Would you vote in favor of a national lottery?

[Sampiro]

It will never happen- I've no delusions- but

1- Would you vote in favor of it if you were a rep/senator or it was a referendum?

2- To what would you dedicate the government's share of the profits?

I would, and I'd dedicate most of the government's share to health care, with lesser amounts to education (including continuing ed), a much lesser amount to the arts, and a small fraction (but very sizable amount money wise) to the president's discretionary purse, something akin to a 60%/30%/5%/1% split (with the remaining 4% tbd).

[RyJae]

I wouldn't because lotteries tend to be played more by those least able to afford them.

[Chief Pedant]

It will never happen- I've no delusions- but

1- Would you vote in favor of it if you were a rep/senator or it was a referendum?

2- To what would you dedicate the government's share of the profits?

I would, and I'd dedicate most of the government's share to health care, with lesser amounts to education (including continuing ed), a much lesser amount to the arts, and a small fraction (but very sizable amount money wise) to the president's discretionary purse, something akin to a 60%/30%/5%/1% split (with the remaining 4% tbd).

I'd vote for it. Essentially a voluntary tax.

It's meaningless to "dedicate" a share to a specific cause. If the lottery supplied money in one area it would simply free up funds to be used elsewhere. It's not as if there would be more money than ever before to spend on healthcare, for instance. The same total pool of real tax receipts and borrowing pays the bills.

[Sage Rat]

I wouldn't because lotteries tend to be played more by those least able to afford them.
This. Word.

Gambling is a tax on dreams.

[madmonk28]

I would not because I think lotteries are a tax on the poor and a way to fund tax cuts for the more well off and shift the burden to the most vulnerable.

[Invisible Chimp]

I wouldn't because lotteries tend to be played more by those least able to afford them.

I would because it's not my job to protect people from their own foolishness. The US needs to repair its roads and bridges. I say we use it for that.

As you can probably tell, I am lottery player. Gambling is one of my few vices.

[dangermom]

No. As above, lotteries take advantage of poor people and people who can't count.

Lottery profits tend to just move money around (as Chief Pedant points out). I live in California. The government said that the lottery profits would go to education and things would be great! Then, of course, they simply didn't fund education as much, depending on the lottery to make up the difference. Education in California has not improved one bit--rather the opposite. And I have to look at lottery billboards too.

Perhaps we could dedicate the profits to math education...

[Slacker]

Kinky Friedman said it best:

Q: What has six balls and screws Texas?

A: The lottery.

[Cyberhwk]

I completley understand the "tax on dreams" thinking. Just not quite as much as my "tax on stupidity" thinking.

I'd vote for.

[BrainGlutton]

Only if it ends with a stoning.

[mutantmoose]

Imagine how big the jackpot would be though. A US wide lottery - would be the biggest jackpot in the world.

[Chief Pedant]

It will never happen- I've no delusions- but

1- Would you vote in favor of it if you were a rep/senator or it was a referendum?

2- To what would you dedicate the government's share of the profits?

I would, and I'd dedicate most of the government's share to health care, with lesser amounts to education (including continuing ed), a much lesser amount to the arts, and a small fraction (but very sizable amount money wise) to the president's discretionary purse, something akin to a 60%/30%/5%/1% split (with the remaining 4% tbd).

By the way, 80% or so of States already have a State Lottery or participation in a multi-state lottery (Alabama being one of the exceptions). A "national" lottery would not be much different from Powerball or Mega Millions or Hot Lotto. More pie to the Federal Government, I suppose, where the money could be used much more efficiently and effectively than the states use it. :dubious:

[RyJae]

I completley understand the "tax on dreams" thinking. Just not quite as much as my "tax on stupidity" thinking.

I'd vote for.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08207/899406-298.stm

Do you believe that playing the lottery can make you rich?

If you do, there's a good chance you're poor.

At least, that's according to a Carnegie Mellon University study published in the July issue of the Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.

"The conclusions [of the study] are that the thoughts, feelings and cognitions related to poverty lead people to purchase lottery tickets," said Emily Haisley, lead author of the study and a doctoral student in the department of organizational behavior and theory at Carnegie Mellon's Tepper School of Business.


This wasn't a report based on stupidity, it was based on income. Unless low income means stupid.

[Grumman]

This wasn't a report based on stupidity, it was based on income. Unless low income means stupid.
Low income may make the lottery seem more appealing, but only to someone who is gullible enough to believe that playing the lottery is worth the price.

[RyJae]

Low income may make the lottery seem more appealing, but only to someone who is gullible enough to believe that playing the lottery is worth the price.

So why make it easier to part a gullible person and money? You know that money you're taking out of the poor persons pocket will need to be put back in through other means plus interest.

You know that working poor family that every week paycheck the mom or dad take the money and blow it gambling? That's not all myth. Those not participating end up suffering. You think it was coincidence that they placed casinos near Detroit? It wasn't to lure in out of area people to increase the income, it was to take more money from those least able to afford it, despicable.


Detroit is now the poorest city in America, with fully one-third of its residents living below the official federal poverty level

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/sep2005/detr-s02.shtml


The Harvard University's Center for Addiction Studies has reported that "at risk" groups, e.g. the poor, the elderly, and the young, are more seriously impacted by gambling than are other groups in our society. They found that these groups, especially the poor and the elderly, lose significantly more in gambling as a proportion of their total income than do those in higher income groups.



2. Casinos provided the most popular form of gambling for the people of Detroit (78% of gamblers), followed by the lottery (72%), and bingo

3. One in every 14 families interviewed (7%) reported that casino gambling had had a detrimental impact on their family life. About three in ten said that casino gambling had a negative effect on the people of Detroit and the community generally.

5. One in every 16 respondents (6%), reported that at least one person in their household was a "compulsive gambler." This figure is nearly doubled for those in low income groups and those receiving public assistance -- both "at-risk" groups. Overall, the Detroit percentage of problem gamblers is twice the figure reported in the Western Michigan University survey conducted in 1997.

10. Nearly three in 10 respondents (28%) now receiving public assistance or are widowed (27%) patronized a casino in the past year. Those receiving public assistance lost five times more as a proportion of their total household income than did other Detroiters. Lower income groups generally lost 2.4 times more as a proportion of their total household income, than did upper income groups.

12. On average, African-Americans lost 2.5 times more at casinos than Whites.

http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PressReleases1998_2nd/DetroitGamblingEffects_May98.html

[jsgoddess]

Lotteries prey on the poor and desperate, and I consider it unethical of my state to participate in and advertise them, so no.

We'd all be opposed to state-run Nigerian bank schemes. I don't see how a lottery is significantly better.

[Chief Pedant]

So why make it easier to part a gullible person and money? You know that money you're taking out of the poor persons pocket will need to be put back in through other means plus interest.

You know that working poor family that every week paycheck the mom or dad take the money and blow it gambling? That's not all myth. Those not participating end up suffering. You think it was coincidence that they placed casinos near Detroit? It wasn't to lure in out of area people to increase the income, it was to take more money from those least able to afford it, despicable.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/sep2005/detr-s02.shtml

http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PressReleases1998_2nd/DetroitGamblingEffects_May98.html

First of all, the whole reason"gullible" has been removed from the dictionary is precisely because it is an insensitive term toward the poor, so let's not use it. Let's use "inappropriately hopeful."

Do you have any sort of evidence behind the notion that "they" put casinos near Detroit to take more money from those who could least afford it, or is that just a gratuitous pitch for the general conspiracy theory that "they" (the haves?) want to steal what little the have-nots do have?

If the decision of where to place Casinos in Michigan was anything like the decisions I've seen everywhere else, it was based on some sort of hope that good things would result from having an actual functioning business in a particular location. That the poor spend their money foolishly--cigarettes; liquor; fast food; lottos...--is a concern in some sort of broad societal parenting sense but it's hardly a driving force for where to place a casino. If it were placed somewhere else there would be cries of abandoning yet another project that could have been placed in a poor area as part of urban renewal.

[RyJae]

First of all, the whole reason"gullible" has been removed from the dictionary is precisely because it is an insensitive term toward the poor, so let's not use it. Let's use "inappropriately hopeful."

Do you have any sort of evidence behind the notion that "they" put casinos near Detroit to take more money from those who could least afford it, or is that just a gratuitous pitch for the general conspiracy theory that "they" (the haves?) want to steal what little the have-nots do have?

If the decision of where to place Casinos in Michigan was anything like the decisions I've seen everywhere else, it was based on some sort of hope that good things would result from having an actual functioning business in a particular location. That the poor spend their money foolishly--cigarettes; liquor; fast food; lottos...--is a concern in some sort of broad societal parenting sense but it's hardly a driving force for where to place a casino. If it were placed somewhere else there would be cries of abandoning yet another project that could have been placed in a poor area as part of urban renewal.


Still in every dictionary I have. And you're right I have no proof, but I do have common sense. Detroit was a above national average poverty levels, they build casinos. Makes sense to me if you want to make money off those with money you build the casino's in areas that are above the national income levels. Unless you know that the poor tend to gamble more of there money away that is.

[jsgoddess]

First of all, the whole reason"gullible" has been removed from the dictionary is precisely because it is an insensitive term toward the poor, so let's not use it. Let's use "inappropriately hopeful."

It really doesn't matter what your opinion is of the people who gamble inappropriately. We can both think they are fools, but being a fool (or even a damned fool) doesn't mean they can suddenly live on air and inappropriate hopes.

[The Walking Dude]

So, all of you that say you would vote no because it is a tax on the poor, preys on the poor, takes advantage of the poor, etc. think that it is right(or appropriate, or fair) that you or anyone else should be able to tell someone, poor or not, what they can spend their money on. You have the right to tell someone that they have to buy what you want them to buy. You can tell them how to live their lives. How does that work? I really want to know, if I could tell people what they can spend their money on it really isn't too far away from me being able to really control them! World watch out, apparently I have the right to have minions!

I vote yes.

[Sage Rat]

So, all of you that say you would vote no because it is a tax on the poor, preys on the poor, takes advantage of the poor, etc. think that it is right(or appropriate, or fair) that you or anyone else should be able to tell someone, poor or not, what they can spend their money on. You have the right to tell someone that they have to buy what you want them to buy. You can tell them how to live their lives. How does that work?
Libertarian idealism aside, if you left everyone's fate to themselves, they wouldn't have any insurance, establish any money for their retirement, wouldn't send all their children to school, would drive their cars at insane speeds on residential streets, etc.

For as much as you might joke that stupid people get what's coming to them, ultimately all of us are at least shortsighted at critical moments or simply don't have time/inclination to educate ourselves on financing or whatever, and even those who truly are stupid are as much a danger to themselves as they are prey to anyone who can put two cents together. The government's role is to see to the health of the nation, and so they've got to take the lowest common denominator in hand. The only other option is to euthanize anyone with an IQ below 80.

[DrCube]

I love how people are so caring and worried about the plight of the poor that they're willing to make financial decisions for them. :rolleyes:

'Don't worry poor folks! You're so dumb and always screw up your lives; here, let me make your choices for you.'

I'd prefer a much smaller government; but since that isn't happening any time soon I'd vote for any method of funding government that doesn't involve forcing citizens to hand over half their paycheck with the threat of prison. A 'voluntary tax' of the lottery sort is nothing but good in my opinion.

[DigitalC]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08207/899406-298.stm




This wasn't a report based on stupidity, it was based on income. Unless low income means stupid.

Of course playing the lottery can make you rich, how could the answer to that possibly be no? the chances of that happening are infinitesimaly low but the answer is unequivocally yes.

[Sage Rat]

I love how people are so caring and worried about the plight of the poor that they're willing to make financial decisions for them. :rolleyes:

'Don't worry poor folks! You're so dumb and always screw up your lives; here, let me make your choices for you.'
What's your alternate suggestion, then? Or is your argument that people, left to themselves, do properly set aside money for their and their children's futures? If you go to Japan and look at everyone's teeth, I think you'll see what happens when dental care isn't a standard part of everyone's employment package.

[DrCube]

What's your alternate suggestion, then?
There is no alternative suggested. In my view, the benefits of freedom of choice outweigh the costs of bad decision making. Obviously, your mileage varies.

[Sage Rat]

There is no alternative suggested. In my view, the benefits of freedom of choice outweigh the costs of bad decision making. Obviously, your mileage varies.
Yeah I'd say that I'd rather not live in a country where 80% of everyone had teeth like this (http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1931/854/1600/J%20Teeth.1.jpg) or this (http://www.strangepersons.com/images/content/101457.jpg). Sort of diminishes the marriage pool.

And note that those pictures are the "better" and "worst" ends of the spectrum. The average of guys in their 40s is between those two.

[DrCube]

Yeah I'd say that I'd rather not live in a country where 80% of everyone had teeth like this (http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1931/854/1600/J%20Teeth.1.jpg) or this (http://www.strangepersons.com/images/content/101457.jpg). Sort of diminishes the marriage pool.

And note that those pictures are the "better" and "worst" ends of the spectrum. The average of guys in their 40s is between those two.

Sucks to be them. Are you seriously blaming their employers for that? My dental health is nobody's responsibility but my own. I would resent any attempt by others to make decisions concerning my oral hygiene for me.

[Palo Verde]

I'd vote yes.

Of course poor people play it more than the more educated and wealthy. But I don't see it as my job to save people from their own bad decisions.

I'm a Democrat, and it's one of the things I dislike about my party is this paternalistic attitude.

[Sage Rat]

Sucks to be them. Are you seriously blaming their employers for that?
I'm blaming the shortsightedness of 70% of the population. You can try to convince yourself that most people are decently wise, but it's pretty easy to find data that a large majority of people won't plan for their future health or fiscal welfare if you don't essentially make them.

Here's the best cite I can find for the dispropensity of people to save, previous to social security acts being put into place in the United States:

Our expression "saving for a rainy day" recalls the times when families stored wood in the shed and food in the cellar and pantry for seasons when it was difficult or impossible to go out to fetch them. Why do they not store money in the bank now for the time of unemployment or old age when it cannot be made?

There is an answer to that question in a study made by The Brookings Institution, which analyzes the incomes and savings of families in our richest year, 1929.

In that year, the study found, families with incomes under $1,000 spent, on the average, more than they received. They drew on past savings or got outside help or went into debt. Those families with incomes of less than $1,000 represented a fifth of all the families of the Nation in 1929.

Families with incomes of $1,000 to $1,500 kept even, on the average, but saved little, especially in the cities where everything had to be bought and living costs were higher. These families represented another fifth of all the families in that year.

Thus the study found that about 40 percent of our families saved very little, as a group, in our richest year for the hard times that were coming.

Practically all the savings of that prosperous year were made by the families at the top of the money ladder.

About 10 percent of us had family incomes over $4,600. They were found to have made 86 percent of all the savings.

Another 10 percent had family incomes of $3,100 to $4,600. They were found to have made 12 percent of all the savings.

The great majority of American families--the 80 percent who had incomes under $3,100 in 1929--were found by that study to have saved only 2 percent of all that families saved that year.

Could the 80 percent have saved more than they did?

The Brookings study declared that at 1929 prices a family income of $2,000 "may perhaps be regarded as sufficient to supply only basic necessities." An income of $2,500 was "a very moderate one."

Even low income families today are likely to regard as necessities things which their parents may have done without, such as running water, electricity, haircuts, movies, a greater variety in clothing and diet. It costs more to be sick. Medical care is better and, hence, more expensive. An employee who loses time from his job because of sickness often loses pay and sometimes loses the job as well.

But what would be the result if all families did save as much as they could by doing without all but the barest necessities?

The families who now save little--those with low and moderate incomes--make up a large share of the markets on which our living depends. In 1929, 70 percent of all the families were under the $2,500 mark which the Brookings study defined as "moderate." The spending of that 70 percent is necessary to hold up the fabric of trade and industry on which the living of the Nation depends.

When a large part of the population cuts down spending, that fabric sags, and workers and others feel the weight of hard times. That is what happened in the early years of the depression when fear and necessity made people stop buying.

There seems no question of the willingness of American families to save when their incomes approach a comfortable level. But the evidence of this study shows that most families, and especially the families whose risks are greatest, have little to look to when a rainy day comes. Their security lies in the steadiness of their earning and the safety of what savings they are able to make for the years when they no longer can earn. (http://www.ssa.gov/history/whybook.html)
(bolding added)

[Chief Pedant]

Back to the question: a national lottery?...

For those of you opposed, how is your opposition to a national lottery different from a general opposition to gambling, and more specifically, regulated gambling--or at least an opposition to allowing the poor to engage in regulated gambling?

I got it that some of you feel we need to manage the poor's money for them. I personally feel if you plug up one area they waste it on, they'll find other places to manage their money poorly. Given that managing the other guy's money is a non-starter for any kind of workable policy, what's wrong with a voluntary tax?

And a freebie marketing tag, if I were in charge of marketing:

"The US Lottery: Hope, sensibly priced."

Now that would get them poor coughing up their tuppence like there's no tomorrow. (Which there isn't, financially speaking, if you gamble too much.)

[RyJae]

I'd vote yes.

Of course poor people play it more than the more educated and wealthy. But I don't see it as my job to save people from their own bad decisions.

I'm a Democrat, and it's one of the things I dislike about my party is this paternalistic attitude.

You would have to use any profits to feed back into the cycle. Yeah that would be a gifted philosophy.

[Sage Rat]

For those of you opposed, how is your opposition to a national lottery different from a general opposition to gambling, and more specifically, regulated gambling--or at least an opposition to allowing the poor to engage in regulated gambling?
Most gambling, you usually need to go pretty far out of your way to get to (though with the surge in Indian Casinos, not so much these days.) While as legalised lotteries are generally available at any gas station or convenience store.

A once a decade blow-out in Vegas is pretty small pickings compared to the weekly "lottery tax" in the long run. And the poorer you are, the harder it is to get to Vegas or wherever.

The number of people who participate will also almost always be hire if only due to peer pressure. "Hey Bill, what numbers did you pick?"

[gonzomax]

The poor do not gamble because they are stupid. They gamble because even though it is a small chance to get out, it is a chance.

[DrCube]

I'm blaming the shortsightedness of 70% of the population. You can try to convince yourself that most people are decently wise, but it's pretty easy to find data that a large majority of people won't plan for their future health or fiscal welfare if you don't essentially make them.
The majority of people, rich or poor, are morons, but so what? People make poor decisions. That's part of the risk involved in being an autonomous free individual. Freedom or security, there is always a trade off. Prisoners and slaves are usually kept well-fed, safe, and healthy, but for some reason I don't find myself envying them.

Here's the best cite I can find for the dispropensity of people to save

So poor people don't have enough money to save and often go into debt. That's news?

[HMS Irruncible]

If you could point to me which part of the constitution permits the federal government to hold a lottery, then I'd vote in favor of it. Otherwise, no. The government is already throwing too many schemes that the constitution doesn't authorize. I'm not one of those 'eliminate the evil federal government' people, but I feel like they're fully large as they ever should reasonably get. If they need more resources, then they can just retrain the DEA to fight in Iraq or build houses or conduct the census.

Many states have lotteries; those who want to participate can play in a state that allows it.

[Sage Rat]

So poor people don't have enough money to save and often go into debt. That's news?
So what's your suggested solution? Fuck 'em, let them die?

For every dollar they spend on the lottery, it's one dollar plus 40 years interest lost that the remaining 30% of everyone has to pay in taxes to support those people in their old age, assuming that social security exists. Without social security, it's one dollar plus 40 years interest less that 70% of the population has to provide for themselves after retirement, which means starvation and death. So the options are to either bail out stupid people for playing the lottery, or saying "You deserve to die."

I agree that there's some percentage of people stupid enough that I don't really care if they run themselves into a hole, but that percentage is significantly smaller than 70% of the entire US population.

If you want to raise money to fund some special program, use normal taxes. Those are (theoretically) balanced to raise money in a way that doesn't screw the people who can't afford it, without hurting the economy driving power of those who can afford it. Taxing the poor just adds a layer of overhead to the system of taxing the wealthy, because any way you play it, that's who's going to pay.

[jsgoddess]

I love how people are so caring and worried about the plight of the poor that they're willing to make financial decisions for them. :rolleyes:

So, if you personally don't open a casino you are making financial decisions for others?

I don't care if someone gambles. I DO care if someone who is operating in my name (the government) is taking advantage of the foolish.

There is a huge difference between allowing something and promoting or sponsoring it.

I would also object if my government were involved in weightloss schemes or selling those detox stickers for the bottoms of your feet. I don't want the sale of these things to be illegal; I just don't want it done in my name. And everything done by the government is done in my name.

[DrCube]

So what's your suggested solution? Fuck 'em, let them die?


What's your solution? Force them to put money they don't have into a bank account and never withdraw, even if they really need it?

I mean, it isn't a shock that poor people can't afford investment banking, as that's almost the definition of being poor. You can't teach them or force them to save money; they don't have any.

Now, granted, they could put that dollar-a-day lotto money in a savings account, earning a hefty 0.5% return. But who are you to decide that for them? Maybe they really like playing the lottery. It is a matter of opportunity cost. For people like you and me, 0.5% is a lot better than a certain loss. For some people, dreams, even impossible ones, are worth that loss. People think nerds are stupid for wasting their money on cheap plastic Star Wars toys or those audiophiles who spend a hundred dollars on speaker wire. But that's their choice. They did the mental calculations and to them, lottery tickets, cheap plastic kids' toys, and gold-plated speaker wire are all worth the opportunity cost of that lost 0.5% investment.

I don't care if someone gambles. I DO care if someone who is operating in my name (the government) is taking advantage of the foolish.
I agree. No advantage should be taken. Citizens need to be informed (via PSAs, billboards, etc.) that lotteries are not a dream machine, that they WILL lose, and that the more they play, the more money they will lose. After that, if adults still feel that it is worth their money to play, I don't think the government should turn down that free, voluntarily donated cash.

And if everything the government does is done in your name, then you are a violent psychopath. Seriously. The government is not you, you are not the government, and nobody will ever be fooled into thinking otherwise.

[Sage Rat]

What's your solution? Force them to put money they don't have into a bank account and never withdraw, even if they really need it?

I mean, it isn't a shock that poor people can't afford investment banking, as that's almost the definition of being poor. You can't teach them or force them to save money; they don't have any.
If they don't have money, how are they gambling it away? 70% of the population isn't at a poverty level where they couldn't invest in their future. Most are at a level where they would choose to buy a Wii/lottery ticket/hooker n' blow so as to keep up with the joneses or just to have a good time instead of saving up for their retirement. If you hold that money from them, they don't buy the Wii, et al and they do contribute to social security.

But who are you to decide that for them?
I'm the guy who pays for them to goof off beyond their means. Why should I be taxed to pay for people who would rather buy a lottery ticket than plan for their future?

[fruitbat]

Lotteries prey on the poor and desperate, and I consider it unethical of my state to participate in and advertise them, so no.

We'd all be opposed to state-run Nigerian bank schemes. I don't see how a lottery is significantly better.

I really don't mean this as harshly as it will sound, but this is a bunch of nanny state paternalistic nonsense. I don't need to be protected from myself and I give my fellow man enough credit to believe they can make rational decisions. Lotteries post the odds of winning prominently and one's choice to participate is no different from any other voluntary exchange in our society.

I would actually answer no to the OP's question because I don't believe the government should hold a monopoly on gambling in the first place. The odds they offer are shameful, only 50% of the prize money is returned to the player. They use the force of the government to prevent competition from taking a piece of the pie. If I had my way I would regulate the information every gambling entity must post prominently when they sell their game and tax those entities like any other corporation.

What is really unethical is that the government rigs the odds in their favor and then sets an insurmountable barrier to its potential competition. I have never bought a lottery ticket, but if private industry were allowed in it could be a reasonably rational decision to do so.