Should those who rely on govt. assistance be able to keep their lottery winnings?

[Alpha1851]

The majority of our states have a state lottery, so what's your opinion on this. If they hit the jackpot, should individuals who receive welfare, state funded health care, food stamps, or WIC, be allowed to keep their winnings or should the money go back to the state?

Would your opinion change if the lottery winners previously relied on govt. help, but did not do so at the time they purchased the lottery ticket?

 

[boxerdudeuk]

delicate question. general human kindness should dictate that they can do with their money what they wish - but a lot of people would agree with your question that at the very least they should pay back what they've been given by public funds.

 

[kevbo]

I'm pretty sure they already do pay back, when the gov't takes 50%+ of the winnings...

 

[Alpha1851]

I stopped at a convenience store for gas, and noticed that the customer in front of me purchased a Coke and chips w/ food stamps and a lottery ticket w/ cash. I haven't formed a solid opinion yet as to whether the winnings should be garnished, but I was somewhat aggravated that the customer used food stamps, but had enough money to purchase a lottery ticket. On the one hand, I think that if you're relying on govt. benefits for survival, then you shouldn't waste money on a lottery ticket and those winnings should pay the govt. back so the money can be used to help other individuals in need. Many of our benefit programs are out of money and state defecits are skyrocketing in order to keep them going. The lottery jackpot could provide relief.

Also, laws governing the lottery and gambling vary btwn states, but several states automatically garnish the winnings of those who owe child support, taxes, or other state debts, so why not add govt. assistance as well (some states already do). Plus, taking at least a portion of the winnings might dissuade indigent people from playing the lottery which hopefully means they’ll have more money to spend on nec. items.


On the other hand, if these people are not able to keep their winnings, they'll continue to rely on govt. assistance until their situation improves, so allowing them to keep their winnings could be more cost effective in the long run. Additionally, the govt. does not typically regulate how individuals spend their money. Indigents who receive govt. benefits can purchase beer or cigs w/o big brother looking over their shoulder, so why should lottery tickets be any different. Also, depending on the state, lottery revenues help fund health care, education, economic development, and public roads among other things. If the state garnishes the winnings, it would discourage indigents from buying lottery tickets which could have a detrimental effect on the state’s budget.

 

[treanir]

I honestly do not see how this could be up for debate. You're on welfare because you don't have enough money to support yourself. You win the lottery, which means you now have enough money and thus aren't eligible for welfare any more from the moment you collect your winnings. No need to pay anything back, and you do not have to collect welfare any more.

Easy peasy.


(I assume the winnings are substantial)

 

[Alpha1851]

I honestly do not see how this could be up for debate. You're on welfare because you don't have enough money to support yourself. You win the lottery, which means you now have enough money and thus aren't eligible for welfare any more from the moment you collect your winnings. No need to pay anything back, and you do not have to collect welfare any more.

Easy peasy.

I love your new avatar!

In many states, people who rely on public assistance make up the largest group of ticket buyers. For example in 2002, allegedly 20% of Nebraska's lottery players are low income. That number may not sound significant, but the 20% are responsible for over 80% of that state's lottery revenue.

Does it matter? I'm personally not sure. Lottery tickets are generally cheap, but the money adds up if someone purchases a lot of them. I don't see how a person will be able to get off public assistance if they're spending a significant portion of their limited income on a game of chance.

Limiting lottery winnings for those who rely on public assistance has been a hot debate in several state legislatures incl. TN. I'm interested in the opinions of my fellow JUBBERS on this subject matter.

 

[treanir]

I love your new avatar!

Thanks

Yes, the lottery is generally more popular with low-income households. I suppose it's partly the escapism that comes with buying a ticket, the "what if I win" feeling. However, then the question becomes not so much "should those on the dole be able to keep their winnings" as "should they be allowed to buy a lottery ticket". It's hard, if not totally impossible, to limit the things one can spend government money on, though the food stamp program is an example of just that. Is is better if those receiving assistance buy food, clothes, etc. with their money, instead of lottery tickets? Yes. Is it in any way enforcable to make them do so? No.

I wonder about this: you say "limiting lottery winnings". How would that work?

 

[Alpha1851]

So your knickers are in a knot over a someone using food stamps yet squandering a whole $1 on the lottery?

Sadly, the more and more wealth I obtain, the more and more I'm beginning to sound like a nasty ole Republican.

Using this same twisted logic one could rightly say that any students here at JUB that have gotten any student loans, or grants, or tax breaks because of the law too should then be disqualified from winning anything. What about if they used any other program that year, like Cash4Clunkers? Or low income energy assistance. They too then should/could be ineligible for receiving any money.

Well, it sort of does work out that way already. On FASFA, these students are required to incl. any prize winnings on their application which will limit their eligibility for govt. grants and loans. Now, if the individual wins millions of dollars, it really won't matter b/c the student can obviously fund his or her education in its entirety (or just retire). But, if the student wins a smaller sum, like in the thousands, that could have a detrimental effect. Essentially, winning a small amount would equate to taking away their prize. They'd receive less, if any, govt. money, and would have to use their entire winnings to pay for school. They're no better off.

Other than that, we have several laws that seem silly b/c they regulate one area but not another, or apply subtle differences btwn things that seem so common to most of us. Regulating lottery winnings wouldn't be any different.

 

[star-warrior]

From a British point of view, anyone and everyone who contributes to the tax system who has won on the lottery can still seek state aid if they're legally entitled to it.

 

[Alpha1851]

I wonder about this: you say "limiting lottery winnings". How would that work?

In TN, the proposal was to put a $600 cap on lottery winnings for individuals who receive state or federal pubic assistance of any type. The remaining money would go back to the state. Allegedly, in TN, at least half of food stamp recipients purchase lottery tickets. The states health care program (Tenncare) is experiencing enormous difficulties w/ continued funding and its one of the reasons used to rally behind the limitation on winnings.

Currently, many states garnish winnings if the individual owes child support, taxes, or other state ir federal debts. When the person goes to claim their prize, their name is run through the database and the amount owed is automatically deducted before the winner receives anything.

 

[Alpha1851]

Isn't it wasteful to purchase soda and junk food with an EBT card, too? Those cards are supposed to be used for necessities..

That depends on what you're calling junk food. Generally, "junk food" is cheaper than their healthier counterparts and its often all that these individuals can afford. But that's an interesting point b/c the govt. does limit what people can buy w/ their food stamps. Coke is okay, but beer is not. Gum is okay, but cigs are not. Similarly, WIC also comes w/ limitations.

Yet, we don't really regulate what people can buy w/ their welfare checks. The check is cashed and the money can go to anything from school supplies for their children or a chance to win a million bucks.

Of course there's no way for us to know whether the ticket money came from personal income, a gift, or welfare, but would your opinion change if you knew the person purchased bought their ticket w/ their welfare money?

 

[GL]

i know of a family back home who had won a substantial amount off of a scratch ticket. this family had been on food stamps and medicaid for years and this was despite the fact that both parents were working. they took the winnings and used it as start up for a small, family owned trucking business. its a small affair but it got them off of welfare altogether.

considering the state will take a substantial amount of the winnings via taxes i think the winner has paid back whatever they may have received in aid. that being the case i think if you win a lottery award you should be allowed to keep it.

that's my opinion anyhow...

 

[Spiff]

Currently, many states garnish winnings if the individual owes child support, taxes, or other state ir federal debts. When the person goes to claim their prize, their name is run through the database and the amount owed is automatically deducted before the winner receives anything.

Nothing wrong with that. But putting a cap on the winnings is absurd. You can't (fairly) judge every single dollar that a person spends, or how they got to be in their current situation. Often it is for reasons beyond their control. Are you also going to judge every kind of food they decide to buy with food stamps? What about those physically disabled, including veterans? Their job choices are even more limited. And many locations there are just no jobs available that pay enough to keep a family above the poverty level.

Sheesh, let's just send all homeless and impoverished people to the gas chambers. How they got to be in their situation is irrelevant. None of them deserve to enjoy life on any level.

 

[Alpha1851]

You can't have it both ways. It either is, or is not.

Why not? We do it all the time.

Further, the two instances are distinguishable. Loan and grant programs were set up in part b/c our govt. benefits in the long run. Quid pro quo. Technology is furthered by education. Medicine is furthered by education. Science is furthered by education. Military capabilities are furthered by education. Not everyone can afford a higher education, and our nation benefits from assisting different people, w/ different mind sets and talents, to attend college. The states also earn revenue from state universities, so when a student uses a state grant or loan to pay their tuition, the state isn't losing out. Additionally, people w/ college degrees typically earn more than those w/o a degree, therefore, they pay more in taxes. Also, college loans must be paid back whereas public assistance benefits generally do not. The two instances are distinguishable in my opinion.

Of course, the govt. benefits from lottery sales and you could argue that since impoverished folks make up the largest portion of lottery ticket buyers, it follows that they're also responsible for generating the largest lottery revenue for the state. However, many state use lottery revenue to support health care, education, and other public programs which impoverished folks are more likely to benefit from. To me, there's less of an equal exchange.

I'm surprised so many of you all feel strongly one way or the other on this issue, but I knew you all would have great points.

 

[Alpha1851]

If it was me, and I am on Gvt. Assistance as in foodstamps and medical. If the winnings are in the millions, and have an anual payout, then I would report it it to DES and end the Gvt. assistance Voluntarily

By law, you're required to report it and if your winnings were large enough, you'd automatically be dropped from public assistance. If you won a large sum, would you voluntarily refund the govt. the amount you used while on public assistance? I don't play the lottery or gamble, but if I did, I would not voluntarily hand my winnings over to the govt. I'd donate to charities, but not return the money to the state.

 

[Alpha1851]

Why not? Because it makes you a stark, raving hypocrite that's why. You defend handouts/welfare/socialism to those like yourself getting grants or loans once upon a time as "worthy" because it's better for the country and therefore doesn't count. Yet, refuse to acknowledge the same, and even look down your nose at another welfare case not living his life like you think they should.

Careful. You're making a lot of assumptions here, especially on issues that haven't been discussed. It's great that you're passionate about the topic and I enjoy your perspective. But, you're jumping from whether Jesus would punish someone for taking a handout, to assuming I'm a hypocritical Republican, Christian.

Note that in my second post, I admitted to not having a distinctive opinion about whether the govt. should garnish the lottery winnings of those who receive public assistance. Both sides have strong points.

 

[Orlandude]

A lot of what you can and cannot do depends on the state you live in and what their welfare laws prescribe. In my state, in order to even collect food stamps, you cannot show more than $1,100/month in ANY bank account. They do check and, with national databases that check all bank accounts, unless you have an offshore account, they will find out you have money. If they find that you have more than this $1100 amount that has run through your bank account in a given month, your food stamps are shut off and you have nothing to say about it. . You can appeal but you better have a damn good reason why there is suddenly more money in your bank account. If it was a one-time tax refund or something similar, they will take that into consideration. But if you have won the lottery, there's no getting around it. Your food stamps are cancelled. Period. Remember, lottery winnings are a matter of PUBLIC record. Anyone and everyone can find out that you won so it's a "no brainer" for the government. Then, as discussed, they will take 50% of your lottery winnings in taxes anyway.

Also, in my state, you can no longer collect CASH welfare payments (other than food stamps) unless you can prove you have children to support. No kids=No Cash. So if you are single without children, the most "welfare" you can get is food stamps and here, for a single person with no kids, that's about $200/month. Basically, they give you just enough so that you don't starve to death. This is also YET ANOTHER political reason many states are fighting the idea of gays being allowed to adopt. That would mean that gays with adopted children WOULD be allowed to collect CASH welfare payments, if needed. However, generally, the adoption process requires that you show proof that you are able to financially support an adopted child....without benefit of welfare.

 

[rareboy]

It is a lottery.

Should we make the rich give it back because they don't need it?

The happy give it back because it will make them unhappy?

The unhappy give it back because they won't enjoy it?

The indigent and needy are just as blessed/cursed by luck as any other person.

Hopefully they will consider their past and put the money to good use to help others...or maybe they'll just spend like whores on a holiday and put the money back in the hands of society at large that way. Who cares at the end of the day?

We've just witnessed an orgy of corporate welfare over the last eight months; I'm not thinking that anyone has moral ascendancy in this world anymore.

 

[StlKj]

In TN, the proposal was to put a $600 cap on lottery winnings for individuals who receive state or federal pubic assistance of any type. The remaining money would go back to the state. Allegedly, in TN, at least half of food stamp recipients purchase lottery tickets. The states health care program (Tenncare) is experiencing enormous difficulties w/ continued funding and its one of the reasons used to rally behind the limitation on winnings.

What a great way for a state to fuck the poor twice. They pump millions of dollars into advertising the lottery, knowing that poor people, many of whom are on assistance, are the major buying public for lottery tickets. So, we entice those of lower incomes, and let's face it, often lower education, to waste money on chance. Then, when they actually win, we cap their winnings and take back millions of dollars, which we can then spend as we want. If it's like many states, it's funding part of the educational system with lottery winnings--the same educational system that is failing the poor in the first place.

Why not just allocate part of the lottery funds to the poor health care system there if it's in trouble? Oh, wait, because then no one would be getting screwed.

 

[maxpowr9]

In MA, if you are on welfare (and therefore recieve food stamps), you cannot use food stamps to gamble (a la state lottery) or buy any tabacco or alcohol products. Of course what you do with your own income is out of the government's control.