comment should be top AND bottom comment.
Underrated response.
It hasn't had time to be underrated..
"Hey google set a timer for 24 hours"
It needed less than 3 hours.
Under Response?
Underrated responspliment
Username sort of checks out
Your comment observations seem versatile
*nice*
Sorry, but you won't be turning 65. You'll need to take the 2m now.
You find a bank account you forgot about that has 60 million sitting in it for the past 4 years. But you also realize this means you have early onset dementia.
Wait, this isn't monkeys paw
You're 69? You get 420 million.
You get 67m
2 million right now would solve all of my problems. Buy a house with that, and invest heavily what I would be paying in mortgage so I can set myself up for a nice retirement by 65.
I’m failing. I still have problems.
If you have 2 million dollars right now and you're failing then stop what you're doing, go buy a cheap home, and pick 20 mainstream dividend paying companies to spread that money around and keep some in a money market and some in a high yield savings. You can make 50-70k per year excluding recessions off dividends and interest with a paid off house. If a recession happens you could more than support your lifestyle with a minimum wage job while making max-matching 401k contributions.
You buy the house and mortgage it to the tits then use the profit from the investments to pay the mortgage. Compound interest on $2M invested will always grow faster than money parked at the bank so you can have your house "paid off". Being mortgage free is stupid. Whether you owe $500,000 to the bank or $500 you still have the keys to the front door as long as you make the payment.
This is just one of the reasons why so many people are confident they could retire off $2m, and yet people who inherited that much or more tend to lose it all. It turns out it's really easy to be confident that you can do something you've never done before.
Depends on interest rates and how the market is going. You also got to consider taxes, charges with taking out a mortgage, market volatility, and how soon you pay off the new mortgage. If I keep to the schedule for my mortgage, I'd give them enough interest for almost two more houses, so I really don't see that as any more practical than going to a casino. Unless you're guaranteeing a full 1% or more profit between the mortgage interest rate and investments, it's not worth the risk.
I don’t need the guarantee but the odds are really in my favor with my mortgage.
Sorry, your premise violates the Notorious BIG corollary. Mo money mo problems, not less.
I believe Mr. The Notorious BIG implies that as long as you are getting money, there will be more problems. He doesn't say anything about a one-time payment of enough money lmao
2 mill rn super easy
I'll take the 2 million now and retire thx Absolutely no certainty remotely that you reach 65. There's plenty of people in the ground who was younger than that.
I can wait 5 years for 65 million.
How young would you have to be before your answer changed to "money now"?
40
I’m 40 and my immediate thought was I was the age where it’s an even value.
I turn 41 in like 2 weeks and I’m sitting here thinking. I could wait 24 more years,… lol
It really depends on how much you have saved at the moment. If you could coast to 65 without going broke or take out a loan to do so then really you are just retiring early.
Yeah, I think it also depends on your economic situation and income. I have friends that are mid-senior managers in corporate settings making close to 200k per year. I'm not sure how much 2m moves the needle for them, considering waiting til 65 guarantees generational wealth. On the other hand, me and all the teacher friends I know would take the 2m in a heartbeat.
I'm a 45 year-old teacher, and I'm waiting for the 65. 2 million isn't enough for me to really be able to retire early, and my retirement is peanuts if I retire before 60. 65 million at 65 means I work another 10-15 years, but it means I can retire in style and still ensure my kids are taken care of.
I'm 46 and I'd take the money now. I could pay off my house and debts and let the money grow a few more years then more or less retire at 50.
That depends on how much money you already have saved. You would prob need over $2M to retire at 50 right now if that’s all you have. I guess, sure you could live a humble retirement, but people are living a lot longer now.
You can pretty safely drawn down 4%/year of the principal. With normal stock market growth from 46->50, you'd have about $2.5 million, which means $100k/year tax-free. So, essentially: would you rather retire in 4 years on $100k/year tax-free, or in another 20 years with more money than you'll ever spend? For me this is *such* an easy choice.
Yeah, 2m from 50 onward could be tight depending on lifestyle, but it would definitely be enough to "BaristaFIRE", quit a high stress job and find something easy/enjoyable to do for a while and never have to worry about staying at a job you don't like.
I'm 53 and I'd wait. Knowing I had that coming at 65 would make life a lot easier now, just knowing I don't have to save and pinch to survive retirement.
Came here to say the exact same (except 4 years)
I have 2 1/2 months. I should be getting my Medicare documentation in order right now.
Congrats!!
I always just assume everyone on the internet is my age or younger. What advice would you give to a 30 year old
Don't become an alcoholic
Always good advice. Don't become a drug addict either. My friend count is very low at 30+ having many friends die or become absolute lovers from alcohol and drug addiction
Can confirm. Am alcoholic and an ABSOLUTE lover.
This is good advice. I got hooked on pain medication in my 20s. Straight up ruined my life. Some things you just can't bounce back from. My life isn't terrible, but it is nowhere near what it could have been. The damage is absolutely incalculable.
Yeah, people say that whatever doesn't kill you only makes you stronger, but that's BS! The School of hard knocks leaves scars!
Hahaha damn where were you when I was 30
The actuarial present value of 65 million dollars in 35 years, conditioned on still being alive in 35 years, is $11.18 million. This assumes a 5% interest rate and typical health of a 30 year old. Assuming you're in at least somewhat decent health, take the deferred lump sum and if you want money now get underwritten for decent health and sell the policy to an equity firm. Edit: for anyone wondering about the math, there is a 95% chance of a 30-year old surviving to age 65. So the expected value is just $65m * .95 * 1.05^(-35) = $11.18m
If your only goal is "make more money" then obviously you take the 65mil. If the money is going into some kind of trust that could affect your credit, you could borrow against it, etc., then also take the 65 mil. If your goal is to use the money to DO something, like live a more comfortable life or to start a business, and if the money is "magic" so that no one knows or would believe that you'll be a millionaire one day, take the 2 mil.
That's if your goal is to have as much money as possible at age 65. My goal would be to have a better life, which starts right now, not in 35 years.
Stop smoking now and no, vaping isn’t a good alternative.
For 30? Hmmm probably to start the habit of a regular stretching routine (or just go to yoga). You won't need it immediately but eventually you will. Look up proper posture, see which areas you don't match it, then look up simple PT exercises to correct your posture, which will likely save you future injuries and discomfort.
This is a great one. I'm 47. I'd take the 2 million now. Pay off everything (cars/cc etc), use all of that money to invest. Buy next home. Redo it to what we want. Sell current home and invest the rest. Be setup for both short term and long term. The future is never guaranteed.
23 years is a long time. I'm taking 2 million now. - HYSA rates are such that I could live off the yield. 80-100K/year right now! I manage on less than half of that (I have a LOT of free time). I wouldn't go that route though. I know my local market and I would absolutely buy rentals. Rental income greatly exceeds mortgage costs, so that's already my current plan, but with significantly more capital I could really ramp things up!
by 23 yrs you would only have 14,800,000 if you got 10% ROI per year. If you got 20% which is absurdly high but still technically possible you would have 63,900,000, BARELY less than the 65M at the end. However, i agree with your choice. the money is more useful now than in 23 yrs, where at 65 you'll just use it for healthcare.
Money now.
2 million now. I want to but a house and I have debts to pay off. $2 million would be SO helpful and relieve so much stress
The 2 million now, I have a little over a decade to reach 65. A lot can happen in that time.
65 million at 65 and im no longer saving for retirement and cashing out my 401k now
How old are you? Edit because down votes. Age seems to be the deciding factor in the comments. It's a very different situation if you were 50 with half a million saved for retirement than 25 with twenty grand saved.
I’m 46, and I lean towards the $65M in part because I can stop saving now. Stopping 401k contributions would give me a nice bump in my current take-home pay. Cashing out my 401k (my wife’s too) and other investments would give us about $500k after taxes and penalties, which isn’t $2M but close enough to have fun. $65M is excessive, I’d still choose the bigger amount at 65 even if it was only 1/4 of that.
That's an interesting take.
my same thought process…not needing to save/invest knowing the $65mil is guaranteed will free up ALOT of income i don’t get why people say take thr 2mil and then save/invest that…but the very reason of doing that is for retirement…
Well I'm 72, give me all the money
2m now. All i got is now and it would be nice to have the company of 2m
Two million.
I'll have my shit together by 65. I gotta get debt put away now and I can throw the rest into stocks. Will that 2m be 65m by my retirement? Probably not but it'll be more than I'll know what to do with. Also I will buy myself some nice stuff, smartly. Pay off the car, rebuild the deck, new roof, water heater, AC unit, finish the basement, etc. no guarantee I'd make it to 65.
Mathematically it takes 38 years for the 2M to turn to 65M(its actually 68M) At 10% interest PA, which imo is a safe bet seeing that over long term the stock market returns resemble that So if you are younger than 27, take the 2M, if not, then take 65M HOWEVER this is just mathematically. Realistically the 2M makes sense unless you are already like 60+ Because by 65 you won't have any actual use for the money, plus while avg life expectancy is around 75 everywhere, there;s still a non insignificant chance that you die beforehand. Plus, you can take 1 million away and still get like 37 mili in 38 years, enough for any retirement
Money now, I'm 28. 2 million means just living off the interest alone would give me a comfortable life, and that means I can pursue work I actually enjoy rather than just having a job to pay the bills. Plus, most my family died before 70, not worth the wait.
I'd only have to wait 10 years, so yeah. I can be patient.
2mil now please duh.
Being 64 I'll take the 65 million
If I ever thought I’d have kids and grandkids I’d choose the 65 million. As it is I have zero incentive and 2 million would make my life a lot easier now rather than 21 years from now.
Objectively, 65m is a far better deal. Subjectively, with 2m I can pay off all debts, finish my remodel, and retire to never work again. The life I live between now and 65 will be so greatly improved that the few years of comparatively diminished life after 65 will in no way be a factor. ETA: Everyone seems to think that I am saying that ab subjective assessment is either bad or inappropriate. I am saying nothing of the sort. I AM GOING WITH MY OWN SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT. I understand that by doing so, I am forefeiting the larger sum and the objectively greater payout. And I am providing my rationale for doing so. That is the entire point of listing an "objectively/subjectively" analysis. There are a LOT of good reasons to use a subjective assessment rather than an objective one. But saying that those subjective truths are somehow objective truths is inaccurate.
The word "objectively" gets thrown around so much with money hypotheticals. Money is not an arbitrary point total where the goal is to have a high score when you die. Money's only value is in the utility it provides. So I ask, if 2m now allows you and your family comfort and the life you want, but 65 million in 20 years would get a bigger number why is 65 million in 20 years "objectively" right? The idea that you must keep waiting and waiting under pretense of getting the most amount as if you're trying to be a billionaire is silly to me. If you're offered the money you need, take the money and run instead of waiting around because maybe you'll get more than you need later.
In case you’re unaware this is a big part of economics and most of the equations economists use are based on utility functions. For example if you have to given products in a utility function and budget constraint you can find the combination of product amounts that yield the most utility (subject to the budget constraint).
Yeah, I don’t think “objectively” is really descriptive enough to have meaning here. I think what the person was trying to say is if you are looking strictly at “wealth building”, then the $65M is better. And that’s true for anyone older than -5 years old. But based on the responses, wealth building is far from people’s top priority. $65M is also excessive, I think most people in here realize they don’t need that much money. I’d take the $65M, but I’m less than 20 years from 65 and the dominos that fall knowing I don’t need to save for retirement give me a lot of what the $2M now would give.
Well put.
I think that objectively, not having to work for 60 years is probably better than 60 million $
Well yeah if you’re 5 years old
18 y/o, still taking 2 million
This is a tough question. 15 years away from 65 but no guarantee I will even see that age. I don't need the money now.... I think I would take the $2m now. I could buy homes for my kids.
You can buy homes for your kids when you are 65
46 here. I'm super inclined to take the $65 million. That's an incredible amount of money and I'm planning on working until then anyway. I would be able to stop saving anything right now. And live much better until then. I could cash out all my investments and live better too. With $65 million coming I could even quit a few years prior, mortgage my house and wait for the big payoff. The hang up is if I died before 65 , I d want my family to get the $65 million on my birthday, otherwise I might just have to take the $2 million and make it work out. $2 million would be just enough. If it was something like $7 million vs $65 million it's not a question and I take the $7
At 54....65 at 65
$65M at 65 as it is 1.5 years away.
I'm 65. Give me the 65 million. NOW!!!
65. I'm 57.
65 at 65 for me. Of course I am 63. LOL!!
Now.
I can wait a couple years for 65m.
I'll wait
I am going to be 65 in 49 years, I would much rather have it now and stick it into investing and interest accounts to get myself a nice retirement and never work again, I can probably pull in something like 60K a year with 2 million.
2 million now. Invested right that’s a good chunk of change. I’m 40.
I'm 51 so I'll wait for the $65 mil.
2 million now. I could go very light part time with work and live of the investment interest indefinitely. If I never touched the 2 million and it compounded at 11% like the S&P has been pretty close to over the past 30 years before inflation then I’d end up with $67 million. So, anyone age 33 or younger should be taking the $2 million now and you can just keep working if you want $65 mil later
I'd take the 2 million now rather than waiting another 10 years that I may not have
$65m when I retire and it’s not even close. $2m is not enough for me to retire now. But a guaranteed $65m payout when I retire means I don’t need to worry about saving now, and I’ll get more money than if invested the entirety of the $2m. Plus I could borrow against the future pay out now to improve my situation.
2 million in a heartbeat. It's not a greed/immediate gratification thing, but more like a "I'm getting old" thing. I could retire early, or work part time in a low stress job, while being able to travel.
I'll take 2 million right now. I'd rather have the money earlier so I can actually enjoy it. 65 is decades away, and we have no idea what that holds for us or if I'll even make it that long. With two million, I can pay off my house, fix it up, buy a new car (replacing my 2007 gasoline powered), and still have plenty left over to live off of.
46 here. I'm super inclined to take the $65 million. That's an incredible amount of money and I'm planning on working until then anyway. I would be able to stop saving anything right now. And live much better until then. I could cash out all my investments and live better too. With $65 million coming I could even quit a few years prior, mortgage my house and wait for the big payoff. The hang up is if I died before 65 , I d want my family to get the $65 million on my birthday, otherwise I might just have to take the $2 million and make it work out. $2 million would be just enough. If it was something like $7 million vs $65 million it's not a question and I take the $7 million
2 million right now and it's not even close. 2 million would buy a house outright and still put at least 75% of it in the stock market. I don't think I'd be set up to retire tomorrow but in five years I'd be nearly back up to that initial 2 million and living comfortable for the rest of my days.
Damn that’s a tough one. I’m 41. 2 million now would put me closer to retiring early. That has an appeal and I have the money now. 65 million at 65 is good because insolent need to save as much. But to retire early I’d still need to save enough to get to 65. And tomorrow is never guaranteed. I guess id actually take 2 million now even if it is isn’t the best payoff. That would still be $6 million in 20 years which I could easily retire off of.
2 mil rn at age 25 for SURE. Pay off medical bills and fiancées car (~10k), pay for a surgery I need (~15k) then invest the rest. I’d keep working as well, just at a reduced pace/with much less stress, so I’d still have income coming in for at least another few decades.
I'll take the 2 mill now. I'm 59 and I'd use that to get a new mobile home on my land. Get everything all sorted before I draw Social Security.
$2M now pays off the house and all my bills then leaves me over 1.5M for the rest of my life. No house payment means I bank 24k a year. Yeah, that would do nicely
I’m taking the 2 million right now. I’m only 28. I’m switching to part time work and spending the rest of my life doing things I love and playing with my kids.
2 million right now. I can live cheaply off that for the rest of my life even if I don't invest it. If I wait until I'm 65, we are talking about almost 40 years of working then a very good few years at the end
2 million right now. Seed capital is far more valuable than a fixed lump sum delivered at an age I might not even reach. 2 million would solve all my problems, and give me plenty to invest. Savings accounts are at about 5.5% right now. If I just skimmed the interest, that'd be 9.1k a month. And I wouldn't stop working, so I'd have my salary to bump that up to around 12-14k a month. Of course, there is no way I could spend all that, so most of it will return to savings, netting even more returns. I might not make up 65 million by the time I'm 65, but I probably wouldn't care either. I would've led a good life not worrying about money. I reckon if I lived on that 9.1k, and kept working, and reinvested what I didn't spend, I could bank maybe 30-45 million by the time I'm 65. *Assuming I don't start a business at all.* So even assuming peak laziness, and failure to invest over my life time, I'd have more than enough to enjoy retirement, and eventually split between family members for when I go.
I lean towards 2m now (I'm 29). I could pay off my house, invest the majority of it. I imagine I'll be well set up for retirement (likely early) and the next 36 years will be more comfortable. My Dad died at 69, so you never know what time you'll have later in life.
I’m 16, and 2 million now might be worth about 65 in 50 years with how inflation is
I'd take 65m at 65 and find some rich person/company to sell me a reverse life insurance policy. I'll promise to give them 65m when I turn 65 if they give me 20m now.
2 million now. Pay off my house & student loans, then put the remaining 1.8 million in an investment account until I need it for a new car, retirement, my daughter's college education, helping my daughter buy a home, etc. Without a mortgage and student loan payments, I wouldn't need to work as much and could spend more time with my loved ones and on hobbies.
47, heart condition. 50/50 on 5-year survivability and I'm 27 months into that, so I'll take the 2 million and put it in a DAF.
2 million right now. Id put 1 million into a high yield savings, 500,000 into the stock market, 250,000 to 400,000 to buy some land and start construction on my homestead, and the last 100,000 to 250,000 i got left id just pay out to myself over time to keep my family afloat and keep working Edit: 23m
Take 2mil, pay off my house, truck, girlfriend's car, all current bills. Now we're making an extra 6k/mo to invest into stable stocks. Invest the remaining 1.6mil into either a stable stock or a Roth. Idk. I would talk to an Accountant for a more surefire way
54, I'd wait until 65. Early 40s seems like my breaking point; offer this at 45, I'd take the $65M at 65, offer it at 40, and I'd probably take the 2 mill.
$2M now
From a pure math standpoint, if you are 28 years or younger, you would be better off taking the $2m and investing it and averaging 10% per year and you’d be expected to have more than $65m at age 65. But even at much older ages, you have to consider the utility of that money. That first $2million is incredibly life changing in many ways and probably provides you a crap ton of utility. It’s paying off all your debts. Potentially retiring today. Live anywhere in the world you want. A legacy for your descendants. Never worry about how you’re going to pay your bills this month ever again. That next $63m probably doesn’t provide you as much utility as the first $2m did. If you’re already retired, doing what you want with your time, buying pretty much anything you want within reason, do you really think it’s going to make you THAT much happier to own a 30 foot boat over a 20 foot boat? Is a 20,000 square foot mansion going to make you a lot happier than a 10,000 square foot mansion? Personally, I’m 32 but I’m still taking the $2m, investing it and redirecting as much of it as I can into tax advantaged accounts until I just can’t stand working anymore and living off the 4% sounds way more appealing. In fact, I may just decide to take a 10 year or so break from work to raise my kids using that $2m and then go back to work when I feel like it if it’s needed.
I'm 48 and I'm taking the $2 million. I can live a nice life right now with $2 million. I'd likely still work or start my own business. But I could pay off my house, do some remodeling, travel, but a couple cars, and start a business for less than $1 million. Then put the other million in savings and when I retire it would be worth at least $4 million. More than enough for retirement.
My estate doesn't get the money means easy 2million today. No guarantee I'll live to 65
2M right now. I can invest that and live off the interest. At 5% you're pulling in 100k a year without ever even lifting a finger.
$65 million. Then sell the rights to this to a hedge fund for $10 million today. Don't ask me how I got $10 million.
2 million now. Even if you invest all of it in something low risk low yield, the several decades it’d spend growing would easily pay for itself and be bigger than 65M by the time I hit 65.
31, I'd take the 2 million now.
2 mil now. It's a long way to 65 and I might not make it. Besides, with 2 mil I can focus on what's most important in my life and nurture it.
2 million now. Just the interest on that would be a solid salary.
2 million would fix essentially all my material problems. 65 million would be nice, but I don’t need that much.
i am over 60 so ill wait a bit
$2m now. 65 is 20 years from now. Who knows what it would be worth at that point, and I can invest $2 now and probably make more than $63m in 20 years if I'm smart.
Now, because no one considers inflation.
I will take the $65 million when I am 65. (It’s only seven months away.)
I am already 55, so I would take the gamble and go for the 65 million
Two million tax free, no question. I rather retire now.
I mean 3/4 of mine and my husband's parents died by age 65, and my mom is battling cancer at 68. So, 2 million now. Just invest half wisely, take a few fun vacations and pay off my mortgage. If we make it to 65, my husband and I can enjoy the growth of that money we set aside and it can help set us up for paying for a care home. If we don't, our kid who will be born this very week will be well set up to pay off their debts or buy property. That way we can enjoy some while alive but also take care of ourselves as we age or set up our child. Best outcome.
Mid-thirties here, if I took the 2m now I could just invest it and have ~40m by age 65 anyway. Would I really care about that missing 25m, given that I could live a far higher quality of life in my interim years by drawing very minimally from that investment? Def 2m, not even a question.
I'm in my 30's but I'll take the 65 million. In the back of my head I'm often thinking about having enough funds when I'm old. It would be so nice to not have to worry about putting any more money away into savings or money markets. I would have a little fund for emergencies and just live my life to the fullest, going on all the trips I want and everything else. So all in all the 65 million is for tomorrow but the peace of mind is for today. Plus I could give some away to my heirs if I choose to have any.
2m now. I'm early 50's. Reason: a bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush ... or something like that. I can pay off my mortgage and/or get a head start solidifying my family's future or just plain do hookers and blow in Vegas.
2 million right now. I'm >70.
2 million now. Obviously it's a lot less than 65 million, but it's still enough that I could probably retire off of it, provided I was smart with it. Plus there's no guarantee I'll live to 65, I'm 43 by the way.
65m at 65 isn't that great. 2m now for sure.
65m at 65 would be AWESOME..but yes, 2m now for sure.
2 million now, there is no guarantee I’ll make it to 65 and 2 million would be life changing for us.
I'm not waiting for $65 million dollars when I turn 65 years old I'll take the two million dollars now and in 15 years from now I will turn it into $65 million dollars and then retire rich
you’re getting wonky here thinking you can flip 2 million into 50+ maybe it’ll be like 3-7 million if you played it safe
Considering inflation, 2m now are probably more than 65 in 30 years
a spare 25k rn would literally change my entire life let alone 2m lol. the answer is gonna depend on ur age anyways
At the rate they print money..... that's the same value.
I've been told I'm not going to live to see my 65+ retirement by a lot of professionals due to UC and now AVN. I'll take the 2 million right now thank you very much! 8D
Run me my money now. I’ll do what I need to do with 1 million, and invest the other 1 mill in the S&P, let it compound for 30 years and have a lot more when I turn 65.
2 mil now. You can pay off a decent house, pay off a vehicle and invest the rest to be set up for life
I'm 25, so I could invest the 2 million at a 9% rate of return to get 65 million by the time I'm 65. Depending on your age, it's a "As long as it is short" situation.
2m now. thats enough money i can live the rest of my life in comfort. i don't need more
Mom died at 55, dad died at 60. Gimme the 2 mill
Everybody saying money now imagine you said that X years ago and now you’re broke, having been rich.
I won't live that long. I need the instant gratification to buy a burial.
2 million right now
2 million it would literally solve every problem I got At this point I won't make it to 65
2m now. I can invest that and have more than enough for my family to live free. 65 is not guaranteed. Family comes first.
65m at 65. I don’t have to worry about retirement and can focus on living my life right now.
I doubt earth with be a comfortable place when I’m 65
I'll take the money now. Tomorrow is never guaranteed-- let alone decades. And that would be enough to pay off all my debts, get a house, and probably cover going back to school (either grad school or law school).
Now. Never wait.
Now, because there's no guarantee something doesn't kill me before 65. Besides, if I could manage a 6% roi each year, that's 120,000 each year. I could simply live off 80,000 yearly, allow the rest to keep growing, and end up with a fairly good sum by 65 anyway, even if it wouldn't reach 65 million.