22 February 2006

The Lottery Sham

I've never been a big fan of state lotteries. For me, they are just another form of regressive taxation, an easy way to get poor people to pay more than their share of the government in the hopes of getting rich. For that reason, I don't play them. It also helps that you have a much greater chance of being struck dead by lightning than winning the damn thing.

North Carolina is one of the few states that does not have a state lottery. That all changed early this year when the legislature passed a bill to have a North Carolina State Lottery. The reasons given in favor of the lottery were the same you see everywhere else in the country, mainly: 1) everyone else is doing it, so why not us? and 2) all the proceeds will go to education. It's hard to argue against more funding for schools, especially when proponents insist that the money will all be a bonus to existing funding, not a replacement.

The problem is that it is almost always a complete and utter lie. I knew this from the start because of my experience living in other states that have lotteries. But the folks here just wouldn't have it. Schools! The lotto is fun! What could go wrong?

Well, the NC lottery hasn't even gotten off the ground yet, and already the lie is being exposed. First, it came out that the Speaker of the House, a democrat (unfortunately) who had pushed the legislation through, allowed the corporation who would run the lottery to rewrite significant portions of the law to their own benefit. Then, it became known that any money the lottery raises for education will in fact, replace current funding, thereby placing education funding under the risk of a very volatile market. And finally, as usually happens, people are now talking about using lottery money to augment the general fund of the state.

So, in other words, the whole thing was a sham. As it always is. Rich people will continue to get their tax cuts and laugh at the poor people who spend far too much of their meager wages under the delusion that gambling is their ticket out of poverty.

All I know: I won't play.

4 Comments:

Blogger cc said...

Dave, is that you? I don't want to accidentally bump you again! :) I can understand that line of reasoning. But I just can't shake the image out of my head back when I lived in the barrio of these guys slapping rolls of their wages for nothing. It doesn't seem right. I think lotteries are cynical.

2/22/2006 7:20 PM  
Blogger cc said...

Yeah, I can understand that! Sometimes, winning the lottery can be more of a curse than a blessing.

2/22/2006 10:21 PM  
Blogger bubbamedic said...

Hi Dave and Bro,
I agree with Dave. It is fun to have a monent and dream. If it takes five dollars to allow yourself a moment to imagine that things could even be a little different than it is now, that is worth it. I mean, think of those that throw pennies in the fountains, and purchase a fortune, "strictly for entertainment value". It is the same thing, even if the cost varies. This rat race of schedules and demands, this can be a welcome reprieve.

Now your point. Over-abundance (is that a word?)will always cause problems. Gambling is a means of entertainment, but some found that it is a way to earn a living as well. In order to earn more money they need to get more suckers involved to get their money. So it can really be twisted out of "just for entertainment purposes" and developed into a deperate means for desperate people (read: poor). We all know that there are an over-abundance of them.

So in moderation with good dose of common sense (which is not so common), a lottery can be a satifying form of entertainment. With good legislation and honest people (both seem rare), a lottery can be a good way to make money. Like gambling though, I would not want to rely on it for income on a steady basis. Wasn't the Sydney Opera House paid for by the first lottery in Austrailia, or something like that? At least there, noone is gonna tear it down if the lottery was short that year. But to pay for a needed service? Bad mojo! That is asking a lot. Btw the opera house was paid off in just half the time too.

2/23/2006 1:02 AM  
Blogger cc said...

I don't necessarily disagree, but the reason I find the lottery cynical is because lawmakers and lotto companies know for a fact that their largest audience are those people who can least afford it. They sell the dream and get a crap load of tax money from the poor. That just bugs me. If I knew that middle and upper-class people were the target audience of lotteries, I'd be all for them.

2/23/2006 5:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home