People Earning Less Than $13,000 spend 9% Of Income On?

If you don't like it, don't buy a ticket...

LadyJazzer wrote: If you don't like it, don't buy a ticket...

:faint:

Incorrect answer. If you don't like the goverment taking advantage of the poor and those with gambling addictions, you can support legislation to repeal the lottery.

And the other despicable lie about the lottery is that the money goes to parks, or education. When the Colorado Lottery which goes to parks and Open Space, was passed, the money was supposed to go to them, but what actually happened is that the funding for parks was slashed in the legislature.

Lmoney - OK, I can't resist. But I will work on it.

I am OK with them selling tickets. I just want to sell them too as I am an entrepreneur and love opportunity and dislike monopolies, especially government monopolies. I too want to be able to prey on the stupid, disadvantaged and uneducated directly, rather than indirectly via my govt. I would still pay high rates of taxes on it, they would still get over 50% of all winnings and now over 50% of my earnings.

I fell sorry for folks when I see them buying, but I am really glad that the dumbest, most uneducated people finance education, that is spot on and contrary to most of your other political assertions. They are literally tricked into paying exponentially to stop their own behavior in the next generation, so cool and manipulative, but on the surface. In the same vein would be a 110% tax on welfare benefits, or perhaps a 110,000,000% tax to match the odds.

It is actually somewhat brilliant. Usually the govt passes the costs all over the place, here they actually punish people directly, punishes them for being dumb and not paying attention to the years worth of free lottery training the govt provided for them at the school they are now paying for.

I guess since most school taxes are paid by property owners and we likely can all agree that those that pay a property tax bill likely buy way less lottery tickets than non property tax payers, this is just another way to keep the burden from falling on the rich.

So here we agree that we both like this regressive public financing methodology. I just want to sell them too. You buy stuff from me, they should be able to afford to as well.

OTN, brilliant! If the lottery is legally fine, let's allow for competition. I could start a lottery that only gave the goverment a 25% vig. People would save bilions.

So - if businesses exploit people ---- baaaaad ----

But if government exploits people ---- none of your damn business.
(after all - government could never do anything harmful - right?)

Love the asymmetries, here.

on that note wrote: Lmoney - OK, I can't resist. But I will work on it.

I am OK with them selling tickets. I just want to sell them too as I am an entrepreneur and love opportunity and dislike monopolies, especially government monopolies. I too want to be able to prey on the stupid, disadvantaged and uneducated directly, rather than indirectly via my govt. I would still pay high rates of taxes on it, they would still get over 50% of all winnings and now over 50% of my earnings.

I fell sorry for folks when I see them buying, but I am really glad that the dumbest, most uneducated people finance education, that is spot on and contrary to most of your other political assertions. They are literally tricked into paying exponentially to stop their own behavior in the next generation, so cool and manipulative, but on the surface. In the same vein would be a 110% tax on welfare benefits, or perhaps a 110,000,000% tax to match the odds.

It is actually somewhat brilliant. Usually the govt passes the costs all over the place, here they actually punish people directly, punishes them for being dumb and not paying attention to the years worth of free lottery training the govt provided for them at the school they are now paying for.

I guess since most school taxes are paid by property owners and we likely can all agree that those that pay a property tax bill likely buy way less lottery tickets than non property tax payers, this is just another way to keep the burden from falling on the rich.

So here we agree that we both like this regressive public financing methodology. I just want to sell them too. You buy stuff from me, they should be able to afford to as well.

Nobody gets "punished"...unless they buy a ticket... You don't like it?...Don't buy a ticket...

I think we should ban all forms of tobacco... That will save them even more money. If you are happy with your government allowing the poorest among us to pollute their lungs, pollute the air around others with their second-hand smoke, add to their medical problems, and spend even more of their money on cigarettes than lottery tickets, then continue to support cigarette sales....

Um, I kinda want to say if you don't like cigarettes, don't buy them. But I think I missed your point.

Yes I understand and said that only the stupid, uneducated people get punished by thinking there is any value in buying a ticket. I don't buy them, I am fine with stupid people buying them.

We are all good LJ, the right people are being punished in this case, apparently not me or you. No problems. We agree in action, the words don't mean near as much, we don't buy, we allow others to do so even though we know they are being taken advantage of, especially those of low income, understanding that for those that decide to buy them, that they are regressively funding society.

I have always found those with less to be the most generous.

We allow others to vote for Republicans, even though we know they are being taken advantage of... I'm fine with stupid people doing so.

bailey bud wrote: So - if businesses exploit people ---- baaaaad ----

But if government exploits people ---- none of your damn business.
(after all - government could never do anything harmful - right?)

Love the asymmetries, here.

You can support even partisan points better by not jumping so quick to the partisan thing. We are here for the same reason, you don't only hang on line with like minded people for a reason.

In direct response, that is again where we differ. So much of what you believe should be universal I actually agree with and additionally think should not be subject to a vote, I don't even want you to give yourself the chance of being taken advantage of.

For example, gay marriage. I think it is awful that this could be subject to a vote. Such things should be codified at higher levels, so they don't get voted away. We should have a constitutional amendment with wording that implies this right goes beyond the document that describes it.

My sense is we agree on someone's right to marry, you may even agree with me that many people should be able to marry. We both want, really want, everyone to have decent health care. I call it #1 so much that I don't even think we should move onto #2 until we are 99% done with #1.

And yet I feel that gays and straights have taken a step backward when they as humans, allow anyone to regulate who they marry. So allowing a simple referendum or legislative inclusion feels like a loss.

And yet i feel that if we are going to have such government that covers such a large expanse or even just a small one, that there should be universal care, funding by all, in whatever way we can hash out, but not what we are currently evolving and allowing to take deeper and deeper root. That is further from my goal of universal care, makes it harder to do it on any level.

So LADYJAZZER, will you use your awesome brain and this awesome forum where so many people of so many opposing view choose to hang out and help harness this awesome power and have some dialogue vs. bashing groups and parties and people? I have learned so much even through your aggressive name calling, I would like to reach the full potential of the communication. You make me want to name call and occasionally follow through.

On the OP, it is just a stat. Does if feel right, even if it is their right to spend as they see fit. You often have a sense of how you would like society to be designed. The govt. have a lot of control of the lottery and could change the system for perhaps a different outcome. Sometimes addictive substances are limited in a "free" society in 2012. Does any of this have anything to do with those lousy Republicans?