Yes I know google...but I wanted to get your opinions on it. Without doing too much research it seems like just another bad regressive tax idea. What is a fairer tax that could be used to replace the lotto? What are some other major regressive taxes that could be restructured?
it's a voluntary tax on the ignorant. there was no federal income tax prior to 1913, and somehow we had roads and other government services. we should look for taxes to cut, not to add.
I buy lottery tickets all the time. I know I am not going to win, but if I don't buy lotto tickets how are the kids of Texas suppose to be edumucated. A large chunk of lotto funds go toward schools, and with the Texas legislature always looking to cut education funding I think they need all the money then can get.
Thanks for donating, but the people who participate are generally poorer and less educated. Plus the lotto is like something close to a 40% tax rate. Pretty ridiculous.
I also agree with that bigotexxx line. The last figures I saw on the lotto said that lotteries took in something like $70 billion and paid out like $38 billion (I think it was for 2011). Basically, when playing the lotto, you're giving one dollar for a chance to win $0.55. It angers me to watch people buy lotto tickets. I see the same people buying them week after week after week in my local corner store.
No, you're paying a dollar for a slim chance to win millions. Your numbers here only demonstrate that it takes in more than it pays out, like any other viable gaming vehicle, and the excess revenue net admin and marketing costs go to school funding.
When the jackpot gets to absurd amounts and the whole office goes in on it, I force myself to join in not bc I think we're going to win, but bc if the office wins and I'm not in the pool, I'd shoot myself. I'd really get more pleasure out of lighting the money on fire, but what are you going to do? Sometimes you just have to play.
The only time I bought a lotto ticket was on my 21st b-day, it was a huge jackpot too, didn't even get 1 number haha. I was getting a snack at a gas station last time it was huge and there was a guy buying $100 worth of tickets. Told him he virtually has the same odds as if he just bought 1, he rolled his eyes at me.
You give $1 to win $0.55 and taxed at 40%, giving a net payout of 33%. The lotto is a tax on the poor and a short circuit for the economy. The tax is taken but provides no real service nor produce real products. If you buy a product or service and pay a tax for it, the money gets circulated within the economy.
It's a good way for degenerates to throw away their money -- instead of on alcohol, guns, silver, gold, ammo, etc.
The money is going toward schools. Usually the poorer areas need this money the most. Its not like the government just keeps it. At least this money is not being wasted on the TSA, NSA, Iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, or whatever stupid thing the government is trying to do. It is used for education which can hopefully help some of these kids get out of there.
it just replaces revenue that would otherwise go to schools Like if the education budget is $100 million and the lotto collects $50 million, that doesn't mean there is now $150 million for education. It means there is $100 million for education and an extra $50 million freed up to waste on other crap.
You're looking at it from a purely mathemetical lens. People are not rational and generally don't simply live to maximize return on their money. And even if they were rational, you assume all dollars have the same value. $10,000 does not have 10,000 times the value of $1. You can do things with $10,000 that you could never do with one dollar. Going on a vacation is not necessarily exactly 10,000 times as valuable as a dollar meal at Taco Bell. With a lottery, people are risking $1 not to simply win $10 million or whatever, but to have a chance at a life experience they would never otherwise be able to achieve. The odds of it are certainly extremely low, but value of that is not simply a multiple of their $1 - it's attaining somewhere that is otherwise impossible, no matter how hard they work or how many $1's they are able to save because reality says they will never save $10 million. The poor person that spends $2 per week every week on the lottery will spend $100 over the course of a year - something that won't really affect his life very much from a practical perspective. It's one less quarterpounder a week. He's basically paying for the the belief in the potential of something bigger for his life, and the very tiny absurdly small chance at an entirely different life experience. Is that a bad tradeoff? From an economic perspective, certainly (except for the few people that win it). From an emotional perspective? Not so clear. If it brings him entertainment and some kind of emotional rush when seeing if he won, is it any worse than spending $100 on movies or video games or sporting events or whatever else we spend our entertainment dollars on?
