8 ms·

The lottery is a tax on people with poor judgement skills and I'm not comfortable with the state taking direct advantage of its vulnerable citizens.

k__ 2y ago
Better than a private entity.
- bell-cot 2y ago
  Especially if said "private entity" happens to be the mob. My understanding is that the proliferation of casinos, state lotteries, etc. has been very bad for organized crime's traditional business model.
- tedsanders 2y ago
  What's the evidence that it's better than a private entity? State lotteries pay out ~60% on average, compared to ~90%+ for casinos. Not apples to apples, but it seems like competition does shrink profit margins, for the benefit of the buyer. It's not clear to me which is better, but I'd be curious to read good analyses, if anyone has a pointer.
  - dml2135 2y ago
    I'm pretty sure that the payout % for casinos is determined by regulations in most, if not all cases, and not by market dynamics.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I'd be interested to see numbers on that. Vegas has a 75% minimum payout on slot machines. Table games have their own return. Roulette, for example has a 98% return. Casinos definitely compete on table rake for poker
  - autoexec 2y ago
    > What's the evidence that it's better than a private entity? In this case, texas voters can demand the changes to prevent some company from buying all the numbers again. A private entity wouldn't be accountable to the public for anything. We have countless examples of private companies screwing over people both in secret or openly no matter how much the public wishes that they would stop.
pingou 2y ago
Presumably if the state is functioning well and redistributing wealth, it is the poor who benefit more of the state's increased revenue. Perhaps not in America.
- AcerbicZero 2y ago
  I feel like this argument could have legs, but I can also see some easy counter points depending on how you proceed with it. Thank you regardless, as this made me think for a bit.
davidcalloway 2y ago
I get the sentiment but I've never really understood why this saying is so popular. A tax is a specific word with a real meaning. It is not voluntary. By this logic alcohol and cigarettes are themselves a tax on people with poor judgement, as well as many other products. I myself have never understood the thrill payoff that must exist for lottery ticket buyers, but I cannot call it a tax.
- WillPostForFood 2y ago
  What if the government was the sole legal distributor of cigarettes, advertised them, and promised to fund schools with the revenue?
- barbazoo 2y ago
  I think it's not meant as a literal tax. The idea is that "poor" (I've always understood it as a tax on the poor) people don't understand the math enough to know how minuscule the chances are of winning. Because they don't know, they think buying lottery tickets is a financially good idea and that's why they do it.
- AcerbicZero 2y ago
  I call it a tax because it is a government organized/run operation with the objective of removing wealth from individuals for (ostensibly) the betterment of the citizenry as a whole. My complaint is about the targeted nature of lotteries and the extremely poor investments they make for individuals who tend to already struggle in this area. This is compounded by the nature of the education system being operated primary by the same government.
  - quickthrowman 2y ago
    The only reason the government is involved is because organized crime is who runs lotteries in the absence of the state. People would still gamble with black market lotteries.
    - bluGill 2y ago
mmooss 2y ago
> The lottery is a tax on people with poor judgement skills Maybe it's just fun and exciting. Do people who bet in casinos or on sports have poor judgement skills or is it just exciting?
- vpribish 2y ago
  it's a tax on the hopes of the desperate and depressed. better than leaving it to the criminal underworld, though.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- benlivengood 2y ago
  Who gets excited about negative expected value? Now, suppose the expected value of a $1 lottery ticket was about $0.97 so people could be indifferent between zero-interest savings accounts and lottery tickets, and maybe I could see that being exciting. But clearly the gambling industries are predicated on quite a lot of volume going to negative expected value purchases which sounds depressing rather than exciting.
mock-possum 2y ago
Lately I’ve been thinking the same about early access / pre orders for games - luckily no state involvement on that front though.
throw16180339 2y ago
While I understand concerns about the lottery exploiting vulnerable people, one reason for having a state lottery is that it provides a legal alternative to illegal numbers rackets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_game), which were widespread before state lotteries became common. Criminal organizations profited from these underground games, often operating without oversight or consumer protections. A state-run lottery at least ensures transparency and directs revenue toward public services rather than illicit enterprises.
- bluGill 2y ago
  OTOH, legal lotteries get a lot more people to gamble. I suspect that people who gamble either way gamble more as well, though this needs a fact check that I don't know how to find.
  - jamesfinlayson 2y ago
    Probably, although Australia's lottery operator experimented (briefly I understand) with making their lottery and wagering products available through a single website/gateway - I don't think it lasted because while there was some overlap between lottery players and gamblers, it wasn't big, and I think while gamblers could be enticed to buy lottery tickets, it was much harder to entice lottery players to dabble in betting on horses or sports games.
- djeastm 2y ago
  How about regulated private industry as another option? Seems to work ok for cannabis/alcohol/tobacco and such vices.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  That's just a quality vs quality argument with an appeal to emotion at the end. Not everyone impoverished by state sanctioned gambling would do so in an illegal only world. You can bicker about what the conversion ratio is but the fact of the matter is that it exists. And no, I don't know what it is.
- 2y ago
gblargg 2y ago
I bought one ticket once ($1 or whatever). I reasoned that if the universe wanted to give me a win, I had to help it by purchasing a ticket. Apparently it didn't have that in mind so that's all I'll ever buy.
rs186 2y ago
True, but it is also true that lottery money often goes back to cities and towns, so those people get a tiny little bit of benefit back for themselves.
TrackerFF 2y ago
For what it is worth, plenty of people play the lottery for the entertainment value.
skizm 2y ago
Not really. The actual value to your life per dollar is lower the richer you are. So if you’re well enough off that a few bucks won’t make any difference when they go missing vs life changing money on the off chance it hits, it is worth it to buy some number of tickets. It basically equates to no change if lose, rich if win. The problem is when people are spending dollars that will actually affect their lives hoping to win. I’ve not seen it applied to the lottery specifically but you might even be able to use the Kelly Criterion to determine how much you can lose.
anonu 2y ago
But it goes to education! So it's a virtuous cycle.

k__ 2y ago

Better than a private entity.

bell-cot 2y ago
Especially if said "private entity" happens to be the mob. My understanding is that the proliferation of casinos, state lotteries, etc. has been very bad for organized crime's traditional business model.
tedsanders 2y ago
What's the evidence that it's better than a private entity? State lotteries pay out ~60% on average, compared to ~90%+ for casinos. Not apples to apples, but it seems like competition does shrink profit margins, for the benefit of the buyer. It's not clear to me which is better, but I'd be curious to read good analyses, if anyone has a pointer.
- dml2135 2y ago
  I'm pretty sure that the payout % for casinos is determined by regulations in most, if not all cases, and not by market dynamics.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I'd be interested to see numbers on that. Vegas has a 75% minimum payout on slot machines. Table games have their own return. Roulette, for example has a 98% return. Casinos definitely compete on table rake for poker
- autoexec 2y ago
  > What's the evidence that it's better than a private entity? In this case, texas voters can demand the changes to prevent some company from buying all the numbers again. A private entity wouldn't be accountable to the public for anything. We have countless examples of private companies screwing over people both in secret or openly no matter how much the public wishes that they would stop.

pingou 2y ago

Presumably if the state is functioning well and redistributing wealth, it is the poor who benefit more of the state's increased revenue. Perhaps not in America.

AcerbicZero 2y ago
I feel like this argument could have legs, but I can also see some easy counter points depending on how you proceed with it. Thank you regardless, as this made me think for a bit.

davidcalloway 2y ago

I get the sentiment but I've never really understood why this saying is so popular. A tax is a specific word with a real meaning. It is not voluntary. By this logic alcohol and cigarettes are themselves a tax on people with poor judgement, as well as many other products. I myself have never understood the thrill payoff that must exist for lottery ticket buyers, but I cannot call it a tax.

WillPostForFood 2y ago
What if the government was the sole legal distributor of cigarettes, advertised them, and promised to fund schools with the revenue?
barbazoo 2y ago
I think it's not meant as a literal tax. The idea is that "poor" (I've always understood it as a tax on the poor) people don't understand the math enough to know how minuscule the chances are of winning. Because they don't know, they think buying lottery tickets is a financially good idea and that's why they do it.
AcerbicZero 2y ago
I call it a tax because it is a government organized/run operation with the objective of removing wealth from individuals for (ostensibly) the betterment of the citizenry as a whole. My complaint is about the targeted nature of lotteries and the extremely poor investments they make for individuals who tend to already struggle in this area. This is compounded by the nature of the education system being operated primary by the same government.
- quickthrowman 2y ago
  The only reason the government is involved is because organized crime is who runs lotteries in the absence of the state. People would still gamble with black market lotteries.
  - bluGill 2y ago

mmooss 2y ago

> The lottery is a tax on people with poor judgement skills Maybe it's just fun and exciting. Do people who bet in casinos or on sports have poor judgement skills or is it just exciting?

vpribish 2y ago
it's a tax on the hopes of the desperate and depressed. better than leaving it to the criminal underworld, though.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
benlivengood 2y ago
Who gets excited about negative expected value? Now, suppose the expected value of a $1 lottery ticket was about $0.97 so people could be indifferent between zero-interest savings accounts and lottery tickets, and maybe I could see that being exciting. But clearly the gambling industries are predicated on quite a lot of volume going to negative expected value purchases which sounds depressing rather than exciting.

mock-possum 2y ago

Lately I’ve been thinking the same about early access / pre orders for games - luckily no state involvement on that front though.

throw16180339 2y ago

While I understand concerns about the lottery exploiting vulnerable people, one reason for having a state lottery is that it provides a legal alternative to illegal numbers rackets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_game), which were widespread before state lotteries became common. Criminal organizations profited from these underground games, often operating without oversight or consumer protections. A state-run lottery at least ensures transparency and directs revenue toward public services rather than illicit enterprises.

bluGill 2y ago
OTOH, legal lotteries get a lot more people to gamble. I suspect that people who gamble either way gamble more as well, though this needs a fact check that I don't know how to find.
- jamesfinlayson 2y ago
  Probably, although Australia's lottery operator experimented (briefly I understand) with making their lottery and wagering products available through a single website/gateway - I don't think it lasted because while there was some overlap between lottery players and gamblers, it wasn't big, and I think while gamblers could be enticed to buy lottery tickets, it was much harder to entice lottery players to dabble in betting on horses or sports games.
djeastm 2y ago
How about regulated private industry as another option? Seems to work ok for cannabis/alcohol/tobacco and such vices.
potato3732842 2y ago
That's just a quality vs quality argument with an appeal to emotion at the end. Not everyone impoverished by state sanctioned gambling would do so in an illegal only world. You can bicker about what the conversion ratio is but the fact of the matter is that it exists. And no, I don't know what it is.
2y ago

gblargg 2y ago

I bought one ticket once ($1 or whatever). I reasoned that if the universe wanted to give me a win, I had to help it by purchasing a ticket. Apparently it didn't have that in mind so that's all I'll ever buy.

rs186 2y ago

True, but it is also true that lottery money often goes back to cities and towns, so those people get a tiny little bit of benefit back for themselves.

TrackerFF 2y ago

For what it is worth, plenty of people play the lottery for the entertainment value.

skizm 2y ago

Not really. The actual value to your life per dollar is lower the richer you are. So if you’re well enough off that a few bucks won’t make any difference when they go missing vs life changing money on the off chance it hits, it is worth it to buy some number of tickets. It basically equates to no change if lose, rich if win. The problem is when people are spending dollars that will actually affect their lives hoping to win. I’ve not seen it applied to the lottery specifically but you might even be able to use the Kelly Criterion to determine how much you can lose.

anonu 2y ago

But it goes to education! So it's a virtuous cycle.