3 ms·
Sure. It's also fair for her to challenge this clause given that the revelation of her win would probably completely destroy her existing relationships. It's fu
by skywhopper 9y ago
Sure. It's also fair for her to challenge this clause given that the revelation of her win would probably completely destroy her existing relationships. It's fun to dream about winning hundreds of millions of dollars, but I'm glad this woman is taking the likely consequences of the win seriously and doing what she can to protect herself.
Ultimately, state sponsored lotteries like this are a bad thing for everyone: the winners, the losers, the taxpayers, the government, and society at large. So if she can win this case and that in turn makes lotteries less popular or uneconomical, then that's a good thing for the culture.
- oorza 9y agoWhy are they a bad thing for everyone? Obviously the players are almost universally worse off for playing, but don't they generate tax revenue and funnel money into places like schools?
- thaumasiotes 9y agoLotteries are often dedicated to funding schools. But the schools were going to be funded anyway. What ends up happening is the lottery pays for its own staff, the school budget stays the same, and money that would have gone to schools goes elsewhere in the government budget. In this stylized example, is that extra money in the non-school budget funded by surplus from the lottery? What would it mean for the lottery to funnel money specifically into schools?
- jstarfish 9y agoThe state lottery funded the scholarships that put me through school twice. Don't worry, the schools are getting their money.