Would you rather have 2 million dollars now or 100k a year for the rest of your life? All tax free

My father, who worked in Group Insurance for 35 years, had the best rule of thumb for retirement planning...
He said that $1M at age 65 is worth $60K a year, indexed to inflation, for life.
So, work from there. The original question didn't mention indexing, so you'll have to figure that in. $100K in 50 years will probably be below the poverty line. Also, if not indexed, then the question is almost a simple question of math. The $100K is 5% of $2M, so if you can get a better return than that then the lump sum is better...QED.
If you are younger than 65 then the amount you can draw each year will be lower because you'll need to stretch it out longer.
Let's assume that the amount is indexed to inflation, because that makes the most sense (to me, at least). If you were, say, 30 years old, then the annual amount from the capitol might be as low as $20K in order to last your whole life. In that case you be better off with the annual amount.
If you are older, then it becomes more and more advantageous to take the lump sum, and the two amounts are probably equivalent at around age 60.
Finally, there's risk. With a lump sum you are at the mercy of the markets and your investment decisions. With the annual amount, the risk is involved with the entity issuing that payout. If it's a government entity, depending on the country, it might be way safer than some private company.
[Edit: Really bad error fixed. $1M at 65 is worth $60K/yr, not $100K/yr]
- They did the math! Good work
- He said that $1M at age 65 is worth $100K a year, indexed to inflation, for life.
  The typical estimate is 4% (1), meaning 1M USD is equivalent to 40k USD a year.
  
  That's why "at 65" comes into it. You don't live forever, so you can afford to eat into the capital.
  
  Yikes! My mistake, $60K/yr, not $100K/yr. Basically, what it would cost you to buy an annuity at that age.
  Fixed my earlier comment.

The average return on investment from stocks for the last 150 years is around 9 to 10% worldwide. That includes a few world wars and pandemics.
In the US, Canada and others, only half the money made in that way is taxed.
2 millions would net you 180-200k a year and you'd pay tax as if you made 90-100k.
- And that income would continue on to your inheritors, not stop at the end of your life. There's a clear right answer here.
  
  Inheritors? Who are they? I’m targeting $0 when I die (or a nice debt that’ll never get repayed)

2nd option please. Thanks

2ed option, and gamble it all like crazy every year
I'd probably make 2 million pretty soon like that

There should be a way to invest 2 million such that it generates more than 5% interest, no?
I'm thinking that the lump sum is better.

There's a chance you die and that 2 mil will go to someone else vs your payments just stop.
The 100k isn't matching inflation so you gain less wealth every year versus your potential 2 mil investment matching or beating inflation.
I think the only real reason to do the 100k a year is if you're not very financially responsible. Which has been the case for many lottery winners.
Edit: Personally not a fan of hoarding wealth outside enough for retirement/security.

100k a year please. I'll send you my bank details in a PM. Thanks!

100k per year. Stability is a nice thing, plus I believe I still have more than 20 years to live. Plus who knows what science will present us in the foregoing decades.
- You make a really good point about science, it's fast moving. Anything could happen!

There’s a well established mathematical answer to this and I would post it if I wasn’t lounging in bed. It comes down to the “discount rate” of the annuity ($100K for life) and the length of the annuity (so you’d have to consider your personal health and consult actuarial tables or whatever to estimate your anticipated lifespan). You just compare the discounted future cash flows of the annuity to $2M.
Fixed income mathematics is pretty cool, IMO.
- This all would be true, except for the bit that you can't calculate. Which is the likelihood of the annuity continuing to payout.
  You'll notice I said continuing to pay out.
  My grandmother had an annuity before she died. About 10 years before she died, they sent a letter basically saying that they weren't going to pay out anymore. She worked as an accountant all her life (even before the Rosey the Rivetter years) and kept fucking meticulous records. Honestly, the record keeping she had was impressive enough that it deserves its own post but that is neither here nor there.
  Anyways, she still had the paperwork. It had no end clause except death. It was an annuity.
  It wasn't even that much. A couple of hundred a month. They just decided to stop paying because they figured it was highly unlikely that she would fight it.
  She was still with it mentally mostly, but my father was doing most of the finances for her by that point because she was in her early 90's already. And they were right. Fighting it would have taken too much effort.

This is basically a lottery lump sum question but worse payment stream and better taxation (i.e. no taxes!). It is generally already better to get the lump sum in lottery payouts assuming you don't spend it all in a few short years. The same would apply here
- Except in this scenario the $100k is for life. Where the $2mil is only the same as 20 years of payments. At year 21 you would be up from the lump.
  But having the lump would allow you to invest more heavily at once.
  
  If interest rate was 2.8% you could double your money in 20 years. If it was higher, you could double your money quicker, or give yourself some spending money while still accumulating wealth. Compounding interest of the lump sum would make it very difficult for the 100k to come ahead unless you blow through the 2 million quickly as i initially said.
  Also i don't have 20 years left so I'll take the lump sum

100k a year for me. I don't want to work and I don't want to buy a mansion and sports cars or anything either. I just want to be able to exist and do whatever the hell I want with my own day. I want to be able to spend today working on some creative project, tomorrow not leaving my bed, the day after going out to movies etc.
Basically to do whatever, whenever, without needing to cut my hair, put on a uniform, put on a fake smile and pretend that I'm actually fine with spending 90% of my life in some office or workshop ensuring that the boss gets another Mercedes Benz this year and can send their kids to study overseas.
100k a year would be great. I could rent a flat in the city somewhere, get a scooter or something, or just keep walking and using public transport. And have the money to buy that cool jacket I saw in the second hand store, or go out once in a while and have a social life, or save up a bit and pick a new country to go and be a tourist in every year.
I wouldn't say no to the 2 million but I think I'd just prefer having the guaranteed income for life.

Just get the 100k and invest 20k a year, and use the rest for your life. Then contribute to FOSS forever

It's a tricky one with pluses on both sides. 100k a year is enough to live a really nice life, plus I'd carry on working. I'm likely going to live long enough that I'd earn way more from it.
BUT. I'm middle aged, I'm not 20 with my whole life ahead me. I absolutely may not live long enough. If I take the lump sum, I can invest it etc and get long term successes.
I'm taking the sure thing, lump sum it is

The average interests from 2 million invested into the stock market would pay out 140k a year but that would still be affected by the volatility of the stock market itself. I'd probably go with the 100k a year of stable income. That would already be more than what I need. I can live comfortably with half of that.

The lump sum has the better expected return over time, provided that you don't spend a large amount of it up front.
- Or you could invest the $100K a year. You have to compare apples to apples.
  
  Sure, but the expected return of the $2M is greater than $100k yearly, so you're not really going to be able to get ahead with the $100k/year. Compounding then further tips the scales in favour of the lump sum.
  
  I could live comfortably on a small fraction of that, so it would pile up really fast if I had long to live. Not going to be billionaire money, but easily in the "think about pouring that somewhere good" money.

If I were younger I would take the $100,00/year. But it would take 20 years to equal the $2mil. I would rather take the lump and invest it now.

I'd gladly take either of those

2 million now. Unlikely I'll live another 10 years, much less 20.

I'll most likely live long enough to see the $100,000 a year surpass the $2,000,000, so that.