It serms incredible to me to give over a billion dollars to a random person.

    • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      1 year ago

      In the US, close to half of the winnings do go to the lottery, plus a portion of each lottery ticket usually goes to fund some government agency. Schools, programs for the impoverished and disenfranchised, etc.

      The real question, in my opinion, is if you are willing to spend that much money on a ticket, why aren’t you willing to spend that much money on just outright funding government programs? Imagine if 100% of what someone paid for a ticket went to programs for the disenfranchised? That could make real difference.

      • NightAuthor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Probably worth noting that, at least in places like Texas, they take the funds from the lottery, allocate it to school, and then take the same amount of money out of schools to fund whatever bullshit they want.

      • callouscomic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And then in some places they decide to divert the school money for a new Raiders stadium.

      • rebul@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        49
        ·
        1 year ago

        I spend about $10 per year on lottery tickets. I pay upwards of $40k in taxes, much of which is funneled to “disenfranchised”. I’m good, thanks.

        • Usernameblankface@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ok, but if you had a guarantee that your $10 would go directly to the disenfranchised with no chances of returning millions to you, how would that change things?

          • rebul@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            53
            ·
            1 year ago

            Handing money out to the “disenfranchised” solves nothing, thus it never ends. I am for real solutions, like education and a strong family unit. But, you know, having that opinion means I am racist/classist/whatever “ist”.

            • Thaumiel@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              38
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Love the quote marks around disenfranchised. Real classy.

              Let’s see… cursory glance at post history indicates… Yep, right wing, anti union and against a living wage. That all tracks.

              • Guest_User@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think you are both arguing about an institution giving money to random people right? Just the amount of both money given and number of recipients are changing right?

              • rebul@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                39
                ·
                1 year ago

                Quote marks because “disenfranchised” is subjective. And wow, you have mad skills to look at someone’s post history. Aren’t you quite the haxxor?

                I consider myself moderate. Lefty tools such as yourself label anyone that disagrees with them as right wing racist maga nazis. Fuck you.

                I am anti union. Unions served a great purpose 100 years ago. Now they are corrupt shake down organizations that contribute to inflation and drive jobs out of the country. But if someone wants to join one, I don’t care, it’s none of my business. Just don’t use my tax dollars to fund any of it.

                Living wage. There is this idiotic entitlement mentality that people somehow deserve a “living wage” simply for consuming oxygen. Here is the truth: people are paid what they are worth. If you are providing real value to an employer, they will pay you enough to retain you. If they don’t, find another employer. Rinse and repeat.

                But nah, it’s easier to blame shortcomings on billionaires/Trump/“the man”/“disenfranchisement” and hope some politician will send you money for your vote.

                • howrar@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  14
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It seems to simply be a difference in values. I personally think a human being has value simply for existing, and many others would agree on this. Nothing idiotic about valuing different things.

                  • rebul@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    18
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    We are in agreement, humans do have value. My point is that a living wage is possible, but it requires effort and sometimes tough decisions. Everyone should have the opportunity to better their lives, but I disagree that everyone is entitled to a ‘living wage’ simply for being alive. Have you not been to a restaurant where the service was terrible? Do those employees deserve a living wage?

                • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If only there were nearly 50 years of data proving your wage theory wrong. Productivity skyrocketed, and workers wages stagnated. Who got paid for all that value that was created? I guess all the people providing labor weren’t providing real-enough value?

                  Unions provide the same benefits today as they did 100 years ago. They attempt to level the imbalance between the employer and workers. If there’s a large imbalance then the workers don’t have the leverage to negotiate better wages.

                • Gabu@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  'murican with an IQ in the single digits doesn’t understand what being leftwing means. More non-news at 11.

                • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m detecting some guilt. Nobody here called you a Nazi, or anything other than right wing. Which you openly admit to. I mean, you claimed you were a moderate, but have taken up the right wing cause as your cross to bear. It’s funny how you accuse everyone else of calling you a thing. Nobody but yourself said.

                  You’re not the martyr you’re pretending to be. You’re just being an asshole to people with less power than you. Nobody’s impressed by your tax bill, least of all me. And the fact that you make so much that you have to pay 40k in tax. And yet you still pretend that money would make any difference in your life means you’re spending the money you have foolishly. Your petty greedy asshole. There, now somebody called you names.

            • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              This bullshit is so wrong on so many levels. It’s laughable. I’m beginning to think you don’t pay $40,000 in taxes, unless maybe it’s from an inheritance though. Out of a trust fund every month. Nobody with actual life experience believes any of this bullshit.

            • Gabu@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re the type of people we’re talking about when we say “eat the rich”, “bring the guillotine” or “burn them alive”, it seems.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What is better:

          • 10$, of which 2$ goes towards taxes, 2$ goes to the winner, and 6$ goes to the people who own the lottery
          • 10$ of which directly goes to taxes
        • Dkarma@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          You pay 40k in taxes then you’re going fine so stfu you have no right to complain about the less fortunate who need a social safety net.

          The gall and sense of entitlement you assholes have is fucking astounding.

    • atomWood@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      That depends on the government in question. For example, the Canadian government does not have a claim on any kind of lottery or game show winnings.