4 ms·

Under what argument should it be reasonable to force people to play the lottery and pay $1/week for it? I don't play the lottery, feel it's stupid and just a t

Under what argument should it be reasonable to force people to play the lottery and pay $1/week for it? I don't play the lottery, feel it's stupid and just a tax on impossibly optimistic people (or those good at math), and would be quite annoyed at having to play this lottery and pay money for it.

nerdponx 4y ago
The point is to offset the loss in tax revenue. Very few people will notice a $52 increase in taxes, and you can set an income minimum for it if you prefer (scaling up the amount as needed to hit the revenue target).
BrianOnHN 4y ago
> Under what argument should it be reasonable To narrow the gap luck currently plays in life outcomes. Currently, you are either born lucky, trust funds and generational real estate, or not. More chances to be "lucky" would enable more opportunities for more people. And the OP suggests a negligible cost to make that happen.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  It seems like this would do the opposite. It simply increases the role that luck plays in life outcomes. If you take luck to be bad, this is not an improvement. If you disagree, Why don't we just increase the number of people born with trust funds and generational wealth, at the cost to the rest of society. This would have much the same effect as instituting the lottery. Being lucky and winning a lottery is just as "unfair" as being lucky and being born to the right household.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Everything you describe seems to be increasing the role that luck plays, by giving 52 more chances per year to be lucky enough to win a helpful amount [but not trust fund/generational real estate level] of money.
  - throwaheyy 4y ago
    GP didn’t say decreasing the role that luck plays, they said decreasing the gap in outcomes luck causes. More chances to be lucky can reduce a gap that today is mostly determined by the wealth you’re born into.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      Which gap in outcome is more important/influential: the gap in outcome between Jeff Bezos and you or between you and the neighbors you've lived near all your life? Bezos could have 10x or 10% of what he has now and it wouldn't change my life at all.
      - throwaheyy 4y ago
        The gap between me and many of my friends/neighbors today, is more important to me. I recognize how lucky I am to be born into relative privilege, but I’m not quite sure what Jeff Bezos has to do with this discussion, or what point you’re trying to make?
        sokoloff 4y ago
        Because this lottery is, by intentional design, increasing the gap in outcome due to luck that's actually relevant to the typical American's life (the one amongst neighbors and friends). Every week, thousands of people will have their neighbors and friends suddenly complaining about having to pay $100K in taxes and planning to move out of the neighborhood.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Seems like to would be worsening the divide and equality, not bringing it closer together. Which society has less equality? one with one randomly 1 rich and 99 poor, or one with 10 randomly 10 rich and 90 even poorer.
kibwen 4y ago
As I mention in my comment, it's fine to let people opt out if they don't want to play.

nerdponx 4y ago

The point is to offset the loss in tax revenue. Very few people will notice a $52 increase in taxes, and you can set an income minimum for it if you prefer (scaling up the amount as needed to hit the revenue target).

BrianOnHN 4y ago

> Under what argument should it be reasonable To narrow the gap luck currently plays in life outcomes. Currently, you are either born lucky, trust funds and generational real estate, or not. More chances to be "lucky" would enable more opportunities for more people. And the OP suggests a negligible cost to make that happen.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
It seems like this would do the opposite. It simply increases the role that luck plays in life outcomes. If you take luck to be bad, this is not an improvement. If you disagree, Why don't we just increase the number of people born with trust funds and generational wealth, at the cost to the rest of society. This would have much the same effect as instituting the lottery. Being lucky and winning a lottery is just as "unfair" as being lucky and being born to the right household.
sokoloff 4y ago
Everything you describe seems to be increasing the role that luck plays, by giving 52 more chances per year to be lucky enough to win a helpful amount [but not trust fund/generational real estate level] of money.
- throwaheyy 4y ago
  GP didn’t say decreasing the role that luck plays, they said decreasing the gap in outcomes luck causes. More chances to be lucky can reduce a gap that today is mostly determined by the wealth you’re born into.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    Which gap in outcome is more important/influential: the gap in outcome between Jeff Bezos and you or between you and the neighbors you've lived near all your life? Bezos could have 10x or 10% of what he has now and it wouldn't change my life at all.
    - throwaheyy 4y ago
      The gap between me and many of my friends/neighbors today, is more important to me. I recognize how lucky I am to be born into relative privilege, but I’m not quite sure what Jeff Bezos has to do with this discussion, or what point you’re trying to make?
      - sokoloff 4y ago
        Because this lottery is, by intentional design, increasing the gap in outcome due to luck that's actually relevant to the typical American's life (the one amongst neighbors and friends). Every week, thousands of people will have their neighbors and friends suddenly complaining about having to pay $100K in taxes and planning to move out of the neighborhood.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Seems like to would be worsening the divide and equality, not bringing it closer together. Which society has less equality? one with one randomly 1 rich and 99 poor, or one with 10 randomly 10 rich and 90 even poorer.

kibwen 4y ago

As I mention in my comment, it's fine to let people opt out if they don't want to play.