Why doesn't Utah have a Lottery?
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
I'm not sure either. The obvious con is that people spend money on it, especially the poor, so I'm sure there's some sort of humanitarian personal "we're saving them from themselves" reason (which tends to be why gambling, drugs, prostitution, and most actions/things that don't have a direct victim are criminalized) that they use. Most states tend to think the tax revenue is more important than someone blowing $5-10 a week on the lottery is worth it, but I'll give the LDS church this, they do stick to their principles and more importantly, are pretty consistent with them, which I find admirable, as much as I disagree with many of them.
fatchipper
Well-Known Member
All I know is that I breathe a sigh of relief when I cross the Idaho border and don't have to worry about potholes on the freeway.
I think it's great that the lottery says they donate millions a year to schools, but how come we never see the results?
I remember in Oklahoma last year, they were cutting lots of teachers due to lack of funds, and then reading another article telling
me the lottery donoted many millions of dollars to Oklahoma education.
I think either the millions given aren't used well, or the press people do a poor job of really telling us where the money goes.
I remember in Oklahoma last year, they were cutting lots of teachers due to lack of funds, and then reading another article telling
me the lottery donoted many millions of dollars to Oklahoma education.
I think either the millions given aren't used well, or the press people do a poor job of really telling us where the money goes.
The Black Swordsman
Well-Known Member
The lottery is exactly the opposite of spreading the wealth. Not being present in Utah is a good thing imeo.
The money doesn't just come from nowhere. It comes from people's pockets. If you want more money to help the school districts, why doesn't Utah just raise taxes by $37,000,000, with a fairly regressive tax distribution? It would accomplish the same thing with less overhead.
7StraightIsGreat
Well-Known Member
Nate505 Wrote:
Will I agree with this statement, the problem is that having/not having a lottery should be a state issue, not a religious one. The church's obvious influence on this topic once again shows the complete lack of speration of church and state in Utah. I see mostly pro's with a lottery and this is coming from somebody who would probably never buy a ticket. And as far as the state possibly not wanting it because they're worried about poor people spending too much money on lottery ticketes, is it our job to police what people are or aren't spending their money on? If we start thinking like that, where do we draw the line? Should we sell movie tickets to poor people when they should be putting that money towards something else?
Will I agree with this statement, the problem is that having/not having a lottery should be a state issue, not a religious one. The church's obvious influence on this topic once again shows the complete lack of speration of church and state in Utah. I see mostly pro's with a lottery and this is coming from somebody who would probably never buy a ticket. And as far as the state possibly not wanting it because they're worried about poor people spending too much money on lottery ticketes, is it our job to police what people are or aren't spending their money on? If we start thinking like that, where do we draw the line? Should we sell movie tickets to poor people when they should be putting that money towards something else?
So what if it comes from peoples' pockets? It's a voluntary tax. You don't have to buy a ticket, but those who do buy tickets contribute to the fund. Instead of raising everyone's taxes, why not allow this voluntary tax?
Every other state lottery is a redistribution of wealth from their state to Utah through federal income taxes. We're one of the few states smart enough to not take a huge chunk of our local economy and export it to the Treasury. It's much more beneficial to get the money through tax revenues than to lock up a couple hundred million inside one pocket while taking 35%+ of that money out of your economy.
The church has a lot of influence in Utah because (as Nate pointed out) many legislative positions are held by Mormons. They, just like anyone else, are going to do what they do according to their beliefs, and it is completely unreasonable to expect otherwise.
The implication that the State government is some sort of puppet of the LDS church is laughable. If this was the case, I'd imagine all the "fun" stuff (you know - alcohol, tobacco, R rated movies, bikinis, etc...) would be flat-out against the rules (think about how many "dry" counties there are in the United States - there are hundreds, in case you're wondering).
If your idea of separation of church and state is that anyone in an administrative position must divorce themselves from their beliefs, you need to study up a bit.
You're on a roll, homie.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
So then why do you think lotteries, decent beer, medical marijuana, online gambling, Indian casinos, and now happy hour, are all illegal? You don't think the LSD church has anything to do with that?
If they push their agenda in California (the gay marriage bill) why wouldn't they push it in Utah?
7StraightIsGreat
Well-Known Member
Bronc Wrote:
Actually, I think it is completely within reason to ask a Mormon, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, etc. who holds a legislative position to try and govern in way that represents each and every one of the people in his or her state. Passing a law based off of whether or not it agrees with your religious beliefs and/or because it's what the predominant religion in your state would want is not a very ethical way to govern. Unfortunately, while I may think it's completely reasonable to expect a govermnet to function like that, I realize that it seldomly, if ever does.
You say this, but just how "laughable" is it when you also say this:
So let me see if I've got this right: It's laughable that I think the Utah State government is a "puppet" (your word, not mine) of the LDS church, yet the church has " a lot of influence" in Utah because many of the legislative positions are held by Mormons who are voting on things based off of their religious beliefs.
You're right, I have not idea how I could possibly have made the connection that the LDS church is the driving political force in Utah. My apologies.
Actually, I think it is completely within reason to ask a Mormon, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, etc. who holds a legislative position to try and govern in way that represents each and every one of the people in his or her state. Passing a law based off of whether or not it agrees with your religious beliefs and/or because it's what the predominant religion in your state would want is not a very ethical way to govern. Unfortunately, while I may think it's completely reasonable to expect a govermnet to function like that, I realize that it seldomly, if ever does.
You say this, but just how "laughable" is it when you also say this:
So let me see if I've got this right: It's laughable that I think the Utah State government is a "puppet" (your word, not mine) of the LDS church, yet the church has " a lot of influence" in Utah because many of the legislative positions are held by Mormons who are voting on things based off of their religious beliefs.
You're right, I have not idea how I could possibly have made the connection that the LDS church is the driving political force in Utah. My apologies.
You completely missed the point, jazzman12 (Salty did too.)
There is a difference between influence and control. Of course the church has influence, when its members make up the majority of the state population. But your inference was (by the mention of separation of church and state) that the church controls, not influences, policy in the state. This just isn't correct. Whether or not legislators who are LDS are doing the right or ethical thing was not part of my post. You are pursuing a completely different line of argument there (and one which you may be surprised by how much we agree...)
The fact of the matter is, no matter where you go, local culture influences the governmental presence.
There is a difference between influence and control. Of course the church has influence, when its members make up the majority of the state population. But your inference was (by the mention of separation of church and state) that the church controls, not influences, policy in the state. This just isn't correct. Whether or not legislators who are LDS are doing the right or ethical thing was not part of my post. You are pursuing a completely different line of argument there (and one which you may be surprised by how much we agree...)
The fact of the matter is, no matter where you go, local culture influences the governmental presence.
asian_roger
Well-Known Member
Mormons.
asian_roger
Well-Known Member
7StraightIsGreat
Well-Known Member
I can see where you're coming from with this post, but for the record, I never said the Mormon church "controls" the state of Utah. Do I think Mormon influence's seep into our government and effect the outcome of many decisions made at the state level? Absolutley, and looking at it that way, I think it's more than fair to say that qualifies as a lack of seperation from church and state.
It's also not just a Utah/LDS issue. This happens everywhere. The dry counties you mentioned in your prior post are usually the result of local bible thumpers who want to keep their county sin free in their eyes.