Could someone explain why this wouldn't work?

[Earth_First]

Instead of one or small group of individuals winning this obscene $540 million dollar Mega Millions lottery; why couldn't 540 set of numbers be drawn and add 540 new millionaires to the economy?

Ot nationalize a lottery with similar results?

[onenote]

1. Because not as many people are going to buy tickets for a $1 million payout

as for a $540 million payout. Remember, the lottery brings in way more than it pays out, so you need a big prize to maximize the amount paid in.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. People aren't logical when it comes to lotteries

Oregon has self-service lottery machines, and once I was in a store with such a machine when a shabbily dressed man came in and asked no one in particular, "What's the jackpot today?"

When he heard that it was "only" $1 million, he said, "Forget it then" and walked out.

But when the jackpot goes up into the hundreds of millions of dollars, they'll do dumb things like buy $100 worth of tickets that they can't afford, not realizing that this hardly lowers their odds at all, certainly not enough to ensure even a minor win.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

3. THE LOTTERY IS A CON JOB REGRESSIVE TAXATION

B S

[lastlib]

6. EXACTLY!!!

A major rip-off--AIMED AT POOR PEOPLE who are deluded into thinking it's a way out of poverty.

[bowens43]

7. are you saying 500 million dollars wouldn't get a person out of poverty?

[lastlib]

8. No--I'm saying that the probability of winning it is so infinitesimal

that it instills false hope in people, many of whom cannot realistically afford to throw money away by playing it.

Lotteries are also inherently undemocratic. They allow one person (or a small number of people) to become instant millionaires by sheer chance, without doing anything to earn that wealth by skill or merit. They take money from many (mostly poor or lower- to middle-income) to enrich a few for no other reason than luck of the draw. This goes against everything that a liberal democracy should stand for.

[nykym]

13. Your odds at winning

1 in: 175,711,536
from NY State Lottery site.
You'd have a better chance of getting hit by a '49 Studebaker Champion crossing the street in front of your own home.

[LadyHawkAZ]

18. I rather liked the way the eTrade commercial put it...

"the same as being mauled by a polar bear and a regular bear in the same day".

These days, when the SO and I discuss things we want but can't afford, we refer to that future purchase as "when we get mauled by the bears".

[slampoet]

20. My Econ 101 and my Statistics teachers both called it "The Idiot Tax"....

....but because they were good teachers they showed me the numbers why. Thanks teaches.

[lastlib]

4. If they really understood lotteries, they would never play.

Hell, they would vote 'em out of existence so fast it'd make your head swim!

[EOTE]

12. Their odds are increased quite a bit. 100 fold in fact.

But that just means that their odds have gone from .0000000001% to around .00000001%.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. That's what I meant

It's not enough to make a difference, but you'll never convince them of that.

[A HERETIC I AM]

5. First of all, why is it "obscene"?

The only reason it has grown this large is because winning it is an exceedingly rare event. Also, the likelihood that there will only be one winning ticket dinishes when jackpots get this large because of the much higher number of tickets that will be sold.

I bought tickets in Georgia and if I happen to win and take the cash (which I would), I will pay 41% right off the top, as Ga has a 6% income tax added to the 35 % the treasury will take. If the cash option is $359 mil, I would get roughly 212 mil IF I am the sole winner. Not likely at any case.

[lastlib]

10. Because it takes massive resources away from many and...

...gives them to a few without requiring any contribution other than the good luck to have chosen certain numbers.

[MissMarple]

9. Somewhat smaller payouts have always made sense to me.

But, then, I really don't know why people would participate in Survivor let alone watch it.

[GopperStopper2680]

11. Like we need 540 new people switching party allegiances?

540 new 1 million dollar Goppers? Think about it? Where are they going to go when they get that one million each. To the party that protects rich pricks!

[boxman15]

21. Not all millionaires are Republicans.

Just like not all poor people are Democrats. (Which makes no sense, but I digress)

[EC]

15. I bought one today

and there was a line of us waiting and talking (this is WI, our primaries are next Tues) so I said it's at the amount one of us could be as rich as Romney tomorrow night...everyone laughed. But after that people started talking about how richy Rich he is and out of touch...either they were all Dems or he isn't fitting well even with repubs.

[lastlib]

16. I'm gaining on you.

You threw away a dollar--I didn't; at this rate, I will probably become a millionaire before you do.



(But just in case you win....: )

[GreenStormCloud]

17. Under your system fewer people would play.

The whole idea is to sell as many tickets as possible so the government can get more money. Lower jackpots get fewer players. Personally I don't play at all. I have read what a wreck winning makes of the lives of winners.

[Nikia]

19. There are state lotteries with lower payouts and better odds

I think that in lotteries early days, you had a better odds to payout ratio. Maybe it just seems like it these days though.
In a way, I think that it is strange to have jackpots over 10-20 million dollars because most people who grew up poor or middle class literally don't know what to do with that kind of money.

[Motown_Johnny]

22. there are other lottery games with smaller payoffs

such as you describe


Mega Millions is, well.... Mega Millions. It requires huge payoffs to justify spending money on a 1 in 176,000,000 chance of winning.

[Zalatix]

23. I gave this thread a rec (it's the thought that counts) but I'd also rec your point even moreso.

Spot on, thanks.