 Quote by chemisttree
I think the major objection should be what role should our government play. Should the government play on the weakness of its citizens and encourage them to take a risk equivalent to flipping a coin and getting 'heads' 27 times in a row? The government should encourage behavior that is an advantage to its citizens or do nothing at all, IMO. Apply an outrageous 'sin' tax on alcohol an tobacco to both raise money and discourage self destructive behavior can at least be rationalized from that standpoint but to regressively tax its citizens and encourage this self destructive gambling behavior?
What's next? Government run horse racing? Slot machines? Online poker?
No thanks.
|
Actually, I think this argument is completely illogical, people are conscious beings able to make there own decisions. Forced taxation on products drive markets underground, this has been seen numerous times. It is estimated throughout the world that the black-market (or underground economies) provide 1.8 billion jobs (see link below) and consequently, just raising taxes exorbitantly on tobacco and alcohol would result in this number being driven up.
On the other hand voluntary taxation has been strongly suggested to have the smallest collateral effect on markets because it allows them to still operate as free as possible (Allen Greenspan's, "Age of Turbulence"). I think if the federal government created its own lottery system (as Travis_King suggested in comment #16) it would be one of the most brilliant ways to tax our population.
Page 2, Paragraph 3.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...=global-bazaar