Should we be worried about a tax on ignorance in Utah? Surely a state where most
people are doctrinally prohibited from gambling would experience few problems
with a lottery. The friends here I buy tickets for in Montana or Nevada or
Wyoming don't have a problem.
When people are so devoid of conscience that they want gain at the expense of
others WITHOUT first selling a product or service, then they talk about
"gambling" as a means to "raise revenues".Gambling, by definition, is receiving something where "luck" or
"chance" is the determining factor - not work. Lazy people gamble.
They want something without working for it. They want someone else to
"lose" so that they can "win". That defines their
character. That tells the world that they care so little about their fellowmen
that they would openly advocate for a method to help people lose their
wealth.When "chance" is the determining factor, gambling
has no worth. It adds nothing to society. It takes away our dignity as human
beings and it demeans our view of our fellow citizens who should be looking out
for those who think that they deserve a reward without first working for that
Best bet, Utah's legislature passes a lottery bill so people stay home and
invest in Utah, instead of driving to neighbor states, like they did fireworks.
Maybe New York could instead raise revenue the way Utah does... irradiating its
citizens by allowing the storage of nuclear waste.
If a person has a propensity to gamble they are already doing so. all legalizing
will do is take gambling out of the closet and in plain view. This is a positive
in that legitimate taxes can be collected and abusers will be more easily
identified.All this stuff about it costing the taxpayers and
themselves money is an invalid argument. The gambling is going on now. Those
that will cost us if legal are already costing us. Isn't it better
to take it from behind closed doors?
liberal larry,I cannot speak for everyone, but I would be much more
apt to support legalization of behaviors such as gambling if the purveyors'
burden did not fall on me when they fail. If I am going to be
forced to provide for people when they cannot provide for themselves (i.e.
welfare), then I will support such laws. As Esquire said, this is a tax; it
usually manifests itself as an extremely heavy tax on those most likely to
It is very probable that we cannot have total freedom in all aspects of life, so
we have to make choices about which freedoms are most important to us. Given
the choice between the freedom to fail and the freedom to survive. Which would
you choose to fight for?
Gamboling and religion are both selling the same product, Hope for the future.
But while religion is more generous with it's product that is longer lasting,
gamboling is generous for only a short while and is very stingy with the final
product. The sad thing is, the consumers with the most dire need
of the product, are most often the people who have the least in financial
resources. Gamboling is fun, but not when it's done in desperation. Like other businessmen, the purveyors of gamboling, are simply responding to
the demand for their product. The real way to control and limit gamboling is to
get back to the condition where a person can be more in control of his future by
his own efforts. Like in having an equal opportunity for success in life,
liberty and pursuit of happiness. We need to stop business from
interfering in the election and representation of the people's government.
liberal larry You point out the logical inconsistency of the
conservatives. As I pondered the inherent conservative contradictions, I became
more and more libertarian. I think this accounts for the growing number of
libertarians and support for Ron Paul, as other conservatives notice the
contradictions as well. I could be wrong, but the social issues
conservatives favor seem to becoming less and less important. The
libertarian positions are far more consistent that conservatives'. If people are
to be free, they should have the liberty to make mistakes.
Democrats are not supposed to be supporting gambling, it is a hidden tax (and is
probably regressive in that it targets people whose math skills aren't that good
and who are desperate for some way out of poverty) and it is predatory, like
Payday loans. I don't think that the government should be in the business of
trying to fool its citizens.
Larry, Conservatives are being consistent as mntman pointed out it's about the
money if you have enough you can gamble with yours and others money, but if your
a lowly peasant, no, no bad peasant.
@ liberal larry. Conservatives like me are very much in favor of personal
freedoms. The question is, what's freedom? Is it enabling bad behavior? Is it
allowing some people with particular weaknesses to terrorize the rest of us by
drunk driving? How much rent, food or medicine money will be spend by those who
can least afford it by government sanctioned gambling? How many more people will
be forced onto food stamps, addiction recovery programs, and disfunctional
family fall out social problems because some people should never gamble, but
they will anyway? Is that freedom or is it stupidity?
I wish conservatives would get their story straight. Are they in favor of
personal freedom, or are they not. If we allow business to run predatory
schemes like payday loans on the pretext of "let the buyer beware",
why don't we allow gambling? I thought that the core principle of conservatism
was to let individuals make decisions about their own lives.
Gambling is just another form of taxation - a hidden one. I would rather see a
straight up across the board tax increase than more gambling. At least, as a
citizen, I see a connection between the money and the results.
There is nothing wrong with Internet gambling. It is no more odious than (for
example) paying to play World of Warcraft online, where again the only ones who
gain a net profit are the "purveyors of the game". As alluded to in
the article, some games (chess, poker) can actually be games of skill where
those who are good at it make money. Yes, this would be at the expense of
someone else, but this "someone else" will be a consenting adult
spending their own money as they see fit.