Why not a National Lottery? It would be voluntary not a "tax" and

[theophilus]

I guess it could pay out in chickens. Anyway, there is interesting info at

http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/97/03/chapt2.html

showing that it wouldn't be un-American or Socialist, etc. Just think how much would be available to pay down the deficit. Take a look at this clip:


"This episode was not the last use of lotteries to benefit the colonies. All 13 original colonies established lotteries, usually more than one, to raise revenue. Playing the lottery became a civic responsibility.6 Proceeds helped establish some of the nation's earliest and most prestigious universities -- Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Dartmouth, Princeton, and William and Mary. Lottery funds were also used to build churches and libraries. Ben Franklin, John Hancock, and George Washington were all prominent sponsors of specific lotteries for public works projects."

[virgogal]

1. Mostly lower income folks play the lottery. Not a good idea IMHO.

[theophilus]

2. I know that is true, but it would be their choice. Many of the teabagger

types would probably play. They can spend their money that way as far as I'm concerned. Plus, every day, week, month, etc. there would be some more wealthy people. It could work into a "win, win" if done right, imo.

[virgogal]

3. Many of the teabagger folks may play,but so would the inner city poor.

Needless to say,I never play the lottery in MA,though I am far from rich.

The teabag movement is small,but there are lots of poor and unemployed.

[Psephos]

5. It's well-known that the implicit tax a state lottery represents is highly regressive.

They are voluntary, as you said, but they exploit the psychological susceptibilities of poor people.

There's plenty of research and discussion about this on the web. Here's an example from the Institute for Public Accuracy:

"Extensive evidence shows lotteries are regressive, meaning the poor shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden. The lottery is not economically neutral: it distorts consumer spending by applying an unusually high tax rate to a particular product. It is a hidden tax, lacking transparency. Lotteries unnecessarily complicate the tax system. Lottery revenues do not always benefit the programs for which they are earmarked, and voters may feel deceived when they approve lotteries for education only to find that legislators shuffle funds and their states' public education systems do not benefit significantly. Finally, the use of state-operated gambling monopolies to raise tax revenue poses serious policy questions about government accountability."

http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1521

[roamer65]

4. Powerball and Mega Millions already cover all 50 states.

[Blue_Tires]

6. we already have lotteries in just about every state

the next step would be 'official', full-scale government-run casinos...

[provis99]

7. lotteries are regressive.

Besides, millionaires that gamble don't play the lottery; they are stockbrokers or financial consultants.

Lotteries as a means of raising money are generally advocated by libertarians, whom I despise worse than conservatives.

[Rex]

8. Look how well it worked out for Texas and our public school system.

No I'm kidding...someone stole all that money, you can't use it until the state can find it. Perry needed more hair gel! And what Perry wants, Perry gets!

[wuushew]

9. Bad idea

What is wrong with progressive taxation?


Gambling is the act trading money for a mathetically lesser chance at the same money. Nothing is created, no new science or methods of industry, no new infrastructure or things of permamence which better society. As a source of funds it is no different than the snake which is depicted eating its own tail.