Why doesn't Utah have a Lottery?

[Saint Cy of JFC]

As someone who has lived next to casinos for a large portion of life, they do help the community economically a ton, or at least they seem too. They create a ton of jobs and bring in a lot of out of state business. The negatives are all social considerations, but if someone is dumb enough to waste all of their money at a casino, chances are they are dumb enough to waste it without a casino (IMO).

 

[Nate505]

Am I correct in assuming that all of the people in this thread who would like to have the lottery also would like to legalize gambling/have casinos in Utah? That seems to be the pattern from the posts I've read.

More specifically: If there is anyone who wants to have the lottery but who DOESN'T want to otherwise legalize gambling, could you please post your reasons why? I'm genuinely interested to find out if/why people separate the lottery and other forms of gambling in their minds.

I guess if there is anyone who wants to legalize gambling but who doesn't want a state lottery, I'd like to hear your reasons as well.

I'm curious as well, though I'm in favor of most sorts of legalized gambling anywhere.

 

[Bronco70]

This is true . . . to an extent. The big difference, and which makes your reply only partially correct, is that other religious folks to not necessarily belong to a sect that elevates obedience to authority as one of its highest moral virtues.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to this line of reasoning, but you aren't covering any new ground here.

If you honestly believe that the LDS Church does not consistently emphasize obedience to ecclesiastical authority and that this does not influence how its members think and act beyond what would be the case with other believers not belonging to an authoritative sect, then it is YOU who needs to study up a bit--or more precisely put, you need to sharpen your observation and reasoning skills.

I do not deny the church's influence at all. But everyone is influenced by their culture, regardless of what it is. And I would not expect anyone to compartmentalize their belief system.

...it is YOU who needs to study up a bit--or more precisely put, you need to sharpen your observation and reasoning skills.

Because I don't see things the way you see them, right? Got it.

 

[Nate505]

You missed my "even if it is a self-selected opt-in" comment. And there were virtual quotes around the word "tax". ;-)

My point still goes: if raising revenue for the government is the goal, then doing it through gambling is not the best way. In fact, it's a truly stupid way because (moral objections to gambling aside) it preferentially hits the poorest and least educated elements of society.

To use my favorite double negative, I don't disagree. I'm a bigger advocate of legal gambling from a libertarian free will perspective myself.

 

[colton]

I know it's conventional wisdom that the lottery is akin to a regressive tax, but is there actual empirical data to support this? I'm not disputing it--it makes intuitive sense, but conventional wisdom and intuition are frequently wrong.

A little bit of searching and I found this:

https://www.accuracy.org/release/1521-lotteries-a-regressive-tax/
"Although no government agency is willing to call the lottery a tax, it is nonetheless a source of implicit tax revenue. [However,] when subjected to the tests of sound tax policy, it fails... Extensive evidence shows lotteries are regressive, meaning the poor shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden. The lottery is not economically neutral: it distorts consumer spending by applying an unusually high tax rate to a particular product. It is a hidden tax, lacking transparency. Lotteries unnecessarily complicate the tax system. Lottery revenues do not always benefit the programs for which they are earmarked, and voters may feel deceived when they approve lotteries for education only to find that legislators shuffle funds and their states’ public education systems do not benefit significantly. Finally, the use of state-operated gambling monopolies to raise tax revenue poses serious policy questions about government accountability.”

The quote is from Alicia Hansen, from The Tax Foundation. The details of the evidence aren't presented, so it's not a primary source of empirical data. But at least it's something.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

A little bit of searching and I found this:

https://www.accuracy.org/release/1521-lotteries-a-regressive-tax/
"Although no government agency is willing to call the lottery a tax, it is nonetheless a source of implicit tax revenue. [However,] when subjected to the tests of sound tax policy, it fails... Extensive evidence shows lotteries are regressive, meaning the poor shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden. The lottery is not economically neutral: it distorts consumer spending by applying an unusually high tax rate to a particular product. It is a hidden tax, lacking transparency. Lotteries unnecessarily complicate the tax system. Lottery revenues do not always benefit the programs for which they are earmarked, and voters may feel deceived when they approve lotteries for education only to find that legislators shuffle funds and their states’ public education systems do not benefit significantly. Finally, the use of state-operated gambling monopolies to raise tax revenue poses serious policy questions about government accountability.”

The quote is from Alicia Hansen, from The Tax Foundation. The details of the evidence aren't presented, so it's not a primary source of empirical data. But at least it's something.

Should we outlaw cigarettes too? They are highly taxed and target the poor also.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to this line of reasoning, but you aren't covering any new ground here.



I do not deny the church's influence at all. But everyone is influenced by their culture, regardless of what it is. And I would not expect anyone to compartmentalize their belief system.



Because I don't see things the way you see them, right? Got it.

I'll take these in order:

1. No, not breaking new ground, yet for something that you now claim to be so obvious, you failed to consider it in your argument, which is why I brought it to your attention.

2. Yes, everyone is influenced by their culture. BUT, in the US, we have specific constitutional and legal traditions specifying that church and state are to be separate, which complicates the matter. I fully acknowledge that people do not necessarily compartmentalize--but this doesn't mean in some cases they shouldn't. I use the rule of thumb, if your policy preferences are influenced by religious belief, you should be able to articulate a clear secular rationale for the policy. If you cannot, and inevitably rely on religious belief or dogma as the basis for the policy, then it has no place in the policy debate. (This is ultimate the reason why opposition to same-sex marriage will fail in the long-run, there is no strong secular rationale to oppose it, nobody can, for example, articulate any harm that befalls anyone by legalizing it to justify the denial of civil rights to a large group of people. Opposition to it ultimately falls back on religious beliefs about sex and marriage. Well, that and today's generation and future generations increasingly fail to see gays as abstractions but increasingly see them as real people.) For all of the LDS faithful in Utah who see no problem with the degree to which the LDS Church dominates politics in Utah, I would just love to see how they'd react if the tables were turned, say, if they lived in some Red Bible Belt state and policy where policy is driven by Evangelical Christians. My guess is that they would find the exact same arguments used against them that they are using here, and I'd bet the farm they wouldn't like it one bit. To me a principle has little value unless it can be consistently applied. You need to ask yourself whether IF the tables were turned, you'd still feel the same way.

3. This last one is a doozy. I made my last statement about you needed to improve your observation skills to juxtapose it to the nearly exact same thing you said to the other poster. In other words, I used YOUR debating tactic against you. All I can say is that if you don't like this particular debating tactic, then don't use it yourself.

 

[Stoked]

I'll take these in order:

1. No, not breaking new ground, yet for something that you now claim to be so obvious, you failed to consider it in your argument, which is why I brought it to your attention.

2. Yes, everyone is influenced by their culture. BUT, in the US, we have specific constitutional and legal traditions specifying that church and state are to be separate, which complicates the matter. I fully acknowledge that people do not necessarily compartmentalize--but this doesn't mean in some cases they shouldn't. I use the rule of thumb, if your policy preferences are influenced by religious belief, you should be able to articulate a clear secular rationale for the policy. If you cannot, and inevitably rely on religious belief or dogma as the basis for the policy, then it has no place in the policy debate. (This is ultimate the reason why opposition to same-sex marriage will fail in the long-run, there is no strong secular rationale to oppose it, nobody can, for example, articulate any harm that befalls anyone by legalizing it to justify the denial of civil rights to a large group of people. Opposition to it ultimately falls back on religious beliefs about sex and marriage. Well, that and today's generation and future generations increasingly fail to see gays as abstractions but increasingly see them as real people.) For all of the LDS faithful in Utah who see no problem with the degree to which the LDS Church dominates politics in Utah, I would just love to see how they'd react if the tables were turned, say, if they lived in some Red Bible Belt state and policy where policy is driven by Evangelical Christians. My guess is that they would find the exact same arguments used against them that they are using here, and I'd bet the farm they wouldn't like it one bit. To me a principle has little value unless it can be consistently applied. You need to ask yourself whether IF the tables were turned, you'd still feel the same way.

3. This last one is a doozy. I made my last statement about you needed to improve your observation skills to juxtapose it to the nearly exact same thing you said to the other poster. In other words, I used YOUR debating tactic against you. All I can say is that if you don't like this particular debating tactic, then don't use it yourself.

Considering that you came into this thread and started throwing around the term bigot in your first post (which you did not specify who that was for at the time) you really do not have much room to stand on for chastising people on what should or should not be used.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Considering that you came into this thread and started throwing around the term bigot in your first post (which you did not specify who that was for at the time) you really do not have much room to stand on for chastising people on what should or should not be used.

You mean on this thread or the one on Trayvon Martin? I think you're getting the threads mixed up. Nor do I understand your reasoning (such as it is). I am not chastising anyone for doing anything, I'm merely pointing out the double standard of using a particular debating technique and then turning around and criticizing someone else for using the exact same debating technique. Well I guess I am chastising someone for employing a double standard. That stikes me as a perfectly reasonable critique, or at least far more reasonable than employing double standards.

Plus what is wrong with accusing people of bigotry, particularly when they deserve it? I think most reasonable people will read through the Trayvon Martin thread and find sufficient evidence of bigotry.

Bigots and narrow minded ideologues are everywhere, including this discussion board. The way I see it, they don't deserve a free pass when they ply their trade.

I guess I just don't get why pointing out the obvious bigotry, on the FIRST POST no less, on the one thread disqualifies me for anything. This is curious reasoning. Maybe if I had done it on my second or third post, would that have met your standards?

 

[colton]

2. Yes, everyone is influenced by their culture. BUT, in the US, we have specific constitutional and legal traditions specifying that church and state are to be separate, which complicates the matter. I fully acknowledge that people do not necessarily compartmentalize--but this doesn't mean in some cases they shouldn't. I use the rule of thumb, if your policy preferences are influenced by religious belief, you should be able to articulate a clear secular rationale for the policy. If you cannot, and inevitably rely on religious belief or dogma as the basis for the policy, then it has no place in the policy debate.

Should Dec 25 be a federal holiday?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_holidays_in_the_United_States

 

[SaltyDawg]

Should Dec 25 be a federal holiday?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_holidays_in_the_United_States

Sure. But there shouldn't be any laws requiring anyone to celebrate/pray/whatever on that day. And there shouldn't be any laws forbidding people from eating meat on Fridays during Lent, eating pork during Ramadan, or <gasp> playing a lottery.

 

[Stoked]

Should Dec 25 be a federal holiday?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_holidays_in_the_United_States

You take that holiday away from me and your *** is getting shanked lol.