It serms incredible to me to give over a billion dollars to a random person.
Not really.
The lottery is paid for by those who all have an equal chance of winning that prize. Also, the profits from lotteries are usually spent on social funds etc.
I feel more conflicted about thr fact that it preys on addiction and those who buy the most lottery tickets are often those who can least afford them. I find that much more grotesque than a random person getting very lucky, but to each their own.
Half would go to the government no?
In the US, close to half of the winnings do go to the lottery, plus a portion of each lottery ticket usually goes to fund some government agency. Schools, programs for the impoverished and disenfranchised, etc.
The real question, in my opinion, is if you are willing to spend that much money on a ticket, why aren’t you willing to spend that much money on just outright funding government programs? Imagine if 100% of what someone paid for a ticket went to programs for the disenfranchised? That could make real difference.
I spend about $10 per year on lottery tickets. I pay upwards of $40k in taxes, much of which is funneled to “disenfranchised”. I’m good, thanks.
Ok, but if you had a guarantee that your $10 would go directly to the disenfranchised with no chances of returning millions to you, how would that change things?
Handing money out to the “disenfranchised” solves nothing, thus it never ends. I am for real solutions, like education and a strong family unit. But, you know, having that opinion means I am racist/classist/whatever “ist”.
Love the quote marks around disenfranchised. Real classy.
Let’s see… cursory glance at post history indicates… Yep, right wing, anti union and against a living wage. That all tracks.
I think you are both arguing about an institution giving money to random people right? Just the amount of both money given and number of recipients are changing right?
Quote marks because “disenfranchised” is subjective. And wow, you have mad skills to look at someone’s post history. Aren’t you quite the haxxor?
I consider myself moderate. Lefty tools such as yourself label anyone that disagrees with them as right wing racist maga nazis. Fuck you.
I am anti union. Unions served a great purpose 100 years ago. Now they are corrupt shake down organizations that contribute to inflation and drive jobs out of the country. But if someone wants to join one, I don’t care, it’s none of my business. Just don’t use my tax dollars to fund any of it.
Living wage. There is this idiotic entitlement mentality that people somehow deserve a “living wage” simply for consuming oxygen. Here is the truth: people are paid what they are worth. If you are providing real value to an employer, they will pay you enough to retain you. If they don’t, find another employer. Rinse and repeat.
But nah, it’s easier to blame shortcomings on billionaires/Trump/“the man”/“disenfranchisement” and hope some politician will send you money for your vote.
Maybe you are racist and/or classist.
Maybe you are an idiot.
You realize that most studies show that direct cash payments to people on welfare/needy return better results, right?
You make $200k a year, not bad!
What is better:
- 10$, of which 2$ goes towards taxes, 2$ goes to the winner, and 6$ goes to the people who own the lottery
- 10$ of which directly goes to taxes
That depends on the government in question. For example, the Canadian government does not have a claim on any kind of lottery or game show winnings.
On the first year I believe.
To my understanding, and a quick Google search, winnings are never taxed.
Correct. And they’ll get your money for you if you win big in Vegas.
It’s grotesque for ANYONE to have a billion dollars. Arguably the lottery winner is the only one to achieve that wealth by even sort-of ethical means.
By that measure, playing the stock exchange is just an advanced version of lottery.
It is
Yep. Kind of ethical if you ask me… :P
My guess you never heard of stock manipulation.
The Spiffing Brit enters the chat
Technically you are investing in stocks they allow you to. Perfectly ethical.
State lotteries are in effect a tax on the uneducated; largely used to fund education.
But part of the reason they exist is that, in their absence, people spontaneously come up with even worse forms of gambling, like the old numbers game that funds the expansion of organized crime.
Most lottery players, especially scratch-ticket players, would be better off sticking that money under their mattresses or in credit-union accounts. However, again, when there are no gambling games around, people spontaneously invent them; abolishing state lotteries would not cause that money to go under mattresses or into credit unions.
largely used to fund education
Alas, nope.
Many states have laws saying that for every lottery dollar that goes to education, a dollar comes out of the education budget. Usually lottery profits end up in a general fund, the whole education thing is a legislated smoke screen.
The main function of state run lotteries is to take money away from organized criminals and give it to elected criminals instead.
That’s incredible if true
Most states, there’s this association that it supports education, but there’s this bizarre scheme where for every lottery dollar that goes into the education budget, $1 from the education budget comes back out into the general fund.
So you end up just robbing Peter to pay Paul kind of thing. It doesn’t actually add additional money to these causes that lotteries market themselves as helping.
a majority of the 42 states that run lotteries claim the games increase funding for education. But a CBS News investigation has found that most of the lottery sales never make it to a classroom.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-the-lottery-shortchanging-schools/
But when you take away the amount shelled out for prizes (60% on ticket sales) and the cut to the lottery dealers, along with fees and operating expenses, it leaves about one third of the handle ($3.37 billion) for “aid to education”.
Moreover, NYS Assemblyman David DiPietro (R-147th District) claims the money is not always used for education expenses, at least not in the traditional sense.
According to DiPietro, the money on occasion has been “pinched off” by the state, to pay for a variety of items, including attorney’s fees for construction projects and even to pave roads near schools.
Sounds like fraud 😁
Out of curiosity: What is considered illegal gambling?
Gambling that is prohibited by local laws.
Each state has its own restrictions and laws so really it depends on your location.
When the government doesn’t control it.
Any gambling that isn’t regularly audited and controlled by the state. I work in the casino industry, I have sets of reports and evidence I have to run and provide to the state daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, and annually. Then every two years they get a room in our building to full audit everything again end comb through everything we do to make sure we comply with all of the hundreds of controls across the 25 chapters in our gaming control book. Anything not subjected to and complying with that is illegal.
Wait til you find out about inheritance
It is a deep and philosophical question that must be looked at from all sides. But after much debate and consideration among our greatest scholars the universal truth is a question in of itself. Am I the random person?
if you buy a ticket, you just might be !
It’s not as grotesque as the mundane realities that we accept as normal under capitalism
Far better than the shitheads that add nothing to the world and become billionaires through financial manipulation and employee exploitation.
Seriously, 1.2b a drop in the ocean compared to generationally wealthy who leech off of society paying almost no tax by extending tax liability to infinity through gifting and buying politicians who create loopholes for them.
I can’t think of a single person who became a billionaire, yet added nothing of a value to the world. Sure they may have manipulated and exploited while at it, but there’s still usually a product of some sort in the end, and the fact that they became wealthy indicates there was demand for said product.
If someone adds value to the world, but does so through exploitation of the workforce, scamming their customers, or tax evasion. They didn’t actually add anything to the world. They are net negative.
That’s an argument for the product, but the system still promotes shitheads to the heads of the companies that deliver said products.
And that still means shitheads are shitheads, regardless of the amount of money they have.
First of all, they are not getting $1.2B. The lump sum cash value is $551.7M. The usually reported jackpots are presented in terms of the value of a 30 year annuity.
Second, those winnings are before taxes. After taxes, depending on the state, the person will walk away with $280m-350m.
Now, sure, that is still an absurd amount, but still like 1/4th the stated jackpot.
That’s more reasonable.
Also most lottery winners end up dead or bankrupt within a few years of winning.
The Google response seems to agree with you, but this Berkeley study says the opposite:
Dunno if it’s bad for mobile or just a bad link but I got a 404.
I guess that’s my point
If someone inherits a billion dollar, how is that not just given to a random person?
If their family is that rich, they usually have gotten some money of it before the other died.
I think it’s somewhat charming tbh. Everyone gets a tiny, miniscule chance of never having to work again. I rarely buy a ticket, but when I do I spend all week imagining all the fun things I’d do with the money.
As the other poster said, though, it’s sad when folks get addicted to it.
San Francisco spends $700 million a year dealing with their roughly 7,000 unhoused people. They could just give every one of them $100,000 a year and spend less, and probably have better results.
Pretty sure that if they didn’t spend 700 million, there would be quite a lot more than 7000 unhoused people.
No they couldn’t. If being homeless paid six figures there would suddenly be a lot more homeless people.
The entire idea of a statewide lottery seems awful to me. I think there should be a cap on the size and reach of any one lottery. It’s been shown to be more harmful than helpful to dump millions of dollars on one person’s bank account.
The public opinions on Lemmy are fucking daffy. So on top of everything else, yall are cool with predatory gambling system that randomly ruins one person’s life?
deleted by creator
Then you’ll feel better knowing that in the US that whomever wins that Powerball will end up with less than half the amount they won. Taxes will eat up about 60% of the winnings .
And then, statistically, their life will be ruined so… Grotesque indeed
I would be willing to fall on that sword for the unlucky soul that wins that lottery. I actually knew someone that won the 10 million publishers clearance house back in the 1980’s. Classic story of they were dirt poor before the win and dirt poorer about 5 years after the win. Banks lined up to give them loans and they took them all since the prize didn’t pay out in a lump sum. After the interest their yearly checks and more were gone… But they had “stuff” for awhile.
