Issue: should states endorse lotteries to fund scholarships?
Lotteries help more than they hurt
Thomas Shattuck
Issue date: 12/5/07 Section: Issues
- Page 1 of 1
Tennessee, along with 42 other states, employs a lottery system to increase the budget. While the scheme is attractive in theory, there are some concerns with its practice. One major concern has to do with who actually buys the tickets. It turns out that, by far, those most likely to purchase lottery tickets are from the lowest rungs of the socioeconomic ladder. Given the public revenue generated by lotteries is disproportionately taken from the poor and working classes, many have criticized state lotteries as regressive. So is this therefore a reason not to support state lotteries?
The best reply, here, in defense of lotteries is that they wouldn't hurt any demographic if the revenue they raised was allocated in a progressive fashion. For example, the New York Lottery donates approximately 32.9 percent of its revenue to education. In the 2006-07 year this accounted for $2.4 billion of the education budget. Basically, if lotteries distributed a sizable portion of those funds to impoverished and struggling schools, the charge of lotteries as "regressive" loses some of its sting.
Furthermore, the revenue collected is not just used for elementary and high schools; it is often used to fund an arguably more important cause: college scholarships. In Georgia, the HOPE Scholarship (Helping Outstanding Pupils Educationally) provides $3,000 with an add-on of $900 to state residents attending private universities and full tuition with a book allowance to those attending public universities. The scholarship has helped over nine hundred thousand students since its inception in 1993, using mainly lottery revenue. The state of Tennessee runs a similar program that has built-in residency and GPA requirements. As we can see, the lottery provides the opportunity for many students to pursue higher education without loans or at least for a lot cheaper than it would be otherwise.
Admittedly, this does not get around the fact some people spend an exorbitant amount of money on the tickets and never win, largely people who are poor. Nonetheless, the question is whether the government should cut a program that provides a huge source of income used for vital public services, such as education. I hate to be cold; there is a point where a person's own responsibility should kick in. The government is in existence to prevent us from hurting each other, not to prevent individuals from making poor choices which hurt themselves. When it comes down to it, the benefits for the whole of society that lotteries provide outweigh the harm done to (mostly) poorer individuals who choose to purchase the tickets.
From this standpoint of personal responsibility, there's nothing inherently unfair with the current state lottery system. Against the charge it is a regressive means of funding social goods, we should remember those who the buy the tickets are free not to do so.
Also, in some cases like Georgia and Tennessee, lotteries have proven effective in helping fund the vital institution of public education, from elementary school through university. In the end, the legitimacy of the system comes down to how the system is run; given the much-needed funds they generate for education, it appears that state lotteries are run quite well. The costs of generating funds disproportionately from the poor (who are free not to purchase the tickets) are outweighed by the tremendous social benefits the revenue enables.
The best reply, here, in defense of lotteries is that they wouldn't hurt any demographic if the revenue they raised was allocated in a progressive fashion. For example, the New York Lottery donates approximately 32.9 percent of its revenue to education. In the 2006-07 year this accounted for $2.4 billion of the education budget. Basically, if lotteries distributed a sizable portion of those funds to impoverished and struggling schools, the charge of lotteries as "regressive" loses some of its sting.
Furthermore, the revenue collected is not just used for elementary and high schools; it is often used to fund an arguably more important cause: college scholarships. In Georgia, the HOPE Scholarship (Helping Outstanding Pupils Educationally) provides $3,000 with an add-on of $900 to state residents attending private universities and full tuition with a book allowance to those attending public universities. The scholarship has helped over nine hundred thousand students since its inception in 1993, using mainly lottery revenue. The state of Tennessee runs a similar program that has built-in residency and GPA requirements. As we can see, the lottery provides the opportunity for many students to pursue higher education without loans or at least for a lot cheaper than it would be otherwise.
Admittedly, this does not get around the fact some people spend an exorbitant amount of money on the tickets and never win, largely people who are poor. Nonetheless, the question is whether the government should cut a program that provides a huge source of income used for vital public services, such as education. I hate to be cold; there is a point where a person's own responsibility should kick in. The government is in existence to prevent us from hurting each other, not to prevent individuals from making poor choices which hurt themselves. When it comes down to it, the benefits for the whole of society that lotteries provide outweigh the harm done to (mostly) poorer individuals who choose to purchase the tickets.
From this standpoint of personal responsibility, there's nothing inherently unfair with the current state lottery system. Against the charge it is a regressive means of funding social goods, we should remember those who the buy the tickets are free not to do so.
Also, in some cases like Georgia and Tennessee, lotteries have proven effective in helping fund the vital institution of public education, from elementary school through university. In the end, the legitimacy of the system comes down to how the system is run; given the much-needed funds they generate for education, it appears that state lotteries are run quite well. The costs of generating funds disproportionately from the poor (who are free not to purchase the tickets) are outweighed by the tremendous social benefits the revenue enables.
Be the first to comment on this story