Posted on 04/02/2006 7:18:53 AM PDT by TaxRelief
I noticed that too. He can do what he wants, and I'll support him completely, but he should hang up the "look how superior I am" facade. And I say this as someone who thinks "Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearems" would be a great concept for a convenience store.
Neither of which are sold by the government are they? I'm against the lottery on a moral standpoint and choose not to play. I smoked for 10+ years and just up and quit one day a few months back. Even drink a beer now and again. If a private industry without government 'supervision' started up a lottery tomorrow that's their business. However when the lottery is a government sponsored grab for even more money, yes I'm against it from a moral standpoint.
How is a person standing in line to buy a pack of Marlboros any different than a person standing in line to buy a bottle of Pepsi?
Good point, but aren't there some states that are still in the alcohol business (or am I a decade or two behind)? Hell, virtually ALL states are in the tobacco business lately.
North Carolina is in the alcohol industry yes. Which it needs to get out of as well. But some states are not a part of that either.
Agreed. I call it a volunteer tax. You don't have to pay it unless you want to.
It would be nice if all our taxes were volunteer.
Actually I have looked into it quite a bit. As a former elected official, I had access to all the materials collected on the subject by both sides of the question. There is no non-anecdotal evidence to support an argument that lottery tickets are purchased by the "poor" (whatever that means) in outsized numbers. Furthermore, there is substantial evidence to suggest that among those of modest means, every dollar spent on a lottery ticket is a dollar not spent on cigarettes and beer.
All that aside, though, the argument itself is dumb because it promotes the "poor as victims" sham. It implies that the poor are unable to take care of themselves and need someone to adopt them and prevent them from doing dumb things to themselves. It is also a class warfare argument.
Now if you want to argue that the lottery is a tax on stupidity, I'll have to go along with you on that one.
I know...I'm just making the point that this guy is claiming that selling lottery tickets is immoral, but is engaged in a type of business which is not all that dissimilar.
Northwestern Stokes County. Near Pilot Mountain.
Because they can't decide which brand or type they want. Then the store doesn't carry it or the cashier can't find it. Then they change their mind. Then the cashier has to go to the back to check. Then they decide on another. Then the cashier has to dig around for a new carton from the bottom of the counter and figure out how to open it. Then they decide they'd rather have the whole carton after the cashier has pulled out one pack and has taken forever reloading the bin. Then they spy what they originally wanted. Then they have to turn the pack over 3-4 times in their hands to make sure it's... well, who knows. Then they smack it on the counter once, twice, no 3 times real fast. Then they think about opening it. Then they decide to open it. Then they shake one out and put it in their mouths. Then the cashier has to tell them they can't smoke in the store and remind them they haven't yet paid. Then....
>There is no non-anecdotal evidence to support an argument that lottery tickets are purchased by the "poor" (whatever that means) in outsized numbers.<
The evidence I gave you was not anecdotal.The state has compared the zip codes of players to demographic info including utilization of the Hope scolarship.
>All that aside, though, the argument itself is dumb because it promotes the "poor as victims" sham. It implies that the poor are unable to take care of themselves and need someone to adopt them and prevent them from doing dumb things to themselves. It is also a class warfare argument.<
Actually your argument is one for justification of exploiting the poor.Their is a major difference in choosing whether to help the poor and choosing to exploit their weekness.That is what the Lottery does.
Well, I wasn't going to go here, but...
The evidence you gave isn't evidence at all. It is a couple of non sequitur statistics. Part of the problem is defining "the poor." You can't rely on any government statistics for the definition since under the government's eyes, "the poor" own homes, televisions, and cars. In any case, all your statistic shows is that there are a lot of low income families who don't go to college in areas where the lottery is played heavily. One does not prove the other.
Actually your argument is one for justification of exploiting the poor.
The whole "justification of exploiting the poor" is Marxist code for nanny-state intervention and forced wealth redistribution. And, as I said before, there is no direct evidence to support any supposition that the lottery exploits anyone but people who don't understand the laws of probability.
Their is a major difference in choosing whether to help the poor and choosing to exploit their weekness.
More Marxist agit-prop. By that logic, in order to help the poor, we must force everyone, including the not-poor to behave in a certain fashion. Also, by that logic, the poor are somehow less intelligent simply because they are poor. Not only is that ridiculous, it is condescending and arrogant.
The problem with the lottery is that it is a state-run gambling monopoly, nothing more, nothing less. It puts the government into a business in which it has no business being. It becomes even more despicable when it hides behind schoolchildren and pretends to be a "voluntary tax." Invoking "protection of the poor" is to use cultural fascism to resist rank statism. There can be no winners in that conflict, ever.
This is almost by definition...
When stores begin to sell lottery tickets, their customer base shifts to some degree. If convenience stores began to specialize in liquor, or fresh bagels, or Starbucks coffee, they would also see this happening. Some customers move their business elsewhere because the lottery sales make the store less convenient for picking up a quart of milk, and others pick up their quart of milk at the convenience store while buying their lottery ticket, pack of smokes and MD 20/20. The question is whether lottery sales make convenience stores more profitable overall, or whether they simply shift revenue sources in a substitution effect.
Everything I read on the subject suggests the latter. Virginia actually did some good research on the subject and determined that convenience store revenue is almost fixed. The bottom line of their study was that the lottery had to have the same or better margins for operators as candy, cigarettes, and beer. The state tries to convince operators that lottery tickets can be used as a "draw" item (i.e. getting customers in the door), but the tobacco companies have demonstrated the weakness of that model.
Looking at other states, and most states are only giving a 5% return on sales.
Not much at all when you consider the bookkeeping and inventory headaches that go along with it. One missing $20 instant ticket and my "profit" is screwed for the day.
LOL, good one! It's called a fool's game because the odds are so huge, but no one forces anybody to buy a ticket.
Oh, and I suppose if you checked zip codes for smokers and alcoholics the poor would be in the majority too. According to your logic, we should ban those legal products because they exploit the weaknesses of the poor.
You sound like a liberal busy-body.
>You sound like a liberal busy-body.<
No just a Christian who believes what you do to yourself is one thing but selling misery to others is a very different story.
Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
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.