4 ms·

The lottery taxes the poor in a very similar way. http://metrocosm.com/could-the-lottery-be-the-largest-tax/ http://metrocosm.com/could-the-lottery-be-the-larg

The lottery taxes the poor in a very similar way. http://metrocosm.com/could-the-lottery-be-the-largest-tax/ http://metrocosm.com/could-the-lottery-be-the-largest-tax/

Kesty 11y ago
That works for most taxes on consumer products since it's fixed and not based on income. If two people have the same exact habit it will cost them the same amount. If I have a higher income than you I'm actually paying less relative of my income than I would with a normal tax. This is true even not considering the social aspect of it. Some of this taxes are on addictive things like drugs (tobacco, alchool) and gambling (lottery). And one social influence of addictive behaviour is poverty.
- fennecfoxen 11y ago
  A sales tax on groceries or a sin tax on cigarettes may be regressive because poor people spend a larger portion of their income on groceries and cigarettes, true. The lottery, however, is worse. It is actively advertising to these people, encouraging them to have hopes and dreams about a way out of their situation, but instead it just kicks them while they're down. And it's not just some soulless corporate entity doing this, no: it's the same government which purports to care about their plight, not just exploiting them but encouraging them to passively hope for unearned success, instead of pursuing goals as an independent actor or something which might actually improve their lot. "Hey, you never know!" is a dystopian lie, a few increments worse than "A new life awaits you in the off-world colonies! A chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!"
  - xixi77 11y ago
    Buying vs. not buying lottery tickets has very little to do with pursuing vs. not pursuing any particular goals, so I'm not sure why you frame it as a choice between the two. Buying lottery tickets looks irrational on basis of expected value, but it is a very narrow and somewhat self-contradictory definition of rationality.
  - mgalka 11y ago
    Agree. It is the government's role to protect its citizens. Promoting an addictive and risky behavior for profit goes completely against that.
curun1r 11y ago
It does, but it's important to put the lottery in a historical context. When the lottery started, it was run by criminals, was corrupt and resulted in a lot of violence by competing criminal interests. By creating state-run lotteries, the situation improved dramatically. Now math is really the only way that people are cheated out of their money, you don't have warring organizations trying to control the lottery and at least the government is seeing the proceeds. The lottery may be a horribly-regressive tax, but it's better than the situation that existed before it was legalized. It's akin to the situation with illegal drugs. If governments started selling them at a slightly-lower price and with higher quality standards, you could still argue that providing drugs to people is making them less healthy. But the situation would be better than what we have today since the states would be making the profit, we'd be rid of the associated crime and many of the overdoses that result from variable quality of street drugs.

The lottery taxes the poor in a very similar way. http://metrocosm.com/could-the-lottery-be-the-largest-tax/ http://metrocosm.com/could-the-lottery-be-the-largest-tax/

Kesty 11y ago

That works for most taxes on consumer products since it's fixed and not based on income. If two people have the same exact habit it will cost them the same amount. If I have a higher income than you I'm actually paying less relative of my income than I would with a normal tax. This is true even not considering the social aspect of it. Some of this taxes are on addictive things like drugs (tobacco, alchool) and gambling (lottery). And one social influence of addictive behaviour is poverty.

fennecfoxen 11y ago
A sales tax on groceries or a sin tax on cigarettes may be regressive because poor people spend a larger portion of their income on groceries and cigarettes, true. The lottery, however, is worse. It is actively advertising to these people, encouraging them to have hopes and dreams about a way out of their situation, but instead it just kicks them while they're down. And it's not just some soulless corporate entity doing this, no: it's the same government which purports to care about their plight, not just exploiting them but encouraging them to passively hope for unearned success, instead of pursuing goals as an independent actor or something which might actually improve their lot. "Hey, you never know!" is a dystopian lie, a few increments worse than "A new life awaits you in the off-world colonies! A chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!"
- xixi77 11y ago
  Buying vs. not buying lottery tickets has very little to do with pursuing vs. not pursuing any particular goals, so I'm not sure why you frame it as a choice between the two. Buying lottery tickets looks irrational on basis of expected value, but it is a very narrow and somewhat self-contradictory definition of rationality.
- mgalka 11y ago
  Agree. It is the government's role to protect its citizens. Promoting an addictive and risky behavior for profit goes completely against that.

curun1r 11y ago

It does, but it's important to put the lottery in a historical context. When the lottery started, it was run by criminals, was corrupt and resulted in a lot of violence by competing criminal interests. By creating state-run lotteries, the situation improved dramatically. Now math is really the only way that people are cheated out of their money, you don't have warring organizations trying to control the lottery and at least the government is seeing the proceeds. The lottery may be a horribly-regressive tax, but it's better than the situation that existed before it was legalized. It's akin to the situation with illegal drugs. If governments started selling them at a slightly-lower price and with higher quality standards, you could still argue that providing drugs to people is making them less healthy. But the situation would be better than what we have today since the states would be making the profit, we'd be rid of the associated crime and many of the overdoses that result from variable quality of street drugs.