• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

The moral low ground

We all know that gambling is, in effect, a regressive "voluntary" tax, since the poor spend a greater proportion of their income on games than propserous gamblers. But which form of gambling is the most regressive, i.e. adds the most to income equality? No, not casinos:

Lotteries, now offered in 43 states, worsen the growing inequality in incomes because of the regressive nature of that gambling, says a complex study by Irwin Morris, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, College Park, and doctoral student Elizabeth Freund, published in Social Science Quarterly.

Dr. Morris estimates that the creation of a lottery in a state adds about 10 percent to overall growth in average income inequality in the state. That's equivalent to a state losing 2 percent of its manufacturing, a sector that tends to pay more than service jobs.

A more recent paper by the pair calculates that new casinos had no effect on income inequality. This reflects the fact that the poor are less likely to indulge in gambling at casinos. They can buy lottery tickets with ease at gas stations or convenience stores. Getting to a casino can involve a long drive or an expensive flight and hotel stay.

Further proof, as if we needed it, of the state's depravity in getting into the gambling business.

Posted in: Current Affairs

Comments

Justin
Tue, 06/20/2006 - 5:32am

I remember as a kid hearing about the lottery in Spain (this was the early 70's). The tone that this event received (at least the tone that I heard) was quite condescending - "this type of thing is okay for the Spanish, I guess, because they aren't as upright as us red-blooded Americans." But then the lure of "easy money" caught up with us and all of a sudden the Spanish didn't seem so backward.

Bob G.
Tue, 06/20/2006 - 8:57am

Considering the state is having difficulty getting into the "leasing toll road" business, the misplaced "allure of the fast buck" sure puts dollar signs in the eyes of those that cannot (really) afford it.

I've been to casinos (in NJ)...no big deal...you play, you win a little, lose more, eat at the buffet (gratis) and leave. A nice diversion, but certainly NOT a "way of life".

Such cannot be said for the lotteries around the states, however.
The lotteries are akin to fast food joints. Once in a while does no harm, but buy into it EVERY day, and well...you wind up with a plethora of troubles. And those "running the show" are laughing all the way to THEIR bank, trust me!

Then again, Indiana needs SOMETHING to shore up an eroding tax base after all those jobs from most every sector have gone bye-bye.
And we DO have to keep the roads in good repair (heaven forbid we use PRISON labor), so there goes another ton o' money.

Funny...I used to think that lottery revenues were used to help seniors (in PA anyway)....wonder WHERE all that $$$ is REALLY going?

Does this add to income inequity?
....Yasureyoubetcha!

Now if you forgive me, I've got to go get my lotto tickets and (maybe) buy my way OUT of the south side before my (lack of) positive cash flow (thanks to ever increasing taxes) "revitalizes" me into the poor house...LOL!

B.G.

Justin
Tue, 06/20/2006 - 12:59pm

Personally, I have no moral problem with someone gambling for enjoyment, just like I have no problem with someone having a beer or two. But I DO have a problem with the State encouraging this behavior - and I guess it just dates back to my Methodist mother and my childhood view of the Spanish Lottery (see above). If our government cannot encourage the best in us, at the very least it should AVOID pandering to our basest instincts.

Of course, in the world of Karl Rove I guess we have long ago crossed that line....

Tim Zank
Tue, 06/20/2006 - 1:40pm

Justin, Why in the world would you bring Karl Rove into a debate regarding state sponsored lotteries?

Did your methodist mother also teach you to take cheap shots at others while you are totally off-topic?

Leo Morris
Tue, 06/20/2006 - 5:33pm

Tim, I agree. Justin, I was right with you until the Karl Rove shot. I don't have anything against gambling as such. I've enjoyed a poker game or two in my life, and if other people want to indulge, let them accept the consequences. I can even accept the state acknowledging that people will gamble and taxing the activity, as it does other sins.

But it's something else again for the state to sponsor and promote gambling as in lotteries, actually encouraging our vices so it can profit from them, then having the gall to spend tax money to try to fix the gambling addiction it has fostered. That is morally reprehensible.

One of my biggest objections is that is a dishonest way to run government. Our servants, if I still may use that quaint term, are supposed to say what they will do and what it will cost us, letting us vote for them or against them accordingly. With the ease of raising money through the voluntary stupidity tax of gambling, government does it backward, starting out with a pot of money to spend and deciding what to spend it on instead of deciding what needs to be done and seeing if the taxpayers will stand for it. It's just one more way for government to grow beyond all reason.

Of course, in the world liberal Democrats have constructed, I guess we crossed that line a long time ago.

Tim Zank
Tue, 06/20/2006 - 6:07pm

touche'

Justin
Wed, 06/21/2006 - 5:29am

My Methodist mother wasn't into cheap shots - I think I either learned that from my non-Methodist dad or maybe on the mean streets. In any event, I will plead guilty to the accusation of cheap shot. But in case anyone cares, my point was that, independent of lotteries, our government leaders have already crossed the line where they pander to people's baser instincts in order to get (re) elected. Case in point: Karl Rove and his campaign to scare "the base" with the gay marriage bogeyman so people forget about bad jobs and the unending war in Iraq.

Leo Morris
Wed, 06/21/2006 - 11:13am

Since part of the political equation is to try to set the discussion agenda, pointing this out by example proves nothing but one's own predisposition. Want to talk about Bill Clinton bombing an aspirin factory to distract us from the Monica affair?

Tim Zank
Wed, 06/21/2006 - 3:09pm

Touche' part deaux!

brian stouder
Wed, 06/21/2006 - 5:07pm

Honestly - and not snarkily - my question is, why doesn't the government of the State of Indiana 'lease' out it's lottery operations to private investors, and reap lots of money at the front end?

Given the choice, I would think that it is much more desireable to keep the state FIRMLY in control of, say, its toll roads; and at arms length from, say, the endless business of "never giving a sucker an even break"(ie - the lottery)!!!

Leo Morris
Wed, 06/21/2006 - 6:07pm

At the risk of getting into a lengthy digression on the toll road, I'll say I think the state still is FIRMLY in control. Ask anybody who has ever leased anything. And I think you answered your own question about why the state doesn't feel the need to stay at arms-length from the lottery. If the state is in the "never give a sucker an even break" frame of mind, what does it care what the suckers think?

At least the toll road, whatever you think of the lease deal, is something of value. People use it because it gets them where they want to go, no matter who they are paying their tolls to. We can disagree over what the state is doing and both still believe it is acting with good intentions and our best interests in mind. We can't say the same thing about the lottery, no matter how much distance the state might try to put between its depravity and our exploitation.

brian stouder
Wed, 06/21/2006 - 6:39pm

I confess that my suspicions about the toll-road deal stem mainly from ignorance. I have read Q & A columns and the like about it - and the talk of bond ratings and depreciation and upgrades pretty quickly induce MEGO (my eyes glaze over).

I more or less like Governor Mitch (depending on the issue at hand) - but this seemingly blithe plunge into a 75 year commitment(!!!) - which may well outlast my 2 year old daughter's lifetime! - makes my Hoosier conservative heart skip a beat (or three!)

But if I think I understand one thing about the toll-road deal, it is that a large lump-sum of cash, plunked into an investment returning only a modest yield will produce serious cash (in the case of the toll road - much more money than the road actually nets the state).

If Daniels moves to lease (or better, sell) the Indiana Lottery to the Spaniards and the Aussies (or whoever) - then I'll begin to look at him as a genuine Maggie Thatcher-type real-deal free-enterpriser agent of positive change

Roach
Thu, 06/22/2006 - 4:21pm

lets sell the naming rights of "Indiana"
to the highest bidder. In fact, lets sell all the city names as well.
Welcome to the city of (your corporate name here), in the state of (your corporate name here). who cares what this stupid town and city is named for, as long as they can deliver my mail.
think of the money we could get. then everybody might have a living wage job here in this County of (your name here)
after all, we've been sold out for everything else.

or lets just drop the "NA" from "Indiana", and then all of america's jobs will go to us

Or we could all secede from America, seize control of the VX WMD's in Newport; declare war, promptly surrender, and get 342 billion dollars from the US government, and Halliburton, and KBR to occupy and pacify us
and win our hearts and minds over. Just like in the peter sellers movie "the mouse that roared"........
Or we could legalize every form of vice known to man, like in Nevada, and become the fastest growing state economy in America.

Or lets annex Canada......

Quantcast