Lottery

[Titleist Man]

Ok so i have a debate on whether or not the lottery should be used to fund public schools. Does anyone know the pros and cons of this topic??? Please....I need help and its on monday. Anything is helpful. Thanks guys

[NormH3]

Lottery proceeds should be used anywhere taxes can be reduced. Schools are typically funded by property taxes.
My problem with giving more money to schools is that they don't seem to manage properly what they already receive. Giving them more won't solve the problem.

[Shindig]

If schools succeeded with their math education, the lottery would cease to bring in money.


The kicker is that money is fungible. All the lottery really does is establish a lower bound on how much money schools can get in the budget.

[allin]

Lottery money is never sufficient to lower tax revenues based on local play. to the extent it attracts money from outside the taxing area and provides extra jobs it is plus. In Omaha the nearest casing gambling is just accross the river in CB Iowa. Since many in fact most of the players come from Omaha the revenue in taxes and jobs are a big plus for CB. If the Casinos were in Omaha the impact on Omaha would be less significant since most would shift from one entertainment in Omaha to another. Certainly losing those dollars to Iowa does impact Omaha however.

I do believe that schools shoud be funded by established dependable sources and funds from Gaming should be used on specialty projects, park improvements, or one time infrastucure economic development projects,

[mdl]

The lottery is essentially a regressive tax, like tobacco taxes and the payroll tax. As such, it's bad public policy, though often politically an expedient way to raise revenue.

[Supermanwoot]

Some times the scratch cards are fun. The actual lottery aka pick numbers and hope they are called is a total wash. Scratch cards especially fun with a significant other but then again I make everything fun.

[Danny Noonan]

I love the lottery. Its about the only way we have currently to get poor people and illegals to pay any tax other than a sales tax.

And yes, I view the lottery as a tax - a tax on people to stupid to figure out the odds.

Having said that, do I play sometimes? You bet. ;)

- DN

[Lemay427]

I am a fair weather lottery player. I wait until the Powerball gets to some crazy number and then buy a ticket. So I play about 2 times a year.

As far as tax money, I received a check once from the State of Missouri that was from the Gaming Commision (or Gaming casinos, i forgot) while I was in College (2005). I appreciated that LOL.

If schools succeeded with their math education, the lottery would cease to bring in money.

What do you mean by this?

[zeg]

What do you mean by this?

It means that, on average, the lottery is a giant waste of money. If more people came out of school with the math skills to understand this, they would choose not to throw their money away.

It's a cute joke, but of course, is only true if you find no entertainment value in the lottery... if you disregard entertainment value, you would also see golf, music, movies, and anything other than buying food, shelter, clothing, and medical care in a similar light. Personally I don't play the lottery, but I don't look down too badly on people who do. That is, unless those people are idiots throwing money they need to use for food, shelter, clothing, and medical care away in the deluded hope of actually winning more than they put in.

[kfowler]

I lived in Florida during the 80's when the Loto was first introduced. The big promotion was how all the proceeds were going to go to the schools. Well it did. Problem was that the money that was already ear marked for schools was then diverted to other areas. So net, the schools gained little.

I don't have an issue with the lottery even though I don't play it. I do not like it being used by states to fund the government. I think it's a poor way to generate revenue. Another thing that bothers me is look at where the lines are to buy loto tickets. It's not in the affluent suburbs. It's in the poorest parts of the inner city. The last thing those people need to be wasting their money on are loto tickets.

[Danny Noonan]

Another thing that bothers me is look at where the lines are to buy loto tickets. It's not in the affluent suburbs. It's in the poorest parts of the inner city. The last thing those people need to be wasting their money on are loto tickets.

As I said, its the only way to get these people to pay taxes. Especially the illegals that live in these neighborhoods.

[kfowler]

As I said, its the only way to get these people to pay taxes. Especially the illegals that live in these neighborhoods.

I never thought of it that way.

[Leftygolfer]

I thought this was if I play lottery:

I voted yes. I play in an office poll everytime it gets big. It is still statistically a waste of money but I waste 2 dollars on stupider thing.

Didn't know this was serious debate. I will stay out.

[steve8820]

Nope, don't play. The lottery is a tax on the poor and others who pay little or no taxes. I am all for them pissing their money away on 10,000,000:1 odds.

[FHopper]

It means that, on average, the lottery is a giant waste of money. If more people came out of school with the math skills to understand this, they would choose not to throw their money away.

Ah but... the fewer people who play the better the odds so the stupid people end up being smart for playing when the odds have improved.

[allin]

It means that, on average, the lottery is a giant waste of money. If more people came out of school with the math skills to understand this, they would choose not to throw their money away.

Your argument presumes that people have made the decision to play based on an assesment of their chances of winning. It is more likely an investment in a daydream so they can play what if and divert themselves from day to day reality.

[Chief Broom]

Ah but... the fewer people who play the better the odds so the stupid people end up being smart for playing when the odds have improved.

The odds don't have anything to do with the number of people playing. The odds are determined by how many numbers you have to pick out of the potential pool of possible numbers. True the more people who play means the odds increase of the winner having to share the prize with another winner, but the odds of winning remain the same.

The poorest counties here in Georgia account for the most money spent totally and on a per capita basis, and those are the very people who can ill afford the expense of playing. I have nothing against people playing the lottery but if you are poor already you'd get a better return on your investment burying the money in your backyard rather than spending it on the lottery. In Georgia the reality of the lottery is that it is a middle class tax break. People who are going to send their kids to college anyway receive credit for their kid's tuition when going to state funded schools, so they are happy. Rich people like the lottery because it helps to keep their school property taxes down, and they get to see non-property owners (poor people) paying school tax. Poor people like the lottery because they think it gives them the opportunity to strike it rich. Everybody's happy, but not everybody enjoys the same benefits.

[zeg]

Your argument presumes that people have made the decision to play based on an assesment of their chances of winning. It is more likely an investment in a daydream so they can play what if and divert themselves from day to day reality.

I don't think I disagreed with that -- that's what I mean by "entertainment value." If you have the money to spare, and you enjoy the what-if, then the lottery is as sensible a form of entertainment as anything. The only problem is when people who don't have the money to spare become addicted to the hope and prioritize it ahead of necessities.

The odds don't have anything to do with the number of people playing. The odds are determined by how many numbers you have to pick out of the potential pool of possible numbers. True the more people who play means the odds increase of the winner having to share the prize with another winner, but the odds of winning remain the same.

Yep, although the latter effect you mention does make it more rational (really, less irrational is a better way to put it) because the expected payoff increases. This is why the best simple strategy is to either let the machine choose random numbers for you, and the best overall single-ticket strategy is to pick a set of numbers that are the least likely to be selected by others. The odds of winning are the same regardless of which numbers you choose, so you maximize the expected return by maximizing the odds that you win outright rather than splitting the jackpot. This is a real effect.

There are also strategies you can use when buying multiple tickets to minimize the overlap between the tickets so that you're likely to win with at least one of them. These are effective, but only in the sense that they reduce the expected loss. The game is set up so that even the optimal strategy is a loss, and there's fundamentally no way around that. Well, not quite true. The optimal strategy is to run the lottery....