A Stitch in Haste

A Stitch in Time Saves Nine...But Haste Makes Waste

A collection of real-world libertarian, individualist and laissez-faire rants on law, economics, politics, culture and other current events
by an average, everyday lawyer & investment banker and part-time pop scholar.

On Lotteries

(Guest-posted earlier today at Freespace.)

The Tax Foundation has released a major background paper today titled "Lotteries and State Fiscal Policy" (pdf file) that collects, sifts and packages the data regarding various state gaming schemes.

One particular passage caught my eye:

Lottery proponents often argue that a tax is a mandatory or compulsory payment and lottery purchases are voluntary, so the lottery cannot be a tax. This argument overlooks the fact that the purchase is voluntary, not the tax, just as a sales or excise tax is compulsory on a voluntary purchase. A mandatory tax on a voluntary purchase is still a tax.

In fact, all taxed purchases and activities are technically voluntary. The same argument applies to the sale of alcohol or tobacco: one is no more required to purchase a lottery ticket than to purchase alcohol or tobacco, yet excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco are still considered taxes.

I'd phrase that differently. Playing a lottery may be voluntary, but playing a government lottery is not voluntary if the government prohibits private lotteries from competing with it. If the state uses its power to monopolize the lottery industry and therefore captures excess profits that it would not otherwise have reaped had it allowed competition, then yes I think it's fair to classify those excess profits as an "involuntary tax."

My guess is that those who would posit a Utopian realm where the only government revenue is lottery profits (and perhaps user fees) have not fully thought this issue through -- is a government financed through a monopolized lottery any more libertarian than one that imposes other tax systems? (Assume the government is in all other ways "libertarian" -- it only engages in proper "libertarian" government functions, does not redistribute wealth or income, and seeks to raise only the bare minimum revenue required.)

Or is the presumption simply that the government would in fact freely compete with private lotteries? Is such a premise viable?

Posted by KipEsquire on 15 December 2004.
Stamp Prices Rise Again (But Are Still Too Low)
The U.S. Postal Service has announced that the price of mailing a first-class letter will rise two cents, to $0.39, effective January 8.

The Postal Service is often invoked as a sort of poster boy (whipping boy?) for many libertarians as an "unnatural monopoly," an "inefficient bureaucracy," and so on. The Big-L Libertarian candidate for president in 2004, Michael Badnarik, pointed to his refusal to use ZIP Codes as proof of his bona fides as a sufficiently unstable nutjob to run as a Big-L Libertarian.

Whatever. My problem with the Postal Service isn't the way it delivers the mail, but the way it does everything else.

In an effort to increase revenues (i.e., to subsidize the cost of stamps), the USPS has ventured into other businesses that it has no business whatsoever providing. This unfair competition serves as an indirect tax on the legitimate private businesses that are trying to compete with the Postal Service.

For example, the Postal Service sells phone cards. Um, why? What does delivering the mail have to do with long-distance telephone calls? And how is that fair to actual telecommunications companies that must compete with the Postal Service?

The Postal Service also sells money orders -- where in the Constitution does it mention a "postal bank"?

Boxes, shipping supplies, greeting cards, holiday ornaments, toys, clothing, coffee mugs. All of which are outside the Postal Service's raison d’être, all of which place it in competition with private businesses and all of which disrupt what should be free markets in this merchandise. (Conversely, sometimes these activities place the Postal Service in collusion with private companies -- guess who runs the Postal Service's online store? This is also a form of unfair competition: competing with the Postal Service's allies is not much different from competing with the Postal Service directly.)

All to keep the cost of mail (including junk mail) artificially low.

The Postal Service should stick to its knitting and charge whatever it truly costs to mail a letter, leaving the bells and whistles to private bell-and-whistle companies.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. "I've Got the Same Combination on My Luggage!"
  2. Stamp Prices Rise Again (But Are Still Too Low)
  3. On Lotteries
Posted by Kip on 15 November 2005.
"I've Got the Same Combination on My Luggage!"
As with all addictions, the first step to combating compulsive gambling is admitting you have a problem:
The Virginia Lottery's "Pick 4" drawing on Thursday night came up 0-0-0-0. Because "quadruple numbers" are common plays, lottery spokesman John Hagerty said Virginia Lottery paid out $3.27 million in winnings on a "Pick 4" drawing that had sold about $280,000 worth of tickets.

An estimated 650 people played 0-0-0-0 in last night's "Pick 4" game.

Hagerty said this marks the first time the 0-0-0-0 numbers have come up since the "Pick 4" game was began in 1991. The last "quadruple numbers" to come up was 1-1-1-1 on Jan. 15, 2007.

The odds of any specific four-digit combination coming up in the drawing are approximately 10,000-to-1.
Angels and mathematicians of grace defend us!

Why say (assuming you know even the first thing about probability and statistics) that the odds are "approximately 10,000-to-1"? Why not say that the odds are "exactly 9,999-to-1"?

And how about observing that, if one number is picked each day, then you would only expect a given four-digit number to come up once every 27.4 years? So, for a particular number such as 0-0-0-0 to have never come up in 16 years is not exactly an anomaly.

And are there really people out there who think that 0-0-0-0 is somehow less likely than, say, 1-2-3-4 or 2-4-6-8 or 7-9-1-4?

More to the point, why would the bureaucrats who run Virginia's lottery allow a single number to be played enough times to cost the lottery so much money if it comes up? I know for a fact that New York State sets a maximum number of entries for a particular number (e.g., they sold out "411" when the Iranian hostages were released in 1980 after 411 days of captivity). The odds are (no pun intended) that people denied 0-0-0-0 would pick another number, so there's no real danger of lost revenues.

This doesn't quite rise to the level of New York's off-track-betting managing to lose money running a parimutuel horse race monopoly. But it comes close enough to be mockworthy.

---

For those unfamiliar with the title of this post:

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. "I've Got the Same Combination on My Luggage!"
  2. Stamp Prices Rise Again (But Are Still Too Low)
  3. On Lotteries
Posted by Kip on 26 January 2008.