Monks Jazz Club
Lottery Logic
RECEIVED Mon., Jan. 11, 2010
Dear Editor,
Let's give it up, again, for government education (“The Lottery Is Bad for Society,” “Postmarks,” Jan. 8). John O'Neill stated, "Nobody needs $160 million." Um, John, who the hell are you to decide what someone needs? The lottery may be bad for society but not for the reasons he gave. Being a good little socialist, it's no wonder John hates wealth when he says "money is like manure," believing that the government can redistribute and spend people's money better than the people themselves can. Hey John, when someone wins $160 million, it doesn't just get squirreled away under the mattress. The winner spends the money on clothes, food, bills, home, automobile, medicine, entertainment, vacations – and in so doing, voluntarily redistributes their winnings into the pockets of others who are selling those particular services and/or products. Yes, they even have to pay taxes on it. Maybe they start a business and unknowingly hire an anti-capitalist such as yourself, John. Now, the reason the lottery may be bad for society is that it promotes gambling amongst the people who can least afford to gamble. The rich typically don't gamble large percentages of their wealth on things such as a lottery. Instead, their "gambling" takes the form of investing capital, which is not at all guaranteed to be profitable. But, hey, here's an idea, John. If you hate money so much, feel free to donate what little of it you possess to me. I'll make it even more palatable for you, John: Just pretend I'm the government and I'm taxing you in order to redistribute your wealth. I wouldn't want you to become mentally ill. Oh, too late.
Let's give it up, again, for government education (“The Lottery Is Bad for Society,” “Postmarks,” Jan. 8). John O'Neill stated, "Nobody needs $160 million." Um, John, who the hell are you to decide what someone needs? The lottery may be bad for society but not for the reasons he gave. Being a good little socialist, it's no wonder John hates wealth when he says "money is like manure," believing that the government can redistribute and spend people's money better than the people themselves can. Hey John, when someone wins $160 million, it doesn't just get squirreled away under the mattress. The winner spends the money on clothes, food, bills, home, automobile, medicine, entertainment, vacations – and in so doing, voluntarily redistributes their winnings into the pockets of others who are selling those particular services and/or products. Yes, they even have to pay taxes on it. Maybe they start a business and unknowingly hire an anti-capitalist such as yourself, John. Now, the reason the lottery may be bad for society is that it promotes gambling amongst the people who can least afford to gamble. The rich typically don't gamble large percentages of their wealth on things such as a lottery. Instead, their "gambling" takes the form of investing capital, which is not at all guaranteed to be profitable. But, hey, here's an idea, John. If you hate money so much, feel free to donate what little of it you possess to me. I'll make it even more palatable for you, John: Just pretend I'm the government and I'm taxing you in order to redistribute your wealth. I wouldn't want you to become mentally ill. Oh, too late.
Tom Gribble
