PDA

View Full Version : Govt Lottery - Good or bad ?



uscitizen
08-24-2006, 05:36 AM
Are Govt sponsored Lotteries good or bad for our nation ?

Damocles
08-24-2006, 06:08 AM
Tax on the poor. Overall they are bad.

charver
08-24-2006, 06:45 AM
Without our national lottery we'd be in a hell of a state.

Thanks to the lottery we can now - pay our athletes huge amounts of cash to run about a bit with no prospect of winning anything, subsidise the royal ballet and the opera so the working classes can indulge in their traditional pastimes and displace high quality drama and innovative comedy with lowest common denominator based lottery draw programming, for the terminally vapid.

There are some bad points too.

Care4all
08-24-2006, 06:52 AM
BAD, an extra tax on the poor and middle class and it is without it ever being attributed to these poor as taxes they pay...same with liquor sales and cigarette sales tax and gas taxes.... all taxes collected by our gvt from the middle class and poor, to pay the bills...but they are not income taxes, so no credit for them from the repubs!.....what bullcrap!



:D

Damocles
08-24-2006, 07:00 AM
They don't get credit for them from the Dems either. And many of those taxes you mention are proposed by Dems to pay for the costs of healthcare...

I love the way you attempt to make this all about Rs somehow. In CO the R governor tried to kill the Lotto. It's all good though, he was doing it because he was against overtaxing the poor, but he doesn't give them credit right?

Care4all
08-24-2006, 07:06 AM
They don't get credit for them from the Dems either. And many of those taxes you mention are proposed by Dems to pay for the costs of healthcare...

I love the way you attempt to make this all about Rs somehow. In CO the R governor tried to kill the Lotto. It's all good though, he was doing it because he was against overtaxing the poor, but he doesn't give them credit right?

TAKE NOTE!

I edited my post, by adding the ''sh*t eating grin'' smiley!

good morning damo!

charver
08-24-2006, 07:09 AM
I've never really gone with the "tax on the poor" argument.

Nobody's forced to buy a ticket and a lottery ticket isn't exactly a staple product. If an individual wants to volunteer to pay taxes to the government then let them.

People are going to gamble, be it the lottery or the horses, the football or the stock market. The lottery punter is no more stupid than the sap in the casino who thinks he's going to beat the house. If people want to delude themselves that a buck will buy you a good chance of a million dollar return then that's their look out.

Care4all
08-24-2006, 07:09 AM
They don't get credit for them from the Dems either. And many of those taxes you mention are proposed by Dems to pay for the costs of healthcare...

I love the way you attempt to make this all about Rs somehow. In CO the R governor tried to kill the Lotto. It's all good though, he was doing it because he was against overtaxing the poor, but he doesn't give them credit right?

somebody's got to get the juices flowing on this board.....:D, just thought i'd help do that for ya! lol

c.

Care4all
08-24-2006, 07:14 AM
I've never really gone with the "tax on the poor" argument.

Nobody's forced to buy a ticket and a lottery ticket isn't exactly a staple product. If an individual wants to volunteer to pay taxes to the government then let them.

People are going to gamble, be it the lottery or the horses, the football or the stock market. The lottery punter is no more stupid than the sap in the casino who thinks he's going to beat the house. If people want to delude themselves that a buck will buy you a good chance of a million dollar return then that's thei look out.

true, ''they'' are not FORCED TO charver, but ''they'' are KNOWN to pay for these kind of things OVER AND ABOVE the few of the wealthiest in the world...and this is KNOWN long before the tax is introduced...thus a tax primarily on the poor and middle but not the rich....why do you need to win a million bucks when you already have $200 million? :) tickets are primarily purchased by those that are wishing to be wealthy...

charver
08-24-2006, 07:18 AM
Actually, you'd be surprised how many lottery winners continue to buy tickets.

Rather than a "tax on the poor" a more apt description would be a "tax on the greedy".

Damocles
08-24-2006, 07:47 AM
Actually, you'd be surprised how many lottery winners continue to buy tickets.

Rather than a "tax on the poor" a more apt description would be a "tax on the greedy".
Except they purchase the tickets in a far higher percentage. The poor are constantly purchasing these things.... And man I know it. At one time I managed four convenience stores. The ones in the poor area (I had two in the "bad egg" side of town) sold almost 5 times the lotto tickets than the more well-off areas, even though the well-off areas had more sales overall...

LadyT
08-24-2006, 07:54 AM
I agree with charver, its not really a "tax". I think they are a good thing. The only problem I have with them is that you get structured settlements rather than lump sums for the full amount of winnings. I don't think that's fair. I see no problem with them. People like to gamble and the states get money. Its a win win.

charver
08-24-2006, 08:19 AM
The only problem I have with them is that you get structured settlements rather than lump sums for the full amount of winnings. I don't think that's fair. I see no problem with them. People like to gamble and the states get money. Its a win win.

The UK lottery just pays out the full amount, none of this so much a year for the next 20 years business and the only tax paid is on the original purchase price of the ticket. The practice of taxing people's winnings is an absolute con.

uscitizen
08-24-2006, 08:34 AM
Charver over here that gommit gets money coming and going on the lottery :(

The poor hit the lottery for a chance at making the big time or living retirement in comfort. the more affluent already have that so no need for playing the lottery. Of course there are gambling addicts in both groups and always will be. One thing I saw that was sadly hillarious is on one side of the road is a billboard promoting hitting it big on the lottery and on the other side was one about gambling problems ? Call for help.
We all seem to want our cake and eat it too.

Damocles
08-24-2006, 08:48 AM
The UK lottery just pays out the full amount, none of this so much a year for the next 20 years business and the only tax paid is on the original purchase price of the ticket. The practice of taxing people's winnings is an absolute con.
You have to remember that these lotteries are held by States, not by the Federal Government. They take their piece regardless...

I was always frustrated when I got a check from the Treasury that they took taxes out of while I was in the Military...

uscitizen
08-24-2006, 09:13 AM
Heck in the usa they will tax your SSI benefits.

I beleive we also pay sales tax on federal taxes on tires and such.

IHateGovernment
08-24-2006, 10:55 AM
The lottery is fine if it is done through private enterprise I have no problem with it. If you are dumb enough to play the lottery go ahead and waste your money thats fine by me.

However the government should not do it. In general I think the government should keep away from instituting things that are harmful to people. Gambling addiction comes in many forms and obsessive loterry ticket purchasing is one of them. Government should not be the party that is causing such a thing.

I approve of legalizing marijuana for recreational use. That doesn't mean I think government institutions should be selling it in order to raise tax revenue.

uscitizen
08-24-2006, 11:29 AM
Agreed IHG, what about alcohol ?

IHateGovernment
08-24-2006, 11:35 AM
No government should not sell vices. Frankly government shouldn't sell anything except that which is already owns. If is is necessary for a function of government perhaps but not as a revenue raiser.

DigitalDave
08-24-2006, 11:53 AM
The Lottery is one of my biggest pet peeves with the government. For one, I do not want to hear a god-damned politician tell me how bad it would be to have a casino in the state of Ohio, then not mention a damn thing about the state run lottery. Yeah, gambling is a problem, a government run so it continues problem, and any way they can reach in the pockets of people, they'll fuckin' do it. Especially when they can do it to dumb people wanting a better life but can't get a grip on reality enough to stop themselves from buying the damn things. It is not a win-win situation for anyone other than the politicians who take that money a blow it on bullshit, and they'll spend it on anything and get away with it, because no one complains when it comes from 'lottery ticket sales'. Hey, your tax dollars aren't buying pork, the poor dumb people are! Vegas is an awesome tourist attraction, and the gambling is done with privatly owned casinos. There are a ton of jobs and money flowing in to Vegas, and the chances of coming out with more than you went in with are better than the lotteries, but better yet, people have fun there. Not just the gambling, but all the shows and attractions that show up there just because of the amount of tourists the city attracts. That is a win-win situation, not this damn government run gambling program.

IHateGovernment
08-24-2006, 11:59 AM
I agree lottery tickets are the stupidest way to gamble. I go to the casino occasionally and play some black jack or video poker. I only spend an amount of money that I would to have a good time nothing more.

Scratching off tickets or entering numbers into a computer isn't my idea of a good time.

LadyT
08-24-2006, 12:06 PM
The Lottery is one of my biggest pet peeves with the government. For one, I do not want to hear a god-damned politician tell me how bad it would be to have a casino in the state of Ohio, then not mention a damn thing about the state run lottery. Yeah, gambling is a problem, a government run so it continues problem, and any way they can reach in the pockets of people, they'll fuckin' do it. Especially when they can do it to dumb people wanting a better life but can't get a grip on reality enough to stop themselves from buying the damn things. It is not a win-win situation for anyone other than the politicians who take that money a blow it on bullshit, and they'll spend it on anything and get away with it, because no one complains when it comes from 'lottery ticket sales'. Hey, your tax dollars aren't buying pork, the poor dumb people are! Vegas is an awesome tourist attraction, and the gambling is done with privatly owned casinos. There are a ton of jobs and money flowing in to Vegas, and the chances of coming out with more than you went in with are better than the lotteries, but better yet, people have fun there. Not just the gambling, but all the shows and attractions that show up there just because of the amount of tourists the city attracts. That is a win-win situation, not this damn government run gambling program.

Well, my state allows casinos and other forms of betting, so I definitely don't share your fustration on that front. People like getting lottery tickets and taking their chances and hitting it big, it may not be your cup of tea, but if it gives people pleasure to purchase them then so be it. If hte gov't can use it to fund education budgets, roads etc, then great.

Are you libertarians telling me that if given the choice you'd prefer to pay the difference in income taxes rather than get funds from the lotto?

IHateGovernment
08-24-2006, 12:15 PM
Well, my state allows casinos and other forms of betting, so I definitely don't share your fustration on that front. People like getting lottery tickets and taking their chances and hitting it big, it may not be your cup of tea, but if it gives people pleasure to purchase them then so be it. If hte gov't can use it to fund education budgets, roads etc, then great.

Are you libertarians telling me that if given the choice you'd prefer to pay the difference in income taxes rather than get funds from the lotto?

I am. Would you feel the same way if the State of Nevada built state sponsored brothels to raise tax revenue.

uscitizen
08-24-2006, 12:16 PM
Never been to a casino to bet, some good food though :)
I do buy the occasional lottery ticket. I do know of several people though to whom the lottery and gambling have become a very big part of their life.
And they are worse off finiancially than I am. One thing I can't link up though, all the lotto junkies I know voted for Bush :) Perhaps it is a faith thing.

uscitizen
08-24-2006, 12:18 PM
Well, my state allows casinos and other forms of betting, so I definitely don't share your fustration on that front. People like getting lottery tickets and taking their chances and hitting it big, it may not be your cup of tea, but if it gives people pleasure to purchase them then so be it. If hte gov't can use it to fund education budgets, roads etc, then great.

Are you libertarians telling me that if given the choice you'd prefer to pay the difference in income taxes rather than get funds from the lotto?

I am. Would you feel the same way if the State of Nevada built state sponsored brothels to raise tax revenue.

they are sort of state sponsored now are they not ?
Now govt run, that is another issue, how much paperwork would I have to fill out to play there :)

leaningright
08-24-2006, 12:19 PM
Well, my state allows casinos and other forms of betting, so I definitely don't share your fustration on that front. People like getting lottery tickets and taking their chances and hitting it big, it may not be your cup of tea, but if it gives people pleasure to purchase them then so be it. If hte gov't can use it to fund education budgets, roads etc, then great.

Are you libertarians telling me that if given the choice you'd prefer to pay the difference in income taxes rather than get funds from the lotto?

And that is just the problem, at least in our state. We just approved the state lottery a couple of years ago.....all in the name of funding education. That's bunk. With the lottery in full swing it now seems that education actually gets like 1/2 of one percent of lotto monies. It reminds me of when I was a kid and liquor by the drink and paramutual betting were voted in....all in the name of education. It's never true.

And I do agree the the poorer in our society tend to be the supporters of this type of gambling system. It is their choice to participate though. I just don't like the lottery and I certainly don't like how people lied to get it to pass in our state.

uscitizen
08-24-2006, 12:19 PM
another point why are the liquor sales liscences limited in number so as to avoid competition and lower prices ?

uscitizen
08-24-2006, 12:21 PM
Yeah FL had the same lottery scam, got it voted it to help education, well they withdrew the tax funding for schools and supplied the same amount of money from the lotto. but people still pay school tax. Fraud ?

IHateGovernment
08-24-2006, 12:28 PM
another point why are the liquor sales liscences limited in number so as to avoid competition and lower prices ?

Jersey does that and I hate it. over 100K for a liquor license.

LadyT
08-24-2006, 12:42 PM
Well, my state allows casinos and other forms of betting, so I definitely don't share your fustration on that front. People like getting lottery tickets and taking their chances and hitting it big, it may not be your cup of tea, but if it gives people pleasure to purchase them then so be it. If hte gov't can use it to fund education budgets, roads etc, then great.

Are you libertarians telling me that if given the choice you'd prefer to pay the difference in income taxes rather than get funds from the lotto?

I am. Would you feel the same way if the State of Nevada built state sponsored brothels to raise tax revenue.

I don't know to be honest. I'd give a disapproving wince and move on. I don't think I have a strong enough opinion either way considering I think it should be legal anyway. I mean, why shouldn't the state be able to make money off of it? I'm sure the benefits would be pretty decent for the guys and gals working there.

LadyT
08-24-2006, 12:44 PM
another point why are the liquor sales liscences limited in number so as to avoid competition and lower prices ?

Jersey does that and I hate it. over 100K for a liquor license.


I'd be all for getting rid of the entire liquor licenscing scam all together.

IHateGovernment
08-24-2006, 12:47 PM
I don't know to be honest. I'd give a disapproving wince and move on. I don't think I have a strong enough opinion either way considering I think it should be legal anyway. I mean, why shouldn't the state be able to make money off of it? I'm sure the benefits would be pretty decent for the guys and gals working there.

Mainly because it is the governments job to fight the negative effects of such things in our society. If they are running brothels it is counter productive to do so if the state is also charged with fighting STDs. If people are stealing money to gamble with it makes no sense for government to contribute toward theft.

Government shouldn't make things difficult for itself in this way. Government is also a representative of the people and many would find it odious that government was tkaing part in prostitution or drug peddling.

I feel that these things shouldn't be illegal because people should have freedom of choice. That doesn't mean I think they are good and I would encourage people not to do these things. Government's job is to protect the people not to provide an avenue for the people to harm themselves and potentially others.

Care4all
08-24-2006, 12:56 PM
yes tiana, it would be better.

at least then, you wouldn't have all of these toons from the other side claiming the wealthiest pay the majority of our taxes, then they show you ONLY income taxes as their example of higher tax rates on the rich while the poor and middle pay near nothing in taxes....is WHAT they always claim...

which is just bullshit, when there are so many other taxes, and many of them hidden, that the average joe pays every single day that they purposly neglect to condider in their rhetoric about taxes.

In addition to this, you are preying on the poor and middle class's hope of becoming a millionaire with the lottery...Which would be much higher a chance if the government did not take their huge cut for taxes...ya know?

I just hate it when repugs always say that "The poor" DOES NOT PAY TAXES, when in reality, with LOTTO and horse racing and slot machines and casinos, and liquor taxes, and fuel taxes, and utility taxes, and phone taxes, payroll taxes, and cigarette taxes....these poor people end up paying a higher percentage of their salary than the repugs say about them and put them down for... :(

Now adding a national lottery is just taking from the hopeful person...the every day joe, while we continue to give more tax breaks for the wealthiest among us....

just downright wrong in my humble opinion...

care

LadyT
08-24-2006, 01:13 PM
Yes, but these people are getting a service in return for their money. And they would actually be upset if you took it away from them. People enjoy playing it. I don't think you can really call it a "tax". Its a service provided by the gov't that helps lower our tax burdens. I'm actually stunned that libertarians would rather have more income taxes rather than something elective like this. My grandmother likes to play the lottery and when she hits and gets a little money here and there, she's elated. Its a game for her. I don't think the states taking advantage of her. If she couldn't afford it, she wouldn't/shouldn't do it.

I'm curious as to what Dano thinks.

IHateGovernment
08-24-2006, 01:24 PM
And they would actually be upset if you took it away from them.

Sell the lottery to a private enterprise I'm sure they would be happy to operate it.

Dano probably would agree with me because he is opposed to government being involved with commerce. He didn't even like my idea of having prisoners produce sellable goods to offset the cost of their incarceration.

LadyT
08-24-2006, 01:28 PM
And they would actually be upset if you took it away from them.

Sell the lottery to a private enterprise I'm sure they would be happy to operate it.

Dano probably would agree with me because he is opposed to government being involved with commerce. He didn't even like my idea of having prisoners produce sellable goods to offset the cost of their incarceration.

only because it meant less $$$ for big business. I'd like to add, I'm all for a private lotteries too. I just see don't anything wrong with the gov't doing it as well.

DigitalDave
08-24-2006, 01:29 PM
I'm actually stunned that libertarians would rather have more income taxes rather than something elective like this.

The government isn't a business. Just because they can find a way to make money doesn't mean they should do it. To me, the lottery is only a way to fund the government and give them more reason to spend on crap that isn't needed. Lottery sales haven't lowered my taxes any either.

LadyT
08-24-2006, 01:31 PM
The government isn't a business. Just because they can find a way to make money doesn't mean they should do it. To me, the lottery is only a way to fund the government and give them more reason to spend on crap that isn't needed. Lottery sales haven't lowered my taxes any either.

yeah, but if they got rid of it, you'd have to pay more in taxes.

DigitalDave
08-24-2006, 01:32 PM
Oh, sin taxes haven't lowered my taxes either. You would think, with all these taxes that the government collects in different ways, and all the new ways they are finding to steal more from us, that our taxes would drop, or they could balance their budgets. I don't see it happening.

Damocles
08-24-2006, 01:33 PM
What I see as wrong, is a State where it is illegal to run a 50/50 pool, will often have a lotto where they take 50% of the proceeds...

Hyprocritical.

They also have a larger base with less cost association as bureaucrats are a dime a dozen and they pay the cops to protect them rather than having to basically hiring their own police force....

The government should not be involved in a for-profit venture as they often have too large of an advantage over any competition. Especially when they make laws against exactly what they are doing.

DigitalDave
08-24-2006, 01:35 PM
yeah, but if they got rid of it, you'd have to pay more in taxes.

Or they would just have to cut some pork out of their budget because if they raised taxes any more on the people of Ohio, people would just move out of the state.

LadyT
08-24-2006, 01:35 PM
What I see as wrong, is a State where it is illegal to run a 50/50 pool, will often have a lotto where they take 50% of the proceeds...

Hyprocritical.

They also have a larger base with less cost association as bureaucrats are a dime a dozen and they pay the cops to protect them rather than having to basically hiring their own police force....

The government should not be involved in a for-profit venture as they often have too large of an advantage over any competition. Especially when they make laws against exactly what they are doing.


very good point.

LadyT
08-24-2006, 01:37 PM
Or they would just have to cut some pork out of their budget ...........

hah hah hah!!! "cut some pork out of their budgets".......Yeah, that'll happen. Keep holding your breath. In the mean time, I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth.

DigitalDave
08-24-2006, 01:39 PM
hah hah hah!!! "cut some pork out of their budgets".......Yeah, that'll happen. Keep holding your breath. In the mean time, I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Well, I feel as long as we accept the gift horse, the government will never change...

LadyT
08-24-2006, 01:47 PM
Well, I feel as long as we accept the gift horse, the government will never change...

I can tell you exactly what would happen:
they'd let it go private, there'd be a hole in the budget and they will do what they always do when faced with that dilemma raise taxes or increase traffic violations or vehicle registrations to cover the difference. You'll be told "but if we don't the children.....the elderly......yada yada yada" and bam, you're sales taxes, income taxes or gas taxes are up. If you have some plan of getting to cut spending, you can implement it now even with the lotto in place - I'll buy you a case of Corona if you do.

But damo and you do have a good point about the hypocrisy of hte gov't telling private companies they can't have lotteries while the states do. I think we all see the elephant in the room with that one though.

Care4all
08-24-2006, 01:50 PM
Yes, but these people are getting a service in return for their money. And they would actually be upset if you took it away from them. People enjoy playing it. I don't think you can really call it a "tax". Its a service provided by the gov't that helps lower our tax burdens. I'm actually stunned that libertarians would rather have more income taxes rather than something elective like this. My grandmother likes to play the lottery and when she hits and gets a little money here and there, she's elated. Its a game for her. I don't think the states taking advantage of her. If she couldn't afford it, she wouldn't/shouldn't do it.

I'm curious as to what Dano thinks.

most of them are not getting a service tiana, when it comes to a National Lottery....

There getting a chance, a CHANCE AT RICHES, riches that they would never have the opportunity to make in an entire lifetime....

And there are also those that have let this chance turn in to a Vice....a vice that our government is making money off of when our government is suppose to be there for the betterment of individuals that live here...not to support and make money off of their citizen's weaknesses.

I know this is not the case with alot of people that gamble...like in casinos...I too enjoy myself...

But for many people casual gambling can lead to becoming a vice...shoot it probably even could with me, if I didn't watch myself...

To know that our government is making money off of these type of conditions, to me, is wrong and certainly not better for our general welfare...

and in addition to this, the government has lied to us over and over again to get gambling initiatives passed by the public...

With Atlantic City it was to clean up the city and to pay far a better education for the children of the state than they were getting.

In Florida, they passed a state lottery because this extra lottery money was suppose to making their piss poor educational system better....

then after they passed, and it is Florida in specific that I know the details...they did let all of LOTTO money go to the schools, but in fine print that was never shown to us, they cut out all of the budget money that went towards schools and USED ONLY THE LOTTO MONEY, not adding anything to the schools in the end. Then they took the money that was going towards their schooling in the budget and spent it ON OTHER THINGS...

So schools never ended up getting better, the poor and those that hope for more were preyed upon, and their congress got all this money to spend on pork barrel projects that used to go in to the schools...

I agree with ihg, it is a scam, and very few people end up being huge tax payers while others get away with NOT paying their fair share...

care

What did people do before our states offered Lotto? What games did they enjoy and like prior to it?

IHateGovernment
08-24-2006, 01:51 PM
There would be less problem with government doing such things if we didn't have government take care of welfare and crime prevention but we do.

Say a single mother becomes addicted to lottery ticket gambling. Each week she pays a good portion of her paycheck on tickets. So much so that her child goes without food and medicine. Eventually the child is taken away and put into foster care. Who pays for this? The tax payers Why? Because of a government program designed for raising revenue.

This kind of thing will inevitably happen. The government will create problems that it is forced to clean up.

LadyT
08-24-2006, 02:00 PM
There would be less problem with government doing such things if we didn't have government take care of welfare and crime prevention but we do.

Say a single mother becomes addicted to lottery ticket gambling. Each week she pays a good portion of her paycheck on tickets. So much so that her child goes without food and medicine. Eventually the child is taken away and put into foster care. Who pays for this? The tax payers Why? Because of a government program designed for raising revenue.

This kind of thing will inevitably happen. The government will create problems that it is forced to clean up.

LOL, "a good portion"? come on they are like $1 each. If that person bought one every day that year, they'll have spent $365 on entertainment. Who cares? Its not that serious.

Anyway, honestly guys, i really don't have a strong enough opinion either way. I think you're blowing the "dangers" associated with a lotto way out of proportion. If people are that compulsive and can't control themselves from buying thousands of lotto tickets to the point where they can't eat or pay hteir rent, that ain't the states fault, they have other issues.

I think Damo and Dave have good point about the hypocrisy of the state in their monopoly on the lottery that they've manipulated.

uscitizen
08-24-2006, 03:22 PM
I guess the govt is deep into whoopie regulation. No polygamy, gays can't marry, many many anti sex laws on the books.
Why can't men and women sell their services if they want to ?
We whine about them regulating our businesses and such. They regulate the heck out of our bodies. And have for many years. a person is not even permitted to decide to take their own life. Have to be embalmed and buried per law, etc. Cradle to grave govt regulation on our bodies.

DigitalDave
08-24-2006, 08:21 PM
The problem with the lotto players is that they don't just buy one ticket. Hell, they can barely do with just five. Ohio now has some $20 tickets that you could win, get this, MILLIONS! WOO HOO! I can see the gullible people running now. 1 in 3 wins! That means you might get your money back, and if your really lucky, you might break even from the past week you payed for lottery tickets. Yes, people buy these things... I don't know why. People are just looking to get lucky, and the government shoves it down their gullible thoats hoping to make a little bit more money to pay for their pork. You should see the new Bridges they just built in ValleyView for the bikers and hikers. There are three of them and all they are there for is to cross the street. Each one cost AT LEAST $1 million to build. I still don't see people using them. Maybe occasionally I'll see someone biking on them. But hey, we have a lottery so we can afford it. Thanks poor gullible people!

boneheads56
09-07-2008, 09:39 PM
i mean i think the idea of lottery is good its the people who abuse it. In a sense it helps the economy when poeple spend thier money in the US. if the lottery wasnt there people would just spend thier money on other things. and i think if the money at least goes to the goverment for something good then why is it bad. at the same time when it is used for education people used to home wchool them selves for over 400yr why should we now pay taxes or have the goverment find ways to pay for it now? basically i believe the idea of lottery is good just that people abuse it or thers soemthing bad with it. but really if there is a way or the goverment to make money without taking our the poeple's money in some way please temm me if you found the answer because it would save a lot of bad things happening ot teh people espically hte poor. also people who think they should down the lottery because it waste people's money its thier decision to waste it on crank or anything they want. they earned it (i hope) and hsould be able to spend it on what ever they want. but im probly wrong im only 14 :cool:

uscitizen
09-07-2008, 09:44 PM
Yeah on the spending.

When they campaign to get a lottery or other gambling going they say it will bring in $$$$$ we can spend on schools or somesuch.
Actually it will not bring much increase at all, it will just take money away from other things.
most people spend pretty much all the have, the only question is on what ?

Hermes Thoth
09-08-2008, 05:39 AM
I agree with charver, its not really a "tax". I think they are a good thing. The only problem I have with them is that you get structured settlements rather than lump sums for the full amount of winnings. I don't think that's fair. I see no problem with them. People like to gamble and the states get money. Its a win win.
Oh yeah. The government should also run a kiddie prostitution ring.

Damocles
09-08-2008, 06:53 AM
i mean i think the idea of lottery is good its the people who abuse it. In a sense it helps the economy when poeple spend thier money in the US. if the lottery wasnt there people would just spend thier money on other things. and i think if the money at least goes to the goverment for something good then why is it bad. at the same time when it is used for education people used to home wchool them selves for over 400yr why should we now pay taxes or have the goverment find ways to pay for it now? basically i believe the idea of lottery is good just that people abuse it or thers soemthing bad with it. but really if there is a way or the goverment to make money without taking our the poeple's money in some way please temm me if you found the answer because it would save a lot of bad things happening ot teh people espically hte poor. also people who think they should down the lottery because it waste people's money its thier decision to waste it on crank or anything they want. they earned it (i hope) and hsould be able to spend it on what ever they want. but im probly wrong im only 14 :cool:
Hello. Welcome to the board.

Cancel3
09-08-2008, 06:57 AM
The lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.

But its a totally voluntary tax. Yes the lower income people play it at a much higher rate than do the rich. But not one single person is forced to play it.

In GA the Hope Scholarship has enabled many to go to college that would have been unable before.


If someone voluntarily spend all their money on lotto tickets then they are an idiot. I think the lottery is fine. If you don't want to play then don't play. But don't take the fun from other who play responsibily just because some people are idiots. And don't take away the means for middle and low income kids to attend college.

Damocles
09-08-2008, 07:09 AM
The lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.

But its a totally voluntary tax. Yes the lower income people play it at a much higher rate than do the rich. But not one single person is forced to play it.

In GA the Hope Scholarship has enabled many to go to college that would have been unable before.


If someone voluntarily spend all their money on lotto tickets then they are an idiot. I think the lottery is fine. If you don't want to play then don't play. But don't take the fun from other who play responsibily just because some people are idiots. And don't take away the means for middle and low income kids to attend college.
You pay a buck, you get hours of entertainment planning on what to do with the winnings. It depends on how you play and what your expectations are. If you spend most of your money that should go to the light bill on the lotto, yes you are stupid. If you spend a buck and imagine... not so much.

Dixie - In Memoriam
09-08-2008, 07:13 AM
The lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.

That's real close to what I've always called it... A Tax on Stupidity.

I have no problems with state lotteries which model after Georgia's and actually fund scholarships and education. Several other states managed to get a lottery on the 'promise' it would be used for education, but then, found ways to spend the money for other things. Zell Miller gave his word the GA lottery would be used to fund education only, and when they started trying to pull the bait and switch, he threatened to kill it. The legislature was forced to send him a lottery bill which strictly funded education, and he signed it. GA has one of the best programs in the nation now, because of the lottery.

As for a National Lottery, I am not in favor of it. Primarily because it would require the formation of yet another bureaucracy to oversee it, and that would eat up much of the profits. Secondly, there are a lot of people in a lot of states, who don't wish to have a lottery and feel they are detrimental to society, and have kept lotteries from becoming legalized in their state. I respect their right to determine this for their own state, and don't feel it is the right of the Federal government to usurp that right. If there were some efficient way to combine all state lotteries, or states who have lotteries, into one big mega-super-lottery, and call it a 'national lottery', that would be okay with me.

FUCK THE POLICE
09-08-2008, 07:18 AM
If taxation is bad for the economy, isn't it bad whether or not it's voluntary?

And the lottery itself is the most regressive tax in existence.

uscitizen
09-08-2008, 07:19 AM
Well we do have a very popular pick 2 lottery going on right now. It should be over in about a couple of months after hundreds of millions are wasted on it and everyone loses.

Cancel3
09-08-2008, 07:37 AM
Damo nailed it. Its entertainment for a buck a shot.

I play the mega millions. I never spend more than $10 a week, but its entertaining to talk about "what if". There have been times when money is tight that I didn't buythe tickets.

Its time for idiots to be responsible for their own lives. They need to quit blaming someone or something else.

If you have a paycheck and you blow it on lotto tickets, then you are too stupid to have money. Get an old shopping cart and start collecting aluminum cans.

Dixie - In Memoriam
09-08-2008, 07:46 AM
If taxation is bad for the economy, isn't it bad whether or not it's voluntary?

And the lottery itself is the most regressive tax in existence.

Ughh... Waterhead! Why can't you post your inane questions in a new thread, and not hijack others? MORE taxation, INCREASED taxation, EXCESSIVE taxation, is bad for the economy. The government operation requires funding, thus we have taxation. It is the means to pay for what our government does, and without it, we wouldn't have much of a government. You might say, taxation is a necessary evil.

Cancel3
09-08-2008, 07:58 AM
If taxation is bad for the economy, isn't it bad whether or not it's voluntary?

And the lottery itself is the most regressive tax in existence.

I don't think the lottery is a regressive tax at all. I think it is simply evidence that some people will be poor no matter what you do for them. Some people have no idea how to handle money, and they won't listen to people who could teach them.

uscitizen
09-08-2008, 08:36 AM
Hope sol, the same thang that drives many to religion.

Cancel3
09-08-2008, 08:39 AM
Hope sol, the same thang that drives many to religion.

Ok, then what is hope worth? Is it worth what they spend on lotto tickets? If so, then its money well spent.

There ARE some people who win. But there are a lot who win who end up even more screwed than they were before.

uscitizen
09-08-2008, 08:44 AM
Ok, then what is hope worth? Is it worth what they spend on lotto tickets? If so, then its money well spent.

There ARE some people who win. But there are a lot who win who end up even more screwed than they were before.

Ohh I agree it si dumb, but I see hope as the main driver.
That and the gambling compulsion which is pretty much the same thing, hope of that one big win....

Timshel
09-08-2008, 09:00 AM
My only problems with the lottery is the marketing and the monopoly. It is usually targeted at elderly and young people in poverty or just barely making it. Further, why should the government be the only one able to do a lottery?

Timshel
09-08-2008, 09:06 AM
If taxation is bad for the economy, isn't it bad whether or not it's voluntary?

No. Utility value.

It's bad for the economy to tax people to pay for sports stadiums. If the market supports ticket/merchandise sales sufficient to build a stadium that is not bad for the economy.

One is theft the other is a voluntary transaction.

uscitizen
09-08-2008, 09:25 AM
My only problems with the lottery is the marketing and the monopoly. It is usually targeted at elderly and young people in poverty or just barely making it. Further, why should the government be the only one able to do a lottery?

Ohh that problem will be solved shortly, they will all go privatized.

Hermes Thoth
09-08-2008, 09:46 AM
I don't think the lottery is a regressive tax at all. I think it is simply evidence that some people will be poor no matter what you do for them. Some people have no idea how to handle money, and they won't listen to people who could teach them.

That doesn't mean the government should prey on them.

Addiction doesn't become something to encourage profit from, just because people have bad habits.

I guess it's this same heartless attitude that makes you feel just fine about commoditizing humans and driving wages as low as possible by subverting immigration laws.

DigitalDave
09-08-2008, 09:59 AM
They are not just bad, but fucking ridiculous! It's a poor man's tax that they use and trey to make them feel good about themselves by claiming 'all your money went to education'. Fuck that, it went back into the general fund after you took what was allocated for eduction out when you put the lottery money in. I can't stand the lottery!

Socrtease
09-08-2008, 10:44 AM
The State of New Mexico uses its lottery for a lottery scholarship. Since 1996 it has raised 270 million dollars and 38,000+ NM highschool grads have gone to NM colleges on the scholarship.

The requirements are"

Must be a New Mexico resident
Must have graduated from a New Mexico public, accredited private, parochial, BIA or home high school, or have obtained a New Mexico GED

Must be enrolled full-time (12 credit hours) at an eligible New Mexico public college or university, in the first regular semester immediately following high school graduation

Must obtain and maintain at least a 2.5 GPA

uscitizen
09-08-2008, 11:32 AM
Maintain a 2.5 GPA ? I see they are making sure Republicans are qualified :D

FUCK THE POLICE
09-08-2008, 12:44 PM
I don't think the lottery is a regressive tax at all. I think it is simply evidence that some people will be poor no matter what you do for them. Some people have no idea how to handle money, and they won't listen to people who could teach them.

And what you are doing can be most positively described as exploitation.

FUCK THE POLICE
09-08-2008, 12:44 PM
No. Utility value.

It's bad for the economy to tax people to pay for sports stadiums. If the market supports ticket/merchandise sales sufficient to build a stadium that is not bad for the economy.

One is theft the other is a voluntary transaction.

It's still "going nowhere" so it's still bad for the economy.

Timshel
09-08-2008, 01:58 PM
It's still "going nowhere" so it's still bad for the economy.

Going nowhere... how do you figure?

Taxes are bad economically for the same reason theft is bad. Victims will expend resources in avoiding both and there is no value gained by the victim. A voluntary "tax" does not suffer those problems.

Timshel
09-08-2008, 01:59 PM
And what you are doing can be most positively described as exploitation.

That's right, anyone that offers entertainment services to the poor should be shot.

Hermes Thoth
09-08-2008, 02:05 PM
That's right, anyone that offers entertainment services to the poor should be shot.

Heroine is entertainment too.

This is gambling, illegal in many places for a reason.

Timshel
09-08-2008, 02:16 PM
Heroine is entertainment too.

So women should not be allowed to play heroic roles? :)


This is gambling, illegal in many places for a reason.

While I am uncomfortable with the government financing itself through encouraging what might be vice, there is no GOOD reason for gambling being illegal.

DigitalDave
09-08-2008, 02:16 PM
That's right, anyone that offers entertainment services to the poor should be shot.

LOL.. entertainment services. That's an interesting way to put it. Let's prey on the hopes and dreams of our poor, make them think one day they'll be millionaires if they keep buying lottery tickets, and call it entertainment.

Timshel
09-08-2008, 02:17 PM
LOL.. entertainment services. That's an interesting way to put it. Let's prey on the hopes and dreams of our poor, make them think one day they'll be millionaires if they keep buying lottery tickets, and call it entertainment.

Are you arguing that it should be illegal, or that the government should not do it?

Hermes Thoth
09-08-2008, 02:17 PM
So women should not be allowed to play heroic roles? :)



While I am uncomfortable with the government financing itself through encouraging what might be vice, there is no GOOD reason for gambling being illegal.


It's an illness.

Timshel
09-08-2008, 02:21 PM
There is not much of interest in it. For most people games of chance are entertainment.

You ever see those grab a toy with the crane games at restaurants. What are they? They are entertainment for most. But I had a friend that would routinely spend $20 or more trying to win a stuffed animal that probably was not worth a dollar to begin with.

Timshel
09-08-2008, 02:23 PM
It's an illness.

It is a compulsion/behavioral problem for SOME people. It is not an illness or a disease.

DigitalDave
09-08-2008, 02:25 PM
Are you arguing that it should be illegal, or that the government should not do it?

That the government should not provide 'entertainment services'.

If some private company ran the lottery like the government did, they'd be in legal trouble every day. The government would be forcing them to better the odds, and quit preying on the poor. They'd regulate them so they are only in specific spots, and eventually, shut them down. But, since it's government, they can run a monopoly on gaming, and it's all well and good to people because 'it goes toward education'.

uscitizen
09-08-2008, 02:46 PM
It is a compulsion/behavioral problem for SOME people. It is not an illness or a disease.

True, but there does seem to be genetics involved.


If we could just isolate the neocon gene.

uscitizen
09-08-2008, 02:47 PM
That the government should not provide 'entertainment services'.

If some private company ran the lottery like the government did, they'd be in legal trouble every day. The government would be forcing them to better the odds, and quit preying on the poor. They'd regulate them so they are only in specific spots, and eventually, shut them down. But, since it's government, they can run a monopoly on gaming, and it's all well and good to people because 'it goes toward education'.

Yeah darned govt will not allow scratch off machines in the grade school caffeteria. Damn commies!