Expectation values and the common man

[Kidlicious]

Ogie,

People living below the poverty line usually don't pay federal tax. If they do it isn't much, and many get credits. Nice try. It will never fly though.

edit: Not to mention that a certain poor person that would be preparing tax returns this year will be below the poverty line again if this law passes.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Ogie,

People living below the poverty line usually don't pay federal tax. If they do it isn't much, and many get credits. Nice try. It will never fly though.

If you would bother to read you would also see they wouldn't pay social security or medicare taxes either. Hence the reason I said taxes not merely Federal Income taxes. Nice try yourself.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious

edit: Not to mention that a certain poor person that would be preparing tax returns this year will be below the poverty line again if this law passes.

My heart bleeds. Maybe you can add as much value to society by doing Sarbanes work.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
My heart bleeds. Maybe you can add as much value to society by doing Sarbanes work.

I guess I should invest in the stock market. Then I can add billions of value to society.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Wezil
I have past experience in the gaming industry. While there are many that understand probabilities and 'play' for the pleasure, there are far more that do not understand this at all. Their money would be better spent/invested elsewhere.

But would those people fare any better elsewhere

If your decision to play a game at a casino is based on your calculation of the probability of winning you don't understand probability.

Technically speaking, there are way to bet in Roulette that give you fair odds.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Technically speaking, there are way to bet in Roulette that give you fair odds.

Do tell.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I guess I should invest in the stock market. Then I can add billions of value to society.

Gee let me think about this for a second. Being an owner that takes a risk and put his money into something with no guaranteed return on the hope that the investment will grow into something all the while creating goods or services the public wants while creating jobs for its workers vs. being a parasitical overhead expense that simply does wasteful and useless monitoring activities all the while being a drain on growth.

Your right parasitical activities suit you better.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Do tell.

As long as there isn't a 00 on the wheel, betting on any individual number is a 1/36th chance of winning 35 times your money. At least last I read the rules if 0 comes up, all bets on individual numbers just stay on the board (you don't win or lose). So yeah, technically it's better to bet on each individual red number than to bet on Red. In practice, I think the casino would frown upon it.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I'd say that's a stupid way of doing things, but I don't think there is a good [economically efficient] way of handling a lottery.

edit: the lump sum bit, not the taxation

? why?

[Kuciwalker]

You're giving a very large sum of money, all at once, to someone who probably has no idea how to efficiently use it. At least with annual payments they don't get it ALL at once.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


As long as there isn't a 00 on the wheel, betting on any individual number is a 1/36th chance of winning 35 times your money. At least last I read the rules if 0 comes up, all bets on individual numbers just stay on the board (you don't win or lose). So yeah, technically it's better to bet on each individual red number than to bet on Red. In practice, I think the casino would frown upon it.

Your understanding of the rules is incorrect.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You're giving a very large sum of money, all at once, to someone who probably has no idea how to efficiently use it.

What the hell does "efficiently use it" mean?

[Kuciwalker]

Remember, one of the requirements for winning the lottery is that you decided to buy a lottery ticket. What does that say about your judgement with money?

[KrazyHorse]

You still haven't explained what you mean by "efficiently" using money, or why somebody blowing money on things you or I find useless means that they are inefficiently using their money. Also, does this personal "inefficiency" translate to a broader market inefficiency?

[Kuciwalker]

I'm going to assume that lottery winners generally earn less than average and are probably less educated, too. I don't have any particular statistics to defend that assumption but I think it's probably true, absent any counterevidence.

Say a lottery ticket costs $5. You've taken $5 that (generally less wealthy) a very large number of people would have spent on consumer goods that generally less wealthy people buy, and given a lot of money to one person who probably has the buying habits of someone not used to having large amounts of money in the bank. Much more importantly, that person probably doesn't know that much about investing money. That person can do a number of things. Best case is probably all the money goes in the bank and the person essentially retires early. This is essentially the same as an annual payout. Worst case is the person basically blows it all on expensive crap because now they have more money than they ever dreamed of and then ends up as a penniless crack addict. Just as bad, the person tries to invest it in the stock market but basically gets scammed.

(Very rarely the person might actually invest the money well.)

In any of these cases society has lost a lot of demand for goods most consumers buy (inefficient) and a productive member of society (since the person will probably quit their job). In return, society has either produced a bunch of stuff just for one person (probably inefficiently because these are goods only a limited number of people buy), or society has created a bunch of worthless capital (since the money was invested poorly).

In any case, is there are reason that arbitrarily redistributing money from a lot of people to one person is a good idea economically?