I was thinking of asking this spin-off question, too...
I was working on a show in which any big winner had to choose to be paid either via a very long annuity or via a lump sum that was significantly smaller than the amount it looked like they won. I got into a debate with someone over which would be the better option to take.
Let's say the prize was $500,000 -- not lottery jackpot money, but still a very meaningful amount. For simplicity's sake, let's say the lump sum option is half the prize ($250,000) and let's say the annuity option lasts for 25 years (so $20,000 a year for 25 years... I see now that isn't how lotteries pay out annuities, but it's what we assumed the annuity would be when we had our debate).
My position was that I'd rather have the assurance of $20,000 a year coming my way for more than two decades, which would give me flexibility in my career and a sizable rainy-day fund if I found myself suddenly unemployed long-term or hit with a medical emergency. His position was that he could do better investing $250,000 now to make up the $250,000 he didn't receive from the show. (In fairness, I don't have the drive to meticulously invest and watch over that kind of money in a way that would wring every last penny out of it.)
Is there a "correct" answer as to which payout option to take, or is it dependent on each person's financial attitude? For context, this debate was between two single people residing in Los Angeles, a city where it's impossible to live on $20,000 a year and where $250,000 is nowhere near the price of a house.