5 ms·

Yep no one will come and break down your door and point guns at you if you don't play the lottery. (Unlike actual taxes.) At least not yet ...

tedks 11y ago
Nobody will break down your door if you don't pay other taxes either. You don't need to earn income, buy food, or live in a home. You're free to be homeless, jobless, and starving. If you don't like that, you're welcome to protest and vote for candidates that provide hope for change. That's the system and it's here to protect all of us.
emidln 11y ago
No one will come and break down your door and point guns at you if you don't smoke cigarettes or purchase alcohol.
- mindslight 11y ago
  Yes, because smoking cigarettes or purchasing alcohol is not mandatory. However if you choose to do either, the separate activity of paying taxes on them is. The only way one can misunderstand this distinction is to believe government is involved in anything by default.
  - leereeves 11y ago
    And if you choose to gamble, playing the state run lottery (and not some other form of gambling) is mandatory.
  - djrogers 11y ago
    The point of the article is: "The lottery is not a tax. The inflated price of lottery tickets is." If you want to play a lottery, you have to play the state's lottery, and the article makes the case that a very high tax is levied for that privilege.
    - mindslight 11y ago
      If there were no taxes/transaction fees (ultimately the same thing), then E(any lottery) would be unity. Which is exactly why people smugly say "the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math" - which the article recognizes but discounts just to state it in different terms. So sure, we can hope that some day that people who desire higher variance can conveniently play non-profit lotteries which won't "cost" them anything in expected value terms. And perhaps separating the nuance between "losing money by playing the lottery" and "being taxed for playing the lottery" is a step on that path. Although I think it's likely that privacy technology solves this problem before the cathedral does. But this doesn't change GP's implying that not buying alcohol or cigarettes is equivalent to not paying the taxes on what you have bought. I suppose this nitpick is so divisive because people either view playing the lottery as equivalent to paying a tax due to that long held adage and that most every transaction is simply giving money directly to the government, or as the act of playing the lottery with an inbuilt tax as the article has led them to. But IMHO if you want to highlight the nuance of the latter, you'd be better off pointing out how people that run/play private lotteries are thrown in jail rather than equating tangible vices with purely throwing money away.
mproud 11y ago
That happens for tax evaders?
- protomyth 11y ago
  SWAT teams have been used in the US to serve subpoenas, so yes, it is a possibility.
- xlm1717 11y ago
  In extreme cases it does. You hear it pop up on the news every once in a while in the US. The IRS is the most feared government department in the US. I would say people fear it even more than they do the NSA.
- newjersey 11y ago
  That's what happens to tax evaders who fail to evade enough taxes to pay off the people in charge. It does not apply to entities that are too big to fail and too big to jail.
- ken_railey 11y ago
  Sure: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/30/us/3-businessmen-testify-of-armed-raids-by-irs.html http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/30/us/3-businessmen-testify-o...

tedks 11y ago

Nobody will break down your door if you don't pay other taxes either. You don't need to earn income, buy food, or live in a home. You're free to be homeless, jobless, and starving. If you don't like that, you're welcome to protest and vote for candidates that provide hope for change. That's the system and it's here to protect all of us.

emidln 11y ago

No one will come and break down your door and point guns at you if you don't smoke cigarettes or purchase alcohol.

mindslight 11y ago
Yes, because smoking cigarettes or purchasing alcohol is not mandatory. However if you choose to do either, the separate activity of paying taxes on them is. The only way one can misunderstand this distinction is to believe government is involved in anything by default.
- leereeves 11y ago
  And if you choose to gamble, playing the state run lottery (and not some other form of gambling) is mandatory.
- djrogers 11y ago
  The point of the article is: "The lottery is not a tax. The inflated price of lottery tickets is." If you want to play a lottery, you have to play the state's lottery, and the article makes the case that a very high tax is levied for that privilege.
  - mindslight 11y ago
    If there were no taxes/transaction fees (ultimately the same thing), then E(any lottery) would be unity. Which is exactly why people smugly say "the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math" - which the article recognizes but discounts just to state it in different terms. So sure, we can hope that some day that people who desire higher variance can conveniently play non-profit lotteries which won't "cost" them anything in expected value terms. And perhaps separating the nuance between "losing money by playing the lottery" and "being taxed for playing the lottery" is a step on that path. Although I think it's likely that privacy technology solves this problem before the cathedral does. But this doesn't change GP's implying that not buying alcohol or cigarettes is equivalent to not paying the taxes on what you have bought. I suppose this nitpick is so divisive because people either view playing the lottery as equivalent to paying a tax due to that long held adage and that most every transaction is simply giving money directly to the government, or as the act of playing the lottery with an inbuilt tax as the article has led them to. But IMHO if you want to highlight the nuance of the latter, you'd be better off pointing out how people that run/play private lotteries are thrown in jail rather than equating tangible vices with purely throwing money away.

mproud 11y ago

That happens for tax evaders?

protomyth 11y ago
SWAT teams have been used in the US to serve subpoenas, so yes, it is a possibility.
xlm1717 11y ago
In extreme cases it does. You hear it pop up on the news every once in a while in the US. The IRS is the most feared government department in the US. I would say people fear it even more than they do the NSA.
newjersey 11y ago
That's what happens to tax evaders who fail to evade enough taxes to pay off the people in charge. It does not apply to entities that are too big to fail and too big to jail.
ken_railey 11y ago
Sure: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/30/us/3-businessmen-testify-of-armed-raids-by-irs.html http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/30/us/3-businessmen-testify-o...