6 ms·

The lottery is a voluntary highly regressive tax. Poor people disproportionately play the lottery and are therefore disproportionately funding the lottery taxe

The lottery is a voluntary highly regressive tax. Poor people disproportionately play the lottery and are therefore disproportionately funding the lottery taxes.

qbasic_forever 4y ago
The lottery for rich folks that can prove they have money is called the stock market.
- koheripbal 4y ago
  I assume this is a joke. If not, you should take some time to understand the financial system.
- tehsauce 4y ago
  A dollar invested in the stock market has a much higher expected return than a dollar invested in the lottery.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  The difference between the stock market and the lottery is that the stock market has a positive expected return.
- willnonya 4y ago
  So, you're saying you don't understand the stock market?
nwah1 4y ago
The lottery is a way for the government to take over the numbers racket, which formerly was a source of revenue for organized crime. It is a net benefit to society for that reason.
- paulpauper 4y ago
  the mafia had competition though, so probably offered better odds. In Vegas, even under the mafia, the house edge was small...way smaller than the lotto.
  - kgwgk 4y ago
    They sometimes rigged the game even if it was already very profitable to start with.
- greesil 4y ago
  This begs the question for what to do about illegal drugs.
  - nwah1 4y ago
    Pennsylvania has a state monopoly on retail liquor sales. Liquor is at least as bad as most illegal drugs. That is probably better than the approach of some states which make obtaining licenses to sell alcohol or marijuana expensive. In most cases they are capriciously controlled by politicians and bureaucrats, involving prohibitive fees and outright bribery. At least PA's approach is more equal in effect.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- listenallyall 4y ago
  So by that logic, the government could benefit society by selling credit card numbers and fake identities, by executing ransomware attacks, creating open marketplaces for military weapons, and creating a GitHub for espionage documents.
  - nwah1 4y ago
    The lottery does not undermine law and order or property rights, while depriving organized crime of revenue. The same cannot be said for any of the things you mention.
    - listenallyall 4y ago
      You clearly don't realize how fluid "law and order" is. Numbers was an illegal activity, until state governments realized it was enormously profitable, decided to run it themselves, and voila! Now it's legal. Selling cannabis could land you in prison for a long time, just a few years ago, now it is sold legally by companies listed on NASDAQ. Further, tons of actions and activities have "selective prosecution" and now, openly, we have "sanctuary cities" where governments actually welcome people who have engaged in illegal activities (not making a moral judgment, but there would be no need for "sanctuary" if they hadn't broken any laws) and shield them from prosecution.
  - drKarl 4y ago
    The government actually does some of those things, just not openly. Add to the list drug smuggling and trafficking by the CIA, etc.
    - listenallyall 4y ago
      The "not openly" is key, though. The OP's point was that suppressing the funding of organized crime was the "net benefit to society". The activities you mention, because they are done in secret, do not provide an outlet to reduce organized crime by establishing legal marketplaces. In fact, you could argue that by engaging in smuggling, arms trading, etc, that the government is increasing organized crime... every time the US sells, some criminal is buying.
voz_ 4y ago
This is a weird take, very HN/Reddit. At best it misses the point, and at worst it insults the poor. Its not a "tax" - it's just fun. The odds are terrible, but the dream / "what if?" aspect of it is fun. Theres no downside to playing (Who doesn't have a dollar or two? even when I was broke and lived in my car, I had a spare buck here and there), but the potential upside is limitless.
- stingraycharles 4y ago
  Eh, I know more than a few people who, over decades, spent small fortunes on these lotteries. $10/month over multiple decades really adds up, especially when you’re already poor. I’m not saying I agree with the “it’s a tax” position, but I definitely don’t agree with the “it’s just fun” position. It’s an industry that preys on poor people’s poor (monetary) decision making skills.
  - voz_ 4y ago
    Does it prey? I think scratchers / casinos / sports betting / online poker / more general kinds of gambling is far more addictive and malicious, because the dopamine fueled reward->attempt cycle is a far tighter loop with those.
    - Parmenidea 4y ago
      The counter argument is that a lot of those games reward “skill”. Through study/statistics your odds improve, in the same way that equity research can lead to a good stock pick. The lottery is naked chance.
  - Swenrekcah 4y ago
    Would you say the same about a $14/month Netflix subscription? Because that actually has zero upside potential and does not fund local nonprofit activities (like lottery often does, depending on your location).
    - jimkleiber 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
> The lottery is a voluntary highly regressive tax. Poor people disproportionately play the lottery and are therefore disproportionately funding the lottery taxes. If you are a regular non-connected, non-Ivy League folk, your odds of becoming a billionaire via day zero equity appreciation are roughly the same as becoming one via playing the lottery. And yet this website is full of people deluding themselves that they can become one, and also cheering on other people posting their billion dollar delusions. It's always a real pain to watch the contempt that people who are doing well for themselves have for people who live in inner cities, while engaging in the same behavior, only from a relatively higher vantage point. It's not even necessary to go all the way up to 1 billion, 100m net worth odds for a regular non-connected, non-Ivy League folk are also kinda the same playing lottery vs. day zero equity appreciation. The crossover is somewhere below 100 million dollars, maybe even less than 10 million dollars or there about
- listenallyall 4y ago
  This comment is sarcasm, right? Perhaps becoming a billionaire is out of reach, but growing your portfolio by 5-20% annually is highly likely, as opposed to -100% growth via lottery tickets.
  - Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
    People aren't attacking the delusional and temporarily embarassed billionaires and telling them to focus on a more realistic FIRE. They are pouring gas on their delusions, big difference compared to the reaction to people who play the lottery.
  - antisthenes 4y ago
    > This comment is sarcasm, right? Perhaps becoming a billionaire is out of reach, but growing your portfolio by 5-20% annually is highly likely This is incredibly out of touch. The GP comment was talking about the kind of people who don't even own stocks and probably can't afford to buy even a single share, because it would eat into their budget much more than a $2-5 lottery ticket. Also, lottery ticket EV isn't -100%, it's anywhere between -50% and -80%. The stock portfolio growth numbers are also wrong for long-term, but we'll let that one slide.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

The lottery is a voluntary highly regressive tax. Poor people disproportionately play the lottery and are therefore disproportionately funding the lottery taxes.

qbasic_forever 4y ago

The lottery for rich folks that can prove they have money is called the stock market.

koheripbal 4y ago
I assume this is a joke. If not, you should take some time to understand the financial system.
tehsauce 4y ago
A dollar invested in the stock market has a much higher expected return than a dollar invested in the lottery.
josephcsible 4y ago
The difference between the stock market and the lottery is that the stock market has a positive expected return.
willnonya 4y ago
So, you're saying you don't understand the stock market?

nwah1 4y ago

The lottery is a way for the government to take over the numbers racket, which formerly was a source of revenue for organized crime. It is a net benefit to society for that reason.

paulpauper 4y ago
the mafia had competition though, so probably offered better odds. In Vegas, even under the mafia, the house edge was small...way smaller than the lotto.
- kgwgk 4y ago
  They sometimes rigged the game even if it was already very profitable to start with.
greesil 4y ago
This begs the question for what to do about illegal drugs.
- nwah1 4y ago
  Pennsylvania has a state monopoly on retail liquor sales. Liquor is at least as bad as most illegal drugs. That is probably better than the approach of some states which make obtaining licenses to sell alcohol or marijuana expensive. In most cases they are capriciously controlled by politicians and bureaucrats, involving prohibitive fees and outright bribery. At least PA's approach is more equal in effect.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
listenallyall 4y ago
So by that logic, the government could benefit society by selling credit card numbers and fake identities, by executing ransomware attacks, creating open marketplaces for military weapons, and creating a GitHub for espionage documents.
- nwah1 4y ago
  The lottery does not undermine law and order or property rights, while depriving organized crime of revenue. The same cannot be said for any of the things you mention.
  - listenallyall 4y ago
    You clearly don't realize how fluid "law and order" is. Numbers was an illegal activity, until state governments realized it was enormously profitable, decided to run it themselves, and voila! Now it's legal. Selling cannabis could land you in prison for a long time, just a few years ago, now it is sold legally by companies listed on NASDAQ. Further, tons of actions and activities have "selective prosecution" and now, openly, we have "sanctuary cities" where governments actually welcome people who have engaged in illegal activities (not making a moral judgment, but there would be no need for "sanctuary" if they hadn't broken any laws) and shield them from prosecution.
- drKarl 4y ago
  The government actually does some of those things, just not openly. Add to the list drug smuggling and trafficking by the CIA, etc.
  - listenallyall 4y ago
    The "not openly" is key, though. The OP's point was that suppressing the funding of organized crime was the "net benefit to society". The activities you mention, because they are done in secret, do not provide an outlet to reduce organized crime by establishing legal marketplaces. In fact, you could argue that by engaging in smuggling, arms trading, etc, that the government is increasing organized crime... every time the US sells, some criminal is buying.

voz_ 4y ago

This is a weird take, very HN/Reddit. At best it misses the point, and at worst it insults the poor. Its not a "tax" - it's just fun. The odds are terrible, but the dream / "what if?" aspect of it is fun. Theres no downside to playing (Who doesn't have a dollar or two? even when I was broke and lived in my car, I had a spare buck here and there), but the potential upside is limitless.

stingraycharles 4y ago
Eh, I know more than a few people who, over decades, spent small fortunes on these lotteries. $10/month over multiple decades really adds up, especially when you’re already poor. I’m not saying I agree with the “it’s a tax” position, but I definitely don’t agree with the “it’s just fun” position. It’s an industry that preys on poor people’s poor (monetary) decision making skills.
- voz_ 4y ago
  Does it prey? I think scratchers / casinos / sports betting / online poker / more general kinds of gambling is far more addictive and malicious, because the dopamine fueled reward->attempt cycle is a far tighter loop with those.
  - Parmenidea 4y ago
    The counter argument is that a lot of those games reward “skill”. Through study/statistics your odds improve, in the same way that equity research can lead to a good stock pick. The lottery is naked chance.
- Swenrekcah 4y ago
  Would you say the same about a $14/month Netflix subscription? Because that actually has zero upside potential and does not fund local nonprofit activities (like lottery often does, depending on your location).
  - jimkleiber 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago

> The lottery is a voluntary highly regressive tax. Poor people disproportionately play the lottery and are therefore disproportionately funding the lottery taxes. If you are a regular non-connected, non-Ivy League folk, your odds of becoming a billionaire via day zero equity appreciation are roughly the same as becoming one via playing the lottery. And yet this website is full of people deluding themselves that they can become one, and also cheering on other people posting their billion dollar delusions. It's always a real pain to watch the contempt that people who are doing well for themselves have for people who live in inner cities, while engaging in the same behavior, only from a relatively higher vantage point. It's not even necessary to go all the way up to 1 billion, 100m net worth odds for a regular non-connected, non-Ivy League folk are also kinda the same playing lottery vs. day zero equity appreciation. The crossover is somewhere below 100 million dollars, maybe even less than 10 million dollars or there about

listenallyall 4y ago
This comment is sarcasm, right? Perhaps becoming a billionaire is out of reach, but growing your portfolio by 5-20% annually is highly likely, as opposed to -100% growth via lottery tickets.
- Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
  People aren't attacking the delusional and temporarily embarassed billionaires and telling them to focus on a more realistic FIRE. They are pouring gas on their delusions, big difference compared to the reaction to people who play the lottery.
- antisthenes 4y ago
  > This comment is sarcasm, right? Perhaps becoming a billionaire is out of reach, but growing your portfolio by 5-20% annually is highly likely This is incredibly out of touch. The GP comment was talking about the kind of people who don't even own stocks and probably can't afford to buy even a single share, because it would eat into their budget much more than a $2-5 lottery ticket. Also, lottery ticket EV isn't -100%, it's anywhere between -50% and -80%. The stock portfolio growth numbers are also wrong for long-term, but we'll let that one slide.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]