insert your argument for/against a state-run lottery here. Proceeds to be earmarked for education.
For: it’s taxation of stupidity as your expected return is only a fraction of what you get on slot machines or the craps table.
Against: the government should not be in the business of encouraging its citizens to believe that the way to success is through taking long shot risks when a much more likely way to success is getting an education and working hard.
I’m leaning against it, because studies show that the majority of tickets are sold to poor people, and I’m a little uneasy about financing education on the backs of the poor.
I get to vote on this in november, and I haven’t made up my mind yet.
It is state sponsored gambling and should not be allowed. The state has no place in games of chance.
The money is always misspent and never goes where it is supposed too.
I’m for a lottery, on the condition that the money is earmarked for education and is not in leiu of a state general fund contribution. What happened in CA in the 80s was that the lottery was passed by the electorate based on the premise that the funds were to go to education. However, if you read the fine print the money that went to education dollar for dollar replaced funds from the state.
The money is always earmarked for education and they keep “projecting” how much the lottery will bring in so they lower the scholarship standards, (at least that is what they have done in TN"), and then they add some more spending for pre-school programs because there is so much more money coming in than projected! Then the newness of the lottery wears off, we have more gov’t programs and not enough money to cover them. Time to break out the violins to play in the background while they tell you how they are raising taxes “For the Children”. Just vote NO on state sponsored gambling.