Posted on 05/24/2007 10:43:17 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
The old admonition, "When something seems too good to be true, it probably is," virtually screams from accounts of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposal to "privatize" the California Lottery.
Actually, to give credit where it's due, it's a Goldman Sachs/Lehman Brothers proposal; the governor is the pitch-man.
The details are subject to negotiation, but the deal works something like this: The state turns over the California Lottery and monopoly control over lottery gambling in California to a private consortium (led by Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers, could it be?) for the next 40 years. In exchange, the consortium pays the state a lump sum of about $37 billion. With that money, the government sets up a $22 billion endowment fund that will guarantee the schools what they're getting from the lottery now -- about $1.1 billion a year. That leaves an extra $15 billion to paper over the governor's deficit-spending and borrowing spree ...
The governor's spokesman calls it "a win-win for California on every front." California lottery sales are well below per capita sales in other states, and our lottery revenues are declining. By handing the operation over to a creative, innovative and dynamic corporation, the schools will be guaranteed a stable annual payment, the state gets an extra $15 billion, and the investors pocket the rest. What's not to like?
But wait a second. This is not privatization. Privatizing the lottery means contracting out services to competing firms that offer the state the best value at the lowest price. ...
--snip--
If there is so much additional money to squeeze out of the lottery -- and obviously there is or the Goldman Sachs crowd wouldn't be circling the Capitol -- shouldn't that extra money be going to the schools and not to a consortium of investment bankers?
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Lottery = Tax on the Stupid
Ping
I am still not becuase it IS a waste of money (on the average citizen) whom uses it, and can become an addiction, in addition if it is a tax for those without financial responsibility, then why not reduce taxes (spending) on everyone, instead of raising it on ANYONE!! That would be the Conservative way. Living within your means (Mr. Uncle Sam..DO IT)!
The MA Budget includes $10M for the Lottery’s Ad campaign.
I understand your position but I just can’t help liking the idea of taxing stupid people....voluntarily.
Part of the problem with what you propose is that then we need to eliminate drinking and smoking. Both are bad for you, both are heavily taxed, both are addictive but both are personal choices. For the record I do not smoke and I rarely drink so I do not have to pay this tax either.
The lottery is nothing more than a “voluntary” tax. Which in my book makes it the most moral kind there is. I spend $5-10 dollars a month... after I have paid the bills and put money in the savings account. Who knows, I may get lucky.
It should stay in state hands where the voting public has some say over it.
If there is all this fraud and waste, pay Goldman/Sachs 5% of whatever such waste they can accurately identify in an indepenent audit every year. That way we get the best of both.
Hmmm...I'm thinking. ;)
However, I will bet that you are the minority with this. I agree that you might get lucky but for me I understand odds too well and I know that I will not win
I once remarked to a fellow statistician that I could achieve the expected value by not playing. He said, "You must think the game is fair." He was right about my error. I can do better than the expected value by not playing.
You both indeed understand when I say that I will not win the lottery. Most people do not get that.
McClintock Ping!
I hope Tom comes to the same conclusions and continues to be vocal when the same model is applied to numerous toll-roads, charter schools, and utility operations.
The hell they don't. They pay sales, gas, and property taxes (in their rent). It adds up to an average of over $9,000 per year for a family of four.
And you would choke if you saw the taxes my wife and I paid as two educated professionals before my wife quite work to be a stay at home mother. I kid you not, I paid more in income taxes in 2006 than my mother earns, whom I support.
I would love to only pay $9000 a year!
BTTT
Before we began home schooling, I calculated the taxes, the private school bill, the before and after day care bill, the extra transportation cost... I was a project engineer making $10,000 after costs. I quit.
Because of home schooling, my kids both started calculus before they were thirteen (one was eleven). The older one is about to finish MIT's biology text. She's on the board of directors of the local community concert association. They are currently about to starty a paid research job with a peer-reviewed academic paper as the end product. They're Thirteen and fourteen.
I promise you, when these kids are ready to leave for college, the universities will be falling all over themselves to get them. There will be scholarships.
As it is, I'm free to pursue my inventions while I teach these outstanding young people. My guess is that we'll be money ahead for having made this decision, without the pain and strain that our old lifestyle was inflicting, which could have led to a very expensive divorce.
u betcha!
would be stupid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.