Gambling and Public Lotteries

[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.

[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.