Losers winning big on the lottery

[Ellie]

The Lottery. A great institution, or a plague to keep the poor people poor?

Personally, I play Lotto every once in a while. Not weekly, and not religiously, but special occasions I put a quid on. I like the Lottery. Not just because you can win a few £mil, but because (here in Britain anyway) it's a huge charity and gives a LOT of funding for various things around the community. Yes, it is designed primarily to make Camelot rich; but on the side it also does a lot of good.

Some people see it differently though.

I point ye to the following article: http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/04/0 ... for-poor/3

Basically, a state in America is trying to pass a bill that will make people on benefits unable to win more than $600 on the Lottery. Essentially, this is supposed to stop people spending their welfare money on unnecessary goods (after all, they shouldn't be on benefits if they can afford the Lottery!), but. The Lottery also serves as a way of 1:13million poor people of leaving the lower belt and entering the supposedly non-existant but highly prevalant upper class. Even if it's just £100,000, it's a life changing sum of money.

Basically this thread is to discuss the Lottery (or similar schemes if you have them), the benefits, the cons, the whole shebang.

Would you, or do you, play the Lottery? Would you ever enter more than one line at once?

In the UK Lotto is typically a few million quid with 1:13million odds of winning; or EuroMillions which is often upwards of £10m (sometimes reaching £100m) with 1:80million odds.

 

[Guest]

;D

 

[Jason]

I don't get it... if they're on benefits, they can only win up to $600... that's stupid, if they can afford the lottery they don't need benefits ? The lottery is like £1 a line, which I'm assuming would be $1 a line too... ANYONE can afford that, lol.

Well personally I don't put money on the lottery, although I have a few times, haven't won anything though, so I stick to scratch cards, lol. But my parents play every week, putting between £5-20 on, and haven't won at all, lol.

However, if we're talking scratch cards too, I've got this awesome tendancy to win quite often (I lose more times than win obviously, but when you're getting anywhere between £5-100 it's not too bad)

 

[Zekallinos]

Well, the governement's money shouldn't be there so poor people can play lottery...and frankly that 1 thirteen-millionth person to get out of benefits really isn't meaningful.

I'm not too much against lottery though. Unlike casino, it's hard to get addicted to the point of bankrupting (since you don't have that feeling of winning sometimes, it's a lot or nothing at all). There are exceptions of course, but spending a few $ every week isn't that bad. In fact, it's the kind of thing that gives some feeling of hope to the lower class people. It's better then nothing (even if it's false hope, it's not like most of them are smart. Or else they wouldn't be playing lottery so much).

Kind of like the proles in 1984. The principle is really the same, though less extreme.

 

[Tindy]

I don't get it... if they're on benefits, they can only win up to $600... that's stupid, if they can afford the lottery they don't need benefits ? The lottery is like £1 a line, which I'm assuming would be $1 a line too... ANYONE can afford that, lol.

But that's the problem - it's an unending cycle. I know, my dad's addicted to the lotto. People who are really serious rarely buy just one $1 ticket (especially scratch-offs) - they'll buy three or four to "increase [their] chances." And as soon as they win any bit of money, where does it go? Back into the lottery!

Scratch-offs are particularly bad, because their chances are so much better than the state lotto, and the more you pay per ticket the better your chances get. My dad spent $300 on scratch-offs last week! Even if he won $240 back, he's still $60 short. So, altogether, he spent $60 on the lotto in one day. That's not bad, but multiply that by how often you play per week. It can get bad pretty fast.

As for the state mandating how much poor folks can get back... that's incredibly lame, and not really within their jurisdiction. Poor people are still going to play to get that $600, because that's $600 that they didn't have before and that they didn't have to work for. They tend to forget about the cash that goes into actually buying tickets - even $1 per day is $6 per week, and if you're so poor that you're on welfare, that might be a meal. :/

 

[Jason]

"even $1 per day is $6 per week"

Lol. :thumb:

 

[Tindy]

So Sunday doesn't count. :P

 

[Incognitus]

People invest in a lot of stupid short-sighted things for their own pleasure. Frankly, the lottery is one of the better ones considering how much money from it goes to worthy causes.

Basically, a state in America is trying to pass a bill that will make people on benefits unable to win more than $600 on the Lottery. Essentially, this is supposed to stop people spending their welfare money on unnecessary goods (after all, they shouldn't be on benefits if they can afford the Lottery!), but. The Lottery also serves as a way of 1:13million poor people of leaving the lower belt and entering the supposedly non-existant but highly prevalant upper class. Even if it's just £100,000, it's a life changing sum of money.

Good idea. Frankly, I don't think they're going far enough: All their winnings should go straight back to the state.

I do not pay my taxes for people to fritter it away on gambling.



(And Class isn't about how much money you have and never has been. Having more money doesn't give you social mobility: They'll just be richer.)

 

[Guest]

;D

 

[Ellie]

I agree that there should be a limit. Say one line per week, or even per month. But what you are saying is that the money these people are given shouldn't be spent on recreation, essentially - without recreation what life is there? Granted there are probably better things to spend that quid on but from your previous posts I would wager you wouldn't like them spending the money on anything that wasn't food. Sorry if I've misjudged you on that part, it's jus how you come across with the constant talk of your taxes.

The very notion of a tax shouldn't affect anyone in the slightest.

You get paid £20,000; government takes £5,000 (just an example, nothing accurate). Fair enough, you now earn £15,000. Use that for your budget and whatnot, and ignore the £5,000; you aren't giving it personally because it was never yours to give; you would have been taxed it whether you wanted or not. So just ignore that £5,000.

I would rather pay even half my wages in tax to have the society we have today and the government we have today. The schools, hospitals, etc. While off-topic I personally think taxes are a good thing, and that without them the poorer people in the country would be really hard done by for no reason but their own misfortune.



And class is 100% to do with money. The only reason it is seen otherwise today is because the things we associate with the upper class are what a rich person would have had in past days. Same with lower and middle classes. Class is, and always has been, "I have more money than you which is why I have my friends and you have yours".

 

[Incognitus]

I agree that there should be a limit. Say one line per week, or even per month. But what you are saying is that the money these people are given shouldn't be spent on recreation, essentially - without recreation what life is there? Granted there are probably better things to spend that quid on but from your previous posts I would wager you wouldn't like them spending the money on anything that wasn't food. Sorry if I've misjudged you on that part, it's jus how you come across with the constant talk of your taxes.

The money is given to support them and keep them alive at a basic level of comfort until they can get themselves out of whatever hole they are in and earn their own money. Then they can enjoy themselves.

I do not pay my taxes to allow them to go out on the town partying, and I don't pay to subsidize gambling.

And class is 100% to do with money. The only reason it is seen otherwise today is because the things we associate with the upper class are what a rich person would have had in past days. Same with lower and middle classes. Class is, and always has been, "I have more money than you which is why I have my friends and you have yours".

Well I guess that explains why most of the traditionally perceived Upper Class is broke. 8)

Sorry, but income is only a small part of it and absolutely not the determinate factor.

Call me an old Marxist, but class is more about who has power in a society and who doesn't. It's a very big tangent so I'll just post the wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class

 

[Ellie]

You misunderstood me (or I put my point badly).

There are two types of class heirachy in britain. There's yes, the "traditional" upper/middle/lower where the upper can quite easily be rich and the lower is Bill Gates. This was originally based on wealth - more specifically, on which jobs were wealthier (hence why Bill Gates is low down, as his job didn't even exist, whereas a landowner who would in olden times have been immensely sich wuld nowadays not be worth much).

But then there's the actual heirachy - where you have your council estates at the bottom, your suburban villages in the middle, and your merchant bankers at the top. It's the latter I am referring to, and in that, money is everything.

 

[Incognitus]

You misunderstood me (or I put my point badly).

There are two types of class heirachy in britain. There's yes, the "traditional" upper/middle/lower where the upper can quite easily be rich and the lower is Bill Gates. This was originally based on wealth - more specifically, on which jobs were wealthier (hence why Bill Gates is low down, as his job didn't even exist, whereas a landowner who would in olden times have been immensely sich wuld nowadays not be worth much).

But then there's the actual heirachy - where you have your council estates at the bottom, your suburban villages in the middle, and your merchant bankers at the top. It's the latter I am referring to, and in that, money is everything.

Nah.

It was always more about net worth, background, and access to means of production. Take someone like WH Smith: He worked his way from being a newspaper boy to... well... guess... Joseph Porter from Gilbert and Sullivan's HMS Pinafore was modeled on him - and part of the big joke about his character is, despite being incredibly rich, he doesn't fit in and isn't accepted in the Upper Class circuits: He is, "at best" Upper Middle Class - which is what many rich people (eventually) begin to adapt to after some time.

Having money doesn't mean other people who have money accept you. Trust me, it's a hellovalot harder than that!

There's a great book called "Watching the English" which has a whole chapter about defining class, and she puts forward many definitions and discusses all these things more fluently than I could here. I recommend it thoroughly:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Watching-Englis ... 802&sr=8-1

It's really good, not just because of her argument, but for the shear comedy value of the entire book: It's sweeping, but it's so true.

 

[EpE]

o.0 I know they fix it somehow

well its business what can I say

 

[NexS]

i believe that the spending of money should be placed solely on the person who owns that money (owns, not has at that moment in time keeping politically correct and all lol) so if a person who earns 14 dollars a week can spend that on a lottery ticket if that want, that just means that 12,999,999,999 out of 13,000,000,000 weeks they will starve to death.

 

[kaidus]

In the UK Lotto is typically a few million quid with 1:13million odds of winning; or EuroMillions which is often upwards of £10m (sometimes reaching £100m) with 1:80million odds.

So technically all you need to do is buy 80 million tickets and you'll profit 20 million when the big prizes come round. Awesome.

Also, $1 out of whatever benefits they receive is pretty who cares at the end of the day. The majority of people probably waste more than that on disposable change they accumulate over a week anyway.