4 ms·

For one dollar a lottery player purchases entertainment and maybe even a bit of optimism for a little bit of time. I have always found the "math tax" line sill

by dfc 15y ago

For one dollar a lottery player purchases entertainment and maybe even a bit of optimism for a little bit of time. I have always found the "math tax" line silly. I've never understood why "math tax" people assume that the only utility that a lottery ticket provides is the expected value of the payout. Is a ten dollar ticket to a spy movie a waste of money since there is little likelihood that watching it is going to get me a job with some OGA?

DanBC 15y ago
When the prize is large you get more people willing to risk a tiny amount just to get that short time of dreaming, and the teeny tiny chance of a big win. There's not much problem with that. But lotteries also attract people who just don't get the numbers. People who can't afford to be spending 10, 20, 50 dollars on lotteries. That's a problem.
wegwerf 15y ago
> For one dollar a lottery player purchases entertainment and maybe even a bit of optimism for a little bit of time. And above all there is gambling, the cheapest of all luxuries. Even people on the verge of starvation can buy a few days' hope ('Something to live for', as they call it) by having a penny on a sweepstake. -- George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier, chapter 5
- RollAHardSix 15y ago
  Except that quote is only really relevant when the gambling is done on a repetitive basis. For many, this was the first and possibly/probably, the only time they decide to play the lottery. This lottery only garnered so much attention because of the high jackpot, however even that was an anomaly. For most people who pay the lottery repeatedly, yes, it is a 'tax'; however many people who are more than capable of figuring the odds, still decided to play this jackpot - if only for the chance of winning. Apologies for bad grammar, on a 48 hour day and my 2 cups of coffee isn't jump-starting my brain.

by dfc 15y ago

DanBC 15y ago

When the prize is large you get more people willing to risk a tiny amount just to get that short time of dreaming, and the teeny tiny chance of a big win. There's not much problem with that. But lotteries also attract people who just don't get the numbers. People who can't afford to be spending 10, 20, 50 dollars on lotteries. That's a problem.

wegwerf 15y ago

> For one dollar a lottery player purchases entertainment and maybe even a bit of optimism for a little bit of time. And above all there is gambling, the cheapest of all luxuries. Even people on the verge of starvation can buy a few days' hope ('Something to live for', as they call it) by having a penny on a sweepstake. -- George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier, chapter 5

RollAHardSix 15y ago
Except that quote is only really relevant when the gambling is done on a repetitive basis. For many, this was the first and possibly/probably, the only time they decide to play the lottery. This lottery only garnered so much attention because of the high jackpot, however even that was an anomaly. For most people who pay the lottery repeatedly, yes, it is a 'tax'; however many people who are more than capable of figuring the odds, still decided to play this jackpot - if only for the chance of winning. Apologies for bad grammar, on a 48 hour day and my 2 cups of coffee isn't jump-starting my brain.