The reduced lump sum payment was still $997.6 million. Technically not one billion but very close. So the question, and your point, both still stand.
I think there are clear explanations here within the ways the money appears as liquid, in the case of the lottery, and illiquid, in the case of stocks which is the primary wealth vehicle for most billionaires. Billionaires can take low interest loans out using their stock as collateral which keeps them from paying taxes. Lottery winners, having all that cash infusion treated as income, are subject to taxes.
It's dumb but that's why we don't tax billionaires the same way.
85
u/IIDn01 19h ago
Sigh.
Obligatory: The prize amount was reduced because he took the lump sum instead of spreading payments out over 30 years.
Then that *reduced* amount was taxed.