Is it not grotesque to give a random person 1.2 billion dollars in a lottery?
Is it not grotesque to give a random person 1.2 billion dollars in a lottery?
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.
Lottery > Casinos for sure
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, except for the way that money is derived from the labour of the workers, and the fact that you're not likely to make lifestyle changing amounts of money without already having a significant amount of money to gamble in the first place.
Not to mention the system is arguably much more "rigged" thanks to the major players in the scene, when you buy a lottery ticket you aren't competing against giant corporations that spend millions on figuring out the best way to buy lottery tickets.
Well it's like a lottery but with more variables and where better knowledge or analysis can mean some "players"are more likely to win than others. It's inherently less fair than a lottery, which should be totally random.
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.
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
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.
Chances are the person who inherits a billion dollars is already used to dealing with large amounts of money, and likely has the support structure of accountants and advisors that will help them deal with it.
A lottery winner is usually middle-class or lower, the type of person whose life would be changed by a few thousand dollars, and likely has no idea how to manage wealth of that size.
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.
Net negative matters.
I could, for example, kill every animal in the forest then claim how good it is that the plants grew so much that year without so many things eating them. In the long run, it's very negative however.
Same for billionaires. You could say how great it is that we have electric cars, but who gets hurt and could it have been done without harm to people or society?
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.
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.
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?
By saying you're not "cool" with the lottery, does that mean you want it abolished? I don't like the lottery. I don't think it should be outlawed. Would you classify me as either cool with it or daffy?
Certainly less daffy than the people playing it or praising it. I don't know your reason why you think a state function that harms people for money should be allowed to exist, but I'm guessing it's not a very rational one.
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.
Considering how many of their lives go off the rails, yes.
There should be a cap on maximum wealth / revenu
