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

[justsimon]

This is a ridiculous question.

 

[Alpha1851]

There is welfare all around us. I've only identified a handful of different government handouts that people/religions/companies get. One welfare = another welfare to those who do not receive said welfare. Hence, my point. You can defend the kind of welfare YOU got (self admitted student loans) but are not too keen on someone else's welfare (food stamps).

My loans were all private (Grad plus didn't exist when I started law school), but I did receive grants, scholarships, and work study for undergrad and a scholarship for law school, so by your definition I'm one of the welfare recipients. To me, money for school is distinguishable b/c the govt. reaps the benefits through our higher taxes and through our tuition. It's a worthwhile discussion point though. Borrowers have to pay back subsidized loans, but the interest rate is drastically reduced. Since one welfare=another welfare, why shouldn't lottery winnings be taken at a reduced rate as well? Allow the winner to keep a certain amount of the award, but take the rest to pay back the govt.

I support all types of assistance. Everything from grant money, to public housing, to WIC, to food stamps, to welfare, to after school programs for children, to elderly care programs, to public housing, to government owned insurance. I'm not keen on taking the programs away.

 

[kevbo]

Welfare should never be paid back by the recipient. The point of welfare is to help individuals work to be more self sustaining, and once they are more affluent, they'll be paying more in tax money which goes to future people on welfare. Pay it forward, you see...

 

[Alpha1851]

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.

That's true too, and very few states put lottery revenue towards gambling addiction programs.

Not to mention this scenario could facilitate corruption. Indigent people will be much less likely to purchase lottery tickets if they can't keep their winnings, and since these people make up a significant portion of the lottery revenue, the state will probably lose profits UNLESS a public assistance recipient just happens to hold the winning ticket. Then the state earns money from the ticket sales, and gets to keep the majority of the prize money.

And, how far back are we going to go? If the person received benefits 8 yrs. ago, should their winnings be capped too?

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.

The proposal to cap winnings didn't pass through the subcommittee, but the health care problem has brought it up again. Why not allocate part of the lottery funds to health care? I believe the law specifically stated that the revenue would go towards education when it was voted on.

 

[StlKj]

That's true too, and very few states put lottery revenue towards gambling addiction programs.

Not to mention this scenario could facilitate corruption. Indigent people will be much less likely to purchase lottery tickets if they can't keep their winnings, and since these people make up a significant portion of the lottery revenue, the state will probably lose profits UNLESS a public assistance recipient just happens to hold the winning ticket.

And, how far back are we going to go? If the person received benefits 8 yrs. ago, should their winnings be garnished too?



The proposal to cap winnings didn't pass through the subcommittee, but the health care problem has brought it up again. Why not allocate part of the lottery funds to health care? I believe the law specifically stated that the revenue would go towards education when it was voted on.

And there's the problem with how our educational system gets funded--through the vices of others. When I taught at the high school level, we had a video series on the dangers and problems associated with smoking, and one of the reasons we don't do more to curb smoking addiction is how much of our financial system relies on the taxes and stock profits that come from cigarette sales.

 

[Alpha1851]

Even after taxes, the state still benefits. I'm sure most (if not all) of the winnings are usually thrown right back into the economy. What do the winners do? They spend, spend, spend. (Big winners, sometimes to the point of bankruptcy.)

And then they're back on public assistance.

 

[bankside]

Income support in times of need is a government service that we all pay taxes for, including the recipients of income support.

They should not have to pay it back. It is not a loan. It is not even a donation. It is a basic minimum of income that the person qualifies for according to the rules in place.

If a person wins the lottery, they should get cut off of support, because they don't meet the income requirements any more, but that is it.

 

[Alpha1851]

They should be able to keep their winnings and that's that.

I believe your old state is one of those requiring some form of reimbursement. NY statute states that "any person who is receiving or has received, within the previous ten years, public assistance pursuant to the provisions of this article, and who wins a lottery prize of six hundred dollars or more shall reimburse the department from the winnings, for all such public assistance benefits paid to such person during the previous ten years, provided, however, that such crediting to the department shall in no event exceed fifty percent of the amount of the lottery prize. . . "

Going back ten years seems drastic to me.

 

[01solara]

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.

This is what I find appalling about Christians in general and Republicans. They worry about the straw/chaff in someone else's eye before removing thine own rafter. It really is the state of conservatism these days. Fuck others out of their welfare but scream loudly when their own welfare is threatened.

It's tragic. Do you honestly think Jesus would punish someone because they accepted a handout? (Not to get into the whole gambling thing and what the Quaran - Bible say.)

In fact if you're against welfare then let's stop the welfare of those churches not paying taxes yet raking in billions. Why let religions get welfare? Why do we spend more in this country on corporate welfare than we do on individual/personal welfare?

Remember your welfare is someone else's idea of pork/wasteful spending. Be careful what you wish for.

We don't agree on much but churches should definitely be paying taxes. I don't think the modern multimillion dollar mega church was even thought of when the laws were written. Churches are run as a business now and should pay taxes as such. One of the local "churches" close to me has a budget that is rumored to be thirty million dollars a year. The pastor makes more than the president of the United States. Not only are the churches tax free the money donated to them is tax deductible as well. You can give money to the church tax free but not your own family. Something is wrong with this picture.

 

[bankside]

In Canada you don't even pay any income tax on the lottery. It isn't income. So, if you win 40 million dollars, you take home 40 million dollars.

 

[Adrock-JD]

Is this question for real?

What a load of elitist horse shit.

No.

They should not be required to 'pay back' gov't assistance.



The money did not come from the state in the first place. It came from all those people who freely paid one dollar for each chance at winning.

 

[G-Lexington]

>>>And then they're back on public assistance.

After adding million of dollars to the local economy instead of hoarding it all.

Lex

 

[Alpha1851]

>>>And then they're back on public assistance.

After adding million of dollars to the local economy instead of hoarding it all.

Which makes me wonder which is more effective in the long run.

 

[G-Lexington]

Is that what we're going for? "Effectiveness"? Because if so, we got a lot of people to talk to about their spending habits...

Lex

 

[Alpha1851]

Is that what we're going for? "Effectiveness"? Because if so, we got a lot of people to talk to about their spending habits..

Cost benefit analysis is certainly a factor. Which decision is most "just" is another.

The latter is entirely subjective and thus debatable, but since several states do cap lottery winnings on those who receive, or have previously received public assistance, there should be some sort of empirical data showing whether its cost effective for that state. I'm unable to find it.

Yes, many people, businesses, agencies, and govts. need talked to about their spending habits and many of our laws need to change.

 

[Alpha1851]

I hope you are never in the situation where you have to rely on government funding to get you through your day to day life.

It must be nice sitting way up there on your perch looking down on all the people who are less fortunate and who dare to spend their money they got in whatever way they got it, on whatever they want.

We are in a financial crisis because of bad business. Not because some welfare family bought a $1 lottery ticket instead of a bag of chips with their cash and then won the jackpot.

Do you go around telling bums not to spend the change you give them on alcohol too?

If I needed governmental assistance, I'd take it w/ my head held high. I see nothing wrong w/ these benefits.

 

[Alpha1851]

And yet you get angry at someone who bought chips and a Coke with food stamps and a lottery ticket with cash?

I wouldn't let a dog go hungry, let alone a person. But yes, it aggravated me. If you need food stamps, sign up for them. In my state, families receive very little money in food stamps and when folks complain about poor people being fat, I think they fail to consider that unhealthy, fattening foods are all they can afford. I didn't know the customer, and just as some people jump to judgment calls when they see someone using public benefits, maybe I did too. I didn't consider whether the customer purchased the ticket w/ his birthday money or w/ his own personal income. I heard him complaining about his kids and how much it costs to take care of them, I saw him pay for the items w/ food stamps (he asked if the store took them), and I saw him buy a lottery ticket (several scratch offs actually. I have no idea how much they cost and they could be cheap). Maybe this customer bought the ticket b/c he's hoping he'll win the jackpot and will be able to give his children a better life. And, it intuitively seems that everyone deserves a bit of happiness plus it's impossible to walk the straight and narrow all the time. It didn't bug me that he was using food stamps, but my initial thought was, "well, he'd have more money if he didn't spend it frivolously." I do not have an opinion one way or the other on whether the lottery winnings should be capped or intercepted.

It's kind of like the Octomom. She apparently pd for her in vitro, but the govt. supports her and the babies. She's received many personal donations from people who want to help. Recently, she's contracted for a television special. Should the Octomom keep the money from the shows, or should the govt. take it as an reimbursement?

The same is true for the banks we recently bailed out.

 

[Alpha1851]

God, this thread is a mess. I even dread posting in it.
If they are on welfare, chances are they are very poor. If they spend a fucking dollar on a lottery ticket, I fail to see how that is any reason to think they are cheating the system or they are losers. They probably put all their hopes and dreams on that one fucking dollar and that lottery ticket.

I realize this is an emotional topic for some, but no one has suggested that these people are losers. Some states cap lottery winnings, and some do not. Just curious as to how JUBBERS felt about it.

In almost all the lottery holding states, winnings are intercepted if the ticket owner owes child support, taxes, or another state debt. In some states, prisoners are not allowed to keep the money (the individual bought the ticket prior to arrest). Any opinions on these?

 

[Alpha1851]

In my state, families receive very little money in food stamps and when folks complain about poor people being fat, I think they fail to consider that unhealthy, fattening foods are all they can afford.

Also, if a lot of people are overweight it's because the only food they can afford is the cheap fattening stuff.

Ya don't say.

 

[Alpha1851]

I read it.

She is upset at people for spending money on things she doesn't deem necessary when they're on welfare.

She is suggesting that the government take all the money back when and if they win.

She is making it sound as if these people are below the standard human and have no right to choose where they spend their money.

I am comfortable with that assessment of this thread. She wouldn't have brought up her own wealth and financial standings if it wasn't about looking down on people.

No, she has no opinion one way or the other. She can see it from both sides. She is arguing one side or is raising certain points b/c no one else did and it would be boring and pointless if every JUBBER quoted a line and added, "I totally agree." She is very interested in the discussion b/c it is happening in her area. She has also made it clear that she does not believe people are below the human standard and she wishes other people would stop putting words in her mouth.