Lottery winnings can fund the deficit

United States
November 29, 2012 6:56am CST
Instead of forcing individuals to pay taxes, can't the government force them to buy lotto tickets? This surely would wipe out the deficit in just a few short years. Each month a certain amount of people would be required to deposit a certain percentage of their income into the lottery system. One lucky winner would get a few million and the rest would go to pay off the deficit. There would be no loopholes and no 'get out of jail free cards'. Everyone must purchase the ticket when it is their month. Why can't this work?
3 people like this
10 responses
@chrystalia (1208)
• Tucson, Arizona
30 Nov 12
FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION ALERT!!!! CALL OUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL POLICE!!! "believers" of various faiths hold their religions prohibit gambling. The First Amendment says the government shall not do 2 things: establish a religion OR prohibit the free exercise of religion. In a discussion I am working on now, I'll address what that means (since Obamacare violates it). But in this instance--by mandating participation in a national lottery, the government would, in essence, be mandating that those individuals NOT exercise their religious choice--it would be forcing them to "sin" by the tenets of their religion. That being said--I am all in favor of a national lottery--government gets 75%, players get 25%--TAX FREE of course--totally voluntary, play as much as you want (or as little). Cost--1.00 Prizes--10 top prizes, equaling 50% of the winnings pool, the rest divided into smaller prizes. For instance-- a given national lottery winning pool is 500 million dollars in prize money. 10 people would win 25 million each, the remaining 250 million would be spread over smaller prizes according to the established odds--say another 100 people would win 2.5 million, another 1000 people would win 250,000 and so on--so you'd have a decent chance of at least getting your buck back, so to speak. In this particular national lottery drawing, the government would have collected, in total, 2 Billion dollars, and got to keep 1.5 billion of it. To keep congress from getting their greedy paws on it, you'd need some rules: The money would have to go directly to buying back treasury bonds and bills--including those held by social security. Once we ran out of debt to buy back, the money would have to be split 50/50--50% to buy gold and silver, 50% to fund government operating costs. You would tie the national lottery, in a perfect world, to the abolishment of the current tax system, in it's entirely, and institution of a national sales tax. Don't tax income-- tax consumption. Every time someone pays for ANYTHING--they pay a small tax. No more IRS. No more paperwork. No loopholes. If EVERYTHING were taxed, then EVERYONE would be paying--based on their spending habits, and there would be no more 47%, so to speak. Plenty of incentive to save, in this perfect monetary system--but even the best of savers would still be supporting the system, because there is no total self sufficiency-- everyone needs utilities, or land, or medical care, sooner or later. So there would be plenty of money to pay the bills, and as we built our gold and silver reserves back up we could transition back to the gold standard--no more fiat currency. Of course we would still sell bonds and bills--why not? BUT--while they would be BACKED by gold, they would be PAID in dollars. I'm liking this idea
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
30 Nov 12
But the people would maybe actually BENEFIT? Not gonna happen.
• Tucson, Arizona
30 Nov 12
but hey, it would work--sort of--and nope, won't happen. Drat. There goes my excuse to play the lottery, now I won't be able to be "patriotic"
• United States
1 Dec 12
Run for office...you have my vote! And you are right, it will never happen that the government uses any sense in collecting, distributing, and spending money. It violates my religious beliefs to be forced to pay for people who choose abortion. Tax payer funding of Planned Parenthood and Gay Rights violate the very tenets of my religion. However, ain't nobody crying 'foul ball' on that one! Oh, but that is probably another discussion altogether!
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
30 Nov 12
News Flash Lotteries were started by the States to fund Education, Reduce Property taxes, Balance the budget, and in general help the state pay for existing services. Guess what the money is being spend on new programs and pet projects. If you start a lottery for deficit reduction it would work for the first year then the politicians would find other places to spend it or borrow more money. We have to control spending and not increase taxes or lottery gimmicks.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
30 Nov 12
DECREASE spending? oh my, you're so radical! Just being sarcastic, I agree with you!
@Adoniah (7513)
• United States
30 Nov 12
The 500million lottery that was just won, would only fund the US government for 80 minutes... The government is not allowed to FORCE US TO DO ANYTHING!!! That is what is wrong now...
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
1 Dec 12
The government CAN force you to do whatever it wants you to do. Why else do we need executive orders by the hundreds, have you read them? Have you ever wondered WHY hollow point ammo is needed by government agencies like Social Security and the National Weather Service? Force a crisis, then effect the cure.
• United States
1 Dec 12
The government may no be able to force us, but the choices we are given can certainly be considered 'force'. I am referring to Obamacare and forcing all persons to allocate funds for health insurance. Last time I checked the only mandatory funds that could be taken from me involved coerced funding of FICA, Medicare, and taxation. Now the government is telling me I voluntarily purchase insurance or I pay a fine. Sounds like the 'voluntary' seat belt option and 'voluntary' car seat suggestions that turned into law with penalties for failure to comply. I can anticipate that the fine for refusing to carry insurance will go from a set figure (that I intend to pay because it is cheaper than insurance) to a percentage of income that is automatically withheld like FICA and Medicare funding.
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
29 Nov 12
Boy, that's a great idea!! Keep the price for the ticket at $1 and the top prize is a million or two and each drawing would bring in millions. I think it's a great idea. The only problem is that Congress would quickly highjack it and spend everything it takes in and then more. This is a good example of creative thinking. I wish we had some creative thinkers in D.C.
1 person likes this
@Adoniah (7513)
• United States
30 Nov 12
You do know that the gov. takes 50% off the top of all powerball winnings to fund obamderthalcare and other pet projects ... THEN, it takes another 50% for taxes...So since 6 people won, they only got to split 150 million not 600 million. That of course does not take into conideration the individual state income taxes etc.
• United States
30 Nov 12
Yes, they would take it and spend it. They would find pork projects and they would find entitlements to pass out so that they could keep their seat of power.
@artemeis (4194)
• China
1 Dec 12
I can understand that you may belong to the numbers that does not like to pay taxes but as a citizen of you country, I think you have an obligation to observe the country's bylaws and pay the taxes accordingly. Hence, we should not feel being forced especially when these taxes goes a long way in supporting the country's "maintenance". In your theory, I hope that you could remember that the national lottery is a privately operated entity where the government does not have any involvement and as such is unfit to be fully trusted as far as compliance is concern when we appoint them to manage the mandatory deposit of our money in their establishment while we wait for a winning and pay the (our) taxes in the process. Besides, how many winners are there in each draw? Do you think that the numbers could actually support the entire country's requirements? Let's not forget that there are a certain percentage who for some reasons find buying lottery to be offensive or contrary to their beliefs, code of conduct or morals - one of it I believe is religion. With this, I think you will need to consider the possibilities of people hiding under this umbrella to "evade" paying taxes. So, I have to disagree with you as I could not find this to be a solution and implementing this will only create more problems in the future.
• United States
1 Dec 12
I would never object to funding the maintenance of the country. Unfortunately my tax dollar funds a whole lot more than that! If I were allowed to spend my tax dollar the way I chose, I would not object to spending that money. I would love to have a taxation system that allowed us to choose how our 'donation' was to be spent. I would check police and fire protection and funding of education (if education were restricted to reading, writing, and math). I don't get to stop paying taxes because I object to using those tax monies to fund abortion and other issues that I find objectionable on religious grounds. But alas, I see my freedoms erode almost daily. I think the lottery does cause more ills than it solves. The media said that within five years the majority of those who win are worse off than before the winnings.
• India
9 Dec 12
Hi friend, your idea is really unique and good, if this system is implemented every one will be happy and spend a little amount to check their luck
1 person likes this
• United States
9 Dec 12
If everyone had a chance to win back some of the tax money that they paid, they may be more willing to pay into the system and then it would be fair for all. If the rate were 10 percent, no exemptions, no deductions, just flat rate based on gross income, then I think there should be a lot of money and the system would be equitable. I don't think that tax money should be obligated to those who have dependents that allow them the earned income credit. They are an entitlement and are taking money out of the system rather than putting money in.
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
29 Nov 12
Would you require wealthy folks to buy more tickets? Then they would have more chances to win.. I don't know how you would balance it out. With taxation it's figured via percentage. Loopholes are favors returned for donating campaign money which is not at all as it should be.
1 person likes this
• United States
30 Nov 12
perhaps I didn't go in-depth enough in my discussion. I would expect each person to pay a percentage of their income, no exemptions. You make $1,000 you pay $100. You make $100,000 you pay $10,000. No loop holes. All people contributing would have only one chance at the jackpot.
@tonyllenium (6252)
• Italy
31 Dec 12
i think it wouldn't work because taxes are higher than the general amount of lottery tickets especially if related to the private or business cases...anyway if somebody propose to test a method like that i agree in many cases taxes are too high for almost all the people in all countries!!
• United States
29 Nov 12
Well of course it can't work -- it would be too simple! Plus someone else might profit off of it and the people would not be taxed into submission. how would the government be able to control us then?
• United States
30 Nov 12
More like those who don't pay taxes in, won't be able to draw 'earned income credit' out and thus get an entitlement. oops! I think the haves (entitlement recipients) and the have nots (those who pay for those entitlements)are already being controlled.
@surekharathi (14146)
• India
29 Nov 12
I not like to purchase the lottery because I know never win and this is not in my fortune without hard work earning money. Last year I invest my money in share of Reliance power. Lost 10000 rs. because share fall down 270 to 100. I not like this share or lottery.
• United States
30 Nov 12
I understand. I would rather have my cup of starbucks for the cost of the two lottery tickets! However, I thought that instead of all these people who won one million or two million, plus the two who will split the 587 million lottery pot, that one person be selected randomly by the computer who paid their lotto-tax to 'win' a substantial amount of money. Then the govenment would have all the proceeds from the 'lotto-tax' to pay the bills. Right now, those people who buy lottery tickets probably don't even pay income tax at this time.