RALEIGH, N.C. -- North Carolina lawmakers are drafting legislation that would ban people on welfare or those who are in bankruptcy from buying lottery tickets.
Rep. Paul "Skip" Stam, R-Wake is helping draft the legislation. Stam told ABC11 the vendor selling the lottery ticket would be penalized if they knew the person was on welfare or in bankruptcy.
That stipulation is not sitting well with some convenience store clerks that don't want to be left to enforce a new law.The point seems to be that it's a bad idea for folks on welfare to use their assistance money to buy lottery tickets. I agree. Public funds shouldn't be wasted in this (or on a number of other) way.
On the other hand, the guy behind the counter has lots of other things to worry about. Is this guy going to pull a gun and rob me? Did someone drive off and not pay on pump #2? Man she is hot, maybe I should forget about checking her id and let her get those wine coolers. Is that meth head pulling tricks in the bathroom again? Lets face it, the people who are going to have to enforce this law aren't cops, they're the proud holders of GED's. Do they really have to interview the customers about their financial status. If they could do that, then they could be working as a loan officer at a bank and not pushing Marlboro Light 100's.
I have two ideas that would solve this problem faster and better than a new law: #1 stop giving people welfare. IF you don't give them any money, they can't waste it on stuff you disapprove of. This has an additional upside in that if we stopped welfare payments the country could be on its way to financial solvency. #2 Outlaw the lottery. The lottery is after all just a state run numbers racket. In most states its only done to generate income to be wasted on programs designed to get more people dependent on the state in the first place. #3 Do both of the above.
We could fix the problem by getting rid of one or more bad laws, or we could put yet another bad law on the books. Which one do you think they will do?
If memory serves, here in TN people on welfare can't collect lottery winnings. Or, if they do, their welfare is curtailed.
ReplyDeleteOr, they could stop the welfare payments AND open up lottery to the general public and there would be competition, which would lead to higher payouts and more jobs
ReplyDeleteThe State lotto's all keep 50% of the proceeds. Were I to start a lottery I would start out at 25% of the proceeds and then as it builds I could drop that percentage percentage further to say 15%, and the rest would get paid out. This would be a boon to several industries, and be more fun.
But of course that would take money from the direct control of the government and so it won't be allowed to happen.
I agree, the lottery is just another source of governement funding.
ReplyDeleteWhich one do you think they will do?
ReplyDeleteWhichever one expands the size and scope of the government. So none of the above.
- Agree that this is a bad proposed law. It shouldn't be incumbent on the store clerks to enforce the law like that. However, precedent has already been set by a myriad of other laws which require store employees to enforce them: sales of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, prescription drugs, some OTC drugs used in meth production, inhaled intoxicants like glue and paint thinner, DVD's and video games rated for adults, pornographic materials...the list goes on and on and on. In that sense, adding lottery tickets to the "restricted sales" category is no different.
ReplyDelete- Agree that people receiving welfare should not be able to spend it on lottery tickets. However, not all people receiving welfare have that as their sole source of income -- many low-income earners receive subsidies like food stamps or other assistance in addition to their wages. It may well be that these people are spending their welfare money on food, rent, etc, and their own wages on booze, cigarettes, and lottery tickets (save the cynicism, this is just a hypothetical). But is it right that they are receiving welfare if they have enough of their own money to spend it on non-essentials like that? Probably not, so I'd go with the recommendation to do away with welfare.
- Agree that the state should not have a monopoly on lotteries, but disagree that they should not be able to have them at all. People buying lottery tickets are making a choice to do so, unlike a tax which is mandatory. If not for revenue from lottery sales, many states would simply institute higher taxes to get them the level of revenue they wanted (except for Colorado; thank you TABOR!)
However, I think that the private sector and non-profits should also be permitted to conduct their own lottery operations, for profit or for fundraising. People would have a choice between supporting the government or another entity, instead. They already run casinos in many places, so what's the difference? Gambling is gambling.
Gambling is gambling.
ReplyDeleteI agree and I also agree it shouldn't be limited to the state. It is either a social ill that should be illegal for everyone or a permited activity that should be open to all.
As far as selling guns, booze etc. It's one thing to ask for an ID that says your over 21 or to tell someone they must fill out a form and then call it in; its something else to ask a bunch of questions about income and if the person qualifies to spend $2 on power ball. This is a silly law.
I agree and I also agree it shouldn't be limited to the state. It is either a social ill that should be illegal for everyone or a permited activity that should be open to all.
ReplyDeleteIt is a social ill. I've been hanging around Vox's too long so I'm not sure it should be illegal. Since it is legal for the Indians, it ought to be legal for anyone. And the State shouldn't be involved in it, but that ship has sailed.
Res: " It's one thing to ask for an ID that says your over 21 or to tell someone they must fill out a form and then call it in; its something else to ask a bunch of questions about income and if the person qualifies to spend $2 on power ball."
ReplyDeleteThey need not be different processes. The same ID one presents to show that one is over 21 can also be marked to show if one is receiving welfare or has filed for backruptcy. Once a person has "cleared" either list, they get a new DL without that restriction.
I'm not saying it's right or it's a good idea; like you, I'd rather just remove the welfare thing altogether (though that would still leave bankruptcy). I'm just saying that if it's going to be implemented, there's no reason it has to be a burden on store clerks any more than an ID check for liquor is.
Res: "This is a silly law."
Again, agreed. *grin*
"still leave bankruptcy"
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point. If the person wins, you could always force them to pay off their bills before they got any of the cash.