Gambling and Public Lotteries

[PJ]

I believe that the government shouldn't prohibit people making unwise decisions, but they certainly shouldn't encourage it. Gambling should be legalized nationally and educational curriculums should include the dangers of gambling.

Public lotteries are possibly one of the worst ways the government can obtain money. It's a regressive tax that takes advantage of the working class.

[traininthedistance]

I believe the original argument for public lotteries was that they would replace Mafia-run "numbers games" and thus serve as an inoculation against the spread of organized crime.  I think that is an argument that has a good deal of merit, so I'm not necessarily opposed to them in principle.

However, in practice you are quite right that they've become a regressive tax on the poor and the less-educated.  Expecting them to be a major revenue source, and/or spending on the sorts of large and flashy marketing campaigns that they receive this day and age, is certainly a bad idea.

[bedstuy]

In principle, I agree that lotteries are a regressive tax on poor people that hurts society. 

However, I wonder whether allowing legal private lotteries would actually in practice improve the situation.  What if private lotteries were more unscrupulous and scammed people?  Maybe you create laws regulating the lotteries.  But, then the government has to spend money regulating, investigating and overseeing this private lottery system, and the government has to find ways to raise the revenue that the lottery created.  Plus, the lottery proceeds would just go to a private company.  So, maybe you end up with paradoxically more government bureaucracy, the same regressive wealth effect, but with the beneficiaries being a private company and not the taxpayer and higher taxes.  That might not be worth taking a moral stand about fleecing poor people.

[Indy Texas]

Last I checked, no one holds a gun to anyone's head and makes them play the lottery.

Liberals forget that even though the expected value of a lottery ticket (the payout times the probability of winning) is never close to the face value, you're also effectively paying for the thrill/entertainment of playing, waiting for the numbers to be announced on TV, or the social aspect of buying the tickets (for some people, it's an excuse to go to the convenience store and make small talk with the clerk while the regulars filter in and out).

And conservatives act as though if those people put the $5 a week they spend playing into a Roth IRA, they would have such a big nest egg when they retired that we could finally gut Social Security like Paul Ryan wanted to with no adverse consequences (if only those foolish poors weren't so irresponsible).

[PJ]

Last I checked, no one holds a gun to anyone's head and makes them play the lottery.

But who is most likely to buy lottery tickets? People with lower incomes who are enthralled by the chance of winning.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But why should the government provide this? Doesn't private gambling already account for people who want to gamble for fun?

[ElectionsGuy]

Allow them. Gambling and lotteries are a form of entertainment, and it is a person's choice whether or not they want to do it. If a person loses all their money because they made bad decisions, its on them.

I'm personally never going to gamble because I'm conservative with money, but I don't think the government should prohibit it just because people happen to lose a lot of money over it, that's part of the game.

[Ebowed]

I used to take a libertarian approach to gambling, but after living in New South Wales for the last two years I think it ought to be illegal outside of private settings.  Play a game of poker in your home, absolutely, but go to a bar and use slot machines - total insanity.

A government-sponsored lottery is one of the worse ideas that someone could advocate for.

Mind you, I've never had any particular interest in this vice, but seeing the corrosive effect it has when allowed free reign is beyond disturbing.

[Franzl]

I used to take a libertarian approach to gambling, but after living in New South Wales for the last two years I think it ought to be illegal outside of private settings.  Play a game of poker in your home, absolutely, but go to a bar and use slot machines - total insanity.

^^^^^^

Gambling in a private, recreational setting where there's no house advantage is one thing, but casinos and slots in bars seem like a truly awful idea.

Sometimes people do need to be protected from their own unwise decisions.

[DC Al Fine]

And conservatives act as though if those people put the $5 a week they spend playing into a Roth IRA, they would have such a big nest egg when they retired that we could finally gut Social Security like Paul Ryan wanted to with no adverse consequences (if only those foolish poors weren't so irresponsible).

$5 per week x 52 weeks per year = $260 per year = $2600 per decade, before accounting for interest. That's hardly a negligible sum, especially for a struggling family; with interest, it's enough to buy a used car or support a small family for a couple of months.

I've known people who live near or below the poverty line who spend that much or more on lottery tickets every week. And yes, the poor are both more likely to buy lottery tickets and likely to buy more of them when they do. Since people under financial stress tend to make bad decisions, this result makes perfect sense.

Indeed. Even taking the IRA that Indy posited out of the equation, $5 a week is still a bit of extra income, especially for a cash strapped person. $260 extra a year (often a lot more than this) can make a big difference if you're destitute and trying to decide between paying the electric bill and buying groceries.

[IceSpear]

Allow them. Gambling and lotteries are a form of entertainment, and it is a person's choice whether or not they want to do it. If a person loses all their money because they made bad decisions, its on them.

This. The infantilization of the "poors" among many on the left is quite disturbing. Apparently they can't be trusted to buy a lottery ticket or a large soft drink because those are such unwise decisions and they must be protected by the nanny state.

Also, I don't understand how anyone could favor banning the lottery while also supporting legalizing marijuana. So poor people can be trusted to smoke a doobie but not buy a $1 lottery ticket?

[PJ]

Allow them. Gambling and lotteries are a form of entertainment, and it is a person's choice whether or not they want to do it. If a person loses all their money because they made bad decisions, its on them.

This. The infantilization of the "poors" among many on the left is quite disturbing. Apparently they can't be trusted to buy a lottery ticket or a large soft drink because those are such unwise decisions and they must be protected by the nanny state.

Being against government lotteries is not a "nanny state" position. Lotteries are the government taking advantage of people who often gamble for their own benefit, including creating and sustaining gambling addictions. Why should the government make money off of that?

[IceSpear]

Allow them. Gambling and lotteries are a form of entertainment, and it is a person's choice whether or not they want to do it. If a person loses all their money because they made bad decisions, its on them.

This. The infantilization of the "poors" among many on the left is quite disturbing. Apparently they can't be trusted to buy a lottery ticket or a large soft drink because those are such unwise decisions and they must be protected by the nanny state.

Being against government lotteries is not a "nanny state" position. Lotteries are the government taking advantage of people who often gamble for their own benefit, including creating and sustaining gambling addictions. Why should the government make money off of that?

That's much better than private companies making money off of it. And "gambling addiction" is even less scientific than "marijuana addiction." Meaning, they are "addicted" because they find it fun, unlike a physiological dependence with hard drugs.

[IceSpear]

Allow them. Gambling and lotteries are a form of entertainment, and it is a person's choice whether or not they want to do it. If a person loses all their money because they made bad decisions, its on them.

This. The infantilization of the "poors" among many on the left is quite disturbing. Apparently they can't be trusted to buy a lottery ticket or a large soft drink because those are such unwise decisions and they must be protected by the nanny state.

Academic research supports the idea that people under stress make worse decisions.

So are we banning fast food, cigarettes, alcohol, having kids, etc. unless you have proof of above average income?

Not to mention what constitues as a "bad decision" is entirely arbitary...I guess the poors should only be permitted to work and sleep?

[DC Al Fine]

Allow them. Gambling and lotteries are a form of entertainment, and it is a person's choice whether or not they want to do it. If a person loses all their money because they made bad decisions, its on them.

This. The infantilization of the "poors" among many on the left is quite disturbing. Apparently they can't be trusted to buy a lottery ticket or a large soft drink because those are such unwise decisions and they must be protected by the nanny state.

Being against government lotteries is not a "nanny state" position. Lotteries are the government taking advantage of people who often gamble for their own benefit, including creating and sustaining gambling addictions. Why should the government make money off of that?

That's much better than private companies making money off of it. And "gambling addiction" is even less scientific than "marijuana addiction." Meaning, they are "addicted" because they find it fun, unlike a physiological dependence with hard drugs.

I dispute that. A government that is supposed to look out for the poor and depends on gambling revenues is in a conflict of interest position.

Let's take Georgia for example. Georgia finances a large scholarship fund through a state owned lottery. Now suppose gambling becomes a larger and larger blight on our society.

If gambling was run privately, increased regulation would be less of an issue. There's an outcry over the addiction, people lobby and eventually some sort of restriction is passed. But in Georgia's situation, the lottery finances a popular social program.

Restricting lotteries would anger swing voting suburbanites while the victims of this blight are largely poor and don't to vote. Therefore politicians wouldn't do anything about the situation. Indeed, increased gambling revenues would allow for expansion of the scholarship, so there's an incentive to encourage gambling, which of course is what happens in real life.

The poor spend money they can't afford to finance programs for the middle class, while the state produces glitzy marketing campaigns and acts disturbingly like a drug pusher. So, no I don't think letting the state profit from vice is a good idea.

[TJ in Oregon]

I'm not sure how feasible it would be to actually get rid of the lottery but there's definitely something messed up about the fact that the government is running commercials trying to convince people to waste their money on lottery tickets, knowing full well they're preying on the poor. I'm a total NIMBY when it comes to gambling in general. I'm not morally opposed to it but at the same time I think the social costs of legalizing it outweigh the benefits. I understand a lot of people tend to cry "Freedom!" and disagree with that statement. But when it comes to the lottery, the government is not only allowing people to make bad financial decisions, it is encouraging it.

[IceSpear]

Allow them. Gambling and lotteries are a form of entertainment, and it is a person's choice whether or not they want to do it. If a person loses all their money because they made bad decisions, its on them.

This. The infantilization of the "poors" among many on the left is quite disturbing. Apparently they can't be trusted to buy a lottery ticket or a large soft drink because those are such unwise decisions and they must be protected by the nanny state.

Being against government lotteries is not a "nanny state" position. Lotteries are the government taking advantage of people who often gamble for their own benefit, including creating and sustaining gambling addictions. Why should the government make money off of that?

That's much better than private companies making money off of it. And "gambling addiction" is even less scientific than "marijuana addiction." Meaning, they are "addicted" because they find it fun, unlike a physiological dependence with hard drugs.

I dispute that. A government that is supposed to look out for the poor and depends on gambling revenues is in a conflict of interest position.

Let's take Georgia for example. Georgia finances a large scholarship fund through a state owned lottery. Now suppose gambling becomes a larger and larger blight on our society.

If gambling was run privately, increased regulation would be less of an issue. There's an outcry over the addiction, people lobby and eventually some sort of restriction is passed. But in Georgia's situation, the lottery finances a popular social program.

Restricting lotteries would anger swing voting suburbanites while the victims of this blight are largely poor and don't to vote. Therefore politicians wouldn't do anything about the situation. Indeed, increased gambling revenues would allow for expansion of the scholarship, so there's an incentive to encourage gambling, which of course is what happens in real life.

The poor spend money they can't afford to finance programs for the middle class, while the state produces glitzy marketing campaigns and acts disturbingly like a drug pusher. So, no I don't think letting the state profit from vice is a good idea.

That's a great example, actually. I'd much rather have lottery profits funding a scholarship as opposed to lining the pockets of some billionaire CEO. And since when are scholarships only for the middle class? It sounds like it would help the poor as well.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Allow them. Gambling and lotteries are a form of entertainment, and it is a person's choice whether or not they want to do it. If a person loses all their money because they made bad decisions, its on them.

This. The infantilization of the "poors" among many on the left is quite disturbing. Apparently they can't be trusted to buy a lottery ticket or a large soft drink because those are such unwise decisions and they must be protected by the nanny state.

Also, I don't understand how anyone could favor banning the lottery while also supporting legalizing marijuana. So poor people can be trusted to smoke a doobie but not buy a $1 lottery ticket?

The government isn't going around telling poor people they'll win a million dollars if they buy a joint.

[IceSpear]

In principle, I agree that lotteries are a regressive tax on poor people that hurts society. 

However, I wonder whether allowing legal private lotteries would actually in practice improve the situation.  What if private lotteries were more unscrupulous and scammed people?  Maybe you create laws regulating the lotteries.  But, then the government has to spend money regulating, investigating and overseeing this private lottery system, and the government has to find ways to raise the revenue that the lottery created.  Plus, the lottery proceeds would just go to a private company.  So, maybe you end up with paradoxically more government bureaucracy, the same regressive wealth effect, but with the beneficiaries being a private company and not the taxpayer and higher taxes.  That might not be worth taking a moral stand about fleecing poor people.

This nails it, I think.  Banning public lotteries will just throw away government revenue and give it to private companies. Meanwhile, instead of the revenue going to funding government programs for seniors or scholarships for students, it will be used to fund a billionaire CEO's 9th private jet.

[traininthedistance]

In principle, I agree that lotteries are a regressive tax on poor people that hurts society. 

However, I wonder whether allowing legal private lotteries would actually in practice improve the situation.  What if private lotteries were more unscrupulous and scammed people?  Maybe you create laws regulating the lotteries.  But, then the government has to spend money regulating, investigating and overseeing this private lottery system, and the government has to find ways to raise the revenue that the lottery created.  Plus, the lottery proceeds would just go to a private company.  So, maybe you end up with paradoxically more government bureaucracy, the same regressive wealth effect, but with the beneficiaries being a private company and not the taxpayer and higher taxes.  That might not be worth taking a moral stand about fleecing poor people.

This nails it, I think.  Banning public lotteries will just throw away government revenue and give it to private companies. Meanwhile, instead of the revenue going to funding government programs for seniors or scholarships for students, it will be used to fund a billionaire CEO's 9th private jet.

I realize that my position here probably sounds very Moderate Hero, but I would like to keep public lotteries but slash their marketing budgets- thereby preserving their legitimate purpose as a way to keep this unavoidable activity out of more exploitative hands, and making a few bucks for gov't programs on the side, but toning down the more problematic "pusher" aspect.  I don't know if there's anyone else here who also finds that to be a least-bad compromise.

Allow them. Gambling and lotteries are a form of entertainment, and it is a person's choice whether or not they want to do it. If a person loses all their money because they made bad decisions, its on them.

This. The infantilization of the "poors" among many on the left is quite disturbing. Apparently they can't be trusted to buy a lottery ticket or a large soft drink because those are such unwise decisions and they must be protected by the nanny state.

Academic research supports the idea that people under stress make worse decisions.

And, of course, if you hold that MJ is a stress reliever...

[IceSpear]

In principle, I agree that lotteries are a regressive tax on poor people that hurts society. 

However, I wonder whether allowing legal private lotteries would actually in practice improve the situation.  What if private lotteries were more unscrupulous and scammed people?  Maybe you create laws regulating the lotteries.  But, then the government has to spend money regulating, investigating and overseeing this private lottery system, and the government has to find ways to raise the revenue that the lottery created.  Plus, the lottery proceeds would just go to a private company.  So, maybe you end up with paradoxically more government bureaucracy, the same regressive wealth effect, but with the beneficiaries being a private company and not the taxpayer and higher taxes.  That might not be worth taking a moral stand about fleecing poor people.

This nails it, I think.  Banning public lotteries will just throw away government revenue and give it to private companies. Meanwhile, instead of the revenue going to funding government programs for seniors or scholarships for students, it will be used to fund a billionaire CEO's 9th private jet.

I realize that my position here probably sounds very Moderate Hero, but I would like to keep public lotteries but slash their marketing budgets- thereby preserving their legitimate purpose as a way to keep this unavoidable activity out of more exploitative hands, and making a few bucks for gov't programs on the side, but toning down the more problematic "pusher" aspect.  I don't know if there's anyone else here who also finds that to be a least-bad compromise.

Yeah, that sounds like a good solution to me.

[TNF]

What about a lottery in which every ticket purchased was actually the person in question buying a treasury bond of varying value?

[Хahar 🤔]

Also, I don't understand how anyone could favor banning the lottery while also supporting legalizing marijuana. So poor people can be trusted to smoke a doobie but not buy a $1 lottery ticket?

This is stunningly poor reasoning.

[IceSpear]

Also, I don't understand how anyone could favor banning the lottery while also supporting legalizing marijuana. So poor people can be trusted to smoke a doobie but not buy a $1 lottery ticket?

This is stunningly poor reasoning.

Not really. Someone who thought both of those things apparently thinks lottery tickets are more harmful to people than a recreational drug. Which is more likely, gambling addiction or marijuana addiction? I use "addictive" loosely of course, since neither is addictive in the physiological sense.

[bedstuy]

Also, I don't understand how anyone could favor banning the lottery while also supporting legalizing marijuana. So poor people can be trusted to smoke a doobie but not buy a $1 lottery ticket?

This is stunningly poor reasoning.

Not really. Someone who thought both of those things apparently thinks lottery tickets are more harmful to people than a recreational drug. Which is more likely, gambling addiction or marijuana addiction? I use "addictive" loosely of course, since neither is addictive in the physiological sense.

Marijuana actually works though.