http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/comment/article.php?id=185
Perpetuating Poverty: Lotteries Prey on the Poor
by Jordan Ballor, Associate Editor
**Begin Quote***
A recently released Gallup survey confirms the fears of many who oppose government-promoted gambling: the poorest among us are contributing much more to lottery revenues than those with higher incomes. The poll found that people who played the lottery with an income of less than $20,000 annually spent an average of $46 per month on lottery tickets. That comes out to more than $550 per year and it is nearly double the amount spent in any other income bracket.
The significance of this is magnified when we look deeper into the figures. Those with annual incomes ranging from $30,000 to $50,000 had the second-highest average — $24 per month, or $288 per year. A person making $20,000 spends three times as much on lottery tickets on average than does someone making $30,000. And keep in mind that these numbers represent average spending. For every one or two people who spend just a few bucks a year on lotteries, others spend thousands.
All of this is taking place in a system of legalized gambling that is monopolized and promoted by those in political power. Where state governments are supposed to be looking after the welfare of their citizenry, the commonwealth of all the people, the establishment of a lottery has in fact betrayed the citizenry.
***End Quote***
Let’s trot out my three favorite arguments about gubamint programs: ethics, effectiveness, and efficiency.
(1) Ethically
For the government to literally rob the poorest segment of its people is immoral. For the socialists, who go by the label “liberal” today, but bear NO resemblance to the Classical Liberals of history who advocated liberty, where is their justification for it. For the socialists, who go by the label “conservative” today, but bear NO resemblance to the Barry Goldwater / Ronald Regan small government low taxes conservatives, where is their justification for it. Now while the Lottery, and other State sponsored forms of government gambling, may not be a tax in the strict definition of the word. A tax is anything we pay the government that we can NOT avoid paying. You can avoid the lottery. But then the drug addict can avoid the pusher. The alcoholic can avoid the bar. The smoker can avoid the Tobacco Company. But, the State in this case is preying on the poor as surely as the Drug Pusher, the Bar Owner, and the Tobacco Company Executive. Even worse, by its vice laws, the State ensures that there is no competition to its robbery. Back in my younger days, when my in-laws played the numbers, the bookie would pay 750-1 on a straight three digit number bet. True odds were one in a thousand. The state lottery when it was introduced paid 500-1. It’s been reduced since to 250-1. And there was a huge crackdown on the numbers runners to “protect the people from Organized Crime”. No mention of protecting a very lucrative State fund raiser. But the lottery was for education. Except later we found out that it was very expensive to run the lottery and there were lots of things that were considered “education” like guards for road trash gangs. What a joke! I’d judge it as “unethical”; wouldn’t you?
=
(2) Effectively
OK, ethics aside, how effective is the lottery? The stated objectives of the lottery, that I remember, were (a) to raise funds for education; and (b) eliminate organized crime. Now days, there is no mention of the reasons why we have such a “near tax”. If the objective was to raise money for state gubamint, then it’s a rousing success. “.. the gross sales for the Lottery’s first full year, Fiscal 1972, were over $137 million. The Lottery’s phenomenal growth and popularity were reflected in gross sales of some $1.2 billion only 21 years later in Fiscal 1991.” Consider that most of that comes DIRECTLY from poor people, it’s a stunning “user fee”. As far as I know, schools are still rotten and funded mostly with absurdly high property taxes. Organized Crime move into drugs. So it took them from a relatively peaceful activities to a very corrosive one. I’d judge it as “ineffective”; woudln’t you?
=
(3) Efficiently
OK, ethics aside, effectiveness aside, how efficient is the lottery? From the players perspective not very. A roulette game pays 35-1 for a one in thirty eight shot. That’s about a 97% return. Using the Pick3 as a proxy, it is the best case, it pays 275-1 for a one in a thousand shot. That’s about a 72% return. Hmmm? AND, if there is a disaster, like that train wreck over the hackensack river bridge, where there is a number picture on the newspaper’s front page, they suspend play on that number. It’s amazing how many of those hit “breaking” the bank. So any time a sucker might actually win, then they change the rules. All legal of course. I’d judge it as “inefficient” from the player’s perspective; woudln’t you?
You can’t judge the “efficiency” from the gubamint’s perspective because not only does it bring lots of money in for pork projects. It also provides jobs for hacks, post-gubamint hiding places for politicians at obscene salaries. It gives contracts to the friends of gubamint. So, it’s a winner from the gubamint’s perspective.
=
So I’d say that about wraps it up. The gubamint needs to get out of the “lottery” business! IMHO
Reinke Faces Life 