# Let's Tax Lottery Winnings at 90% **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 15, 2011, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-tax-lottery-winnings-at-90/589175 "2011-07-15T21:09:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-tax-lottery-winnings-at-90/589175/101 "2011-07-18T01:25:22Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Let’s also not forget who makes the government services cost more than they have to: the Republicans and Blue Dogs (I suppose we can throw the “centrists” in there). Want Medicare to include voluntary end-of-life counseling? Can’t have that. Want Medicare to negotiate drug prices? Can’t have that either. Want a public option? Nope, definitely can’t have that. Nope, we have to spend unnecessary amounts of money just so that the Republican/Blue Dog/Centrist coalition can redistribute our tax money to big companies. > > At least they managed to get Comparative Effectiveness Research through despite Republican/Blue Dog opposition. Exactly. There is so much useless shit in the federal budget, along with a massive military and a failed war on drugs. Plenty of room to cut spending. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-tax-lottery-winnings-at-90/589175/102 "2011-07-18T02:03:43Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > And if you would bother to read a history book, you would find ample evidence that private charity often cannot provide the services that people are most concerned about. Problem is that while you were reading history books, I was actually working with non-profits feeding the needy. They were hit hard when Bush cut social spending, and you know what? They got over it. People and companies stepped up and donated more, even as the economy got worse. But all that is besides the point since welfare represents about 6% of the federal budget. > [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Prior to the advent of Medicare, the elderly often went without healthcare. If you want to guarantee a minimum amount of health care to everyone, there is no economic model under which the private market will do it. If you don’t think that everyone should be guaranteed a minimum level of health care, that’s a different story. But those of us who want government involvement in the health care sector do so because we want everyone to be guaranteed a minimum level of health care. How the fuck do you guys still not have a proper health care system? The biggest change ever made won’t even take effect until 2014! Anyone else get the sense this ship is sinking? Don’t mind me, I’m just going to slowly start making my way towards the lifeboats while putting on this life jacket. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-tax-lottery-winnings-at-90/589175/103 "2011-07-18T02:10:39Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Problem is that while you were reading history books, I was actually working with non-profits feeding the needy. They were hit hard when Bush cut social spending, and you know what? They got over it. People and companies stepped up and donated more, even as the economy got worse. Ah, okay. Now your own personal anecdote is considered evidence? These economic arguments get worse and worse. Why don’t you post a cite that shows that the decrease in government spending (or services or whatever metric) was matched with an equivalent rise in private sector spending (or other similar metric) in the categories we’re concerned about? And the fact that you can dismiss historical events so casually in a discussion about economics I think is fairly clear evidence that you aren’t actually interested in economics, but rather you are peddling ideology. > [@](#): > > But all that is besides the point since welfare represents about 6% of the federal budget. Why are you limiting the discussion to welfare? The government provides an immense amount of safety-net funding outside of welfare (e.g, government on all levels is one of the biggest spenders on health care in the US). > [@](#): > > How the fuck do you guys still not have a proper health care system? The biggest change ever made won’t even take effect until 2014! > > Anyone else get the sense this ship is sinking? Don’t mind me, I’m just going to slowly start making my way towards the lifeboats while putting on this life jacket. The ship isn’t sinking. We’re not even close to the highest debt/GDP ratio we’ve ever had. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-tax-lottery-winnings-at-90/589175/104 "2011-07-18T02:15:26Z")
Or, as an alternative to a cite, why don’t you lay out the model under which a private solution can guarantee people a basic level of X? Here, X could be food, or health care or clothing or whatever you’d like. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-tax-lottery-winnings-at-90/589175/105 "2011-07-18T02:18:10Z")
lets talk politicians spending only what is taken in and going to prison if they don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-tax-lottery-winnings-at-90/589175/106 "2011-07-18T02:19:04Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > lets talk politicians spending only what is taken in and going to prison if they don’t. Under what law? ETA: All we have to do is raise taxes; problem solved. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-tax-lottery-winnings-at-90/589175/107 "2011-07-18T02:47:34Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > lets talk politicians spending only what is taken in and going to prison if they don’t. That’s a poor idea, sometimes you need to go into debt in the short term. The problem is that they are unwilling to raise taxes to pay what is owed, not that they ever went into debt at all. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-tax-lottery-winnings-at-90/589175/108 "2011-07-18T03:15:42Z")
Hey, **emacknight** , go take a look at the USDA reports on household food insecurity. In 1999, around 89.9% of households were food secure, and that steadily dropped until it was only 85% in 2008. This flatly contradicts your assertion that private charities stepped up to fill the void. Overall food security outcomes grew worse during this period. [http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/FANRR8/](http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/FANRR8/) [http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err83/](http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err83/) ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-tax-lottery-winnings-at-90/589175/109 "2011-07-18T04:31:31Z")
I have to amend my previous post. Starting in 2000, food security begin to drop, but then it fluctuated around, sometimes coming close to what it was before, before dropping again in the wake of the financial crisis. My overall point still stands, though, which is that private activity often does not fill the gap on these sorts of issues. At least it seems that the private sector has difficult filling the gap during periods of economic stress. This makes sense when you think about it, since during economic downturns, people have less money to donate, but more people need help. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-tax-lottery-winnings-at-90/589175/110 "2011-07-18T04:38:30Z")
Before I get out of here, I’ll add one more thing. This whole charity argument is another example of trying to have it both ways. There’s usually no rational financial interest in donating to charity (there may be non-financial reasons to do so). So, we’re supposed to assume that our hypothetical investor is going to rationally respond to increased taxes by irrationally leaving money on the table and then further irrationally donating to charity. All of this amounts to ad-hoc model selecting, rather than a serious economic discussion. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-tax-lottery-winnings-at-90/589175/111 "2011-07-18T23:13:24Z")
“Charities are not passive receptacles of contributions, as they have so often been treated in the past, but are active players in the market for donations.” [http://igpa.uillinois.edu/system/files/wp94-govtgrants.pdf](http://igpa.uillinois.edu/system/files/wp94-govtgrants.pdf) This study looked at the effects of government grants on charitable organizations, and found that their behavior changes in response. When they get more government money, they decrease their fundraising initiatives. The obvious result is that after government funding gets cut there is a lag while charities rebuild their fundraising programs and get the message out to potential donors. In response, charitable giving goes up, in fact it’s up [3.8%](http://hamptonroads.com/2011/06/38-percent-rise-charitable-giving-reason-hope) from last year. As you pointed out, food banks were overwhelmed after the crash. “[Just a week ago, the Houston Food Bank put out a plea for help as they deal with a demand unlike anything they’ve seen before. It’s a message Houstonians heard and are now answering.](http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7808652)” [“The study shows clearly that this tax deduction is a significant factor in charitable giving for the households that are the backbone of non-profit support,” Dunham said. “Based on IRS data, households making more than $100,000 represent about 10 percent of the population but make up 69 percent of all individual charitable donations. For 2009, that would have equaled about $150 billion. ”](http://www.christianpost.com/news/more-americans-plan-to-increase-charitable-giving-study-finds-48544/) Households making more than $100k per year would rather donate to charity than pay taxes. And oddly enough, when they do donate it decreases tax revenue, meaning the government has less to give. What you should actually conclude from your sites is that the government isn’t any more capable of feeding the hungry than private charities. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-tax-lottery-winnings-at-90/589175/112 "2011-07-18T23:34:48Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Or, as an alternative to a cite, why don’t you lay out the model under which a private solution can guarantee people a basic level of X? Here, X could be food, or health care or clothing or whatever you’d like. I was all set to, and then I realized you can’t show me a case where the government is able to either. I was thinking about the Canadian health care system that provides more than the basic level of health care. But it also relies heavily on private donations to do that. As an example, [SickKids Foundation](http://www.sickkidsfoundation.com/home/) was established in 1972 to help raises money for The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto (a horrible name for a hospital). Government funding isn’t sufficient. > [@BrightNShiny](#): > > And the fact that you can dismiss historical events so casually in a discussion about economics I think is fairly clear evidence that you aren’t actually interested in economics, but rather you are peddling ideology. If you want to discuss historical events involving hunger: neither Soviet Russia, Communist China, nor Cuba were able to keep their populations from starving. Do you know of a country that has? [Soviet famine of 1930–1933 - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%931933)]Soviet famine of 1932–1933, the direct result of the government trying to guarantee people a basic level of X, but in the end causing them to not have X. List of foreign donations to the US following Hurricane Katrina > **[International response to Hurricane Katrina](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina)** > > Many countries and international organizations offered the United States relief aid in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. > > According to the European Commission, six days after the disaster, on September 4, 2005, the United States officially asked the European Union for emergency help, asking for blankets, emergency medical kits, water and 500,000 food rations for victims. Help proposed by EU member states was coordinated through their crisis center. The British presidency of the EU fun... And how good was the government and making use of that money? “[It turns out that, like so much of the federal response to the crisis, the largest influx of foreign assistance to the US in memory was met with foot-dragging and clumsy bureaucracy. None of the donated funds has actually made its way to evacuees.](http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2006/08/24/what_happened_to_the_foreign_cash_for_katrina_victims)” ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2011, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-tax-lottery-winnings-at-90/589175/113 "2011-07-19T08:27:26Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > “Charities are not passive receptacles of contributions, as they have so often been > treated in the past, but are active players in the market for donations.” > > [http://igpa.uillinois.edu/system/files/wp94-govtgrants.pdf](http://igpa.uillinois.edu/system/files/wp94-govtgrants.pdf) > > This study looked at the effects of government grants on charitable organizations, and found that their behavior changes in response. When they get more government money, they decrease their fundraising initiatives. The obvious result is that after government funding gets cut there is a lag while charities rebuild their fundraising programs and get the message out to potential donors. > > In response, charitable giving goes up, in fact it’s up [3.8%](http://hamptonroads.com/2011/06/38-percent-rise-charitable-giving-reason-hope) from last year. I’m going to have to rely on your description, since I don’t have time to peruse this in depth until the weekend. However, if this is correct, then it seems that people behave irrationally in response to increased solicitation activity by charities. So, are you willing to admit that people often do make financial decisions which are not rational from a purely financial perspective? > [@](#): > > As you pointed out, food banks were overwhelmed after the crash. “[Just a week ago, the Houston Food Bank put out a plea for help as they deal with a demand unlike anything they’ve seen before. It’s a message Houstonians heard and are now answering.](http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7808652)” Again, relying on your description, this is an anecdote and not data. I don’t know why you think anyone should listen to you when you insist on doing this. > [@](#): > > [“The study shows clearly that this tax deduction is a significant factor in charitable giving for the households that are the backbone of non-profit support,” Dunham said. “Based on IRS data, households making more than $100,000 represent about 10 percent of the population but make up 69 percent of all individual charitable donations. For 2009, that would have equaled about $150 billion. ”](http://www.christianpost.com/news/more-americans-plan-to-increase-charitable-giving-study-finds-48544/) > > Households making more than $100k per year would rather donate to charity than pay taxes. And oddly enough, when they do donate it decreases tax revenue, meaning the government has less to give. > > What you should actually conclude from your sites is that the government isn’t any more capable of feeding the hungry than private charities. A tax deduction is a government subsidy. Why do you keep pointing at government activity as evidence of private sector capability? ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2011, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-tax-lottery-winnings-at-90/589175/114 "2011-07-19T08:37:18Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > I was all set to, and then I realized you can’t show me a case where the government is able to either. I was thinking about the Canadian health care system that provides more than the basic level of health care. But it also relies heavily on private donations to do that. As an example, [SickKids Foundation](http://www.sickkidsfoundation.com/home/) was established in 1972 to help raises money for The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto (a horrible name for a hospital). Government funding isn’t sufficient. Hmm. Let’s go back and look where I said that government funding is sufficient. Oh, wait, I didn’t. Do you need to resort to strawmen now because you are completely incapable of defending your original thesis in this thread? The Canadians have very heavy government involvement in their health care sector. We do too, but in a completely different manner. So, instead of spitting out nonsense about how charities can fill the gap, why don’t you just admit what your own data shows, which is that charities operate on top of a government back bone, and that government activity is a necessary component. > [@](#): > > If you want to discuss historical events involving hunger: neither Soviet Russia, Communist China, nor Cuba were able to keep their populations from starving. Do you know of a country that has? > > [Soviet famine of 1930–1933 - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%931933)]Soviet famine of 1932–1933, the direct result of the government trying to guarantee people a basic level of X, but in the end causing them to not have X. Ha, ha, ha! Nothing I said in this thread could even be taken to support anything like a command economy approach to anything. This is strawmen argument of the basest sort, and it shows you have no ability to defend your own arguments. > [@](#): > > List of foreign donations to the US following Hurricane Katrina > [International response to Hurricane Katrina - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina) > > And how good was the government and making use of that money? > “[It turns out that, like so much of the federal response to the crisis, the largest influx of foreign assistance to the US in memory was met with foot-dragging and clumsy bureaucracy. None of the donated funds has actually made its way to evacuees.](http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2006/08/24/what_happened_to_the_foreign_cash_for_katrina_victims)” You also listed the tsunamis. Remind me what air lift capability the Red Cross has? Oh, wait. They don’t have any. They are completely dependent on government activity to distribute supplies. If you want to argue that private charities can provide a useful addition to government activity, I have no problem with that. However, if your argument is that there is a model in which the private sector can completely guarantee a minimum level of X, there is nothing in this thread you have posted that even comes close to showing that. So, pick a thesis and tell us clearly what it is, because right now I can’t figure out what exactly you are arguing. And try to avoid resorting to straw men if you want anyone to take you seriously. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2011, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-tax-lottery-winnings-at-90/589175/115 "2011-07-19T11:06:30Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > [“The study shows clearly that this tax deduction is a significant factor in charitable giving for the households that are the backbone of non-profit support,” Dunham said. “Based on IRS data, households making more than $100,000 represent about 10 percent of the population but make up 69 percent of all individual charitable donations. For 2009, that would have equaled about $150 billion. ”](http://www.christianpost.com/news/more-americans-plan-to-increase-charitable-giving-study-finds-48544/) Hee. I just looked at this cite, and it completely supports my position in its very first line: > [@](#): > > **After three years of weakening support for charities** , Americans indicated that they are more likely to increase donations this year, according to a study released Monday. (bolding added) So, as I stated, private charities often can’t come through (my actual position and not your strawman one), and here you post a cite showing that for 3 years straight, private charitable donations dropped. Which is exactly my point. For those of us concerned about the three years in question, then no, the private sector did not come through in an adequate fashion (based on this cite, I suspect the story is a bit more complicated). But thanks for posting a cite that supports my position and not yours. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2011, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-tax-lottery-winnings-at-90/589175/116 "2011-07-19T14:42:28Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Seems like the perfect win/win: conservatives will like it because it’s increasing taxes on the poor since they’re the ones playing the lottery[sup]1[/sup] [sup]2[/sup] [sup]3[/sup] Oh, man. What an astute observation. You nailed us, bucky - we just loves us some extra taxes on de poor folks. And shit. > [@](#): > > What could possibly be a downside? The fact that no one would play the lotteries any more. Actually, this whole proposal is a good example of why progressive income taxes stifle productivity. You increase the tax rate, the incentive to earn more goes down, or in this case, the incentive to buy lottery tickets goes down. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2011, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-tax-lottery-winnings-at-90/589175/117 "2011-07-19T21:56:32Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Seems like the perfect win/win: conservatives will like it because it’s increasing taxes on the poor since they’re the ones playing the lottery[sup]1[/sup] [sup]2[/sup] [sup]3[/sup] ; meanwhile liberals will like it because it increases taxes on the _newly_ rich which can be given to the poor. > > We’ve already established that money is unearned [[from here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=615853)], so let’s follow through with that. > > Last year NY State Lottery paid out about $4billion, of which the federal government takes about 35%. If we up that to 90% the feds get an easy $3.6 billion from NY alone. The Texas State Lottery pays out $2.3billion, so there’s another $2 billion. Right now I’ve sifting through the financial report from the California State Lottery, and it claims they gave out $32.2 billion in prizes. Taxed at 90% that’s almost enough to fund SNAP. [PDF of California’s financial report](http://www.calottery.com/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_8CDBDC79D3DC53EE4472C95A10DDE9C093BD5500/filename/CA_Lottery_CAFR_2010.pdf) > > What could possibly be a downside? > > The best part is that if we take 90% of the payouts and give it to the poor they’ll have more money to buy lottery tickets, which goes right back to the government, who can give it out to even poorer people. How’s that for a multiplier! > > 1 [In Texas:](http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2008/12/who-plays-the-texas-lottery-for-starters-men-more-than-women/) > \*There’s plenty to suggest that the Texas lottery tends to be regressive, appealing to folks who can least afford it. > > While players from high income brackets reported higher participation rates than low income players, low income players spent, for the most part, more money per month. > > Players making under $12,000 a year spent three times as much as those pulling in over $100,000 and nearly double those making between $75,000 and $100,000. ($19 a month for the under $12,000 respondents, vs. $6 a month for those over $100,000; and $10 for those earning between $75,000 and $100,000.\* > > 2 [In South Carolina](http://arkansasnews.com/2009/07/26/sc-studies-show-poor-blacks-most-likely-to-play-lottery-often/) > _But a review of demographic studies commissioned by the South Carolina Education Lottery, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, shows that although low-income and minority groups may not be targeted in the lottery’s advertising, they are more likely than other > —People in households earning under $40,000 accounted for 28 percent of the state’s population, 31.3 percent of lottery players and 53.4 percent of frequent players._ > > 3 [In California](http://www.calottery.com/Media/CurrentQuarter/Archive/19994thQtr/991214.htm), 44% of sales are from households earning less than $35k per year (1999 stat) Oh not this shit again. There is a difference between 90% taxation and raising the tax rate by 3% ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2011, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-tax-lottery-winnings-at-90/589175/118 "2011-07-19T21:57:42Z")
> [@Dingbang](#): > > Nope, but that doesn’t mean I have to abide trite, snide remarks by liberals who assume everyone thinks they way they do. Wait… You think Emacknight is a liberal? He’s some mutant form of libertarian. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2011, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-tax-lottery-winnings-at-90/589175/119 "2011-07-19T22:02:37Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Are you saying that taxing an addition unearned million at 90% would be confiscatory? How low should the tax rate be on an addition million dollars be so that it’s not? 50% ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2011, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-tax-lottery-winnings-at-90/589175/120 "2011-07-19T22:05:04Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Well, it wasn’t really my OP, you see. My own OPs rarely get this much activity, so it must not be all THAT boring. > > -XT If you started a thread that said “THE MOON IS MADE OUT OF CHEESE!!!” Then you would get some traffic too [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-tax-lottery-winnings-at-90/589175.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-tax-lottery-winnings-at-90/589175.md?page=7)