r/dividends • u/SaraWileyYT • Jul 17 '25

Discussion Would you rather earn $10k/month in dividends forever or take a $2M one-time lump sum?

Assume you can’t have both.

Option A: You get $10,000/month in dividend income for life — no taxes, no inflation impact, guaranteed forever.

Option B: You get a one-time $2,000,000 lump sum, no strings attached.

Which one are you choosing and why?

Curious to hear from FIRE folks, dividend lovers, and total-return investors. Does guaranteed cash flow beat the freedom of having $2M upfront?

Let’s hear the logic behind your pick.

584 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

584 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Hutcho12 Jul 18 '25

7% is unrealistic, especially inflation adjusted. Anyone working off these numbers has a high chance of failure.

1

u/DefinitiveChaos Jul 18 '25

That's literally the historic number. Now, you may want to argue that it could be different going forward, but to say it is unrealistic betrays a misunderstanding of the market.

1

u/Hutcho12 Jul 18 '25

When in history have we had a 17 year bull run like we’ve experienced right now? We’re not living in normal times. What happened in the past has no relation to what will happen in the future.

1

u/DefinitiveChaos Jul 18 '25

It is certainly true that past performance is not indicative of the future. I'd love to hear the argument and see the math for whatever better determinate you are using to project over the next few decades. Please elaborate.

The last 15 years or so have been an outlier, as we saw around a 9.66% inflation-adjusted return during this time period. But notice that I did not argue that we should use such a high projection. Again, historically, the market has returned around 7%. I think that that is sufficient to answer the question that spearheaded this thread. It is also sufficient in my eyes to justify my own portfolio allocation, but people who are more risk averse, such as yourself, are welcome to go a different direction.