※ 引述《PeerGynt (皮爾金特)》之銘言：
: As we know, most of the fund supplied by the buyers who
: don't get the prize is transferred to the weaker and poorer
: class of the society. That is to say, most of it is used
: for social welfare, isn't it?
Well, I don't assume the lottery industry is necessarily coherent with
the social welfare mechanism. If it is the case, I think the transfer of
wealth is due to the social welfare mechanism, not the lottery industry
per se. I think it's the crucial difference between our presuppositions.
You also assume the social welfare mechanism favours the poors. I am not
sure all of social welfare programmes will benefit the poors more than the
riches. For example, if the lottery fund is used to contribute the National
Health Insurance or pre-school education plan, it's not clear whether the poors
will benefit more from those programmes than will the riches.
: I agree with your point about the fairness of the game,
: which is related to the expected benefit of the buyers.
: However, whether the gap between the rich and poor is
: broadened does not actually depend on the fairness of the game,
: but the allocation of the total fund.
I think the fairness of gambling is the key point because every gambler, on
average, is expected to be a loser. The expected winners are those people
who work for the lottery industry. They have jobs and are not the poor. Both
the riches and the poors are expected to lose money, but the latter will
lose more because of stronger incentives to gamble. The real winner is the
lottery industry where people who are not poor work. Therefore I think the
lottery per se doesn't shorten the poverty gap by itself. The transfer takes
place only when there is a well-working social welfare mechanism to support
it. But if we already have a good social welfare mechanism, in the sense,
why do we need the lottery?
: True, several people (and we don't know whether they are
: rich) get several tens of millions of dollars of
: prize per week. However, most of them are rich, poor, or
: the middle-class? Before we get to the conclusion, we
: should consider more about that. But the only thing for sure
: is that the purpose of the lottery is for social welfare,
: which means it functions as transferring most fund supplied by
: the buyers of the lottery to the weaker and poorer of the
: society. From this point of view, can we say the lottery
: causes broadening gap between the rich and poor?
: The essence of the lottery in Taiwan is not gambling, but
: to do something for the social welfare. That's the key
: point when we think about whether it will broaden the gap
: between the rich and poor.
: ※ 編輯: PeerGynt 來自: 61.223.221.146 (07/15 17:32)
I only agree that the lottery in Taiwan is in the name of social welfare.
But what is the reality actually?
I have no information of the major purchasing class. Are they the middle
class or the poor? How much fund will be transferred to social welfare use
and who will be benifited finnally? I have no idea about that. If more
details are avaliable, it would be more reliable to analyse the issue.
--
達摩西來一字無 只憑心意用功夫
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.csie.ntu.edu.tw)
◆ From: 143.167.137.220
※ 編輯: Brahman 來自: 143.167.137.220 (07/16 23:48)