gbaji wrote:
I know that's the narrative people want to focus on,
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Megabuckpowerballs...
Megabuckpowerballs...Follow
IE: you.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I know that's the narrative people want to focus on,
Hmmm... You might think so. But I'm going to go with the poster repeatedly talking about how we should be paying for government with "equitable taxes". Cause letting people make choices of their own free will is somehow inherently unfair for some reason.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
But I'm going to go with the poster repeatedly talking about how we should be paying for government with "equitable taxes".
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But I'm going to go with the poster repeatedly talking about how we should be paying for government with "equitable taxes".
You're the one who narrowed it down to discussing one person. So maybe look in the mirror first?
Edited, Apr 2nd 2014 3:24pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
You're the one who narrowed it down to discussing one person.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
We got rid of the penny and I haven't even missed it. I have missed least of all picking them up off my floor and throwing them out.
Edited, Apr 2nd 2014 6:34pm by rdmcandie
Edited, Apr 2nd 2014 6:34pm by rdmcandie
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're the one who narrowed it down to discussing one person.
Um... Because I was talking about people and not just one person. Is this really hard for you to understand?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Is this really hard for you to understand?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Governments shouldn't take advantage of the people they're supposed to serve. But then on the other hand, if the alternative is "tax the rich/smart/successful more",,,,,.
Better to bleed dry the the poor dumb slobs than expect your rich millionaire friends to help fund their government... Obviously, I'd rather we shrink the size of government, but while lotteries are effectively a tax on stupidity, no one forces anyone to buy a ticket. So on the whole "authority versus liberty" scale, it's far far better than the alternative...
Only hope for the ignorant masses perhaps? And who are we to take away all hope of a better life?
Also, because dilbert is always relevant.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Obviously, I'd rather we shrink the size of government, but while lotteries are effectively a tax on stupidity, no one forces anyone to buy a ticket. So on the whole "authority versus liberty" scale, it's far far better than the alternative...
Only hope for the ignorant masses perhaps? And who are we to take away all hope of a better life?
Sure. Like I said, ideally we shouldn't have to burden people with paying for so much government in the first place. But if we're going to do so anyway, and I'm given a choice to allow people to choose to buy low return lottery tickets as a means to decrease the amount of that burden paid for via taxes, that's the lesser of two evils IMO. Choice versus mandate. Easy. Sucks for the stupid people who end out blowing money on the tickets, but they did so because they are "stupid", not because the government gave them no choice.
Quote:
Lol! Absolutely.
Edited, Apr 2nd 2014 5:50pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Like I lolgaxe said
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Like I lolgaxe said
You're arguing for smaller government now? Well, isn't that progress!
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Well, isn't that progress!
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Obviously, I'd rather we shrink the size of government, but while lotteries are effectively a tax on stupidity, no one forces anyone to buy a ticket. So on the whole "authority versus liberty" scale, it's far far better than the alternative...
Only hope for the ignorant masses perhaps? And who are we to take away all hope of a better life?
Sure. Like I said, ideally we shouldn't have to burden people with paying for so much government in the first place. But if we're going to do so anyway, and I'm given a choice to allow people to choose to buy low return lottery tickets as a means to decrease the amount of that burden paid for via taxes, that's the lesser of two evils IMO. Choice versus mandate. Easy. Sucks for the stupid people who end out blowing money on the tickets, but they did so because they are "stupid", not because the government gave them no choice.
Why should government be running the lottery?
It can be done just as well, theoretically better, by a private company. There are no social reasons, no security reasons, no health reasons for state governments to be selling lottery tickets. It's not at all necessary. It's a perfect candidate for the free market.
You're one of the 'stupid people' your words eh buying lottery tickets aren't you?
A question for those that buy tickets - Would you be spending the same, more or less on lottery tickets if the proceeds went to a private entity versus a state government?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
My spending on tickets is minimal anyway but I'd probably buy less if it went 100% into some dude's pocket rather than the nominal purpose in Illinois of helping fund education.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I'm not any more trusting of private entities than the government. People are people, regardless of association.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Saw a comment the other day that made me think. "The greatest flaw in libertarianism is the assumption that the government is the only entity capable of inhibiting freedom."
lolgaxe wrote:
I'm not any more trusting of private entities than the government. People are people, regardless of association.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sure. Like I said, ideally we shouldn't have to burden people with paying for so much government in the first place. But if we're going to do so anyway, and I'm given a choice to allow people to choose to buy low return lottery tickets as a means to decrease the amount of that burden paid for via taxes, that's the lesser of two evils IMO. Choice versus mandate. Easy. Sucks for the stupid people who end out blowing money on the tickets, but they did so because they are "stupid", not because the government gave them no choice.
Not at all. I'm pointing out that one is the least bad of two bad courses of action. I'm not *for* either one. But if the choice is "increase state revenue by X dollars by running a lottery" and "increase state revenue by X dollars by raising taxes", I'll pick the former.
Quote:
Why should government be running the lottery?
Because the purpose is to raise revenue for the government? I'm confused by the question.
Quote:
It can be done just as well, theoretically better, by a private company. There are no social reasons, no security reasons, no health reasons for state governments to be selling lottery tickets. It's not at all necessary. It's a perfect candidate for the free market.
Private companies *do* run gambling games. They're just regulated such that the payouts are higher than the state lotteries. You're vastly better off plunking coins into a slot machine for hours on end than buying scratchers, for example. The purpose isn't about providing opportunities to people to get rich via gambling. It's about taking their money in a way that makes them less unhappy about it.
Quote:
You're one of the 'stupid people' your words eh buying lottery tickets aren't you?
Seriously? Doesn't the "anyone opposed to something must secretly love it" bit get old? Ever?
Quote:
A question for those that buy tickets - Would you be spending the same, more or less on lottery tickets if the proceeds went to a private entity versus a state government?
I can't speak for those who do regularly buy tickets, but it's a meaningless question. A private entity *can't* run a gamble with such a low relative payout. So I'm going to assume that if one did, or tried to, no one would play those games versus the ones that already exist, but with much better odds. I mean, if you were given a choice of playing a game with a 90% payout rate versus one with a 50% payout rate, both at the same establishment, which one would you spend your money on?
Now, that doesn't mean that people who buy lottery tickets do so because they know the money will go to pay for schools, or roads, or police, or whatever. I never discount people just being plain rock stupid.
Edited, Apr 3rd 2014 3:02pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
I can't speak for those who do regularly buy tickets,
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Quote:
I can't speak for those who do regularly buy tickets, but it's a meaningless question. A private entity *can't* run a gamble with such a low relative payout. So I'm going to assume that if one did, or tried to, no one would play those games versus the ones that already exist, but with much better odds. I mean, if you were given a choice of playing a game with a 90% payout rate versus one with a 50% payout rate, both at the same establishment, which one would you spend your money on?
The one with the prettier colors.
I'm not being flip, market research has indicated that people vastly prefer a more interesting experience and high perceived 'lucky' payouts than they do net effective rewards.
Just as Planned.
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
I can't speak for those who do regularly buy tickets, but it's a meaningless question. A private entity *can't* run a gamble with such a low relative payout. So I'm going to assume that if one did, or tried to, no one would play those games versus the ones that already exist, but with much better odds. I mean, if you were given a choice of playing a game with a 90% payout rate versus one with a 50% payout rate, both at the same establishment, which one would you spend your money on?
The one with the prettier colors.
I'm not being flip, market research has indicated that people vastly prefer a more interesting experience and high perceived 'lucky' payouts than they do net effective rewards.
Correct. Which is why I stipulated "at the same establishment". The assumption is that people play the much lower odds state run lotteries because of a combination of much greater availability plus significant advertising (You can't win if you don't play!).
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Still, it seems manipulative. The poor sole who will never see millions is offered up a fantasy - for only a buck.
Considering I'd probably waste the money on a candy bar or something anyway, it's really probably better in the long run.
Pretty much this. I get a little tired of hearing the righteous indignation of some who call it the "poor tax" and talk about how you are more likely to get struck by lightning 12 times than win the lottery. Who fracking cares? On the fairly rare occasion that I purchase a ticket, it's for the entertainment value. The daydream of what I would or wouldn't do with my winnings, the rush when I go to check the numbers, and the extremely slim chance that I might get rich beyond my wildest dreams. Is it a waste of money? Yeah, the odds state that clearly. Still, there is a remote chance. And why not me over some gap-toothed trailer trash 35 year old grandma who lives off of unemployment and food stamps?
Now the folks who get all serious about it and drop their entire paycheck on quickpicks.... well, they need help. And they would need it if it was a state sanctioned lottery, trip to Vegas, a day at the ponies, or some back-alley poker game where there are armed gangsters outside.
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
Kakar wrote:
Now the folks who get all serious about it and drop their entire paycheck on quickpicks.... well, they need help.
I'm reasonably sure we can safely say that this is the group everyone is talking about.
Quote:
And they would need it if it was a state sanctioned lottery, trip to Vegas, a day at the ponies, or some back-alley poker game where there are armed gangsters outside.
Sure. But this is the government doing it to them, and at remarkably worse odds for the player. I can see how some might be indignant about how their government shouldn't be encouraging that sort of self destructive behavior. For me personally, it's more of a cynical acknowledgement that government is just as willing (and arguably more able) to take advantage of people's folly as anyone else.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Sure. But this is the government doing it to them, and at remarkably worse odds for the player. I can see how some might be indignant about how their government shouldn't be encouraging that sort of self destructive behavior. For me personally, it's more of a cynical acknowledgement that government is just as willing (and arguably more able) to take advantage of people's folly as anyone else.
You're just now getting that the government is willing to take advantage of the ignorance or indifference of the public? I find that hard to believe.
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
Recent Visitors: 381
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (381)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Megabuckpowerballs...
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC