10-07-2008, 02:52 PM
State Lotteries are not forced on people, taxes are. Comparing taxes to lotteries is like comparing a PTA cake drive to taxes. Washington conducted a study that showed that the majority of players are upper middle class, the lowest was the poor (Note: the poor were more likely to engage in illegal gambling versus State sponsored gambling). The average poor to middle class played a dollar or two a week while the upper middle class to mildly rich played +$10 a week. His was mirrored by both government sponsored studies and independent consumer advocacy studies
Vendors derive income from sales contributing to local municipal/county economy. The overhead for state lotteries are fully funded from sales with no government funds involved. All promotions, advertising, operating and administrative cost must be derived from revenue.
Lotteries are earmarked funding which mean the money collected are designed to fund specific services, normally designated for education, cultural, environmental etc., not general services or projects. Lotteries have a legal requirement that wining funds not cashed in also goes towards the earmark. So any unclaimed prizes revert to the earmarked fund.
The only issue is if this funding is truly excess and not in-lieu-of. So is funding for the earmark reduced by anticipated lottery revenue or is it on top of regular funding? Most states had established benchmark funding from the general fund and lottery revenue was on top of that but that would be a question the citizens need to look closely at.
Vendors derive income from sales contributing to local municipal/county economy. The overhead for state lotteries are fully funded from sales with no government funds involved. All promotions, advertising, operating and administrative cost must be derived from revenue.
Lotteries are earmarked funding which mean the money collected are designed to fund specific services, normally designated for education, cultural, environmental etc., not general services or projects. Lotteries have a legal requirement that wining funds not cashed in also goes towards the earmark. So any unclaimed prizes revert to the earmarked fund.
The only issue is if this funding is truly excess and not in-lieu-of. So is funding for the earmark reduced by anticipated lottery revenue or is it on top of regular funding? Most states had established benchmark funding from the general fund and lottery revenue was on top of that but that would be a question the citizens need to look closely at.