In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Your STATES, as in local governments by and for the people, actually run LOTTERIES? LOL. America never ceases to amaze.
Why is this bad? Basically a voluntary tax where the proceeds go to helping the people?
Further, because state lotteries pay out an average of only 60 percent of gross revenues in prizes (compared to about 90 percent for casino slot machines or table games), state-run lotteries are only viable as a monopoly, in conjunction with a ban on private lotteries.
What they are doing would literally be a crime if anyone else tried to do it. Even in Vegas it would be illegal. It's basically a state approved con.
I'm also guessing you missed how states have been using the 'additional funding' from the lottery not to actually increase educational spending but a large portion goes to replacing education funding they are suddenly spending elsewhere or not receiving at all.
And they get to recapture anywhere from ~4-10% (a few states have a lotto but no income tax) of the 'winnings' right off the bat depending on state.
Delaware one state without an income tax tops the chart at ~$370 per person in PROFIT off of each person on the lotto.
Liberals get the increase in tax revenue they want. Conservatives aren't forced to pay a tax so they're happy.
A lot of things have tension with religion; War, gay marriage, abortion, only 1 spouse.
It being possible to hurt a small amount of people seems like a silly argument. It is still helping people in the additional services offered by the government and it's voluntary. Compare this to something like food stamps or universal health care. They are both helping people, they are both hurting people, but the lottery is voluntary.
I mean I certainly don't love state lotteries, but not for any of the reasons you listed, but because the state locks out private companies from hosting their own lotteries. Which if there were private lotteries instead of state lotteries then the same "bad" things would be happening, but none of the "good" things that happen from the state gaining money would happen...which could be another argument for state lotteries.
Your STATES, as in local governments by and for the people, actually run LOTTERIES? LOL. America never ceases to amaze.
Why is this bad? Basically a voluntary tax where the proceeds go to helping the people?
There are like a hundred reasons that come to mind.
Promoting gambling potentially causes a lot of suffering/is problematic because
-of its addictive nature -its destructive nature -its tension with religion -it being a pipe dream, and "idiot tax" is the more appropriate term
just right on top of my head.
I have heard governments taxing/banning/regulating it, but never being the pusher themselves. That's a new one and more than questionable.
Luring people into buying a state approved ticket, by holding a golden carrot in front of their face that they are going to increase education spending/infrastructure spending/number of police men on the street/policy x/y...if Z amount of money is achieved in revenues must be one of the most perfidious things I have heard in a long time.
It's pretty benign if you grow up with it. In many states it is the only form of legal gambling, so 'state approved' doesn't really carry special weight. I doubt full prohibition would work either, and just drive the activity to the black market like drug or alcohol prohibition.
Further, because state lotteries pay out an average of only 60 percent of gross revenues in prizes (compared to about 90 percent for casino slot machines or table games), state-run lotteries are only viable as a monopoly, in conjunction with a ban on private lotteries.
What they are doing would literally be a crime if anyone else tried to do it. Even in Vegas it would be illegal. It's basically a state approved con.
I'm also guessing you missed how states have been using the 'additional funding' from the lottery not to actually increase educational spending but a large portion goes to replacing education funding they are suddenly spending elsewhere or not receiving at all.
And they get to recapture anywhere from ~4-10% (a few states have a lotto but no income tax) of the 'winnings' right off the bat depending on state.
Delaware one state without an income tax tops the chart at ~$370 per person in PROFIT off of each person on the lotto.
On November 11 2014 08:10 Chewbacca. wrote: Liberals get the increase in tax revenue they want. Conservatives aren't forced to pay a tax so they're happy.
A lot of things have tension with religion; War, gay marriage, abortion, only 1 spouse.
It being possible to hurt a small amount of people seems like a silly argument. It is still helping people in the additional services offered by the government and it's voluntary. Compare this to something like food stamps or universal health care. They are both helping people, they are both hurting people, but the lottery is voluntary.
I mean I certainly don't love state lotteries, but not for any of the reasons you listed, but because the state locks out private companies from hosting their own lotteries. Which if there were private lotteries instead of state lotteries then the same "bad" things would be happening, but none of the "good" things that happen from the state gaining money would happen...which could be another argument for state lotteries.
46 out of 50 states already have private gambling industries. The states mandate that they have payout rates significantly higher than the lotto.
Theoretically they could let the casinos payout less and tax their profits more and get the same revenue but it would never work because people are sold a bill of goods on what the lotto is vs what they think 'gambling' is. So $10 in tickets a week seems worlds different than putting $10 in a slot machine but you have a lot better odds (by law) on the slot machine.
The states are tricking people into paying a tax and then lying to them about where the money really goes.
It would be like a casino who was mandated to contribute $100k to education per month, then suddenly after years of pulling it from it's general budget they say "We are going to increase funding for education by dedicating a 100% of this type of fancy machines winnings to education" then promoting the crap out of it with flashy lights and loud sounds. Then once people start playing it you just stop funding education from your general and start solely funding it from those machines. To just nominally more than you did before, and then praising everyone for all the gambling they did 'for the children' while celebrating how you are doing soo much for education...
If the education was any good to start with no one would be playing the damn lotto...
On November 11 2014 08:10 Chewbacca. wrote: Liberals get the increase in tax revenue they want. Conservatives aren't forced to pay a tax so they're happy.
A lot of things have tension with religion; War, gay marriage, abortion, only 1 spouse.
It being possible to hurt a small amount of people seems like a silly argument. It is still helping people in the additional services offered by the government and it's voluntary. Compare this to something like food stamps or universal health care. They are both helping people, they are both hurting people, but the lottery is voluntary.
I mean I certainly don't love state lotteries, but not for any of the reasons you listed, but because the state locks out private companies from hosting their own lotteries. Which if there were private lotteries instead of state lotteries then the same "bad" things would be happening, but none of the "good" things that happen from the state gaining money would happen...which could be another argument for state lotteries.
Or compare it to crack. Why not heroin? State run brothel maybe? Human trafficking to go to the extreme! In principle it's the same following your logic.(some _minor_legal issues aside, you get my meaning)
Your STATES, as in local governments by and for the people, actually run LOTTERIES? LOL. America never ceases to amaze.
Why is this bad? Basically a voluntary tax where the proceeds go to helping the people?
There are like a hundred reasons that come to mind.
Promoting gambling potentially causes a lot of suffering/is problematic because
-of its addictive nature -its destructive nature -its tension with religion -it being a pipe dream, and "idiot tax" is the more appropriate term
just right on top of my head.
I have heard governments taxing/banning/regulating it, but never being the pusher themselves. That's a new one and more than questionable.
Luring people into buying a state approved ticket, by holding a golden carrot in front of their face that they are going to increase education spending/infrastructure spending/number of police men on the street/policy x/y...if Z amount of money is achieved in revenues must be one of the most perfidious things I have heard in a long time.
It's pretty benign if you grow up with it. In many states it is the only form of legal gambling, so 'state approved' doesn't really carry special weight. I doubt full prohibition would work either, and just drive the activity to the black market like drug or alcohol prohibition.
State approved ticked might have been poorly worded, too weak in getting the true meaning across. Given out and promoted by the state should work better. And not by a private entity.
That it's benign for most people is definitely true. On the other hand it also destroys lives or leads people on paths that destroy lives. If government should be in that business is despicable, or at least highly controversial if you ask me.
Having kind of a blind eye and focusing on how much taxes you collect from it is one thing, actually running it a whole different story.
If the government weren't involved in the lottery business, and it was instead the domain of private interest, is there a greater or lesser chance that more people are affected negatively by gambling?
I think there's a fairly obvious case for harm reduction and pragmatic revenue seeking to be made in defense of state-run gambling ventures, and it isn't altogether that different an argument from the one backing state-run IV narcotics centers, which have a pretty sterling record in the nations that implement them, I might add.
Your STATES, as in local governments by and for the people, actually run LOTTERIES? LOL. America never ceases to amaze.
Why is this bad? Basically a voluntary tax where the proceeds go to helping the people?
Further, because state lotteries pay out an average of only 60 percent of gross revenues in prizes (compared to about 90 percent for casino slot machines or table games), state-run lotteries are only viable as a monopoly, in conjunction with a ban on private lotteries.
What they are doing would literally be a crime if anyone else tried to do it. Even in Vegas it would be illegal. It's basically a state approved con.
I'm also guessing you missed how states have been using the 'additional funding' from the lottery not to actually increase educational spending but a large portion goes to replacing education funding they are suddenly spending elsewhere or not receiving at all.
And they get to recapture anywhere from ~4-10% (a few states have a lotto but no income tax) of the 'winnings' right off the bat depending on state.
Delaware one state without an income tax tops the chart at ~$370 per person in PROFIT off of each person on the lotto.
meh, taxes are far more profitable
So junk the state lotteries, let the Casino's rob people trick them out of their money, and tax the crap out of them. But the state running it's own massive con with payouts that would be criminal for anyone else is just ridiculous.
If the government weren't involved in the lottery business, and it was instead the domain of private interest, is there a greater or lesser chance that more people are affected negatively by gambling?
Well the payout rates would certainly be better. So more people would get lucky and less would just lose. With smaller jackpots and more calculable odds people would be more capable of making informed rational decisions.
Have to do something about calling losses 'wins' though, the psychological impact is pretty huge.
@GH Like I said, I'm all for the state getting out of it and passing it off to private casinos, and I don't like how the state is regulating itself one way and private companies another. I was contesting the points that Doublemint made as for why it is bad.
-The state should not mandate payouts of the casinos
-Giving it to the casinos and then taxing them more heavily wouldn't be the same because now you're forcing the revenue out of the pockets of a private business instead of taking it from people volunteering it to the state.
-The state isn't "tricking" people into buying the ticket. Every single person knows that the chances of winning the lottery are extremely small and you're basically throwing your money away. Hell most (all?) lottery tickets that I ever remembering buying, admittedly few, have had some sort of disclaimer about what the odds are/playing smartly.
-I don't know about states promising the funds going somewhere and then them not. If this is the case that's obviously wrong. But that isn't an issue with the lottery itself, that is an issue with the politicians promising the money in advertisements. If they say it's going to education or whatever then it should.
@Doublemint Crack and heroin hurt a much larger percentage of people than state run lottery does, and in a much more severe way.
No real problems with state run brothel.
Human trafficking doesn't apply because that implies that it isn't voluntary as nobody signs up to be "trafficked"
In pursuit of refreshing my understanding of lotteries, I came upon an interesting bit of research by an economist from Harvard. Though the study is admittedly limited, it appears that lotteries become increasingly progressive a tax as their jackpot increases; the researcher noted that, in an out-of-sample extrapolation, the Powerball became a progressive tax in Connecticut at a jackpot of 806 million dollars. It would seem that higher income brackets become more interested in a lottery when they can more easily relate the jackpot with their idea of a windfall sum of cash; the researcher also mentioned that a greater appreciation for the odds might be at play. It's hard to say to what extent policy suggestions can be made given the limited nature of a single study, but if what the author says is correct, we still don't have a good understanding of just how regressive lotteries are and if their benefits outweigh their risks.
On November 11 2014 03:14 oneofthem wrote: you laugh but i think a non-regressive kind of lottery could be used to 'throw money into the streets' more directly than QE and stuff.
What do you mean by non-regressive lottery?
On a HBO related note, what do you think of Bill Maher's rant on proportional representation in the senate?
California, a state with 33 million people, gets two senators. 8 Red states, with a combined total population of 33 million people, gets 16 senators. As Maher put it, the Senate "over represents rural people, not real people".
Isn't the senate's purpose in America to represent the states interests, not the citizens?
They certainly were at its inception. I'm of the opinion that a repeal of the seventeenth amendment would represent a great return to federalism. Nowadays the states hold too little power, and senate races are more about incumbency and Washington power mechanics than what their host states want their senators to do. McConnell's latest campaign and 24-hours-later news conference is a great example of this.
On November 11 2014 09:06 farvacola wrote: In pursuit of refreshing my understanding of lotteries, I came upon an interesting bit of research by an economist from Harvard. Though the study is admittedly limited, it appears that lotteries become increasingly progressive a tax as their jackpot increases; the researcher noted that, in an out-of-sample extrapolation, the Powerball became a progressive tax in Connecticut at a jackpot of 806 million dollars. It would seem that higher income brackets become more interested in a lottery when they can more easily relate the jackpot with their idea of a windfall sum of cash; the researcher also mentioned that a greater appreciation for the odds might be at play. It's hard to say to what extent policy suggestions can be made given the limited nature of a single study, but if what the author says is correct, we still don't have a good understanding of just how regressive lotteries are and if their benefits outweigh their risks.
My guess is this is the case. I only play the lottery when "The odds are in my favor". IE payout is high enough that if I went in and bought every combination of tickets and I was the only winner I'd make a profit.
On November 11 2014 08:10 Chewbacca. wrote: Liberals get the increase in tax revenue they want. Conservatives aren't forced to pay a tax so they're happy.
A lot of things have tension with religion; War, gay marriage, abortion, only 1 spouse.
It being possible to hurt a small amount of people seems like a silly argument. It is still helping people in the additional services offered by the government and it's voluntary. Compare this to something like food stamps or universal health care. They are both helping people, they are both hurting people, but the lottery is voluntary.
I mean I certainly don't love state lotteries, but not for any of the reasons you listed, but because the state locks out private companies from hosting their own lotteries. Which if there were private lotteries instead of state lotteries then the same "bad" things would be happening, but none of the "good" things that happen from the state gaining money would happen...which could be another argument for state lotteries.
Or compare it to crack. Why not heroin? State run brothel maybe? Human trafficking to go to the extreme! In principle it's the same following your logic.
Your STATES, as in local governments by and for the people, actually run LOTTERIES? LOL. America never ceases to amaze.
Why is this bad? Basically a voluntary tax where the proceeds go to helping the people?
There are like a hundred reasons that come to mind.
Promoting gambling potentially causes a lot of suffering/is problematic because
-of its addictive nature -its destructive nature -its tension with religion -it being a pipe dream, and "idiot tax" is the more appropriate term
just right on top of my head.
I have heard governments taxing/banning/regulating it, but never being the pusher themselves. That's a new one and more than questionable.
Luring people into buying a state approved ticket, by holding a golden carrot in front of their face that they are going to increase education spending/infrastructure spending/number of police men on the street/policy x/y...if Z amount of money is achieved in revenues must be one of the most perfidious things I have heard in a long time.
It's pretty benign if you grow up with it. In many states it is the only form of legal gambling, so 'state approved' doesn't really carry special weight. I doubt full prohibition would work either, and just drive the activity to the black market like drug or alcohol prohibition.
State approved ticked might have been poorly worded, too weak in getting the true meaning across. Given out and promoted by the state should work better. And not by a private entity.
That it's benign for most people is definitely true. On the other hand it also destroys lives or leads people on paths that destroy lives. If government should be in that business is despicable, or at least highly controversial if you ask me.
Having kind of a blind eye and focusing on how much taxes you collect from it is one thing, actually running it a whole different story.
Generally, the idea isn't that gambling is good and so the government should subsidize / expand gambling with taxpayer dollars. The idea is that gambling will happen regardless and so the government should regulate / restrict it and try to pull in as much as possible from the activity. That way it can turn around and use the money for something that benefits the public, like schools.
Also, keep in mind that lotteries are considered a bit of a benign gambling format. I'm not sure to what extent that's actually true, but they don't strike me as something that would be highly addictive.
On November 11 2014 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote: Do conservative here agree with Ted Cruz that "Net Neutrality is Obamacare for the internet"?
Pretty much quoting a guy from another forum and slightly editing it, but the original opinion strongly mirrors my own:
-This is another attempt to level the playing field. Why do I need extra high speed? This will simply raise the overall cost to all home users as their rates go up to compensate. Let those who want it pay for it.
-No part of the internet should be regulated. It is one of the mediums where the masses can participate truly in free speech and the communication of ideas. I'm not feeling the idea of it being strong armed by businesses to meet their agendas... but I don't feel it should be regulated by the government either.
-Is anyone actually surprised that leftists want the government to control the internet?
-Why should ISPs spend $ maintaining their pipes if companies like Google can hog it all without paying for it?
-The internet works so well now, why on God's earth would you want to regulate it and add a big bureaucratic mess on top of it. It is not like government intervention has perfected TV or radio. It is nuts to think expanding government in another area (one that works) will actually improve it.
On November 11 2014 08:10 Chewbacca. wrote: Liberals get the increase in tax revenue they want. Conservatives aren't forced to pay a tax so they're happy.
A lot of things have tension with religion; War, gay marriage, abortion, only 1 spouse.
It being possible to hurt a small amount of people seems like a silly argument. It is still helping people in the additional services offered by the government and it's voluntary. Compare this to something like food stamps or universal health care. They are both helping people, they are both hurting people, but the lottery is voluntary.
I mean I certainly don't love state lotteries, but not for any of the reasons you listed, but because the state locks out private companies from hosting their own lotteries. Which if there were private lotteries instead of state lotteries then the same "bad" things would be happening, but none of the "good" things that happen from the state gaining money would happen...which could be another argument for state lotteries.
Or compare it to crack. Why not heroin? State run brothel maybe? Human trafficking to go to the extreme! In principle it's the same following your logic.
Your STATES, as in local governments by and for the people, actually run LOTTERIES? LOL. America never ceases to amaze.
Why is this bad? Basically a voluntary tax where the proceeds go to helping the people?
There are like a hundred reasons that come to mind.
Promoting gambling potentially causes a lot of suffering/is problematic because
-of its addictive nature -its destructive nature -its tension with religion -it being a pipe dream, and "idiot tax" is the more appropriate term
just right on top of my head.
I have heard governments taxing/banning/regulating it, but never being the pusher themselves. That's a new one and more than questionable.
Luring people into buying a state approved ticket, by holding a golden carrot in front of their face that they are going to increase education spending/infrastructure spending/number of police men on the street/policy x/y...if Z amount of money is achieved in revenues must be one of the most perfidious things I have heard in a long time.
It's pretty benign if you grow up with it. In many states it is the only form of legal gambling, so 'state approved' doesn't really carry special weight. I doubt full prohibition would work either, and just drive the activity to the black market like drug or alcohol prohibition.
State approved ticked might have been poorly worded, too weak in getting the true meaning across. Given out and promoted by the state should work better. And not by a private entity.
That it's benign for most people is definitely true. On the other hand it also destroys lives or leads people on paths that destroy lives. If government should be in that business is despicable, or at least highly controversial if you ask me.
Having kind of a blind eye and focusing on how much taxes you collect from it is one thing, actually running it a whole different story.
Generally, the idea isn't that gambling is good and so the government should subsidize / expand gambling with taxpayer dollars. The idea is that gambling will happen regardless and so the government should regulate / restrict it and try to pull in as much as possible from the activity. That way it can turn around and use the money for something that benefits the public, like schools.
Also, keep in mind that lotteries are considered a bit of a benign gambling format. I'm not sure to what extent that's actually true, but they don't strike me as something that would be highly addictive.
Lol "lottery" is just a euphemism now.
Oregon now has slot machines called 'video lottery machines'. They aren't any more benign than Vegas slots. With messages like :"BET MAX to WIN MORE!" Even though the only practical way to win is to walk away/not play. Statistically you can't 'win' only lose more or less slowly if you continue to play.
If you are going to have a lottery or gambling in addition to listing the odds and payouts they should list the number of losers vs winners (people who took more from the lottery than it took from them). When people realized that virtually no one actually 'wins' they might be able to make more rational decisions.
The state shouldn't advertise or try to convince people to gamble period. Which is exactly what is happening now.
-The internet works so well now, why on God's earth would you want to regulate it and add a big bureaucratic mess on top of it. It is not like government intervention has perfected TV or radio. It is nuts to think expanding government in another area (one that works) will actually improve it.
You do realize that without Net Neutrality the internet will still change?
Sites like TL may have to pay more just to maintain it's current speeds. Not to mention it would make sites like Twitch more expensive to maintain as they use a lot of bandwidth.
It would effectively destroy any chance of a smaller up and coming stream site from competing with twitch as it would take an investment not currently required. The same goes for Netflix and sites like Tumblr.
your pr0n would have more adds or cost more money, and plenty of other impacts. So please don't think that without the government the internet would work the same as it does now.
In addition Comcast (or another provider) could start charging you surcharges to access specific sites or just block them all together.
There are many, many voters in the Midwest, at the very least in Michigan and Ohio, that could not disagree with this statement more. At the very heart of the higher ed spending bubble problem is the hilarious amount of discretionary control state legislatures exercise over public universities; whenever anyone looks at the administrative and financial bloat that is getting put on in the name of education, we all know what a states rights conservative is going to point to. "Federal government loans," they'll say, "look at all the money they waste on ill-conceived federal intervention in the provision of an education!"
But wait a second, who exactly creates these loans bills in the first place? One may think that the universities and their unfettered, Federal-fed appetites are what dictate the terms of the millions of these financial agreements, but you'd be wrong. In the vast majority of states, legislatures are what create tuition policy in addition to playing a number of other administrative roles in supervising state-run higher education. Those areas that instead fall under the management of a university's board of trustees become safe-havens from the remote governance of partisan state legislatures, and that's why you'll see so many public universities (both of the schools I've gone to, Ohio State and Michigan State, are great examples of this) pile on building endowments and athletic investments willy nilly.
Nevertheless, state governing bodies possess a great degree of control over one of the largest industries in the United States, that being higher education, and there are numerous examples of how this authority has been routinely bungled by increasingly partisan legislatures, from Ohio to Washington, that simply don't have the expertise necessary to administrate many of the systems of which they are tasked. Furthermore, when hard-boiled partisanry is the inevitable replacement for the missing expertise, can you really fault those that are actually getting their hands dirty (sorta lol), those being school administrations, for unfairly reaching on spending in order to retain some degree of autonomy over the organization they were supposed to run in the first place? It is precisely the state's degree of control over the administration of services like education that puts some of our system's worst faults on display.
The United States must soon come to terms with its geography or the state vs. federalism debate is only going to get worse.
EPT
