Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

State lotteries transfer wealth out of needy communities, investigation finds

cbsnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 205 posts

Re: State lotteries transfer wealth out of needy communities, investigation finds

#131

Post by Biologist123 »

missedthecue wrote: post #130
david2ndaccount wrote: post #11

The argument for the state having a monopoly on lotteries is that if there wasn’t a legal lottery illegal lotteries would proliferate. Thus to protect people, the state should run it as it would then be guaranteed to be fair and free of the criminal element (mobsters, etc.). Ideally, the lotto would just take in enough to pay the winners and administrative expenses. However, most states have abused this monopoly and…

Is it really a tax if it's voluntary? That seems like a contradiction of terms. And why not ban the lottery entirely if you're not going to use it as a revenue source? Keep it around just to entertain poor people? 99.999% of them will still lose money anyway if it's morality you're worried about. Does it really matter to the winners whether they take home $100mm or $70mm (and the gov the remaining $30mm)? It doesn't…

It’s a tax on lack of training in basic statistics.

Re: State lotteries transfer wealth out of needy communities, investigation finds

#132

Post by yunohn »

iudqnolq wrote: post #128
ac29 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting the lottery should be changed so the expected value is higher than the ticket cost? How would that work?

The same way below market rate public housing works: subsidy from tax revenue

But why not just direct UBI?

What is the point of tax subsidised lotteries, to enrich a minuscule % of poor people while all the others buy tickets in hope?

Re: State lotteries transfer wealth out of needy communities, investigation finds

#133

Post by iudqnolq »

yunohn wrote: post #132
iudqnolq wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same way below market rate public housing works: subsidy from tax revenue

But why not just direct UBI? What is the point of tax subsidised lotteries, to enrich a minuscule % of poor people while all the others buy tickets in hope?

As one fair way of allocating insufficient resources. The lottery is evidence a lot of poor people would rather have a chance at radically improving their life than a small amount of money.

Re: State lotteries transfer wealth out of needy communities, investigation finds

#134

Post by [deleted] »

missedthecue wrote: post #130
david2ndaccount wrote: post #11

The argument for the state having a monopoly on lotteries is that if there wasn’t a legal lottery illegal lotteries would proliferate. Thus to protect people, the state should run it as it would then be guaranteed to be fair and free of the criminal element (mobsters, etc.). Ideally, the lotto would just take in enough to pay the winners and administrative expenses. However, most states have abused this monopoly and…

Is it really a tax if it's voluntary? That seems like a contradiction of terms. And why not ban the lottery entirely if you're not going to use it as a revenue source? Keep it around just to entertain poor people? 99.999% of them will still lose money anyway if it's morality you're worried about. Does it really matter to the winners whether they take home $100mm or $70mm (and the gov the remaining $30mm)? It doesn't…

[deleted]

Re: State lotteries transfer wealth out of needy communities, investigation finds

#135

Post by ajuc »

missedthecue wrote: post #130
david2ndaccount wrote: post #11

The argument for the state having a monopoly on lotteries is that if there wasn’t a legal lottery illegal lotteries would proliferate. Thus to protect people, the state should run it as it would then be guaranteed to be fair and free of the criminal element (mobsters, etc.). Ideally, the lotto would just take in enough to pay the winners and administrative expenses. However, most states have abused this monopoly and…

Is it really a tax if it's voluntary? That seems like a contradiction of terms. And why not ban the lottery entirely if you're not going to use it as a revenue source? Keep it around just to entertain poor people? 99.999% of them will still lose money anyway if it's morality you're worried about. Does it really matter to the winners whether they take home $100mm or $70mm (and the gov the remaining $30mm)? It doesn't…

> Is it really a tax if it's voluntary?

It's exactly the same situation as taxing smoking and drinking. So - yes.

Re: State lotteries transfer wealth out of needy communities, investigation finds

#136

Post by dillondoyle »

ddtaylor wrote: post #3

In some places the local state lotteries are called the "dummy tax"

I can't be the only one here who buys them.

I make good money. They're only $2.

The 5 minutes I spend walking to the office after buying one spent thinking about what I would do with ___ is worth it.

Yes, I know the math and am under no delusion about winning. I'm more likely to die trying to avoid the shitty drivers on this walk.

It's day dream entertainment!

Re: State lotteries transfer wealth out of needy communities, investigation finds

#137

Post by Dylan16807 »

ISL wrote: post #33
grubbs wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The commercials I see here for the DC/VA lottery are quite disgusting. I'm "kind of" fine with the state running it. But they should not be advertising on TV.

Washington State Lottery has a slogan, "It's good to play!" It really should be, "Playing the lottery is a pretty terrible idea and we're going to, on average, take your money. If you still want to play, fine, but cheeseburgers really are better than lottery tickets. Wealthy people got wealthy by putting their money into index funds and savings accounts."

> Wealthy people got wealthy by putting their money into index funds and savings accounts.

No they didn't. Not with the implied "as an alternative to lottery tickets".

You could probably find a handful of very well paid and very lottery addicted people constantly blowing up that income. For 99.99[more 9s]% of people, the cost of lottery tickets is not the difference between getting wealthy and not getting wealthy. Even if they buy a bunch every payday.

Re: State lotteries transfer wealth out of needy communities, investigation finds

#138

Post by kqr »

missedthecue wrote: post #130
david2ndaccount wrote: post #11

The argument for the state having a monopoly on lotteries is that if there wasn’t a legal lottery illegal lotteries would proliferate. Thus to protect people, the state should run it as it would then be guaranteed to be fair and free of the criminal element (mobsters, etc.). Ideally, the lotto would just take in enough to pay the winners and administrative expenses. However, most states have abused this monopoly and…

Is it really a tax if it's voluntary? That seems like a contradiction of terms. And why not ban the lottery entirely if you're not going to use it as a revenue source? Keep it around just to entertain poor people? 99.999% of them will still lose money anyway if it's morality you're worried about. Does it really matter to the winners whether they take home $100mm or $70mm (and the gov the remaining $30mm)? It doesn't…

It is not a tax in the strict, technical sense, obviously. But in practise it functions much as one.

The comment you're responding to tells you why it shouldn't be banned: because then it will be held by criminals (by definition) instead. And those criminals tend to have ties to less nice forms of crime too. So it's sort of a damage containment strategy, but it could (in the eyes of GP) be executed better.

Re: State lotteries transfer wealth out of needy communities, investigation finds

#139

Post by WalterBright »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #137
ISL wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Washington State Lottery has a slogan, "It's good to play!" It really should be, "Playing the lottery is a pretty terrible idea and we're going to, on average, take your money. If you still want to play, fine, but cheeseburgers really are better than lottery tickets. Wealthy people got wealthy by putting their money into index funds and savings accounts."

> Wealthy people got wealthy by putting their money into index funds and savings accounts. No they didn't. Not with the implied "as an alternative to lottery tickets". You could probably find a handful of very well paid and very lottery addicted people constantly blowing up that income. For 99.99[more 9s]% of people, the cost of lottery tickets is not the difference between getting wealthy and not getting wealthy. Ev…

I know people who have.

Re: State lotteries transfer wealth out of needy communities, investigation finds

#140

Post by phkahler »

david2ndaccount wrote: post #11

The argument for the state having a monopoly on lotteries is that if there wasn’t a legal lottery illegal lotteries would proliferate. Thus to protect people, the state should run it as it would then be guaranteed to be fair and free of the criminal element (mobsters, etc.). Ideally, the lotto would just take in enough to pay the winners and administrative expenses. However, most states have abused this monopoly and…

In Michigan they sold it by saying all the lottery money would go to education. But other funding to education was cut by the same amount, so technically the lottery is funding education even though the revenue increase went somewhere else.
Post reply on HN