Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rhema
I object to the state lottery for the primary reason that it is not a proper role of government to serve as "bookie" to its citizens. I've got no problem with the legalization of privately-owned gambling establishments (and the government can collect the taxes from them) but the government should not be in the gambling business at all.

As the article points out, state lotteries give much worse odds than even that bookie down at the barber shop with the football cards. It is almost impossible to win more from a state lottery than what you sink into it. The vast majority of state lottery "winners" win anything from a free ticket to maybe $40 or $100. Of course, most people winning these prizes are spending that much on lottery tickets a month - month after month. Then you have a few winners in the $250 to $1,000 category. Again, these are usually won by people who have easily put that much money into the system several times over before they finally "won."

As for the rare million dollar winner (which is less frequent than people who have been hit by lightning), the state shamelessly parades them out to the media as willing shills to promote the ripoff that is the state lottery to give false hope to all the other suckers out there to encourage them to keep playing.

How many people do you know at work or in the family who are always buying these tickets and who pathetically spend "mentally" their million dollar winnings. They say stupid things like "When I win my million dollar Powerball prize, I'm going tell my boss to shove it! Yeah baby!"

These people, of course, are the ones who can least afford these lottery tickets. They usually do not manage their money very well and are living paycheck to paycheck. Which explains why so many lottery winners end up foolishly spending themselves back into financial ruin again anyhow. To grasp the mindset of a typical "big" lottery winner, consider that when a large prize is won, the winner has a choice of receiving a smaller lump payment up front or a annual stipend for 20 or 30 years that adds up to far more money in the long run. The winners typically opt for the lump sum in which case they get maybe half the money they would have ended up with had they selected the other option and spend it away all the quicker.

7 posted on 01/01/2003 6:35:34 AM PST by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: SamAdams76
The compassionate side of me, says that if a person is so darn poor, and they never, never can see a chance to make any big money, or inherit it, then what the heck is wrong with investing a couple of bucks to try and win something?

It's their only ticket to a chance to get out of a financial rut. It's their only hope, albeit a slim one...it's still hope.

sw

11 posted on 01/01/2003 6:40:04 AM PST by spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: SamAdams76
Time value of money says your argument is dead wrong. The lump sum payment is discounted, which is why it is less. Did you ever take high school math? When I did they taught me about compound interest and discounting. I don't disagree with you about the state being a bookie, but frankly governments have done much worse things than sell lottery tickets to pay for themselves. At least participation is optional. Yes the odds are terrible - so what? No one is forced to participate, which is more than I can say about other taxes. Yes, people do dumb things. I don't want the gov to be my nanny, and I am unwilling to pay for it to be anyone else's nanny. Got it? The Constitution defines what the Feds can do (or at least if we had a legislature that believed it meant what it said we would) and state constitutions define what they can do. If the people amend their state constitutions to allow lotteries then go for it.
17 posted on 01/01/2003 6:44:49 AM PST by RKV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: SamAdams76
I object to the state lottery for the primary reason that it is not a proper role of government to serve as "bookie" to its citizens. I've got no problem with the legalization of privately-owned gambling establishments (and the government can collect the taxes from them) but the government should not be in the gambling business at all.

I agree with the article and your comments. The states should not be involved in get-rich-quick type Ponzi schemes and it is why I never have and never will buy a lottery ticket.

20 posted on 01/01/2003 6:46:55 AM PST by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson