From: lhughes@b11.b11.ingr.com (Lawrence Hughes)
Subject: Re: BUSH IS A NEO_NAZI! AND A LIAR
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Distribution: hsv
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 19:00:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.163431.12588@infonode.ingr.com>, kenney@tribe.b17d.ingr.com (David Kenney) writes:
> In article <1992Sep23.144122.1848@b11.b11.ingr.com>, lhughes@b11.b11.ingr.com (Lawrence Hughes) writes:
> |> Of course, governments have already moved into the
> |> numbers racket (lotteries), which I personally think is great (voluntary
> |> or "stupidity" taxes...)
> 
> For a while I worked as a clerk in a store that sold lottery tickets.
> Most of the customers that bought lottery tickets seemed less well-off
> financially than those that didn't but lottery tickets, as I judged by their
> appearance.  That caused me to wonder what percentage of people that depend
> on government handouts waste(*) (spend any part of) these handouts on things
> such as government run lotteries.  I know of no data on this, but any number
> is too much for me.
> 
> I am against government run lotteries, at least for as long as those receiving
> government aid are allowed to waste(*) such aid on them.
> 
> (*)waste:  In Ohio, 50% of lottery income went to fund prizes.  Thus, for
> every $1 spent, one can expect to get 50 cents back.  Any investment where
> the expected return is a loss of 50% is a waste.
> -- 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> David Kenney                                       kenney@tribe.b17d.ingr.com

Talk about a different result from looking at the same data! Starting with the
observation that there are some people spending welfare money on lotteries, my
conclusion is that they will waste that money on something else if lotteries
aren't available (perhaps non-governmental numbers rackets), hence the obvious
solution is to cut off all welfare payments. Then what David fears CAN'T happen.

Also, note that lotteries are NOT an investment. An investment is where you
put some of your money into something where you expect to later be able to
get back your original money, PLUS more. The greater the risk (of losing any
gain, or even possibly some or all of the basis), the greater the gain to be
expected, or it is not a GOOD investment. Clinton calls additional taxes,
which will be wasted on yet more inefficient government programs and workers,
an "investment". Does that mean I can expect to get back those taxes, plus
some income, at some future date? Anytime any slimy salesman calls something
an investment that is OBVIOUSLY an expense, I close my wallet as quickly as I
can. Lotteries are NOT an investment, they are a tax. Trying to judge them as
you would an investment naturally makes them look pretty awful. Income tax
and social security (another pure tax - I will NEVER get any benefits) are
other examples of remarkably bad "investments". So is getting mugged. I happen
to like lotteries, as they are the only voluntary tax I know of (which I of
course choose not to pay), and the people who DO pay it actually ENJOY paying
it. What amazes me is that anyone ever pays it more than once, let alone time
after time. Like I said, it is basically a tax on stupidity.

Larry "if income tax is voluntary, I choose not to pay mine next April" Hughes