States and its Lotteries and Gambling

Some interesting facts and statements:


In 2000, New York State kept 38 percent of its lottery revenue for education. That share has dropped to 32 percent, but the dollar amount rose from $1.3 billion in 2000 to $2.2 billion last year.

But Jerry McPeak, a Democratic state representative in Oklahoma, said states that have committed to a percentage should not later lower that number.

“I think if you pass a lottery and tell people that a certain proportion of those dollars are going to something like education, then you ought to keep your word,” Mr. McPeak said.
Source: For Schools, Lottery Payoffs Fall Short of Promises, New York Times. October 17, 2007.

They say the games take particular advantage of the most vulnerable members of society, including the poor and members of minority groups.

“Scratch-off tickets are to the lottery what crack is to cocaine,” said State Senator Eliot Shapleigh, a Democrat who represents El Paso.

Source: The $50 Ticket: A Lottery Boon Raises Concern, The New York Times, December 27, 2007



But make no mistake, gambling is a tax - the worst kind. As Money magazine reported, it is inefficient since most of it goes to prizes and administration. And it mostly taxes the poor because, as the Illinois Lottery billboards in poor neighbourhoods used to say, "This could be your ticket out".

For those of us who buy and don't win, it is a 100% tax. (If all it takes for us to accept a 100% tax rate is to have a chance - ever so slight - to win big, then why not have an Income Tax Roulette game: when we send in our income tax returns, a certain percentage of us win back the amount we would have had to pay.)

Aren't VLTs just the poor man's stock market? Aren't we surrounded by breathless billboards about the next big jackpot, media glorifying the newest millionaires, hospitals organizing casino nights and dream lotteries?

Source: New Brunswick Telegraph Journal April 2001


New York Racing Association Chairman Barry Schwartz said NYRA's two main concerns with the installation of the VLTs are the "continuance of our existing relationship" and the negative impact "we feel the VLTs will have on the 36-day Thoroughbred meet.
Source: Thoroughbred Times. January 29, 2002.