This 20-year-old lotto winner refused $1M in cash and chose $1,000/week for life. Now she's getting slammed for it

At first glance, it might seem like Sarah is being smart by choosing the more secure option. After all, who wouldn't want to avoid a big tax hit and have their winnings spread out over many years? But as news of her decision spread, she's been getting slammed on social media and in the press for what some are calling an "unwise" choice.

• Some critics argue that Sarah is giving up too much money upfront by choosing the annual payments. With the lump sum payment, she could have invested it and potentially earned more interest over time.
• Others say that $1,000 a week for life is just not enough to live on comfortably, especially considering the taxes she'll owe on her winnings.
• And then there are those who think Sarah should have taken advantage of the tax-free option available to lottery winners in some states.

We asked our financial experts to weigh in on Sarah's decision. While they agree that it might not be the most financially savvy choice, they also point out that it's ultimately a personal decision that depends on individual circumstances and priorities. "It's easy to sit back and second-guess someone else's decisions," says one expert. "But at the end of the day, Sarah knows her own financial situation best."

So what do you think? Would you have made the same choice as Sarah, or would you have gone for the lump sum payment instead? Share your thoughts in the comments!