State lottery?
Discussion
In our (lovely, bankrupt) country we have many different lotteries.
The main one often has ridiculously high prizes, pays helpful amounts of money out to “deserving causes” and also pays out quite large amounts to those companies who run it!
Would it be feasible to have a lottery which was actually run by the state, where prizes were limited to £1,000,000 maximum, with more, higher low prizes payable. No people getting large payments for running the lottery and payments (possibly selected by the entrants?) made to support the NHS, education, lower paid workers etc?
This way, people could effectively pay more “tax” for essential services by choice whilst having the opportunity of winning a reward for their efforts.
The main one often has ridiculously high prizes, pays helpful amounts of money out to “deserving causes” and also pays out quite large amounts to those companies who run it!
Would it be feasible to have a lottery which was actually run by the state, where prizes were limited to £1,000,000 maximum, with more, higher low prizes payable. No people getting large payments for running the lottery and payments (possibly selected by the entrants?) made to support the NHS, education, lower paid workers etc?
This way, people could effectively pay more “tax” for essential services by choice whilst having the opportunity of winning a reward for their efforts.
E63eeeeee... said:
You could badge it a bit like a more fun savings account, where you get the chance to win prizes as well as getting something like regular interest.
And then you could call it Premium Bonds.
I didn’t think that premium bonds worked in the same way? Surely all the money remains invested and can be withdrawn at any time? How can a proportion of that be invested in NHS etc?And then you could call it Premium Bonds.
Ultra Sound Guy said:
E63eeeeee... said:
You could badge it a bit like a more fun savings account, where you get the chance to win prizes as well as getting something like regular interest.
And then you could call it Premium Bonds.
I didn’t think that premium bonds worked in the same way? Surely all the money remains invested and can be withdrawn at any time? How can a proportion of that be invested in NHS etc?And then you could call it Premium Bonds.
Out of curiosity I checked and the National Lottery makes about 1% profit on ~£8bn a year, so £80m, and pays nearly £1bn in lottery tax, so if the govt nationalised it directly, they'd only get an extra £80m in profits. Even cannibalising it by introducing a competitor lottery seems unlikely to fundamentally change the picture.
I don't know what the govt's effective margin on borrowing £120bn via Premium Bonds is compared to other govt borrowing options, but I suspect it's quite a bit more than £80m a year.
I don't know what the govt's effective margin on borrowing £120bn via Premium Bonds is compared to other govt borrowing options, but I suspect it's quite a bit more than £80m a year.
E63eeeeee... said:
Out of curiosity I checked and the National Lottery makes about 1% profit on ~£8bn a year, so £80m, and pays nearly £1bn in lottery tax, so if the govt nationalised it directly, they'd only get an extra £80m in profits. Even cannibalising it by introducing a competitor lottery seems unlikely to fundamentally change the picture.
I don't know what the govt's effective margin on borrowing £120bn via Premium Bonds is compared to other govt borrowing options, but I suspect it's quite a bit more than £80m a year.
And how much does it pay out to “worthy causes”?I don't know what the govt's effective margin on borrowing £120bn via Premium Bonds is compared to other govt borrowing options, but I suspect it's quite a bit more than £80m a year.
Ultra Sound Guy said:
E63eeeeee... said:
Out of curiosity I checked and the National Lottery makes about 1% profit on ~£8bn a year, so £80m, and pays nearly £1bn in lottery tax, so if the govt nationalised it directly, they'd only get an extra £80m in profits. Even cannibalising it by introducing a competitor lottery seems unlikely to fundamentally change the picture.
I don't know what the govt's effective margin on borrowing £120bn via Premium Bonds is compared to other govt borrowing options, but I suspect it's quite a bit more than £80m a year.
And how much does it pay out to “worthy causes”?I don't know what the govt's effective margin on borrowing £120bn via Premium Bonds is compared to other govt borrowing options, but I suspect it's quite a bit more than £80m a year.
The lottery pays out about £500m per year. £48 billion since it was launched.
It is essentially already nationalised. Its operation is subbed out because it is better for the state for a commercial entity to take the financial risk. 1% operational profit is exceptionally lean and would place public finances at risk should it have a couple of bad years.
Equally, it is entirely wrong to fund public services from the proceeds of gambling (tax on gambling related activity is another matter). Those services would be at the mercy of society's willingness to buy a ticket which tends to ebb and flow.
Lotteries are designed to fund the 'good-to-haves' but not the essentials.
It ain't broke, so don't fix it!
Edited by StevieBee on Friday 1st November 06:35
Edited by StevieBee on Friday 1st November 06:42
Ultra Sound Guy said:
In our (lovely, bankrupt) country we have many different lotteries.
The main one often has ridiculously high prizes, pays helpful amounts of money out to “deserving causes” and also pays out quite large amounts to those companies who run it!
Would it be feasible to have a lottery which was actually run by the state, where prizes were limited to £1,000,000 maximum, with more, higher low prizes payable. No people getting large payments for running the lottery and payments (possibly selected by the entrants?) made to support the NHS, education, lower paid workers etc?
This way, people could effectively pay more “tax” for essential services by choice whilst having the opportunity of winning a reward for their efforts.
The are two distinct hurdles. The main one often has ridiculously high prizes, pays helpful amounts of money out to “deserving causes” and also pays out quite large amounts to those companies who run it!
Would it be feasible to have a lottery which was actually run by the state, where prizes were limited to £1,000,000 maximum, with more, higher low prizes payable. No people getting large payments for running the lottery and payments (possibly selected by the entrants?) made to support the NHS, education, lower paid workers etc?
This way, people could effectively pay more “tax” for essential services by choice whilst having the opportunity of winning a reward for their efforts.
Technically, we already have a State lottery which is the National Lottery. This entity while privately owned exists under license only and that license forces it to operate under rules that are not contained within the Gaming License of the Gambling Commission, hence why almost every penny of the punters' money heads into the coffers of charities etc. Contrast that to say Party Gaming and where the bulk of their profits are sent.
But, no imagine the National Lottery is run by your local authority. That's the exact calibre of team of cretins that would be trying to operate a lottery and 100% why the license was created and put out to tender amongst the private sector.
The second big issue is your professional gambler, little old Mrs Miggins. She is a hard as f
k, seasoned gambler who doesn't take any st from anyone and she certainly doesn't fk about with pathetic children's games with capped winnings and better odds. That's scratchcard fannying for amateur nonces like her husband to have a play with if he's done a good enough job of cleaning the Meriva. The point is that there is an awful lot of science in the art of selling dreams to people who only have dreams. And capped winnings actually deters punters very heavily with most punters never even noticing.
It's because humans naturally fail to calculate two things accurately l, the first is risk and the second is value. So you can publish odds all day long but safe in the knowledge that few punters will use them to correctly calculate their risk or in this case, chance of winning. At the same time they also don't really get 'value' but instead associate larger numbers as being the core defining element for value or quality.
So you can have a lottery with better odds but the masses you need to hurl in their money don't care about the odds. They just want the dream. And you could cap the feature prize but then you're s
tting on the dream so they'll not turn up to play. You want the worst odds and the biggest prize and they'll flood in.
Exactly why we have to have a Gaming Commission and licenses to ensure that operators don't take advantage of the madness of crowds and exactly why you set up your gaming app offshore and bypass all the rules and regs that exist to protect customers who genuinely do not want to be protected they just want to buy the best dream and illusion possible and do not want the evil 'Man' trying to rob them of their basic human right to lose more and more quickly than is really necessary.
DonkeyApple said:
imagine the National Lottery is run by your local authority.
To underpin your point....Several county councils have launched their own local versions of the lottery, raising money for local causes. There is legislation provision that allows them to do this (part of David Cameron's Big Society thing). Very few - if any - exist today. Ticket sales were pitiful and the authorities underestimated the resource needed to run a lottery.
StevieBee said:
To underpin your point....
Several county councils have launched their own local versions of the lottery, raising money for local causes. There is legislation provision that allows them to do this (part of David Cameron's Big Society thing). Very few - if any - exist today. Ticket sales were pitiful and the authorities underestimated the resource needed to run a lottery.
You also have that basic issue with local lotteries that for each worthy cause you have as many locals who want it destroyed by fire for being evil as you do people who'd like to support it. Several county councils have launched their own local versions of the lottery, raising money for local causes. There is legislation provision that allows them to do this (part of David Cameron's Big Society thing). Very few - if any - exist today. Ticket sales were pitiful and the authorities underestimated the resource needed to run a lottery.
DonkeyApple said:
Ultra Sound Guy said:
In our (lovely, bankrupt) country we have many different lotteries.
The main one often has ridiculously high prizes, pays helpful amounts of money out to “deserving causes” and also pays out quite large amounts to those companies who run it!
Would it be feasible to have a lottery which was actually run by the state, where prizes were limited to £1,000,000 maximum, with more, higher low prizes payable. No people getting large payments for running the lottery and payments (possibly selected by the entrants?) made to support the NHS, education, lower paid workers etc?
This way, people could effectively pay more “tax” for essential services by choice whilst having the opportunity of winning a reward for their efforts.
The are two distinct hurdles. The main one often has ridiculously high prizes, pays helpful amounts of money out to “deserving causes” and also pays out quite large amounts to those companies who run it!
Would it be feasible to have a lottery which was actually run by the state, where prizes were limited to £1,000,000 maximum, with more, higher low prizes payable. No people getting large payments for running the lottery and payments (possibly selected by the entrants?) made to support the NHS, education, lower paid workers etc?
This way, people could effectively pay more “tax” for essential services by choice whilst having the opportunity of winning a reward for their efforts.
Technically, we already have a State lottery which is the National Lottery. This entity while privately owned exists under license only and that license forces it to operate under rules that are not contained within the Gaming License of the Gambling Commission, hence why almost every penny of the punters' money heads into the coffers of charities etc. Contrast that to say Party Gaming and where the bulk of their profits are sent.
But, no imagine the National Lottery is run by your local authority. That's the exact calibre of team of cretins that would be trying to operate a lottery and 100% why the license was created and put out to tender amongst the private sector.
The second big issue is your professional gambler, little old Mrs Miggins. She is a hard as f
k, seasoned gambler who doesn't take any st from anyone and she certainly doesn't fk about with pathetic children's games with capped winnings and better odds. That's scratchcard fannying for amateur nonces like her husband to have a play with if he's done a good enough job of cleaning the Meriva. The point is that there is an awful lot of science in the art of selling dreams to people who only have dreams. And capped winnings actually deters punters very heavily with most punters never even noticing.
It's because humans naturally fail to calculate two things accurately l, the first is risk and the second is value. So you can publish odds all day long but safe in the knowledge that few punters will use them to correctly calculate their risk or in this case, chance of winning. At the same time they also don't really get 'value' but instead associate larger numbers as being the core defining element for value or quality.
So you can have a lottery with better odds but the masses you need to hurl in their money don't care about the odds. They just want the dream. And you could cap the feature prize but then you're s
tting on the dream so they'll not turn up to play. You want the worst odds and the biggest prize and they'll flood in.
Exactly why we have to have a Gaming Commission and licenses to ensure that operators don't take advantage of the madness of crowds and exactly why you set up your gaming app offshore and bypass all the rules and regs that exist to protect customers who genuinely do not want to be protected they just want to buy the best dream and illusion possible and do not want the evil 'Man' trying to rob them of their basic human right to lose more and more quickly than is really necessary.
I dont personally want 158 million quid, I think for most it causes more problems than it solves having that much money in one go. Plus, you lose the dream of what you would do if you had money, after the initial novelty, it becomes normal and you realise its not the absolute most important thing.
For most, their normal life, made a bit better with a decent cash injection is the optimum, can keep it quiet to avoid jealousy and people getting weird, but improve stuff, take the pressure off.
National Lottery also has games like Set For Life paying out lower prizes but over very long periods, they don’t attract anything like the hype that the big jackpot games get https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/games/set-for-l...
Ultra Sound Guy said:
In our (lovely, bankrupt) country we have many different lotteries.
The main one often has ridiculously high prizes, pays helpful amounts of money out to “deserving causes” and also pays out quite large amounts to those companies who run it!
Would it be feasible to have a lottery which was actually run by the state, where prizes were limited to £1,000,000 maximum, with more, higher low prizes payable. No people getting large payments for running the lottery and payments (possibly selected by the entrants?) made to support the NHS, education, lower paid workers etc?
This way, people could effectively pay more “tax” for essential services by choice whilst having the opportunity of winning a reward for their efforts.
Compare with Peoples Postcode Lottery who have more but smaller sums to win, a steady contract (so reducing gambling addiction issues), give away a much larger percentage of the money they earn, and so far are (I think) the worlds 10th largest philanthropic giver as they are still owned by one family who take no salary from the business...The main one often has ridiculously high prizes, pays helpful amounts of money out to “deserving causes” and also pays out quite large amounts to those companies who run it!
Would it be feasible to have a lottery which was actually run by the state, where prizes were limited to £1,000,000 maximum, with more, higher low prizes payable. No people getting large payments for running the lottery and payments (possibly selected by the entrants?) made to support the NHS, education, lower paid workers etc?
This way, people could effectively pay more “tax” for essential services by choice whilst having the opportunity of winning a reward for their efforts.
J4CKO said:
It is strange how most folk would have all their financial worries cured, and most wants satisfied by a million quid, but they want to win the Euromillions and win 158 million or whatever at even more miniscule odds.
I dont personally want 158 million quid, I think for most it causes more problems than it solves having that much money in one go. Plus, you lose the dream of what you would do if you had money, after the initial novelty, it becomes normal and you realise its not the absolute most important thing.
For most, their normal life, made a bit better with a decent cash injection is the optimum, can keep it quiet to avoid jealousy and people getting weird, but improve stuff, take the pressure off.
You’re a crap gambler though Jacko. You’ll never even make it to the lower leagues. Sorry to break this news to you. I dont personally want 158 million quid, I think for most it causes more problems than it solves having that much money in one go. Plus, you lose the dream of what you would do if you had money, after the initial novelty, it becomes normal and you realise its not the absolute most important thing.
For most, their normal life, made a bit better with a decent cash injection is the optimum, can keep it quiet to avoid jealousy and people getting weird, but improve stuff, take the pressure off.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff