Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is the Lotto the dumbest thing in modern society and should it be banned?

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    twowheelsonly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,269 ✭✭✭twowheelsonly


    phelixoflaherty wrote: »
    A tax for fools

    Up to 2017 there were over 800 millionaires created by the lottery, some of them multi millionaires. The knock on effect of that would affect thousands of people for the good (family, friends etc.). Add in loads of 'smaller' but still significant wins such as the Lotto Plus, Plus 2 and Euromillions second and third prizes and you're looking at a huge number of people.
    That's without adding on those who benefit from grants to their local Football / GAA / Bridge ? Boxing clubs etc.

    Fools indeed....
    TiGeR KiNgS wrote: »
    The Lotto was and always will be a tax on the poor

    Where I work, out of around 200 staff, the lowest earner would be on around €45k a year, with most earning significantly more than that. Most are members of one of the many syndicates in work. Most also do their own lines, in particular when the jackpots start rising.

    I wouldn't class any of us as poor but none of us would say no to a few extra quid either.


  • Options
    #63
    paleoperson
    Registered Users Posts: 3,522 ✭✭✭paleoperson


    Amy Purple Sellout wrote: »
    When you buy a lotto (jackpot) ticket you buy into a dream (with a small chance of realisation) e.g.

    Ire Lotto jackpot (six/47) @10,737,573
    EM Lotto jackpot (five50+two12) @139,838,160

    Some goes to good causes, but much will go to operating costs or private group retirement and equity funds.
    e.g. Ire Xmas raffle thing only gives 37% of the total prizepool back to players as prizefund allocaiton.

    The point of money and an economic system is to distribute resources and services as effectively as possible throughout the population. One person doesn't need all those millions of euros and will not use them to good effect. Why not dream about all the millions of people that are significantly worse off?

    The Lotto gives to the rich (or newly created rich) and takes from the poor on a weekly basis, that's more than offsetting what they do for "good causes". They would do more for "good causes" if they just gave people back the money they spent on it every week. The honest man will sometimes advise a potential customer to "keep your money" even if they lose out because they know it would be a stupid idea for them, especially if that person has limited funds. The government on the other hand seem to be acting more like some scumbag going around preying on old and vulnerable people, telling them they need this that or the other.
    Amy Purple Sellout wrote: »
    I understand the stats, and thus only play a specalist version of the lotto, and am in profit this year.
    Wouldn't look at the scratchies or all that virtual nonsesne. Only do small, risk-adverse, high-yield, real-world accas.

    You're doing something distinctly different then because you're making money. You're one of the people profiting from it. I can't say I blame you but you're taking a part in the spoils as well. It's a bit like bitcoin - people seem to have a hard time understanding that money can't come from nowhere.


  • Options
    #64
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    paleoperson wrote: »
    The point of money and an economic system is to distribute resources and services as effectively as possible throughout the population.
    Money is simply a medium of exchange for wealth, by it's nature does not support wealth distribution as default. It has no bias.
    Actual Distribution (in terms of wealth-distribution) is a human or policy-led factor.

    The issue with Coates (Bet365) £323m salary is that it derives as a 50.01% dividend via Balance Sheet Profit from an 'off-shore' UK location (Gib). So while people state 'she pays her taxes', she could be paying a lot more if it was a mainland uk location (where her customers are mainly), like many other corporates.
    paleoperson wrote: »
    The Lotto gives to the rich (or newly created rich) and takes from the poor on a weekly basis, that's a lot more than offsetting what they do for "good causes".
    Likely so, based on player profiling.

    With any lotto it's important to highlight what percentage goes where (including private pension funds) and what the specific odds are.
    After that they can be better informed.
    paleoperson wrote: »
    You're doing something distinctly different then because you're making money. You're one of the people profiting from it. I can't say I blame you but you're taking a part in the spoils as well.
    Simply applying basic math. Also knowledge or research (for other real-world events), to enhance outcomes and reduce risk. I would strongly advise anyone to avoid all all costs any RNG, random(); script events, or 'virtual' type engines including poker, casino, bingo, games for an hugh array of reasons. Avoid also, scratchies for a couple of more specific reasons.


  • Options
    #65
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    MadYaker wrote: »
    When I was in college I worked in shops for 3 years and we had a good few regular customers who spend €50 or more every week on the lotto. These were mostly older people who didn't look to me like they had much money. They'd put a fiver petrol in their car and then spend 11 quid on a box of fags and another 15 or so on lotto every time they came in. We had a few like this every week. Likewise there were lots of people who I knew were on the dole spending 10 - 15 quid a day on scratch cards. Mostly single mothers with no education no husband and a bunch of kids. I suspect it would be replicated up and down the country.

    Anecdotal evidence is the best evidence.


  • Options
    #66
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    paleoperson wrote: »
    But when you buy coffee you actually get something in return. You get something that's nourishing (coffee has health benefits) and also physiologically stimulating and appealing.

    Lotto is all in the head, it's a swindle. The person thinks they're getting a good deal but they're not. No animal intentionally acts in a way it believed was not to its interests. It would be like shooting itself in the foot. When people play the lotto it's because they start thinking about winning and it feels like a real thing that could happen for them. I know on paper they understand that in the long run they are worse off but it's clearly not getting through to them in some way.



    Believe it or not but some people have actual places to go in the day time - like a job. They don't have the luxury of being able to make coffee at home all the time, I'm sure they would do that most of the time if they were at home.

    mikemac2 don't talk to me.

    Nourishment from coffee hahahahahaha Clutching at more straws than a scarecrow knocking one off the wrist. Hahahahajaja


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    paleoperson wrote: »
    I think it's just as predatory if not more so. Acting as someone friendly and trying to squeeze money is a common tactic used by private entities from the local shopkeeper to a bank manager. The objective of a private company is to make money, the objective of the government is to serve and protect its people.

    Not condoning any types but least with real life bingo or roulette there's a social element, card games can be interesting and require skill. It's quite ironic how the government is meant to be monitoring and protecting people from predatory gambling operations and meanwhile is operating the biggest most soulless one of them all.

    !NEWSFLASH! The govt no longer own the National Lottery.


  • Options
    #68
    paleoperson
    Registered Users Posts: 3,522 ✭✭✭paleoperson


    Amy Purple Sellout wrote: »
    Money is simply a medium of exchange for wealth, by it's nature does not support wealth distribution as default. It has no bias.
    Actual Distribution (in terms of wealth-distribution) is a human or policy-led factor.

    That's why I said money and an economic system. Cutting someone off mid-sentence and saying why it's wrong is not very productive.
    Amy Purple Sellout wrote: »
    I would strongly advise anyone to avoid all all costs any RNG, random(); script events, or 'virtual' type engines including poker, casino, bingo, games for an hugh array of reasons. Avoid also, scratchies for a couple of more specific reasons.

    Why would you advise them of anything? The more mistakes they make, the more you gain. No offence but you seem to be falling into the fallacy that money is appearing from nowhere yourself. If you advise people on avoiding an accident and it works, then that's great. If you advise someone on how to play a gambling system, if they benefit then it's only at the loss of someone else. You're only hurting someone the exact same as you're helping someone so why bother.


  • Options
    #69
    paleoperson
    Registered Users Posts: 3,522 ✭✭✭paleoperson


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Nourishment from coffee hahahahahaha Clutching at more straws than a scarecrow knocking one off the wrist. Hahahahajaja

    Great job at laughing at your own ignorance of nutrition - coffee has lots of vitamins and minerals in it and countless health benefits from its antioxidants. It provides most of the antioxidants in the typical American's diets and reduces the incidence of many cancers and illnesses.
    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Anecdotal evidence is the best evidence.

    That's quite true very often. It's such an awful car-crash when the person trying to be smart and sarcastic is actually full of **** themselves.


  • Options
    #70
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    paleoperson wrote: »
    Great job at laughing at your own ignorance of nutrition - coffee has lots of vitamins and minerals in it and countless health benefits from its antioxidants. It provides most of the antioxidants in the typical American's diets and reduces the incidence of many cancers and illnesses.



    That's quite true very often. It's such an awful car-crash when the person trying to be smart and sarcastic is actually full of **** themselves.

    Bwahahahahaha. Any beverage or food containing caffeine such as coffee, tea, chocolate and some sodas can inhibit the absorption of vitamins and minerals and increase their excretion from the body.


  • Options
    #71
    Millionaire only not
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭Millionaire only not


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    !NEWSFLASH! The govt no longer own the National Lottery.

    They sold it to build the children’s hospital !
    Guess what they got the budget wrong and tenders all messed up for the hospital so effectively they gave away the lottery !

    Any clown that could believe they could build an oval shape building on a tight budget needs head examined!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    paleoperson wrote: »
    That's why I said money and an economic system.
    It's a medium (or vehicle) of wealth storage, or transfer (if desired), it is not a system in itself.
    paleoperson wrote: »
    Why would you advise them of anything? The more mistakes they make, the more you gain.
    Incorrect (in terms of the specalised lotto I would use), player actions have no bearing on the (guaranteed) amount made available.
    Other Accumulators also have no bearing, as they are small stake high yield multi-liners, so won't affect any single market directly.

    It seems you are trying to bag anyone who plays the odd lucky dip on the weekend lotto, as actively hindering wealth distribution. This theory has no basis.

    If you are actually interested in distribution, then campaign for more, and better active direct taxation. Also start a campaign for UBI along with closing of corporate loopholes and fiscal sandwiches.


  • Options
    #73
    paleoperson
    Registered Users Posts: 3,522 ✭✭✭paleoperson


    Amy Purple Sellout wrote: »
    It's a medium (or vehicle) of wealth storage, or transfer (if desired), it is not a system in itself.

    What the hell are you talking about? I just pointed out how you can't just cut out a part of a sentence, without even taking the entire sentence and here you are back stating the exact same thing and doing the exact same snipping again.

    Again I said "money and economic system". Money is not just a "storage" or "medium" as you say because it's legal tender. It's the only thing governments will accept as tax or fine payment or is given as compensation or can be created by government. Now just shut up and don't try to find an issue with that obvious remark about money. I didn't make any mistake in that sentence, I don't know why you're trying to latch onto this.

    I mean you said that exact same thing the last time you wrote a post. Did you think people were going to learn something from your post? Did you think your little lecture about money was going to inform anyone or help anyone's understanding? The rest of your post is even more nonsensical garbage that I don't care to even go over.

    You were doing ok if you just accepted my last post which was simple and clear and just common sense - these bizarre avenues you're going down as some kind of pseudo-rebuttal shows to me you're a contrarian and not worth arguing with.


  • Options
    #74
    AllForIt
    Registered Users Posts: 8,454 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    It would be so nice not to have to spend money wisely.


  • Options
    #75
    Still waters
    Registered Users Posts: 1,166 ✭✭✭Still waters


    I cant see the point of 1 person winning millions, why cant we have 20 guaranteed winners twice a week of 250 thousand each and smaller prizes descending from 100k to 10k for another 30, at the end of the year 2400 people would have some money in their pocket rather than a lucky few having enough for 2 lifetimes

    The lotto gave away nearly half a billion in 2018, surely theres a fairer way to distribute wealth other than a game of chance and in the process making a difference in a lot of peoples lives


  • Options
    #76
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    paleoperson wrote: »
    The perfect solution would be that they gain $0 wouldn't it? ie. no lotto or gambling schemes at all, to not exist at all.
    This is the only part of your post that has any slight bearing of meaning, the rest is mostly jibberish.

    The main issue was with you earlier equating "money and 'an' economic system" - to hindering wealth distribution, is a vague and empty statement.
    Yes money in itself is simply a tool, but with that, you mention a single (non plural) 'system' (of which you didn't specify). NKorea has a fiscal system, so does luxembourg, both very different.

    'Banning all lottos or sports bets' further displays your ignorance. Unless you want some fantasy N.Korea communist system.

    After many years the US is now reversing it's betting laws, even in the biblebelt, this is due to the unregulated black market gaining from it (no tax revenue).
    I.e. You can't 'ban it' 100% succesfully, thus you can only regulate it. It can be 'heavily regulated' however, and the only question is how much regulation to apply.

    The lotto in itself, is largely harmless entertainment - compared to some other avenues that you could focus on instead.


  • Options
    #77
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users Posts: 43,028 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    It gives people hope for a few hours or days to get out of the sh1t they are in

    It’s a valuable service for a large section of the nation when you actually think about it

    No hope = trouble


  • Options
    #78
    Fiery mutant
    Registered Users Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Fiery mutant


    You have a better chance of getting cancer from smoking than you do playing the lotto and winning.

    Yet there are people in here calling those playing the lotto stupid. I wonder how many of them smoke?

    We should defend our way of life to an extent that any attempt on it is crushed, so that any adversary will never make such an attempt in the future.



  • Options
    #79
    Blaizes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 809 ✭✭✭Blaizes


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    !NEWSFLASH! The govt no longer own the National Lottery.

    Heard they sold it but who owns it now?


  • Options
    #80
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Still waters wrote: »
    I cant see the point of 1 person winning millions, why cant we have 20 guaranteed winners twice a week of 250 thousand each and smaller prizes descending from 100k to 10k for another 30, at the end of the year 2400 people would have some money in their pocket rather than a lucky few having enough for 2 lifetimes
    You're simply playing the wrong lotto, other lottos and sub-lottos are available.
    Still waters wrote: »
    The lotto gave away nearly half a billion in 2018, surely theres a fairer way to distribute wealth other than a game of chance and in the process making a difference in a lot of peoples lives
    This game is voluntary, asking for a show of hands for anyone to pay more income, property or inheritance taxes would be met with very few hands raised


  • Options
    #81
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Blaizes wrote: »
    Heard they sold it but who owns it now?
    On 3 October 2013, Minister Howlin announced that the government had agreed to sell the National Lottery licence for €405 million to Premier Lotteries Ireland, a consortium comprising An Post, An Post pension funds, and the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan (owner of the Camelot Group, operators of the UK National Lottery).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Blaizes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 809 ✭✭✭Blaizes


    Amy Purple Sellout wrote: »
    On 3 October 2013, Minister Howlin announced that the government had agreed to sell the National Lottery licence for €405 million to Premier Lotteries Ireland, a consortium comprising An Post, An Post pension funds, and the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan (owner of the Camelot Group, operators of the UK National Lottery).

    Sorry for all the questions but does any of our money ( when we play lotto) go towards supporting Irish charities anymore?


  • Options
    #83
    The Oort Cloud
    Registered Users Posts: 470 ✭✭The Oort Cloud


    I do the Euro-millions now and again, but to call it a tax is braindead. People have a choice on whether to do it or not, it is not forced on any-one. Who know's, some-one on this thread could all of a sudden got the urge to do it out of the blue and they win it, it happens all the time. The Irish lotto I will not touch with a barge-pole as it is a joke now since they added extra numbers last time, the Euro-millions though the odd time is no loss of cash, but you just never know :D

    Individual people have different thoughts and understanding in regard to others opinions, but the problem is this... there are some people out there that will do everything in their power to cut you off when they do not like your opinion even when it is truth.

    https://youtu.be/v8EseBe4eIU



  • Options
    #84
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Blaizes wrote: »
    Sorry for all the questions but does any of our money ( when we play lotto) go towards supporting Irish charities anymore?
    Still does, the question is what percent, and is it enough.

    They state 'around' 30% goes to good causes.
    https://irish.national-lottery.com/good-causes

    A quick guestimate would be that approx 35-40% goes to prizefund.

    Thus leaving the rest (maybe up to 35%) mainly into profits for private pension funds. There would also be some small % to running costs, but nothing too significant as once hardware is established it's mainly a digital event. Possibly some tax also, after all deductions.


  • Options
    #85
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,578 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    A reminder to keep discussion civil. Some of the posts in this thread have gone too far and if there re repeats of this type of behaviour sanctions will be applied

    Any questions PM me - do not respond to this post in thread


  • Options
    #86
    Still waters
    Registered Users Posts: 1,166 ✭✭✭Still waters


    Amy Purple Sellout wrote: »
    You're simply playing the wrong lotto, other lottos and sub-lottos are available.


    This game is voluntary, asking for a show of hands for anyone to pay more income, property or inheritance taxes would be met with very few hands raised

    Is there a national lottery similar in kind to the idea I've put forward?

    I never said it wasn't voluntary and I'm not advocating taxing anyone, I'm not sure what you're getting at tbh


  • Options
    #87
    Blaizes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 809 ✭✭✭Blaizes


    Amy Purple Sellout wrote: »
    Still does, the question is what percent, and is it enough.

    They state 'around' 30% goes to good causes.
    https://irish.national-lottery.com/good-causes

    A quick guestimate would be that approx 35-40% goes to prizefund.

    Thus leaving the rest (maybe up to 35%) mainly into profits for private pension funds. There would also be some small % to running costs, but nothing too significant as once hardware is established it's mainly a digital event. Possibly some tax also, after all deductions.

    Pity they had to sell it off maybe Irish customer base is too small but seems like we are selling off everything and the thing is we started it and yet we’re unable to maintain it.


  • Options
    #88
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Still waters wrote: »
    Is there a national lottery similar in kind to the idea I've put forward?
    In terms of higher yield for the average punter, you can cancel out the middlemen, to just one singular middleman.

    e.g. Euromillions at the bookies or elsewhere will return 1.5k for 3 correct main balls (from 3 picks only). Whereas getting 3 correct on the regular em-ticket (from 6) would return just €11.

    But the onus would (idealy) then be on the punter, to give 10% (or more) to good causes themselves, for any significant wins.


  • Options
    #89
    skinny90
    Registered Users Posts: 2,477 ✭✭✭skinny90


    I think lotto hq needs to do more ethically. years ago I worked in a news agent and the amount of old people who would spend (daily) in excessive 30/40 euro on lotto tickets Telly bingo and scratch cards...
    Granted there would be winners but it does add up, theyre just putting in their little winnings back into the system
    If a cap could be implemented somehow then I would be hugely in favor

    The actual lotto and causes it supports I am in favor, the increasing advertising number of draws per day/week and games I dont support


  • Options
    #90
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,118 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Amy Purple Sellout wrote: »

    Thus leaving the rest (maybe up to 35%) mainly into profits for private pension funds. There would also be some small % to running costs, but nothing too significant as once hardware is established it's mainly a digital event. Possibly some tax also, after all deductions.
    You are underplaying the costs involved. Check out the Annual Reports of the Regulator.
    Blaizes wrote: »
    Heard they sold it but who owns it now?
    They sold the operating contract. The Government still owns the Lottery, but a consortium to operate it for a number of years was issued to a consortium of Camelot (UK operator) and a Canadian teacher's pension fund.

    paleoperson wrote: »
    Not condoning any types but least with real life bingo or roulette there's a social element, card games can be interesting and require skill. It's quite ironic how the government is meant to be monitoring and protecting people from predatory gambling operations and meanwhile is operating the biggest most soulless one of them all.
    There a far more social element to the Lottery. All those water-cooler and dinner time conversations about 'what if' are the real social element. That's what people actually pay for.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    Blaizes wrote: »
    Heard they sold it but who owns it now?

    Canadian Teachers Retirement fund from what I can remember.


Advertisement