When it comes to the lottery, just say no
Published January 18, 2016
Editorial by Wilmington Star-News, January 15, 2016.
Americans can't put a man on the moon any more, or a woman either, but the ballyhoo about the Powerball lottery reached stratospheric heights.
After Wednesday night's drawing, it looks like ticket holders in three states will share in the $1.6 billion jackpot. Stories like the one about the Pender County firefighter, who picked up a cool $150,000 from one of the lesser Powerball prizes, add to the hoopla.
Most people, however, don't win. The odds of one ticket winning that big Powerball jackpot are roughly 292,000,000 to 1. As one statistician put it, you have a better chance of being elected president in 2016 than you do of getting that jackpot.
Odds are better, of course, for the more modest lottery games. With very few exceptions, though, most chronic lottery players spend more on tickets than they ever get back in prizes. Just studying the odds makes this clear. As financial adviser Dave Ramsey put it, the lottery is basically a tax on those who didn't do well on math in school.
It's also a tax on the poor. As Fortune magazine noted, study after study has found that most lottery players tend to be folks with low incomes -- dreamers who don't have much, but dream of one big break.
The fact is, though, that almost all of those dreamers would come out further ahead if they avoided the lottery, saved their stakes in a piggy bank or coffee can, then used those savings to invest in a money market account or an IRA. Even the low interest rates that most banks pay on savings accounts these days would be a better deal for them.
It's hard to argue with dreamers, though -- especially when they have a monkey on their backs. Lottery playing is gambling, and gambling can be as addictive as alcohol or heroin. (Just ask your local chapter of Gamblers Anonymous.)
One of the excuses for North Carolina's state-owned ABC system is that it's supposed to limit how much consumers drink. (Those letters, after all, stand for "Alcoholic Beverage Control.")
However, North Carolina's lottery -- excuse us, the N.C. Education Lottery -- spends a big chunk of ticket sales on TV commercials, posters and such, encouraging people to gamble more.
It's a sorry way to fund education, but the Tar Heel State had little choice but to get into the game; otherwise, millions of dollars would have migrated into other states' lotteries.
At the very best, it's a necessary evil. At the worst, it's a shell game. Lottery sales are supposed to go "to the schools." In fact, by the state lottery's own figures, only 27 percent of collections go to public schools and colleges.
Most of the money, 62 percent, is plowed back into prizes. Another 10 percent goes to commissions on ticket sales, administrative expenses and, yes, advertising.
Moreover, studies by political scientists indicate that, in other states at least, appropriations for education tend to dip after a decade or so. Legislators tend to direct tax money that would otherwise go to schools into pet projects or crowd-pleasing tax cuts.
Face it: The lottery is gambling. As in all gambling, the house wins in the end.
Gambling is also, for all practical purposes, a drug. As with other drugs, the best course is to just say no.
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20160114/OPINION/160119813/1108/editorial?template=printart
January 18, 2016 at 8:57 am
Norm Kelly says:
Does the Star-News have a habit of writing editorial pieces in opposition to liberal politicians? If so, how does the Star-News stay in business? If they aren't allies of the liberal pols, how do they manage to avoid being boycotted? If they don't fall in line with the liberal pols, how do they avoid being driven out of business by those same lib pols?
Where was the Star-News before the libs passed this disaster along party lines? What happened to all the benefits that the lib pols promised us? Remember, at the time Gov Mike promised that allowing the state to get in the gambling business would solve most of the states problems; except snow on the road. At the same time that lib pols & Gov Mike were forcing the lottery upon us, they were in the process of eliminating ALL private gambling because, they claim, that gambling is BAD for people! If gambling is so darn bad for people, how does having the state sponsor it make it better? Because it's labeled 'for the children'? Only those stup1d enough to suck down what Billary spews believe that anything government does is 'for the children'! Perhaps that word I used is too strong. I don't believe so, but some might. Perhaps the word 'delusional' is better. Maybe combined is more accurate.
Either way, the state would raise more money if they just raised taxes! How much of gambling income goes to state coffers? Then compare how much goes to state coffers if ANY tax is raised or implemented. Any tax increase results in 100% of the income going to state coffers. Compare the small percentage take from gambling with 100% take when a tax is implemented or raised. What exactly is it about gambling that entices lib pols so much? Whenever ANY other tax impacts 'the poor', lib pols and media allies rail against it! But when gambling is KNOWN to impact 'the poor' most harshly, suddenly libs 'feel' for them. Don't do anything about this 'unfair tax', but typical of libs, they 'feel bad'. Cuz we all know that with libs, feelings are of utmost importance.
I look forward to the next editorials coming from the Star-News. I expect to see them fall into line with libs soon enough. If they haven't yet, will they endorse Roy whole-heartedly? If they haven't yet, will they endorse either Bernie or Billary without reservation. This would certainly prove that they are back on the reservation, and not worthy of penalty by lib pols!
Truth and honesty is nice to see sometimes. Too bad it happens so rarely for those of us stuck with the N&D!
