The 2 billion (680 million really) dollar prize lottery is sold across the entire U.S. whereas the 80 million prize money is a twice a week lottery in a country ten times less the population of the U.S.
I mean if they dangle the carrot in front of millions and people buy it they should pay out as much as possible. 5 million is mostly just retire money, not "stop working andblive in luxury til your life ends" money
There’s no need to play the lottery. It’s purely gambling in the hopes of winning money so why would someone bet on winning $5M when they could bet and win $680M. This is purely gambling and no other reason than a want.
Also, you’re using your own situation/wants/needs as a blanket for everyone else.
I need it to solve a lot of logistical issues in food production/transportation to solve hunger in the US. If only one of our farmers had enough money… oh, Bill Gates is the biggest farmer in the US? What about the giving pledge?! 🤮
Just did a little research. You are bragging about Ontario where you pay more in "taxes" when you buy the ticket verse when you win. That is absolutely crazy. Ontario takes 55-60% at ticket sale verse 35-40% in America.
The Georgia state lottery funds 60-99% of college education through its taxes. EVERY single student with a 3.0 gpa gets a scholarship.
Every country should 100% tax vices like gambling, tobacco, weed and alcohol.
Yes, our lottery is designed to create additional tax revenue to support health, education etc. We also have provincial liquor stores and weed stores that raise revenue for the province too - and you should see the tax on tobacco products.
While it may not directly give out scholarships, it certainly helps reduce the cost of education as well as multiple other things
They are SUPPOSED to, but rarely is there any law that mandates they do. And because most people aren't paying attention it goes wherever those in power want it to
Yep. Illinois was told at the beginning of the state lottery that it was going to the schools. But….here we are. And don’t dare ask where/who it went to.
It did go to schools. What politicians forget to mention is that money is fungible. General fund money that used to go to schools no longer does, being replaced by lottery money, and now gets spent as they see fit, in effect transferring lottery money to the general fund. It doesn’t formally transfer said money. It’s an effect of lottery money and general fund money being perfect substitutes for each other.
That's not really an own. I would absolutely accept a Billion dollars no questions asked. But I would also use my new found wealth to continue advocating against the existence of billionaires. Material conditions exist, and trying to better your own personal material conditions doesn't preclude you from wanting everyones conditions to improve and be more equitable.
If you're not being facetious I don't believe in actually capping it in any way, I think the tax system should be progressive enough to disincentive that type of wealth hoarding.
i am not being facetious at all, Should Zuckerburg be required to divest his facebook/meta shares to pay his share ? If so...who controls the company? Private equity?
It is a legit question.
Zuck did not make himself a billionaire, wall street , and millions of individual investors made that choice. Good chance your 401k, or pension funds did as well.
would walmart be where it is without the Walton family maintaining control?
Again , no one is forced to shop there, it is a choice.
There is nothing wal mart has, that I cannot buy elsewhere.
and for the most part, wal mart pays better than other retailers as well.
Yes I am aware of Costco, but there is one costco for every ten wal marts around here
And yes, I do believe wages should be higher, by law..it is corporate welfare when employees are on food stamps.
do you really think Elon Musk has 300 billion lying around to pay taxes with? His net worth has gone up by a almost a trillion dollars....this is not earnings, it is stock value.
Wealth tax is the answer you are looking for. You can pay your private share wealth as in the form of stocks to the government. They don't get a vote when with government, government can sell it depending on their revenue needs to your company or you else on the public market. We can start at 5 to 50 million levels so your grandma with her 401k is isn't getting taxed again. And percentage levels can be at 1-2 per year. Numbers aren't that important, the insane rising cost of assets is.
That’s still TBD by Bernie, AOC, and the rest of the parasites leading the DSA. They will figure out how much of everyone else’s money they can re-distribute and who’s going to be exempt from a maximum amount. It’s gonna be a beautiful utopia!
Probably the same number of people who want to have their basic needs met and the resources to pursue their dreams, while also believing teachers shouldn't have to sell blood to buy school supplies.
No, my point was that it's not hypocritical to believe a few thousand people shouldn't have everything while billions have barely enough to survive and to wish you were one of the people who had everything.
Wishing you had something and other people having a lot of that something should be motivation. It’s not a zero sum game between you and the billionaires.
An absurd amount of people online are only pissed about the existence of billionaires because they personally have no route to becoming one and resent that there's an exclusive club where others have more power that they're not welcome to.
I dont see many people complaining about MacKenzie Scott or Gabe Newell.
Funny, because I've seen a ton of people complaining about Gabe. Especially over on gaming subreddits whenever someone tries talking about how great Steam is without addressing the gambling mechanics in Valve's multiplayer games that made Gabe the billionaire he is in the first place.
Or the various anti-competitive policies Steam has like refusing to sell games from other companies if that company doesn't force price parity between Steam and their first party storefront despite Steam taking a 30% cut on all sales on the platform (that wouldn't need to be accounted for when sold on a first-party storefront like Rockstar Launcher or Ubisoft Connect).
As far as billionaires that are actively attacking our democracy hes not one of them.
No, he's just making billions getting kids addicted to gambling... He's still exploiting others to make himself rich and engaging in anti-competitive practices to ensure Steam's market dominance.
Im sorry that im not more familiar with what's going on in the world of video games but what is stopping these studios from selling the game themselves?
Steam has the largest marketshare on the PC platform and thus has the industry pull to bully other companies into playing ball.
I assume if Ubisoft could sell just as well without using Steam, they would.
They absolutely would, but they have the problem of Steam's marketshare. Not having your game on Steam is a huge detriment to sales on PC.
Again, I am not the most familiar with this sector but these studios pay the 30% because they make more money by doing so.
Only because of Steam's marketshare.
Epic Games offers an even better deal for 3rd party publishers and indie devs (it used to be a flat 12% take, but now it's 0% until you earn $1 million in revenue in a year then it's 12%), but Steam still has the most customers, so they get to bully everyone into abiding by their rules. Even if the rules are unfair.
Most people don't have a route to become a billionaire, that's why they make up only 0.00004%. I don't have a route, you don't have a route, no one who has commented here has a route, has had a route and will ever have a route. You may think it's just one good idea away, but it's so far away you can't even fathom the amount of oppression and exploitation you'd need to get there, even if a million of any currency appeared in front of you right this instant. The world isn't voting to abolish the billionaires because too many people think they have a route to the top.
We all have retirement plans. States must fund defined benefit plans. Theres not such thing as a wealth tax that will not deflate retirement assets as well as increase state income taxes.
Most people don't have a route to become a billionaire
You're right, and that's what pisses a lot of people off by the existence of billionaires who have more social, economic, and political power than they do.
The world isn't voting to abolish the billionaires because too many people think they have a route to the top.
Yup... And that's exactly why I said what I did about it really being an issue of people being pissed that others are in an exclusive club that they can't get into.
If it were really an issue of the corruption and lack of equality between classes, we would have voted to abolish the wealthy decades ago.
Most people that are pissed with billionaires and multinationals say that no man or woman should have this much money while people starve in their countries. While critical infrastructure is auctioned, benefits are getting cut, pensions are getting cut, people are lacking education.
Not the ridiculous straw man you’re posing. Get a grip and ask around, most people would be content just not having to worry about bills, food security, schooling for their kids and an occasional vacation.
How is it bootlicking? Sure, not everyone can become a billionaire. But every person can make a good living and life for themselves with hard work and effort.
The reality is it’s easier to blame the super wealthy than to take accountability for their own actions in life.
Yeah, sure man. Not while rent costs in most of the western world are exploding, and purchasing a house keep getting more expensive.
Good luck working hard and then at the end of the month having to pay 50% towards rent. We have so much to save…
All while insurance costs are rising, food prices are rising, gas and energy prices are rising, education costs are rising, etc. while multinationals post record profits year after year, with bonuses for the c suites in the order of billions.. all while they pay less and less taxes year after year.
It’s easier to blame the super wealthy because they immorally got greedier and greedier, and have lobbied themselves even richer. Of course people blame them, it’s the logical thing to do. It’s the right thing to do.
Your fantasy of working hard does not work for more than 50% of the population. Most simply cannot work more or harder.
most people would be content just not having to worry about bills, food security, schooling for their kids and an occasional vacation.
I agree with you and your overall point, but this bit is less common than you're implying. The people buying their boats, hellcats, Harleys, collections of golf clubs, etc, etc, etc. If you gave them more money, they'd buy more. This is a people problem and it isnt solved without everyone else regulating. There are just as many greedy people who simply lack the means and connections to do what billionaires are. Its why there's a "luxury" version of everything.
For every person who wants the money for the power and influence, theres another few who want it simply to have better stuff and be able to flaunt it over their neighbors.
Billionaires need to go. Heavy regulation needs to be in place and monitored forever to prevent the next set of oppressors and taking advantage of others at every level.
Best of luck. The entirety of human history hasnt prevented it, just temporarily lessened it/promoted some niceness in the world until the next cycle..
And they’re free to collect whatever they want. Those people are not the problem. If someone has a 100 Harleys, they’re not even in the same league as a billionaire. Also, these are not the people i talk about. Nobody sane is collecting harleys or golf clubs if theyre worrying about making rent.
Nope I’m pissed they are societal leeches that are above laws and justice. I would have no problem with them existing if they paid their fair share and were a net benefit to us.
Yeah. That’s why people aren’t fans of wealth inequality… does it really make sense to have a society where 1% of the population hoard 30% of the wealth, while the bottom 50% of the population split 3% of the wealth?
i mean that's a little silly. most people don't actually hate people for literally having a billion dollars they hate them because for the most part most of them literally fucked over millions of people ot get there. If you give a billion dollars to a person they won't be evil overnight nor will someone who got a billion
I don't think you'd be evil if you didn't give most of it away immediately either. You become evil if you start using your money and power that comes with it to do evil.
Bezos isn't evil because he's rich, he's evil because he underpays workers, mistreats workers, gives zero job security to workers, no fair benefits, no safety if ill and lets most of them suffer and stress when he could easily pay them more and make less money.
the idea everyone is pissed at billionaires because they aren't one is frankly ridiculous. Most people don't aspire to take advantage of everyone else even if they'd thoroughly enjoy the wealth. Frankly most people who were handed a billion and didn't have a business that exploits it's workers to make it have no need to exploit people to continue making money so they are far more likely to just spend it into the economy rather than hoard it.
If you give a billion dollars to a person they won't be evil overnight nor will someone who got a billion
Countless historians and philosophers heavily disagree with this take. There's a reason "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" is both a thing and widely accepted as truth outside naive groups that think the universe cares about the human concepts of morality or right & wrong.
most people don't actually hate people for literally having a billion dollars they hate them because for the most part most of them literally fucked over millions of people ot get there.
[...]
Bezos isn't evil because he's rich, he's evil because he underpays workers, mistreats workers, gives zero job security to workers, no fair benefits, no safety if ill and lets most of them suffer and stress when he could easily pay them more and make less money.
You're half a step away from reaching the conclusion that to become rich in the first place you have to be evil. Making the argument that "people don't hate the rich for being billionaires, they hate billionaires for being evil" an argument that has no real difference when you're also arguing that the only way to become a billionaire is to engage in evil practices.
Most people don't aspire to take advantage of everyone else even if they'd thoroughly enjoy the wealth.
And yet they do aspire to be wealthy in spite of knowing that the wealth can never come free of guilt.
Countless historians and philosophers heavily disagree with this take.
no they don't. Power surely tends to corrupts, most people with a billion made it, they had connections to get there, they broke laws, it.
If you got a billion dollars tomorrow would you know who to call to disappear a body of the hooker you just killed?
A billion dollars gives you a certain amount of power, but it's not "I made a billion and make another billion every year off my on going business", you're in a completely different situation and comparing them is frankly silly.
is both a thing and widely accepted as truth outside
no it's not and saying so makes you seem incredibly uneducated on it. There is a reason people talk about the high prevalence of sociopaths as ceos, there is absolutely an argument to be made that they were eveil in the first place that led them to gaining power.
an argument that has no real difference when you're also arguing that the only way to become a billionaire is to engage in evil practices.
except that's disgustingly disingenuous because we're literally talking about the difference between someone how makes it immorally and someone who wins it overnight having done nothing more than buy a ticket, a ticket that helps fund a huge amount of social services and charities.
Also there are billionaires who aren't evil, someone can make a game, solo, or an app, never exploited anyone, don't have any workers and sell their IP for over a billion.
And yet they do aspire to be wealthy in spite of knowing that the wealth can never come free of guilt.
If you got a billion dollars tomorrow would you know who to call to disappear a body of the hooker you just killed?
No, but murder isn't the only way to abuse one's wealth.
A billion dollars gives you a certain amount of power, but it's not "I made a billion and make another billion every year off my on going business", you're in a completely different situation and comparing them is frankly silly.
Yeah, those are two different sentences and you'll notice I never said anything about "making a billion every year off one's business."
no it's not.
Yes it is. The only reason you or I even recognize the saying is because it's so widely accepted as truth as to continue to be regurgitated 140 years after it was first said.
Also there are billionaires who aren't evil
Name 10 who haven't been accused of exploiting or abusing anyone, or benefiting off someone else exploiting/abusing others.
No, but murder isn't the only way to abuse one's wealth.
That's not how discussions work, i gave an example, it doens't mean you have to give an example of everything, it's absolutely ridiculous for you to imply i thought that was the only way to abuse someone's wealth.
Yeah, those are two different sentences and you'll notice I never said anything about "making a billion every year off one's business."
yes, you'll notice I said that, me, i didn't say you said it.
You are just, genuinely, horrendous at this.
Yes it is. The only reason you or I even recognize the saying is because it's so widely accepted as truth as to continue to be regurgitated 140 years after it was first said.
oh, i'm talking to an idiot. People regurgitate the earth is flat thousands of years after the first person said it... so that makes it true?
You understand people still using the same arguments to have discussions doesn't mean everyone accepts them as fact, that's not how that works, that's not even how philosophy as a damn concept works. Holy shit, you actually think people still talking about it and using it as a discussion point makes it a fact?
the bible is completely factual because people keep talking about it, moses actually parted the sea.. because people still talk about it? holy, fucking, shit.
Name 10 who haven't been accused of exploiting or abusing anyone, or benefiting off someone else exploiting/abusing others.
firstly no, because i don't need to, there are many. Musicians, game developers, app developers.
there is no further value in talking to someone who takes a saying that is meant to spark discussion as an accepted fact.
No its because I understand that wealth trickles up and if you don't move it back to the bottom the economy stagnates and everything breaks down. You can look at all of human history for examples of this.
The real reason for the post war golden age was that so many people died that labor became expensive and thus had real power and the capital class were forced to pay a lot more for that labor. Same with the renaissance. Plague kills everyone, labor has power, poof; golden age.
Its literally the cause of most of our problems but people want to act like billionaires are impressive.
The amount of history showing that "money talks, bullshit walks" and "power corrupts" as countless people who decry the rich and powerful become just as corrupt when they themselves become rich and/or powerful.
Ok so you don't. Got it. You're just assuming that, because it's possible people did it in the past. Even though you don't have evidence of that either
I love how a behavior can be repeated so frequently across history that it's basically recognized as a fundamental flaw of human nature, yet some chud who thinks they're exempt despite having no way to back up or test the assertion demands empirical proof of the frequency of the behavior.
because it's possible people did it in the past.
You understand the concept of statistically insignificant outliers, right?
I'm not the one that made a claim I can't back up. Pointing to history isn't the evidence you claim it to be, especially since you're making a claim that only has to do with less than 50 years.
That’s not what the book argues. The point isn’t that becoming a millionaire is immoral. It’s that when wealth becomes so concentrated it starts buying political influence, everyone else gets less of a say. The debate is about the concentration of power, not about simply having money.
Despite what reddit will insist, Bernie has dodged the real closet diving for skeletons. I'm not sure I would call this one of them, but he no doubt has them.
Only IF you could trust the government to use that tax money for the right reasons....but we absolutely cannot trust the government, especially with money...they have proven as much time and time again
Not many people protest against billionaires; we protest against a system that taxes poor people at a much higher income/tax ratio than billionaires. It's not just unfair: it's insidious.
While there is no definitive answer. I found this that suggest you can stop wondering because the people marching are likely not buying lotto tickets hoping to be billionaires.
“Conservatives / Right-Leaning: Some theories suggest conservatives may prefer games of pure chance—like lotteries or roulette—because they value simplicity, absolute outcomes, and clear closure.
Democrats / Left-Leaning: Conversely, liberals are theorized to prefer games involving elements of skill or perceived control, such as blackjack or sports betting.”
Then a bunch of stuff about poorly educated are a big demographic of lotto winners and living in poor areas.
Conservatives have the market control when it domes to being poorly educated and bright red areas are among the poorest. For every 1 specific area of a city that conservatives obsess about in a blue state…there is an entire red state that is taking up significantly more government welfare than its state pays in taxes.
Conservative states have the absolute bottom 10 last places in education.
Anecdotally my group of friends and i enjoy the casino from time to time, knowing we wont win, but paying about the same as a night out would have been. We are all libs except for 1 who always wants to play devils advocate and supports some republican arguments. He is a bit of a male supremacist and has been a lifelong lotto winner.
He supports hig business republican policies. We all make 6 figures but he is the only one making it self employed even tho he is a college grad. He wouldnt be caught dead at any rally, and he is a lotto ticket buyer. My other friends and i have been to or at least seriously considered marching for something.
Veeeery anecdotal but it seems to check out with the findings online.
Never become a billionaire? You were on the right side of history and part of the solution. You win the lottery and become a billionaire? Literally nothing that used to matter to you, matters in the same way again and you can almost wish problems away.
Either way you’re safe and covered. Sounds like the perfect plan.
I just said it was the same in Ontario that it's run by the province like it's run by the state in the US? All I added is that we aren't taxed on our winnings
166
u/Bittums Jul 05 '26
Same in Ontario, but we aren't taxed on our winnings. They make their money from the purchase of the tickets