February 20, 2006
The Evil Lottery
from - Buck
I think Boortz is wrong to call the lottery a “tax on the stupid”.
In my opinion, a tax is money taken by force at the point of a gun. Playing the lottery is an agreement made by consenting adults. Nobody makes anybody play the lottery.
the lottery is a tax. It's a tax designed to fill the coffers of government, all without actually raising any income or sales taxes.
So if the government comes up with a way to fill their coffers with money from willing participants what is the libertarian argument against it? If the government can come up with 1,000 different ways to raise money without resorting to coercion why am I supposed to get all up in arms about it?
So chances are that if you played, you lost. The money you spent on the Powerball went straight down a rathole. Why? Because you were never going to win. Your chances of hitting those numbers was about the same as getting struck by lightning. Twice. On Sunday. During a snowstorm. It ain't gonna happen.
Ahhh, but it DOES happen as Boortz finally admits.
By the way, whoever won that $365 million jackpot only won $124.1 million after taxes. Those are some taxes!
In my opinion turning $1.00 into $124.1 million dollars makes it a pretty damned good investment.
I don’t play the lottery but that is not because I am morally opposed to it. I avoid it for the same reason I don’t play those games at the carnival. It is hard enough for me to win when the odds are in my favor.
When my youngest daughter was just 7 years old she had three dollars and was pitching a fit to buy three lottery tickets. I had a long discussion with her about the folly of playing the lottery but nothing I said would convince her. Finally I told her to give me the three dollars and I would buy her three tickets and she would see how easily her money was flushed down the rat hole.
When the smoke had cleared from the scratching and matching she had won nine dollars.
The only thing that went down the rat hole was her father’s wisdom.
She is 18 now and still plays the lottery from time to time. She wins a few and she loses a few but no real harm is done. When I see a losing lottery ticket in the floorboard of her car she will just grin at me and say, “but you never know when you might triple your money!”
She has her mother’s memory.
Posted by Buck at February 20, 2006 09:25 AM
I agree with this view in principle, but in practice I have a few concerns.
First, I'm a bit skeptical of the government (state governments in this case) running commercials to advertise the lottery. They're full of puffery, like all commercials, that is inherently deceptive. I think that the role of government communications should be to inform rather than mislead; all commercials should emphasize not how much you *could* win, but what the odds are of you *actually* winning.
Second, look at where lottery money comes from and where it goes. (I should look this up, but haven't, so I'll just pontificate.) I believe that it comes from the working classes, with some from the middle class, and not from the upper classes. It goes toward programs that benefit the working and middle classes, such as basic services and the university system. Is it a literal tax? No. But the effect to some extent is a transfer of wealth upward--slowly, perhaps, but inevitably.
I have nothing against the lottery from a moral standpoint, though I think people who spend a lot on it are not getting their money's worth and could stand to be better-informed; even as entertainment, it's a limited benefit. I think that the government could devote its resources to better ends than running lotteries.
|
Posted by RSA on February 20, 2006 10:56 AM Link to comment |
If the government ever starts setting up poker tables, then they can have a few of my pennies... I'm not very good, but I love playing. There's a comaraderie around the table that makes the game fun even when you are losing - so long as you don't lose too fast.
|
|
Posted by smijer on February 20, 2006 11:57 AM Link to comment |
There is huge entertainment value in spending $1 or $2 on the opportunity to win $365 million (as a annuity) or $124.1 million (as a direct payment) -- taxes come after that.
Unfortunately there are people -- who really can't afford it -- that spend a good chunk of their paycheck trying to win the lotto. They aren't playing lotto for kicks, they both want and need to win.
I'm not sure the government should be encouraging people to spend large chunks of their non-disposable income gambling.
|
|
Posted by m on February 20, 2006 08:33 PM Link to comment |
The government, here in Georgia, did one helluva crackdown on video poker machines about 4 years ago for the same reason "m" stated - "... there are people -- who really can't afford it -- that spend a good chunk of their paycheck trying to win [playing video poker]."
Now why did the government crack down on video poker yet still allow the lottery? Taxes. The government can check and regulate the income from the lottery but couldn't from the video poker machines. If they could, they'd have a helluva lot more pull from the video poker games.
But, no, the lottery is not a tax, not even close. The government is only "dangling the carrot". You choose whether or not to go after that carrot. They're not sucking dollar bills from your wallet with the lottery, just enticing you to voluntarily let them go.
I can honestly say that I've only played the lottery a handful of times - and I'm in the black by a few bucks. I intend to keep it that way.
|
|
Posted by Mongo on February 21, 2006 04:31 PM Link to comment |
I don't think Boortz strayed from his libertarian principles pertaining to the lottery - IIRC, he was busy lambasting the religious right for campaigning against it when it came time to vote on the measure (I was for the lottery). His point, that I take away, is that some people are unbelievably stupid when they take the little amount that they have (meaning the working poor) and throw it away at a chance on winning the lottery. And, to be honest, I can see his point. Back before there was pay-at-the-pump technology available & I actually had to walk into the gas station, I can't tell you how many times I stood in line behind someone buying $50 worth of lottery tickets while wearing an oil soaked cap & sporting their "Austin 3:16" t-shirts, before heading out to hop back in their Dodge Mavericks & go home to the single-wide.
I used to buy $1/week just for the heck of it, but I think it's been 5 or 6 years since I even bought a single ticket, mainly because I don't walk into the station anymore.
As to the "tax" part, he states that it's a voluntary tax, which it is. The sales tax one pays on a six-pack of beer is also voluntary....you're obligated to pay it if you decide to purchase the beer, of course, but you volunteer the money once you make that decision. Same way with the lottery - a percentage of your money goes into the lottery "pot" while the rest goes into the state coffers. You're not obligated to pay it if you don't wish to purchase a ticket, but once you declare that you're going to get a lottery ticket, you've volunteered to pay that portion that is also a tax.
Who has been the biggest beneficiary of the lottery? The state. Not that I'm agin' it....I think there should be a national lottery with a $1 million nightly drawing, with the rest of the money from the ticket sales being constitutionally mandated to pay off the national debt.
|
|
Posted by RW on February 24, 2006 01:39 PM Link to comment |
I don't think Boortz strayed from his libertarian principles pertaining to the lottery - IIRC, he was busy lambasting the religious right for campaigning against it when it came time to vote on the measure (I was for the lottery). His point, that I take away, is that some people are unbelievably stupid when they take the little amount that they have (meaning the working poor) and throw it away at a chance on winning the lottery. And, to be honest, I can see his point. Back before there was pay-at-the-pump technology available & I actually had to walk into the gas station, I can't tell you how many times I stood in line behind someone buying $50 worth of lottery tickets while wearing an oil soaked cap & sporting their "Austin 3:16" t-shirts, before heading out to hop back in their Dodge Mavericks & go home to the single-wide.
I used to buy $1/week just for the heck of it, but I think it's been 5 or 6 years since I even bought a single ticket, mainly because I don't walk into the station anymore.
As to the "tax" part, he states that it's a voluntary tax, which it is. The sales tax one pays on a six-pack of beer is also voluntary....you're obligated to pay it if you decide to purchase the beer, of course, but you volunteer the money once you make that decision. Same way with the lottery - a percentage of your money goes into the lottery "pot" while the rest goes into the state coffers. You're not obligated to pay it if you don't wish to purchase a ticket, but once you declare that you're going to get a lottery ticket, you've volunteered to pay that portion that is also a tax.
Who has been the biggest beneficiary of the lottery? The state. Not that I'm agin' it....I think there should be a national lottery with a $1 million nightly drawing, with the rest of the money from the ticket sales being constitutionally mandated to pay off the national debt.
|
|
Posted by RW on February 24, 2006 01:40 PM Link to comment |
Sorry, got a server error on the first try & didn't think it went thru.
|
|
Posted by RW on February 24, 2006 01:41 PM Link to comment |
