Not really.
The lottery is paid for by those who all have an equal chance of winning that prize. Also, the profits from lotteries are usually spent on social funds etc.
I feel more conflicted about thr fact that it preys on addiction and those who buy the most lottery tickets are often those who can least afford them. I find that much more grotesque than a random person getting very lucky, but to each their own.
Half would go to the government no?
In the US, close to half of the winnings do go to the lottery, plus a portion of each lottery ticket usually goes to fund some government agency. Schools, programs for the impoverished and disenfranchised, etc.
The real question, in my opinion, is if you are willing to spend that much money on a ticket, why aren't you willing to spend that much money on just outright funding government programs? Imagine if 100% of what someone paid for a ticket went to programs for the disenfranchised? That could make real difference.
Probably worth noting that, at least in places like Texas, they take the funds from the lottery, allocate it to school, and then take the same amount of money out of schools to fund whatever bullshit they want.
That depends on the government in question. For example, the Canadian government does not have a claim on any kind of lottery or game show winnings.
It’s grotesque for ANYONE to have a billion dollars. Arguably the lottery winner is the only one to achieve that wealth by even sort-of ethical means.
By that measure, playing the stock exchange is just an advanced version of lottery.
State lotteries are in effect a tax on the uneducated; largely used to fund education.
But part of the reason they exist is that, in their absence, people spontaneously come up with even worse forms of gambling, like the old numbers game that funds the expansion of organized crime.
Most lottery players, especially scratch-ticket players, would be better off sticking that money under their mattresses or in credit-union accounts. However, again, when there are no gambling games around, people spontaneously invent them; abolishing state lotteries would not cause that money to go under mattresses or into credit unions.
largely used to fund education
Alas, nope.
Many states have laws saying that for every lottery dollar that goes to education, a dollar comes out of the education budget. Usually lottery profits end up in a general fund, the whole education thing is a legislated smoke screen.
The main function of state run lotteries is to take money away from organized criminals and give it to elected criminals instead.
That's incredible if true
Most states, there's this association that it supports education, but there's this bizarre scheme where for every lottery dollar that goes into the education budget, $1 from the education budget comes back out into the general fund.
So you end up just robbing Peter to pay Paul kind of thing. It doesn't actually add additional money to these causes that lotteries market themselves as helping.
a majority of the 42 states that run lotteries claim the games increase funding for education. But a CBS News investigation has found that most of the lottery sales never make it to a classroom.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-the-lottery-shortchanging-schools/
But when you take away the amount shelled out for prizes (60% on ticket sales) and the cut to the lottery dealers, along with fees and operating expenses, it leaves about one third of the handle ($3.37 billion) for “aid to education”.
Moreover, NYS Assemblyman David DiPietro (R-147th District) claims the money is not always used for education expenses, at least not in the traditional sense.
According to DiPietro, the money on occasion has been “pinched off” by the state, to pay for a variety of items, including attorney’s fees for construction projects and even to pave roads near schools.
Wait til you find out about inheritance
It is a deep and philosophical question that must be looked at from all sides. But after much debate and consideration among our greatest scholars the universal truth is a question in of itself. Am I the random person?
If someone inherits a billion dollar, how is that not just given to a random person?
If their family is that rich, they usually have gotten some money of it before the other died.
It's not as grotesque as the mundane realities that we accept as normal under capitalism
Far better than the shitheads that add nothing to the world and become billionaires through financial manipulation and employee exploitation.
Seriously, 1.2b a drop in the ocean compared to generationally wealthy who leech off of society paying almost no tax by extending tax liability to infinity through gifting and buying politicians who create loopholes for them.
First of all, they are not getting $1.2B. The lump sum cash value is $551.7M. The usually reported jackpots are presented in terms of the value of a 30 year annuity.
Second, those winnings are before taxes. After taxes, depending on the state, the person will walk away with $280m-350m.
Now, sure, that is still an absurd amount, but still like 1/4th the stated jackpot.
I think it's somewhat charming tbh. Everyone gets a tiny, miniscule chance of never having to work again. I rarely buy a ticket, but when I do I spend all week imagining all the fun things I'd do with the money.
As the other poster said, though, it's sad when folks get addicted to it.
They should split it up into $100,000 increments. Yeah, that's not a billion, but that could still be life-changing for thousands of families.
Then you'll feel better knowing that in the US that whomever wins that Powerball will end up with less than half the amount they won. Taxes will eat up about 60% of the winnings .
And then, statistically, their life will be ruined so... Grotesque indeed
I would be willing to fall on that sword for the unlucky soul that wins that lottery. I actually knew someone that won the 10 million publishers clearance house back in the 1980's. Classic story of they were dirt poor before the win and dirt poorer about 5 years after the win. Banks lined up to give them loans and they took them all since the prize didn't pay out in a lump sum. After the interest their yearly checks and more were gone... But they had "stuff" for awhile.
The entire idea of a statewide lottery seems awful to me. I think there should be a cap on the size and reach of any one lottery. It's been shown to be more harmful than helpful to dump millions of dollars on one person's bank account.
San Francisco spends $700 million a year dealing with their roughly 7,000 unhoused people. They could just give every one of them $100,000 a year and spend less, and probably have better results.
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
