PDA

View Full Version : Federal Lottery to fix Social Security


jspchief
03-13-2005, 08:51 PM
I noticed this weekend that several of the news networks were discussing this topic.

It's basically a nationwide lottery system that generates money for SS, much like state lotteries generate money for schools. It would be 100% voluntary just like any lottery, and the jackpots would probably be astronomical. There are other countries that have done this successfully.

Obviously, there's the moral objections of using gambling to bail out the government. And the "preying on the poor" arguement (as if the poor aren't already buying lottery tickets). And the most legitimate arguement against that I've heard is that it could sap dollars from the state run lotteries, thus taking money from schools.

Just curious what other's opinions are. It's certainly an "outside the box" solution. I like it as long as there's a provision to protect state school funding, and the money can be otherwise left alone except for it's intended purpose (you know the first time it exceeded expectations, politicians would be lining up to get a piece of the pie).

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 09:17 PM
thats pretty interesting and I would be all for it if instead of multi state lotteries they just used a federal lotto that way there wouldn't be a "lotto saturation"

RINGLEADER
03-14-2005, 12:28 AM
As long as it can net $500 billion a year I'm all for it! Then we can use 100% of our social security taxes on personal accounts. ;)

Amnorix
03-14-2005, 06:07 AM
I generally disfavor lotteries as "idiot taxes". I'm also sure the states won't be happy about the feds competing with them for "lottery dollars".

Boozer
03-14-2005, 06:32 AM
Well, it's not as bad an idea as having the federal government purchase lottery tickets to finance SS.

Cochise
03-14-2005, 06:34 AM
Great, now all the people drawing benefits will be just giving them right back.

Soupnazi
03-14-2005, 08:25 AM
Terrible idea. It does nothing to solve the major issue that faces SS in our lifetimes-savings. We need a system that promotes earned savings and the growth of said savings. This is simply a method of redistributing money already available.

Stinger
03-14-2005, 08:46 AM
Federal Lottery to fix Social Security

:rolleyes:

Yeah these multi state lotteries were passed because all these millions of dollars were going to education in those states. Anybody see there school systems prospering, or their state representives not dipping in to that fund.

Soupnazi[/size]]Terrible idea. It does nothing to solve the major issue that faces SS in our lifetimes-savings. We need a system that promotes earned savings and the growth of said savings. This is simply a method of redistributing money already available.

What he said

DenverChief
03-14-2005, 11:45 AM
:rolleyes:

Yeah these multi state lotteries were passed because all these millions of dollars were going to education in those states. Anybody see there school systems prospering, or their state representives not dipping in to that fund.



What he said

more than just education

Great Outdoors Colorado

Established in 1992, Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund (GOCO) (http://www.goco.org/) receives its funding solely through Lottery revenues. GOCO uses proceeds to fund open space, local parks and recreation, state parks, wildlife protection, and environmental projects. More than $338.8 million has been distributed to GOCO through the end of 2003.

Conservation Trust Fund

Local parks and recreation providers--towns, cities, counties, and special districts--receive money from this fund, based on their populations. More than $554.5 million has been distributed through the Conservation Trust Fund (http://www.dola.state.co.us/LGS/FA/ctf.htm) since 1983 for parks, trails and the development of recreation facilities.

Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation

Colorado's 40 state parks use Lottery money for open space and land acquisitions, trail system construction and maintenance, equipment and facility purchases, and renovation of state parks facilities. Approximately $138.4 million has been distributed directly to Colorado State Parks (http://parks.state.co.us/) through this fund.

School Health and Safety

The Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund receives up to 50 percent of Lottery proceeds; however, this fund is capped at $35 million in 1992 dollars according to the consumer price index. Spillover from the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund that was formerly designated to the General Fund is used to address health and safety capital construction issues in public schools. More than $14.5 million has been distributed to this fund since 2002


now imagine if the feds only funded SS with the money earned from a fed lotto

Cochise
03-14-2005, 11:59 AM
I have an idea. We CAN use a federal lottery to fix SS.

So, first of all, the tickets should cost 15% of your total income or so. Secondly, every working person will be forced to buy them from every paycheck for their entire working lives. And if you are lucky and win, then you get $500 a month from the government after you retire. Er, well, until all the money is used up. Then you get dick.

I think a lottery like this is a great idea.

DenverChief
03-14-2005, 12:03 PM
. Then you get dick.


ooooh where do I sign up? :hmmm:

BigMeatballDave
03-14-2005, 12:03 PM
I have an idea. We CAN use a federal lottery to fix SS.

So, first of all, the tickets should cost 15% of your total income or so. Secondly, every working person will be forced to buy them from every paycheck for their entire working lives. And if you are lucky and win, then you get $500 a month from the government after you retire. Er, well, until all the money is used up. Then you get dick.

I think a lottery like this is a great idea.Splendid idea, indeed...

BigMeatballDave
03-14-2005, 12:05 PM
ooooh where do I sign up? :hmmm:OK, that was funny. A little icky, but funny, nonetheless...

Clint in Wichita
03-14-2005, 12:08 PM
I think this lottery is a good idea, with one condition:

Gambling sponsored by the federal government should put an end to restrictions on all forms of gambling and casinos. Building a casino should involve no more red tape than opening a "normal" business, anywhere in the country.

DenverChief
03-14-2005, 12:09 PM
OK, that was funny. A little icky, but funny, nonetheless...:)

Cochise
03-14-2005, 12:13 PM
ooooh where do I sign up? :hmmm:

Come on, do you really need to sign up for a lottery? I am sure there are many venues where it's plenty easy to obtain.

Hell even a hetero male can pretty much hook it up whenever he wants if his standards are suspended.

KC Kings
03-14-2005, 12:21 PM
Excuse me for only knowing what I have read from the media, but is the problem with Social Security that the retiree's are using more than they put in, or that the government illegally borrowed against the fund in the past?

DenverChief
03-14-2005, 12:29 PM
Come on, do you really need to sign up for a lottery? I am sure there are many venues where it's plenty easy to obtain.

Hell even a hetero male can pretty much hook it up whenever he wants if his standards are suspended.

This is true.... I refuse to suspend my standards though

Donger
03-14-2005, 12:33 PM
Excuse me for only knowing what I have read from the media, but is the problem with Social Security that the retiree's are using more than they put in, or that the government illegally borrowed against the fund in the past?

I suppose if the problem with SS could be boiled down to one cause, I suppose it would be the fact that when the program began, each retiree was "paid for" by something like three workers. Now, it's more like each retiree is paid for by 30 something workers.

Quite simply, there are too many retirees. It's time for Soylent Green.

beavis
03-14-2005, 12:37 PM
I suppose if the problem with SS could be boiled down to one cause, I suppose it would be the fact that when the program began, each retiree was "paid for" by something like three workers. Now, it's more like each retiree is paid for by 30 something workers.

Quite simply, there are too many retirees. It's time for Soylent Green.
Am I dumb, or do you have that backwards?

Donger
03-14-2005, 12:42 PM
Am I dumb, or do you have that backwards?

Heh. Sorry, I got it backwards.

beavis
03-14-2005, 12:45 PM
Heh. Sorry, I got it backwards.
Ok, just making sure. Something wasn't clicking there.

Cochise
03-14-2005, 01:04 PM
This is true.... I refuse to suspend my standards though

Sorry beavis.

SBK
03-14-2005, 01:15 PM
Playing the lottery is the same as "investing" in the stock market if you don't know what you're doing.....which goes for 99% of people throwing money at Wall Street.

Iowanian
03-14-2005, 01:29 PM
Bah.

Make Indian Casinos start paying Taxes, and put that Money in a split between 30-70 split with States and SS.

Enough of that gravy Train.

Soupnazi
03-14-2005, 01:36 PM
Playing the lottery is the same as "investing" in the stock market if you don't know what you're doing.....which goes for 99% of people throwing money at Wall Street.

*cough*bullshit*cough*

SBK
03-14-2005, 01:49 PM
*cough*bullshit*cough*

There's a difference from putting money in the stock market to SAVE for retirement, and INVESTING to get a return on your money.

SBK
03-14-2005, 01:50 PM
*cough*bullshit*cough*

Explain to me how someone that doesn't know what he or she is doing investing wise, and putting money into Wall St is any different from playing the Power Ball.....

RINGLEADER
03-14-2005, 01:54 PM
I'm sure Jaz would be all for a lottery...as long as it was in addition to the current system.

;)

Soupnazi
03-14-2005, 02:01 PM
There's a difference from putting money in the stock market to SAVE for retirement, and INVESTING to get a return on your money.

Saving implies taking a portion of your earned wages and setting them aside for future use. Investing implies taking said saved wages and purchasing investment instruments. Saving is not the same defined term as investing.

Never the less, this perpetual myth that being a "market dummy" is equally dangerous on a risk basis as playing the lottery is preposterous. Point 1: 99% of people in the market are not geniouses, and yet still make money at it. 99% of people playing the lottery are not earning a return on their lottery tickets. The odds of winning at the lottery are the equivalent of getting hit by lightning 3 times, while the odds of making money in the market is, while uncalculateable, history says gets you 7.2% positive return/yr.
Point 2: You can hire people to assist you in the investment process to increase your chances of success. Hire anyone you want to, they have no knowledge to help you increase your odds of hitting 6 numbers.
Point 3: If we were to compare the number of people who've used the market to generate money to fund their retirement vs. people who've used the lottery to do so, the statics would be so overwhelming that you'd never consider doing so.

Soupnazi
03-14-2005, 02:03 PM
Explain to me how someone that doesn't know what he or she is doing investing wise, and putting money into Wall St is any different from playing the Power Ball.....

Explain to me how the likelihood of you getting hit by lighting 3 times is as concieveable as US GDP growing by 3% next year.

RINGLEADER
03-14-2005, 02:13 PM
Explain to me how someone that doesn't know what he or she is doing investing wise, and putting money into Wall St is any different from playing the Power Ball.....

Looks like you need to learn more about the plan.

1. You can't take the money and just start investing in any stock you want. The claims made by Dems that you'll lose your money in Enron are just false. Like the program that was instituted in Galveston County, TX (which has left most people there with six-figure retirement nesteggs), there will be a number of different programs put in place that allow you to set your risk-level in much the same way company-implemented 401ks do. If you want annuities and insurance and want a 6-7% return over the life of your career then it will be available.

2. Another fallacy that the Dems like to tout is that you can get wiped out if there is a boom and bust. Most people don't work for two years and call it quits. The comparisons to the bust of 2000 just don't apply otherwise. If you started putting money into the system in 1970 and retired the week after 9/11 you'd still be up, compounded, more than 6x what social security would earn. I'd challenge you to point to any 30-year period of time where the stock market didn't gain double-digits.

3. Social security is fast becoming every bit the risk that you bemoan SBK. If you look at your current statement they're already promising a cut in benefits in 2042. If we have a recession at any time in the next four decades it will be even quicker.

Soupnazi
03-14-2005, 02:23 PM
Looks like you need to learn more about the plan.

2. Another fallacy that the Dems like to tout is that you can get wiped out if there is a boom and bust. Most people don't work for two years and call it quits. The comparisons to the bust of 2000 just don't apply otherwise. If you started putting money into the system in 1970 and retired the week after 9/11 you'd still be up, compounded, more than 6x what social security would earn. I'd challenge you to point to any 30-year period of time where the stock market didn't gain double-digits.


This is the one that drives me insane. Two circumstances: Both starting with $10000 investment.

Scenario 1: You earn 1%/yr, no fluctuations in rate of return, and "guaranteed safety" of availability of that investment. After 20 years, it's worth:_____________

Scenario 2: You earn on average 7%/yr, the value of the portfolio fluctuates from time to time, and you lose 20% of the value of the portfolio the day before you retire due to the market "plunging". After 20 years, it's worth:____________

Tell me which one you'd rather have. Most people probably want 1 for the safety, right? In the end, scenario 1 gets you $12200, while scenario 2, even with the 20% loss the day before you retire, gets you $30950. Which one's more risky?

SBK
03-14-2005, 02:26 PM
Looks like you need to learn more about the plan.

1. You can't take the money and just start investing in any stock you want. The claims made by Dems that you'll lose your money in Enron are just false. Like the program that was instituted in Galveston County, TX (which has left most people there with six-figure retirement nesteggs), there will be a number of different programs put in place that allow you to set your risk-level in much the same way company-implemented 401ks do. If you want annuities and insurance and want a 6-7% return over the life of your career then it will be available.

2. Another fallacy that the Dems like to tout is that you can get wiped out if there is a boom and bust. Most people don't work for two years and call it quits. The comparisons to the bust of 2000 just don't apply otherwise. If you started putting money into the system in 1970 and retired the week after 9/11 you'd still be up, compounded, more than 6x what social security would earn. I'd challenge you to point to any 30-year period of time where the stock market didn't gain double-digits.

3. Social security is fast becoming every bit the risk that you bemoan SBK. If you look at your current statement they're already promising a cut in benefits in 2042. If we have a recession at any time in the next four decades it will be even quicker.

I was just making the point that not knowing what you are doing playing the stock market and playing the lotto are the same thing. (that's the direction this thread was going)

I'm all for the presidents plan, BUT I do think that they need to teach people about investing, money principals and stuff like that in school. They don't even teach you how to balance a checkbook anymore. Not knowing what you are doing, and playing the stock market is a heck of a way to lose a lot of money.
-in regards to education-
(When babyboomers HAVE to withdraw money from the market (see IRA's), you have lots of sellers driving the price down. People don't like watchting their retirement nest egg go down, and if they don't know how to invest in a down market they'll sell off too. That right there is a recipie for disaster.)

By the way, I've never been accused of being a dem, if #2 is that accusation than I am HIGHLY insulted. :thumb:

SBK
03-14-2005, 02:27 PM
Explain to me how the likelihood of you getting hit by lighting 3 times is as concieveable as US GDP growing by 3% next year.

How do you know the GDP will grow? I think it will, and the law of averages says it will, but you still never know.........

SBK
03-14-2005, 02:35 PM
Saving implies taking a portion of your earned wages and setting them aside for future use. Investing implies taking said saved wages and purchasing investment instruments. Saving is not the same defined term as investing.

Never the less, this perpetual myth that being a "market dummy" is equally dangerous on a risk basis as playing the lottery is preposterous. Point 1: 99% of people in the market are not geniouses, and yet still make money at it. 99% of people playing the lottery are not earning a return on their lottery tickets. The odds of winning at the lottery are the equivalent of getting hit by lightning 3 times, while the odds of making money in the market is, while uncalculateable, history says gets you 7.2% positive return/yr.
Point 2: You can hire people to assist you in the investment process to increase your chances of success. Hire anyone you want to, they have no knowledge to help you increase your odds of hitting 6 numbers.
Point 3: If we were to compare the number of people who've used the market to generate money to fund their retirement vs. people who've used the lottery to do so, the statics would be so overwhelming that you'd never consider doing so.

You missed my point. If you don't know what you're doing, how do you know that you will make money? How do you know that the person you hired is any good? How do you know anything other than that you HOPE you'll get a return.

I don't know the stock market, so I don't mess with it. Im learning, and trying to teach myself, but I don't know how a hedge fund works, or stock options, calls, puts, or any of that crap for that matter. I know real estate, so that's what I stick to. The chances of me making money with my real estate investments is quite great, cause I know what Im doing, and what to buy and what not to buy. Can I lose, yep, but I can hedge my bets to make the the highest likelyhood that I will make money. (plus I can make money on the buy, something that I know you can't do with stocks) :thumb:

Most people don't see things this way, they think that all stock brokers are wonderful and know what they are doing. They think that all financial planners are great. They think that anyone with advice actually knows what they are talking about.

That's all. :thumb:

Soupnazi
03-14-2005, 02:39 PM
How do you know the GDP will grow? I think it will, and the law of averages says it will, but you still never know.........

You know what? I can't guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow morning either. I can't guarantee that tomorrow it will be easier to ride a bike down hill than uphill. So, to hell with it, live for today, screw tomorrow. Tomorrow you're going to wake up and you'll be 50. You want to guarantee your retirement on the odds of hitting the lottery?

Here's how we can answer your question. I'll put up $1000 that says in a year the US GDP grows from where it is now, and you put up $1000 that you'll hit the Powerball Jackpot. Loser forks over the money. Deal?

Soupnazi
03-14-2005, 02:49 PM
You missed my point. If you don't know what you're doing, how do you know that you will make money? How do you know that the person you hired is any good? How do you know anything other than that you HOPE you'll get a return.

I don't know the stock market, so I don't mess with it. Im learning, and trying to teach myself, but I don't know how a hedge fund works, or stock options, calls, puts, or any of that crap for that matter. I know real estate, so that's what I stick to. The chances of me making money with my real estate investments is quite great, cause I know what Im doing, and what to buy and what not to buy. Can I lose, yep, but I can hedge my bets to make the the highest likelyhood that I will make money. (plus I can make money on the buy, something that I know you can't do with stocks) :thumb:

Most people don't see things this way, they think that all stock brokers are wonderful and know what they are doing. They think that all financial planners are great. They think that anyone with advice actually knows what they are talking about.

That's all. :thumb:

And that's fine. The point is that you don't need to know how a hedge fund works. You don't need to know how options work. You don't need to know Home Depot's shrinkage numbers or last quarter's bad debt numbers. What you need to know is that by putting your money into a diversified group of stocks and bonds, and using time as your ally, you are virtually guaranteed of success.

Real estate is fine, although it performs historically poorer than the stock market (~2.5% vs. ~ 7.2%). And there are financial planners that don't know everything. Most experts even are still in the learning process just as you are.

You should also know that you can make money while the market is going down by selling short and utilizing inverse index funds. That's something you can't get with real estate.

Soupnazi
03-14-2005, 02:54 PM
(When babyboomers HAVE to withdraw money from the market (see IRA's), you have lots of sellers driving the price down. People don't like watchting their retirement nest egg go down, and if they don't know how to invest in a down market they'll sell off too. That right there is a recipie for disaster.)

Actually, there's over $7.5 trillion sitting in M1 money right now. M1 money is CD's, checking and savings accts, money market accts, etc. That number dwarfs the baby boomers' nest egg.

SBK
03-14-2005, 05:54 PM
And that's fine. The point is that you don't need to know how a hedge fund works. You don't need to know how options work. You don't need to know Home Depot's shrinkage numbers or last quarter's bad debt numbers. What you need to know is that by putting your money into a diversified group of stocks and bonds, and using time as your ally, you are virtually guaranteed of success.

Real estate is fine, although it performs historically poorer than the stock market (~2.5% vs. ~ 7.2%). And there are financial planners that don't know everything. Most experts even are still in the learning process just as you are.

You should also know that you can make money while the market is going down by selling short and utilizing inverse index funds. That's something you can't get with real estate.

HUH? There is no greater builder of wealth in the world than real estate.

And as far as selling short with real estate.....That doesn't matter to me, if the market drops 40% I'll still be able to sell and make a profit. I don't think folks are buying stocks for less than 60% of the value.

Diversification doesn't protect you from anything. It does prevent you from making big gains. You should see what a professional investor, like Warren Buffet, has to say on the subject.

No sense in having this arguement, I prefer real estate, you prefer stocks. My point was that most people that invest have no business doing so because they don't have a clue what they are doing. Right now the real estate market is a good example. Lots of folks buying property for way more than it's worth, and hoping the appreciation continues. Im selling some of my properties to folks like that now. 5 years from now the properties they bought will be killing them, and they'll lose a ton cause they stepped into a market that they know nothing about.

jspchief
03-14-2005, 07:47 PM
Terrible idea. It does nothing to solve the major issue that faces SS in our lifetimes-savings. We need a system that promotes earned savings and the growth of said savings. This is simply a method of redistributing money already available.

Of course we need a system that promotes savings. But it's incredibly naive and idealistic to count on people to do the smart thing when it comes to savings.

The notion that all of a sudden poor people are going to start blowing their savings on a new lottery is absurd. People that would buy these tickets are already buying lottery tickets. How much extra money are they going to spend? If they buy 5 tickets a day, it's only $1825 a year. The end result? More money goes into the SS fund, creating more benefits when they are older. How many of those people would have invested that $1825 instead, had the lottery not been there?