3 ms·

I am not sure I follow you on this. For example state lotteries are widely known to function like a tax on poor people. Even though some people win the lottery,

• LeifCarrotson 8y ago
  > Even though some people win the lottery, it’s fairly uncontroversial that most people would be better off if the lottery was simply disallowed, and nobody wins. We don’t need a replacement for the lottery, just to remove it. There's a big difference between "disallowed" and "does not exist". The lottery as it stands distributes its poor tax proceeds to the state, often to education. It's heavily regulated, and advertisements contain warnings on the dangers of gambling, and I'd say it's common knowledge that it's a tax on the poor. If it was removed, however, it would leave a vacuum. People are irrational, and the idea that they could get lucky and win is extremely tempting. I don't think you can say with confidence that whatever gambling would take its place would be less harmful than the lottery.
  • zbentley 8y ago
    > If it was removed, however, it would leave a vacuum. For compulsive gamblers, maybe. But I don't think the lottery exists to fill an inherent need. Plenty of industries (harmful and otherwise) exist because someone figured out how to market something/created a lot of their own demand, versus recognizing an existing need.