My Dad and I have two different opinions on lotteries. Do you agree with either one?

One opinion is that lotteries are bad because they prey on the poor, as the poor are the ones most likely to play.

The other side is that lotteries are good as a voluntary tax, and if the poor have extra money to give back to the state, what better way for the state to collect it.

NC <><
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
07-08-02, 07:55 PM
gatman
I agree with both but more so with the good. There are plenty of wealthy who think nothing of dropping $20 or more on it also. I give the state my dollar and look at it as what if entertainment.

07-10-02, 12:32 PM
den0eng3
I agree with the first one (does that mean I am like you, or like your Dad?)

Our National Lottery is a tax on hope.

07-12-02, 03:47 AM
hassia
i don´t agree with either version.
if the lotteries prey on the poor, it´s because the poor are dumb enough to believe they are the one person in 10 billion.
and i find volunteer tax pretty dumb. it´s ridiculous that people squawk about the price of school fees or the rising price of cigarettes but they buy into the fat jackpot. gambling is a sickness anyway and the lottery is only another shot in the vein.

07-12-02, 11:39 AM
Kendor
It is an individual's choice to play or not. If a body was 'poor', then I don't think he'd really have a dollar to play with. If he can spare the buck, then he has a certain hope that will temporarily make him feel good about the world; until drawing time comes. But then, there's always next week.

I agree with having lotteries. They really do help local economies.

07-14-02, 01:30 AM
mahal
You know, there are a lot of poor people that gamble. The question is do they gamble because they're poor? or Are they poor because they gamble? I think the poor people who have common sense don't likely have gambling problems.

07-14-02, 03:54 PM
den0eng3

quote:Originally posted by mahal:
...people who have common sense don't likely have gambling problems.

So you are happy for the government to impose a tax on "lack of common sense", and you see that as fairer than a tax on income?

07-14-02, 07:29 PM
JohnGalt

quote:Originally posted by den0eng3:
So you are happy for the government to impose a tax on "lack of common sense", and you see that as fairer than a tax on income?

I see it as fair.

The more I make, the more the government takes from me. I have no choice in that matter whatsoever.

A person who plays the lottery (which is completely voluntary!) has the capacity to learn simple math and stop their actions at anytime.

Don't take away more of my money, just because someone else is stupid! Maybe if they keep playing they'll eventually run out of money and learn the hard way. That's usually the best way for a lesson to stick with dumb people.

07-14-02, 10:33 PM
mahal
den0eng3

Fair never entered my mind, actually, because our freedom overrides any inequity in this case. If you don't like the lottery, you don't have to buy a ticket. If you have a problem gambling, you're likely to end up poor and prayed upon by the State Lottery Board with those great commercials! What I find unfair is for anyone to then blame the state for any apparent victimization. There's no good reason to think such a thing.

07-14-02, 11:15 PM
Wildflower63
Anyone heard that statement? The government is run by educated people that I am willing to bet do not play the lottery themselves. I saw a bumper sticker that I thought was funny. The Lottery: A tax for people who are bad at math. I have to agree that it is mainly poor people who are playing the lottery.

If there is a way to exploit cash out of us, someone will find it and use it. Personally, I don't like it. The only ones legally allowed to gamble are the Catholic church bingo and our government. Gambling casinos are usually associated with something a bit on the crooked side with big money and politicians.

07-14-02, 11:58 PM
den0eng3
A logical extension of JohnGalt's and Mahal's argument would be for the State to raise money by selling heroin. Only stupid people would buy it, and it's even more addictive than gambling. It might be so lucrative that you wouldn't have to pay income tax at all.

07-15-02, 12:25 AM
JohnGalt

quote:Originally posted by den0eng3:
A logical extension of JohnGalt's and Mahal's argument would be for the State to raise money by selling heroin. Only stupid people would buy it, and it's even more addictive than gambling. It might be so lucrative that you wouldn't have to pay income tax at all.



No, the logical extension would be for the government to get out of all ventures that it has no business in, in the first place--including lotteries and selling drugs. Those activities should be left up to the private sector. And yes, that even means heorin! (Adults only, however!)

You can't legislate morality or intelligence! People have to learn those lessons on their own.

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
-Herbert Spencer

07-15-02, 10:18 AM
mahal
Poor people only??

Some years back I worked for Safeway in the booth selling money orders, stamps, and of course the Washington state Lotto and scratch tickets. Poor people were not the only ones buying. I remember the poorly-dressed and suited players alike coming in equal numbers.

We had a few regulars who were coming by running their regular cards every week (you can pick your numbers on a card and keep it in your car or something and bring it in every week so you don't have to try to remember or write down your numbers). Some had as many as 120 cards that they ran faithfully each Thursday night! That's about $500/month for the lottery!

In case you don't get what they were doing at first thought, compare it to horse racing. When you bet the trifecta or quinella or daily double, you can "box" your horses. You might know who's going to win, but you're not sure of the second place horse, you can't decide between 3 others. So you bet your winner with each one of them. With a potential pay-off much higher than the $12 you just bet, you have a better chance of winning with a low risk.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,