Why doesn't Utah have a Lottery?

[colton]

I know it's conventional wisdom that the lottery is akin to a regressive tax, but is there actual empirical data to support this? I'm not disputing it--it makes intuitive sense, but conventional wisdom and intuition are frequently wrong.

A little bit of searching and I found this:

https://www.accuracy.org/release/1521-lotteries-a-regressive-tax/
"Although no government agency is willing to call the lottery a tax, it is nonetheless a source of implicit tax revenue. [However,] when subjected to the tests of sound tax policy, it fails... Extensive evidence shows lotteries are regressive, meaning the poor shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden. The lottery is not economically neutral: it distorts consumer spending by applying an unusually high tax rate to a particular product. It is a hidden tax, lacking transparency. Lotteries unnecessarily complicate the tax system. Lottery revenues do not always benefit the programs for which they are earmarked, and voters may feel deceived when they approve lotteries for education only to find that legislators shuffle funds and their states’ public education systems do not benefit significantly. Finally, the use of state-operated gambling monopolies to raise tax revenue poses serious policy questions about government accountability.”

The quote is from Alicia Hansen, from The Tax Foundation. The details of the evidence aren't presented, so it's not a primary source of empirical data. But at least it's something.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

A little bit of searching and I found this:

https://www.accuracy.org/release/1521-lotteries-a-regressive-tax/
"Although no government agency is willing to call the lottery a tax, it is nonetheless a source of implicit tax revenue. [However,] when subjected to the tests of sound tax policy, it fails... Extensive evidence shows lotteries are regressive, meaning the poor shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden. The lottery is not economically neutral: it distorts consumer spending by applying an unusually high tax rate to a particular product. It is a hidden tax, lacking transparency. Lotteries unnecessarily complicate the tax system. Lottery revenues do not always benefit the programs for which they are earmarked, and voters may feel deceived when they approve lotteries for education only to find that legislators shuffle funds and their states’ public education systems do not benefit significantly. Finally, the use of state-operated gambling monopolies to raise tax revenue poses serious policy questions about government accountability.”

The quote is from Alicia Hansen, from The Tax Foundation. The details of the evidence aren't presented, so it's not a primary source of empirical data. But at least it's something.

Should we outlaw cigarettes too? They are highly taxed and target the poor also.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to this line of reasoning, but you aren't covering any new ground here.



I do not deny the church's influence at all. But everyone is influenced by their culture, regardless of what it is. And I would not expect anyone to compartmentalize their belief system.



Because I don't see things the way you see them, right? Got it.

I'll take these in order:

1. No, not breaking new ground, yet for something that you now claim to be so obvious, you failed to consider it in your argument, which is why I brought it to your attention.

2. Yes, everyone is influenced by their culture. BUT, in the US, we have specific constitutional and legal traditions specifying that church and state are to be separate, which complicates the matter. I fully acknowledge that people do not necessarily compartmentalize--but this doesn't mean in some cases they shouldn't. I use the rule of thumb, if your policy preferences are influenced by religious belief, you should be able to articulate a clear secular rationale for the policy. If you cannot, and inevitably rely on religious belief or dogma as the basis for the policy, then it has no place in the policy debate. (This is ultimate the reason why opposition to same-sex marriage will fail in the long-run, there is no strong secular rationale to oppose it, nobody can, for example, articulate any harm that befalls anyone by legalizing it to justify the denial of civil rights to a large group of people. Opposition to it ultimately falls back on religious beliefs about sex and marriage. Well, that and today's generation and future generations increasingly fail to see gays as abstractions but increasingly see them as real people.) For all of the LDS faithful in Utah who see no problem with the degree to which the LDS Church dominates politics in Utah, I would just love to see how they'd react if the tables were turned, say, if they lived in some Red Bible Belt state and policy where policy is driven by Evangelical Christians. My guess is that they would find the exact same arguments used against them that they are using here, and I'd bet the farm they wouldn't like it one bit. To me a principle has little value unless it can be consistently applied. You need to ask yourself whether IF the tables were turned, you'd still feel the same way.

3. This last one is a doozy. I made my last statement about you needed to improve your observation skills to juxtapose it to the nearly exact same thing you said to the other poster. In other words, I used YOUR debating tactic against you. All I can say is that if you don't like this particular debating tactic, then don't use it yourself.

 

[Stoked]

I'll take these in order:

1. No, not breaking new ground, yet for something that you now claim to be so obvious, you failed to consider it in your argument, which is why I brought it to your attention.

2. Yes, everyone is influenced by their culture. BUT, in the US, we have specific constitutional and legal traditions specifying that church and state are to be separate, which complicates the matter. I fully acknowledge that people do not necessarily compartmentalize--but this doesn't mean in some cases they shouldn't. I use the rule of thumb, if your policy preferences are influenced by religious belief, you should be able to articulate a clear secular rationale for the policy. If you cannot, and inevitably rely on religious belief or dogma as the basis for the policy, then it has no place in the policy debate. (This is ultimate the reason why opposition to same-sex marriage will fail in the long-run, there is no strong secular rationale to oppose it, nobody can, for example, articulate any harm that befalls anyone by legalizing it to justify the denial of civil rights to a large group of people. Opposition to it ultimately falls back on religious beliefs about sex and marriage. Well, that and today's generation and future generations increasingly fail to see gays as abstractions but increasingly see them as real people.) For all of the LDS faithful in Utah who see no problem with the degree to which the LDS Church dominates politics in Utah, I would just love to see how they'd react if the tables were turned, say, if they lived in some Red Bible Belt state and policy where policy is driven by Evangelical Christians. My guess is that they would find the exact same arguments used against them that they are using here, and I'd bet the farm they wouldn't like it one bit. To me a principle has little value unless it can be consistently applied. You need to ask yourself whether IF the tables were turned, you'd still feel the same way.

3. This last one is a doozy. I made my last statement about you needed to improve your observation skills to juxtapose it to the nearly exact same thing you said to the other poster. In other words, I used YOUR debating tactic against you. All I can say is that if you don't like this particular debating tactic, then don't use it yourself.

Considering that you came into this thread and started throwing around the term bigot in your first post (which you did not specify who that was for at the time) you really do not have much room to stand on for chastising people on what should or should not be used.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Considering that you came into this thread and started throwing around the term bigot in your first post (which you did not specify who that was for at the time) you really do not have much room to stand on for chastising people on what should or should not be used.

You mean on this thread or the one on Trayvon Martin? I think you're getting the threads mixed up. Nor do I understand your reasoning (such as it is). I am not chastising anyone for doing anything, I'm merely pointing out the double standard of using a particular debating technique and then turning around and criticizing someone else for using the exact same debating technique. Well I guess I am chastising someone for employing a double standard. That stikes me as a perfectly reasonable critique, or at least far more reasonable than employing double standards.

Plus what is wrong with accusing people of bigotry, particularly when they deserve it? I think most reasonable people will read through the Trayvon Martin thread and find sufficient evidence of bigotry.

Bigots and narrow minded ideologues are everywhere, including this discussion board. The way I see it, they don't deserve a free pass when they ply their trade.

I guess I just don't get why pointing out the obvious bigotry, on the FIRST POST no less, on the one thread disqualifies me for anything. This is curious reasoning. Maybe if I had done it on my second or third post, would that have met your standards?

 

[colton]

2. Yes, everyone is influenced by their culture. BUT, in the US, we have specific constitutional and legal traditions specifying that church and state are to be separate, which complicates the matter. I fully acknowledge that people do not necessarily compartmentalize--but this doesn't mean in some cases they shouldn't. I use the rule of thumb, if your policy preferences are influenced by religious belief, you should be able to articulate a clear secular rationale for the policy. If you cannot, and inevitably rely on religious belief or dogma as the basis for the policy, then it has no place in the policy debate.

Should Dec 25 be a federal holiday?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_holidays_in_the_United_States

 

[SaltyDawg]

Should Dec 25 be a federal holiday?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_holidays_in_the_United_States

Sure. But there shouldn't be any laws requiring anyone to celebrate/pray/whatever on that day. And there shouldn't be any laws forbidding people from eating meat on Fridays during Lent, eating pork during Ramadan, or <gasp> playing a lottery.

 

[Stoked]

Should Dec 25 be a federal holiday?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_holidays_in_the_United_States

You take that holiday away from me and your *** is getting shanked lol.

 

[Bronco70]

I'll take these in order:

1. No, not breaking new ground, yet for something that you now claim to be so obvious, you failed to consider it in your argument, which is why I brought it to your attention.

2. Yes, everyone is influenced by their culture. BUT, in the US, we have specific constitutional and legal traditions specifying that church and state are to be separate, which complicates the matter. I fully acknowledge that people do not necessarily compartmentalize--but this doesn't mean in some cases they shouldn't. I use the rule of thumb, if your policy preferences are influenced by religious belief, you should be able to articulate a clear secular rationale for the policy. If you cannot, and inevitably rely on religious belief or dogma as the basis for the policy, then it has no place in the policy debate. (This is ultimate the reason why opposition to same-sex marriage will fail in the long-run, there is no strong secular rationale to oppose it, nobody can, for example, articulate any harm that befalls anyone by legalizing it to justify the denial of civil rights to a large group of people. Opposition to it ultimately falls back on religious beliefs about sex and marriage. Well, that and today's generation and future generations increasingly fail to see gays as abstractions but increasingly see them as real people.) For all of the LDS faithful in Utah who see no problem with the degree to which the LDS Church dominates politics in Utah, I would just love to see how they'd react if the tables were turned, say, if they lived in some Red Bible Belt state and policy where policy is driven by Evangelical Christians. My guess is that they would find the exact same arguments used against them that they are using here, and I'd bet the farm they wouldn't like it one bit. To me a principle has little value unless it can be consistently applied. You need to ask yourself whether IF the tables were turned, you'd still feel the same way.

Like I said before, I can appreciate your perspective. We really only disagree on a few details. As I stated earlier in this thread, I believe that policy makers cannot be expected to not use their faith as a guideline, but that their ultimate responsibility is to the interest of their constituency, regardless of whether or not that interest is in alignment with their church's position. This didn't get a lot of run because it doesn't support the idea that I am just a brainwashed mormon ideologue.

The divergence of our opinions seems to be over the definition of "separation of church and state", and how much influence is acceptable. We could probably go back and forth over it endlessly, but it seems futile. So we are at an impasse, in that respect.

3. This last one is a doozy. I made my last statement about you needed to improve your observation skills to juxtapose it to the nearly exact same thing you said to the other poster. In other words, I used YOUR debating tactic against you. All I can say is that if you don't like this particular debating tactic, then don't use it yourself.

Yeah, I'm well aware of exactly what happened there, and was as I was typing it, but it was late and I was a little perturbed (not by your post, it was something completely unrelated), so maybe you can give me a mulligan on that one.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Like I said before, I can appreciate your perspective. We really only disagree on a few details. As I stated earlier in this thread, I believe that policy makers cannot be expected to not use their faith as a guideline, but that their ultimate responsibility is to the interest of their constituency, regardless of whether or not that interest is in alignment with their church's position. This didn't get a lot of run because it doesn't support the idea that I am just a brainwashed mormon ideologue.

The divergence of our opinions seems to be over the definition of "separation of church and state", and how much influence is acceptable. We could probably go back and forth over it endlessly, but it seems futile. So we are at an impasse, in that respect.



Yeah, I'm well aware of exactly what happened there, and was as I was typing it, but it was late and I was a little perturbed (not by your post, it was something completely unrelated), so maybe you can give me a mulligan on that one.

Fair enough. Mulligan granted.

A bit of context. My family (all devout LDS and frothing at the mouth tea baggers) rise up in righteous indignation should anyone suggest that perhaps the LDS Church has disproportionately large influence over politics and policy in Utah, but are always vigilant about the (mythical) imposition of sharia law in the US and constantly grumble about how how evangelicals have hijacked the political and electoral system to the detriment of their hand-of-God-anointed golden boy Mitt Romney. (I swear to God, anyone who thinks that the US is in danger of coming under Sharia law is a complete and utter delusional moron.) It is clear from all of this that they are not in principle opposed to religious domination of politics, but merely opposed in principle when it's not their religion that gets to dominate politics. Mormon domination of politics: Good. Other religion's domination of politics: Bad.

My perspective is that any religion's domination of politics is bad. Religious dogma should never be the basis for law making. If your belief is faith-based, fine, just make sure you have a well-reasoned secular basis for it. If all you got is 'because God said so,' then keep it the hell to yourself. (Not directed to you personally, but to religious types in general.)

 

[Stoked]

Fair enough. Mulligan granted.

A bit of context. My family (all devout LDS and frothing at the mouth tea baggers) rise up in righteous indignation should anyone suggest that perhaps the LDS Church has disproportionately large influence over politics and policy in Utah, but are always vigilant about the (mythical) imposition of sharia law in the US and constantly grumble about how how evangelicals have hijacked the political and electoral system to the detriment of their hand-of-God-anointed golden boy Mitt Romney. (I swear to God, anyone who thinks that the US is in danger of coming under Sharia law is a complete and utter delusional moron.) It is clear from all of this that they are not in principle opposed to religious domination of politics, but merely opposed in principle when it's not their religion that gets to dominate politics. Mormon domination of politics: Good. Other religion's domination of politics: Bad.

My perspective is that any religion's domination of politics is bad. Religious dogma should never be the basis for law making. If your belief is faith-based, fine, just make sure you have a well-reasoned secular basis for it. If all you got is 'because God said so,' then keep it the hell to yourself. (Not directed to you personally, but to religious types in general.)

I agree with the majority of your points. No religion should hold dominion over those not of their faith.

As for the Sahria law comment: https://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/March/Pa-Sharia-Ruling-Judge-Defends-Decision/

Now I am not worried about Sharia law becoming the primary philosophy of the US. But I brign that article up because the Judge is using religion to control his decision.

That is something that I am worried about.

 

[Bronco70]

My perspective is that any religion's domination of politics is bad. Religious dogma should never be the basis for law making. If your belief is faith-based, fine, just make sure you have a well-reasoned secular basis for it. If all you got is 'because God said so,' then keep it the hell to yourself.

^I pretty much agree with this statement wholly.

As long as we're providing context...

I am one of those mormons that asks questions, and doesn't put concerns away just as a matter of obedience (for example, I am not anti gay marriage and I think that marijuana should be legalized). As (relatively) progressive as my social views may be, I still feel that the LDS church is right for me and my family and, I can be a little defensive when it is attacked as the source of every citizen's discontent, or accused of directly controlling state policy.

I think maybe we aren't so different, you and I...

 

[Stoked]

^I pretty much agree with this statement wholly.

As long as we're providing context...

I am one of those mormons that asks questions, and doesn't put concerns away just as a matter of obedience (for example, I am not anti gay marriage and I think that marijuana should be legalized). As (relatively) progressive as my social views may be, I still feel that the LDS church is right for me and my family and, I can be a little defensive when it is attacked as the source of every citizen's discontent, or accused of directly controlling state policy.

I think maybe we aren't so different, you and I...

I am with you on all of it Bronco.

 

[Bronco70]

I am with you on all of it Bronco.

I wish there were more of us. Sometimes the membership just makes me shake my head...

 

[Stoked]

I wish there were more of us. Sometimes the membership just makes me shake my head...

I agree with this as well. The fact that I think this way makes it harder for me personally to have as many Mormon friends. Most of my friends are non members or "Jack" Mormons. I just refuse to be offended if someone else swears, lights up a cigarette, orders a beer with their dinner or some other taboo action.

 

[Bronco70]

I agree with this as well. The fact that I think this way makes it harder for me personally to have as many Mormon friends. Most of my friends are non members or "Jack" Mormons. I just refuse to be offended if someone else swears, lights up a cigarette, orders a beer with their dinner or some other taboo action.

I believe that, deep down, most members are good people who want to do the right thing. But church culture is very judgmental - and puts a lot of pressure on them. If I'm being honest, I think the culture and expectations of the membership are more of a factor in how mormons act (and how their actions are perceived) than the actual doctrine. IMO, this makes people lose sight of the important things because they're too busy focusing on all the little things you mentioned.

 

[Stoked]

I believe that, deep down, most members are good people who want to do the right thing. But church culture is very judgmental - and puts a lot of pressure on them. If I'm being honest, I think the culture and expectations of the membership are more of a factor in how mormons act (and how their actions are perceived) than the actual doctrine. IMO, this makes people lose sight of the important things because they're too busy focusing on all the little things you mentioned.

Again I agree. They are good people and I know that. They are getting to focused on the condemnation and not enough on the love. Just becasue you associate with someone does not have to mean you support everything they do.

 

[Pizza The Hut]

The idea that is essentially implied by some early on here that the poor are poor because they play the lottery is ludicrous. It's beyond wishful thinking to believe that the lower class would be so much better off if they were saved by society from their own vices. They'd just go out to Red Lobster once a month believing they're partaking in fine dining.

There should be a lottery. Period. Pot should be legalized. And taxed like crazy. Period.

 

[bigb]

I wish there were more of us. Sometimes the membership just makes me shake my head...

Count me among that number. Sometimes I sit in church and think "with dumb ****s like you, it's no wonder people don't like Mormons". I have said on a number of occasions that while I am a Mormon, I don't really like most Mormon people.

 

[bigb]

Again I agree. They are good people and I know that. They are getting to focused on the condemnation and not enough on the love. Just becasue you associate with someone does not have to mean you support everything they do.

My wife and I have this same conversation a lot.