Oops. Here I use the term “cousin Vinny” as a slur about mobsters running numbers, and then I realize Virginslayer is a Vinnie.
December, with all respect, and no offense intended . . .
I agree 100%.
Scary, but true. 
Agreed.
Um, you just said it wasn’t a tax. Are you planning on making up your mind? You continue to pontificate that people are some how forced to purchase lottery tickets. And you have repeatedly stated that “the poor” are among those forced. I know many, many poor folks who are sensible enough not to bother with the lottery. Granted that this is merely anecdotal, but some of those people have had the ability to move up quite substantially in the world. No, I don’t believe “social mobility” is a myth at all. But no one said it was easy.
I find it rather disgusting that you don’t have enough faith in people’s freedom to allow them to decide what to do with their own money.
So it would be better to force more money away from everybody instead of letting them spend it how they see fit?
I have absolutely no idea WTF this is supposed to mean.
Fundamentaly the issue at stake here is freedom. Now, personally, I’m not a fan of government lotteries. I think there are far better ways to raise capital. But apparently, people want them. Why do you insist on removing that right? People want to waste their money on a lottery. Because, as super_head pointed out, it’s fun. It’s a game after all. It is not your responsibility, indeed, it is not even your right to “protect” someone from this act of stupidity, no more than it is your right to “protect” someone from viewing pornography, smoking a joint, or exchanging money for sex.
A senior person at my old company once told me how, before the days of the state-run lotteries, most major offices had “runners” assigned to them to collect wagers and distribute payoffs. According to this guy, organized crime had a lower “vig” than the state. i.e. the mob “numbers game” returned significantly more than 51% of wagers in prizes.
I realize that it’s a question of values, but personally, I believe that governments should not be in the business of “vice.” (i.e. drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, prostitution, etc.)
I believe that most libertarians would also oppose state-run gambling: their position would be (1) get rid of the state enforced monopoly; and (2) let private companies handle it.
I also agree that lotteries are not a “tax” in the sense that there is no force involved. But let’s face reality: there are a good number of citizens that don’t have the sense/sanity/whatever to make a wise decision in this area. Even if you believe that the government should not protect such people from their own decisions, do you think the government should be, in effect, taking advantage of these people?
So, you find yourself disgusted a lot, huh Friedo?
friedo, if you are going to respond to my posts, at least try not to misrepresent me.
I have not said that anyone is forced to purchase lottery tickets, contrary to your assertion here:
What I did say is this:
I would be interested in seeing how you can derive one modicum of coercion from the above statement.
You will be relieved to know that my actual opinion, pasted from my first post on this matter, is below:
For the record, individuals’ ability to spend their own money has created a host of undeniable social ills. I never said that this was a prerogative for limiting such freedoms.
You want to buy that big house on the hill? You pay the taxes. Sounds like spending how one sees fit as well. You want to play the lottery? You know you don’t have a prayer of winning, so you waste your money.
In both cases, spending has consequences. All parties are informed. What’s your problem then?
People complain all the time that high property taxes are kicking out the elderly and the “real” people living in neighborhoods, contributing to the homogenization of urban space, and a host of other social ills. Many people on the conservative side of the socio-political spectrum usually respond that no one has a right to live where he or she wants. So if the lottery were abolished and the remainder of educational initiative money were taken from higher property taxes, the wealthy will complain. And I would respond that just like the poor, they don’t have any right to live in the manner that they would like. If they can’t afford the taxes on their ten bedroom estate, they should move out. Someone richer will move in.
I have not insisted on that at all. I don’t insist on banning horse races or malt liquor, either. What’s your point, or are you just misrepresenting me to shore up your own position? So far, the only one who has seriously considered banning the lottery was Vinnie.
Of course, and I firmly believe that all of the above should be legal, even if I consider some of these acts to be shameful. Just like the lottery.
The fact that I would love to see it disappear is a far cry from advocating its banning. I would love to see AIDS and world hunger disappear as well.
MR
Well put. Furthermore, the government actually promotes the foolishness, by advertising touting the rich lifestyles enjoyed by lottery winners. (I seem to recall that Gov. Pataki of NY decided to tone that angle and emphasize the support for education line, but I don’t know if that was followed through).
Maeglin, I apologize for my above post; I misunderstood what you were saying.
You and I agree that lotteries are fundamentally dumb. Fine.
But I still don’t think the lottery “takes advantage” of people. Perhaps it takes advantage of stupidity in general; but no one is being lied to or having their money stolen.
FTR, no, I do not think people have the right to live in whatever kind of house they want. They have the right to live in the kind of house they can afford to pay for. FWIW, I think the comparison between loteries and taxes (whether in jest or not) is simply flawed. One is the result of direct coercion and the other is not.
I would love to see some people realize that there are things that neither the market nor the government can successfully address, so they can quit overregulation. I think you agree. For those that don’t:
Lets just ban HIV. The virus, if detected within USA’s borders, will be subject to a fine not exceeding $1000 and shall have a mandatory sentence of not less than 1 year and not more than 10.
After all, the pharmaceutical companies have been very unsuccessful in controlling the disease so the only option left must be government action. This is as true for the lottery as it is for anything!
This is definitely the only real basis for contention, and one that I understand. I think it depends on how one prioritizes the definition of the word “tax.” No, I am not going to split ass hairs or anything, so hear me out.
To me, a tax is a means by which the government brings in revenue. The government provides services, people pay a tax.
I imagine that you emphasize the compulsory and confiscatory nature of taxation, to which a lottery simply cannot and should not be compared.
Am I close here?
Yep, for the record, I agree completely. But I cannot give up trying to figure out ways to address these issues.
I’m unable to find a definition for “tax” which matches yours… The American Heritage Dictionary, Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, and WordNet (all from http://www.dictionary.com) emphasize that the nature of a tax is that it is levied or placed upon the populace, not voluntarily contributed. There is no charge from the government that people must buy lottery tickets, and there is no punishment for failure to buy lotter tickets - the opposite holds true for taxes.
Why do I shake my head in disbelief still?
It is an *analogy.
I said explicitly that the lottery is not a tax. I explained above why I thought a comparison is fair.
Oh, I doubt it. It seems clear from the article the lady’s coworkers don’t have a leg to stand on. They gave her $10 each to by the 19 of them tickets. She bought $190 worth of tickets. Then she went back and bought more tickets for herself and her husband. The record from the store apparently indicates she did exactly as promised – bought 190 tickets, none of which was the winner. The winner was one of the 20 tickets bought separately. Unless she promised not only to buy the office tickets but furthermore to NOT buy additional tickets for herself, she doesn’t owe her coworkers a thing. I think I have a pretty highly developed sense of fairness, and I’d keep the money and not turn a hair about it.
And I think that the lottery cannot fairly be considered a tax, either by explicit labelling or by analogy, unless or until we are required to buy lottery tickets as we are now required to pay taxes. If we analogize “any source of revenue” as a tax, then surplus sales and savings bonds are akin to taxes as well.
I’ve probably spent $150.00 in the 7 or 8 years my state has had a lottery. I know my chances of winning are less than the probability Cindy Crawford secretly pines for me but you know what? Until they announce the results I can fantasize about what I’d do with the money all I want. I can think about what I’d buy for my family members, the trips my friends and I’d make, charities I’d help and, oh yeah, the crap I’d get for myself. A friend of mine never listens to the results that night but instead goes to bed thinking he’s a millionaire. He is 5’6" and that the average height of the winners, you know. I’m not rich but I can afford the occassional ticket and for me, it’s cheap entertainment.
You said it wasn’t the same as a property tax, actually. You also said that it was a “tax on hope” and a “tax on the illusion of social mobility”.
And then you said:
Which is only about half the definition, and not necessarily accurate since the government is under no obligation to provide you a service in exchange for the tax.
Which is the other half of the definition of a tax, thus whether you consider it a tax or only one by analogy, it’s invalid. You may stop shaking your head now.
Don’t misunderstand me - I fully understand the sentiment of what you’re aiming to get across. I just don’t think the comparison is valid.
although this would guarentee she couldn’t cheat them it kinda would suck that she had no option to play on her own if implemented
Remember were talking about multi-million dollar winnings here. I dont know about powerball but in CA the lottery tickets all have time/date stamps, transaction #'s, etc on a special type of paper, etc. If she has 190 sequential tickets then 20 more after that meshing with her story, her co-workers are out of luck. Thanks for playing. If her ticket was in the middle of the 190, I think she needs to be sued silly. So in a nutshell I really think we need more specific data before we can claim wrongdoing based on what made a cool news story. This is GD isn’t it? Lets get facts before we scream foul. If we cant get facts, not much to debate.
Under the circumstances I feel that I would pay up to my coworkers. Then again if this had been me I would have bought my 20 at a different store to create a definite traceable difference between the 190 and the 20.
Then again I know that even divided 19 ways 70+ million can be used to make a pretty nice life for myself for a very long time.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by pkbites *
**
Don’t you forget it either, smart guy. Remember, we know who you are, you might not who WE ARE!
As for instructions as to where you should spend your money, I’d be more than happy to help someone that desires to use my guidelines to run their lives:
1. Food
2. Housing
3. Clothing
4. Education
5. Transportastion
6. Retirement account
7. Books
8. Charity (directly)
9. Travel
10.And of course, beer!
Lottery tickets would rank abot 114 on this list.
To those of you who say you buy lottery tickets because you enjoy daydreaming about winning, I can only say that I can daydream too–at a much lower cost.
And then I can actually do something constructive with my money.
i fail to see what one can constructively do with $1 a week. Though you did probably mean people who play far more than that…