Is state gambling a tax on the poor?

[Lancer]

Sorry, I thought you meant something else by "ok". Scuse for giving too much credit.

[Winston]

I suspect though that Winston would say that gambling is your fault, whereas drugs should be banned.

Gambling is your fault, whereas drugs should be banned.

/me takes modest bow and exits stage to the right

[Ben Kenobi]

Let the man who has never bought a lottery ticket or pulled the arm on a one armed bandit, bellied up to a card table or put his $ on the spin of a wheel cast the first stone.

Ok. Can I join Kuci?

It's more money I can put towards other things, like taking a pretty girl to dinner.

I guess you could call that my lottery.

[Lancer]

"Ok. Can I join Kuci?"

No you may not.

[Winston]

There should be programs available and affordable though for those who are seriously addicted to "gambling", to the extent where it interferes with their ability to lead a somewhat healthy life, however that is defined. We have them here, they're actually funded by the state lottery and privately run casinos etc.

[Lancer]

Winston

[Lul Thyme]

I have never gambled either.
Not that I have moral objections, I just really don't see the point.
First even if I win, I feel I dont deserve the money.
And chances are Im losing.
so whats the point?
Its more fun to find a fun job, and party.
Thats how I see it

[Az]

Personally, I think that private casinos are a great sign that something's wrong in our society - why the hell should some one profit from gambling - and it's the gambling which brings in the big bucks, not the services. Profit is a way we reward people who bring a service to people who need it. People don't need gambling ( even though they might want it. ). If people go gambling, to satisfy an urge that we can't stop, at least let them lose the money to the benefit of all.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Winston


Gambling is your fault, whereas drugs should be banned.

* Winston takes modest bow and exits stage to the right

Because if you decide to buy drugs, it's someone else's fault. Thanks.

[Winston]

Az,

The same argument could be used about groceries, and we all know what kind of endless queueing and malnutrition that usually leads to.

Free enterprise works the best for the rest of legal retail activities in society, why shouldn't it be the case for casinos also?

And a good deal of people would disagree with your premise of the government always being the best at spending money for the common good. In any case, it depends on the political layout of the government, and also the assumption that decisions are made and carried out in an effective manner, which they're not.

And finally, the privately owned casinos' profits don't just vanish into thin air. They're taxed like everything else, and what's left of it will be spent on buying nice/stupid/ridiculous things, like every other income... for the common good.

[Az]

nd a good deal of people would disagree with your premise of the government always being the best at spending money for the common good

I trust the government more than a gambling tycoon - i.e. a guy who makes his fortune from a fail-safe bussiness.


WRT groceries, I've long claimed that a small tax should be imposed on candy, and unhealthy eats. we do it with cigs, and booze, don't we? An even higher tax should be imposed on drugs, to kill off the illegal drug trade, and bring revenue to treated the afflicted.

[Winston]

Tobacco, alcohol and the like were taxed (excised) from the start not because they were regarded as unhealthy, but rather because they were seen as luxuries which lawmakers found it more convenient to target for increasing the government's revenue. I'll agree it has probably changed somewhat over the years, but I think most excises are still in place mainly for fiscal purposes.

You could put a tax on candy, and fat, and matches, roller skates, skis, parachutes, reclining chairs... but in the end, I think most people would like it more if the government entrusted them with the main responsibility for their own behaviour.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Winston
There should be programs available and affordable though for those who are seriously addicted to "gambling", to the extent where it interferes with their ability to lead a somewhat healthy life, however that is defined. We have them here, they're actually funded by the state lottery and privately run casinos etc.

Such programs come part and parcel with lottery programs here in the States.

[Az]

Tobacco, alcohol and the like were taxed (excised) from the start not because they were regarded as unhealthy, but rather because they were seen as luxuries which lawmakers found it more convenient to target for increasing the government's revenue. I'll agree it has probably changed somewhat over the years, but I think most excises are still in place mainly for fiscal purposes.

Of course, for fiscal purposes - Treating that cancer costs money. That's why Tobacco and alcohol taxes have stayed, while other luxury taxes gradually fade away. Besides, why do government have anti-smoking and anti-alcohol campaigns - to lower tax revenue?

You could put a tax on candy, and fat, and matches, roller skates, skis, parachutes, reclining chairs... but in the end, I think most people would like it more if the government entrusted them with the main responsibility for their own behaviour.

How is taxing something "taking away the main responsibility for one's behaviour"? does that stop people from buying it? no, it merely makes them buy less of the stuff,at the"worst" case scenario.

[Kuciwalker]

Of course, for fiscal purposes - Treating that cancer costs money. That's why Tobacco and alcohol taxes have stayed, while other luxury taxes gradually fade away. Besides, why do government have anti-smoking and anti-alcohol campaigns - to lower tax revenue?

To appease a strongly vocal part of the population. The government doesn't actually want alcohol and tobacco purchases to decrease...