By Paul Larson (TMF Parlay)

While Chris may be new to the Dueling Fools scene, he has performed a maneuver worthy of applause. He has turned this from an argument he absolutely cannot win (lotteries as a way to create wealth) to one in which he has a fighting chance. Imagine my initial terror when contemplating how to argue against Chris when he says, "Vote for lower taxes." After all, who does NOT want lower taxes? But then I got to thinking about his logic and my job of rebutting him became exceptionally simple.

Let's face it, we are all going to have to pay for schools, roads, and parks one way or another, and taxes are that one certainty in life. But funding them with the lottery is terribly inefficient, and there are much better ways to collect taxes.

While unfortunate, it is a fact that those who can least afford to play the lottery are often the ones you see standing in line on Saturdays for their stubs. The lottery, by its very nature, appeals little to the wealthy and is extremely attractive to the poor. Those who do not have sufficient means often view the lottery as their "ticket out of here" and their shot at a better life. The sad reality is that the attractiveness of the lottery is inversely related to the wealth of those contemplating playing.

If you then view lotteries as nothing more than a tax collection method (as my opponent does), lotteries end up being a tax on those who can least afford it. Many of these people are on some sort of public aid. Guess who funds the entitlement programs to pay for these people's expenses? That's right -- you do. Through higher taxes. The circle of money flow from welfare checks to lottery tickets ultimately has one input, and that comes from the regular tax-paying public's pockets. Just because you don't play doesn't mean you don't pay.

Furthermore, lotteries as a pure tax collection vehicle are extremely wasteful. We all want our government organizations to be as lean and mean as possible, and state lottery agencies are about as gluttonous and sloppy as any. Can you think of another governmental department that spends (wastes) so much money on advertising? If you view lotteries as a tax, view all this marketing as a governmental expense. I don't know about you, but I can certainly think of better ways to spend the public's money.

Lotteries, as voracious consumers of advertising space, also drive up the cost to other advertisers. This may be a minimal expense in the big picture, but it's still an expense. In addition, think of all the shelf space and manpower at mini-marts across the country that could be used for more purposeful products and services instead of, as Chris asserts, paying taxes.

Let's also look at the actual mechanics involved in playing. I can't tell you the last time I saw a Form 1040 rolling around in my street gutter, but just yesterday, like countless days before, I found a half dozen losing "scratchies" littering the front of my yard.

Vote for the environment! Vote for lottery Bears!

(If such twisted, populist logic works for my opponent, why can't it work for me?)

It comes down to this: If you want to view lotteries as little more than a way to fund the government, there are much more efficient ways of doing so. Remember, even if you don't play the lottery, you end up paying for it in one form or another.

Vote Results »

 This Week's Duel