The open letter to current Treasurer and candidate for Governor Steve Grossman regarding the lottery generated a long and quite interesting comment thread – you should read the whole thing. I wanted to highlight two comments in particular, which seemed to me to raise important points both about the lottery in general, and about Grossman’s role in overseeing it. Have at it.
On the big picture:
State Revenue
There’s an unwillingness as a society to deal with the true cost of government. That’s what’s going on here, in Massachusetts, with gambling and the lottery; with fees, tolls, and other governmental charges; and, even increased property taxes (as a result of cuts to local aid to cities and towns). People think (and perhaps it’s true) that there’s a general unwillingness to pay higher taxes, or, in Massachusetts, implement a more progressive state income tax. So, in order to generate revenue, we steer clear of “income taxes” and focus on all other means to generate revenue. But, what does this really accomplish, at the end of the day other than making people feel better because taxes don’t go up? What is each one of us really saving at the end of the day, if income taxes don’t go up but tolls increase, fees go up, property taxes increase, and the state needs to care for a bunch of lottery and gambling addicts? I would rather have a debate that recognizes the true cost of government, institute a progressive state income tax, and get rid of all other “crutches” that we use to fund government because we’re afraid to have an honest debate about what it really costs……..
dasox1 @ Thu 23 Jan 2:20 PM
And on Grossman:
Tweak the lottery
We needn’t eliminate the lottery tomorrow, but there are some changes Grossman could have implemented over the past four years, and didn’t. These include:
* Eliminate Keno at places where it is legal to consume alcohol. Mixing booze and gambling is a definite exacerbation of both addictions, and there’s just no excuse for it.
* Bring back the “turn in a non-winning scratchoff for a chance to win a sweepstakes” program. It cut down on litter, which is important in its own right and helps reduce the exposure of gambling to kids, who see the flashy lotto tickets on the ground.
* We don’t need 30 scratchoff games. Reduce the number a bit. It’s just excessive.
* $20 scratchoff tickets? That’s not harmless. That’s a problem. No scratchoff ticket should cost more than minimum wage methinks.
* We don’t need to mix sports teams and lottery. The Bruins, Pats, Sox, and other lottery scratchoff games are no good. They’re overly attractive to kids, and they link sports and gambling, itself a major problem in this country.
* Grossman moved the Commonwealth’s money to Mass banks. A great move. Why not the lottery? Why doesn’t the lottery only hire Massachusetts-based advertising firms? Manufacturing firms? Why doesn’t the lottery only advertise with organizations based in Massachusetts (think: Boston College program and not ClearChannel billboard)? Lottery revenue goes to three places: payouts, cities and towns, and overhead. Why not make sure the overhead at least helps stimulate the local economy?
* How about a scratchoff where winners get solar panels on their roof? Where you win an electric car? MBTA monthly pass for life? Where you and the local charity of your choice win matching payouts?I’d like to see the lottery phased out, but it’s not realistic in a short time frame. At the very least, we could tweak it to minimize the most damaging aspects of it, and maximize the benefits which come of it. Grossman had four years to do it, and there’s no evidence I’ve seen that he made any efforts to do that. I think that’s a real shame.
stomv @ Thu 23 Jan 9:51 AM
Thanks to all, as always, for your thoughtful and informative commentary.
How do we get the lawmakers to even think about ending the Lottery, when they won’t something as pernicious as casino gambling?
Is the Lottery less pernicious than casino gambling? I bet its perniciousness is more obvious, but it might not be worse. With the lottery, you can exhaust your wealth in private; at a casino, you’re out among the public.
studies have born that out.
It’s all very well to be anti-lotteries — there are lots of historical customs that should be revised or scrapped — but this discussion seems to ignore the truth that lotteries are woven into the Commonwealth as deeply as any of our other hoary customs, from the state constitution to public education. Notre Dame University explains:
In other words, lotteries have centuries of broad public acceptance and utility behind them. That is the context in which we need to have the current discussion for it to be most productive, I think.
The Massachusetts Lottery in anything like its current form has been around since … 1971. Not exactly the Colonial Era. Prior to that, organized gambling of pretty much any sort, state-sponsored or otherwise, appears to have been illegal in Massachusetts since at least the 1830s. Hardly analogous to the state Constitution or public education, IMHO.
there have been carve-outs from the blanket ban on organized gambling over the years, such as betting on horse and dog racing. But it does seem that state-sponsored lotteries were illegal from the 1830s until 1971.
Proceeds from Bingo have been a mainstay of Catholic parishes in Massachusetts for a very long tim.
the legalization of low-stakes bingo is another exception to the general ban.
…”the eighth sacrament”:)
but we have banned TV advertising for cigarettes.
In Massachusetts, however, we have a Treasurer who has aggressively increased TV advertising to hook more people on the lottery.
Imagine if a Tobacco executive defended his advertising budget by telling us that if we allowed him to hook more people on tobacco, we could use the extra tax revenue to help out cities and towns.
That’s pretty much exactly what Grossman is saying about his agressive efforts to hook more people on the lottery.
Please read this article by my favorite UMass-Amherst professor, Richard Wolff. I have quoted him on other tax policy issues I have written about.
Highlights of article include:
* lotteries are extremely popular amoung the low income and less educated
* blacks spend 5X more on lottery tickets than whites
* HS dropouts spend 3X more than college grads
* rich escape taxation by not buying lottery tickets
http://rdwolff.com/content/lotteries-disguised-regressive-and-counterproductive-taxes
This is his case against casinos, but he seems to be counting on lottery income. So if the lottery is what you’re talking about, Berwick’s not the guy. I note this as he has been associated somehow to the lottery diary. I don’t think that is accurate.
This was somehow supposed to be a positive Grossman article.
Both prey on the hopes and dreams of desperate people, typically the poor and the naive. Both Grossman and a Televangelist require an offering from those that seek their help.
Both Grossman and a Televangelist offer some sort of miracle to their target audience, Grossman offers a quick fix to ones financial needs, the Televangelist typically offers a miracle cure for a different kind of ailment, a sickness of some kind. Grossman requires a person to part with $1-$20 per play, and a Televangelist usually wants $50, but they will throw in some gospel music and a prayer.
And both Grossman and the Televangelist display real people who either won or have been cured by their services. How many times have we seen the smiling lottery winner holding a 3’X5 check? How about all those miracle cures performed by the Televangelist simply by touching an audience member who was suffering from arthritis, but can now jump up and down in front of the camera.
Brother Grossman, if you lose your bid to be governor, Benny Hinn may need a warmup act before he takes the stage. Since you show no qualms taking money from the poor and the desperate, you will fit right in. Do I hear an Alleluia, Brother Steve?
how would you replace the $1 billion or so that the lottery sends to cities and towns?
I enjoy righteous indignation as much as the next guy, but the lottery is paying for services currently enjoyed by the people who buy the tickets. Is it a regressive tax? Yes. Am I against regressive taxation? Pretty much.
I may just be a cranky 50 year-old, but blaming Grossman for doing his job as Treasurer is just stupid. Would we be cheering if he were able to cut lottery sales in half and thus reduce lottery-based state aid by an equal amount? I know I wouldn’t. The same people who buy lottery tickets would being losing services provided by cities and towns.
I have no idea who I’m supporting for governor, but blaming Grossman for promoting the lottery is just scapegoating masquerading as idealistic concern.
I frame this question COMPLETELY differently.
In my view, the lottery is classic “enabling behavior”. It enables the delusional tax-cutting behavior that has hobbled effective state government for decades and now threatens the very fabric of our society (we are in the process of losing our passenger rail system altogether). It enables good and well-intentioned citizens like yourself to look the other way while the horrific things our current stance towards taxation is doing today continue. Horrific things being done not only to the least fortunate among us, but in fact to the HALF of us who are in poverty or one paycheck away from poverty.
I would FIRST end the lottery. I would STOP the “$1 billion or so that the lottery sends to cities and towns”. STOP it altogether.
I would then have our House and Senate leaders join our Governor on a stage and JOINTLY announce any combination of the following:
– A constitutional amendment to impose a graduated income tax, or a re-interpretation of the existing decisions to allow it
– The repeal of proposition 2 1/2 constraints on cities an towns
– A provision to allow cities and towns to impose an income tax surcharge for local aid
– A significant increase in the capital gains tax
– A significant increase in the estate/gift tax
– Doubling the personal income tax, together with doubling the personal exemptions.
I think our decades of tax-cutting and government-starving is the problem, and I think the Lottery only exacerbates that problem. If Massachusetts were a house with water pouring in from a roof that lost its shingles two decades ago, the Lottery is a tarp covering the dining room table. It’s time to fix the roof, not enlarge the tarp.
I think that the primary way to build public support for sustainable levels of taxes is to END the programs like the lottery that only delude voters (especially low-information voters) that “things are fine”.
feasibility of doing so…
The horse left the barn on the lottery a long time ago, and it’s only gotten worse. Your plan would eliminate local aid. As the MBPC writes, General Local Aid No Longer Supported with State Tax Revenue.
In other words, cities like Springfield, which has large poor and working class populations, would be screwed. My town, which is largely working class, would be screwed.
I’m not a fan of the lottery, but you’ve got the cart before the horse on eliminating the lottery and then fixing taxes.
…that turning off the lottery spigot would make a bunch of key politicians salivate at the prospect of raising taxes? Your alternatives are good and I support them, but even in “Taxachusetts” the politics stinks.
Sure and I’d have Obama outlaw Fox News and pass single payer on an executive order while we are at it.
Meanwhile in the real world, I shudder to think how our state could function in this economy without that precious revenue. Progressives should never be taking an anti-revenue position if they can help themselves, it certainly enables the very anti-government attitudes you hope to eliminate.
The lottery is a voluntary tax enjoyed by the same Herald reading, Carr listening, tax fearing voters you so often lament. If they choose to tax themselves and schools, hospitals, and roads benefit so be it in my book.
Totally different from casinos which have a massive negative impact on the communities they are situated in from an economic development standpoint, don’t deliver on their promised revenues or job creation targets, and are run by some of the most corrupt businessmen in the United States. Massachusetts shouldn’t emulate Macau-but progressives shouldn’t emulate the prohibition party either.
I hadn’t thought about it that succinctly and clearly, so thanks for that. Still, I stand by my post way up top… I don’t think eliminating the lottery is a short-term political possibility, but it could be refined to eliminate the worst parts and emphasize its best parts…
I totally agree with you. And to reply to your other reply down thread-if Grossman can enact some of these reforms and has not than that is an indictment on his current position and what he hopes to achieve as Governor. I would say yours and David’s has been the most fact based opposition I’ve seen on this thread, and you and I could both live with these reforms.
Naive? I’d say you are instead simply flaming.
You know as well as I that outlawing Fox News and imposing single-payer by executive order are each unconstitutional and completely impossible, regardless of their politics.
Of the items I enumerated, NONE fall into that category. The local aid problem was itself created by Prop 2 1/2 — it can be repealed like any other law (modulo whatever lipstick is required on the repeal effort because it was an initiative petition in 1981). The lottery was created by fiat and can be ended the same. No legal impediments stand in the way of a joint appearance as I cited in the second paragraph you quote. Similarly, no legal impediments block any of the six bullets I listed.
It’s the politics, not the law, that are at issue — I therefore reject your first sentence outright.
It sounds to me as though you either simply accept the inevitability this transfer of wealth from our least to our most affluent, or you place your faith in some future nirvana of government prosperity that allows this regressive policy to be reverted because the tax revenue is unneeded. The latter strikes me as approximately as “naive” as anything I’ve offered.
I also disagree with your assertion that “Progressives should never be taking an anti-revenue position if they can help themselves”. I think the very meaning of the word “Progressive” suggests a movement that opposes regressive policy in favor of progressive tax policy.
I oppose the lottery because it is flagrantly REGRESSIVE. I oppose casinos for the same reason.
This is a fair takedown of my analogy. I guess a better one would be saying it’s expecting to have passed single payer with the Congress we had in 2009. I still think that’s a pie in the sky idea, but I also think had Obama start there the public option would’ve been a compromise. Similarly, we could start with killing casinos, passing better and more progressive revenue streams, and then putting the lottery on the table. We could even propose killing it as a means of getting the very reasonable reforms stomv wants put it place.
You know this isn’t true, you’re better than these attacks.
I would argue this is exactly what you were doing upthread.
Thinking that Casino DeLeo is going to kill the lottery, overturn prop 2 1/2, and pass an amendment ensuring a progressive income tax is naive. Thinking we can cut the lottery and that will either scare or inspire the legislature to raise taxes instead is similarly naive. Starve the beast failed to reform government and it will fail at replacing the lottery with a more palatable alternative.
Mark, you make a really good point. I think that there’s a good argument that anyone serving as Treasurer needs to embrace the mission of the lottery and attempt to maximize the revenue it generates. Otherwise, the Treasurer would be abdicating her responsibilities. The responsibility for the existence of the lottery and gambling really lies with the legislature (and perhaps the governor). Once the “enabling” (pun intended) legislation is passed, the TRG is supposed to carry it out (and, I suppose, maximize the revenue). I hate the lottery and gambling legislation, and I’d get rid of both, but your point is a good one.
Nope. Certainly not. The treasurer ought maximize “profits” (not revenue), and subject to some constraint. Not maximize at all cost, but rather, maximize subject to good judgment and an appreciation for the complex interactions the lottery has with social justice issues. There’s plenty of room for judgment by the treasurer, to run a lottery system which maximizes the benefits (revenue to cities and towns) and minimizes the costs to society. These are generally at odds, so you pursue the avenues which maximize revenue without substantial additional costs, and you jettison the avenues which have high costs but not substantial revenues.
If he didn’t try to maximize revenues and expand the lottery and it lost money that would clearly be used against him by the media and the public at large as a sign that he has failed and is ‘losing money’ for the state. The lottery funds a lot of great programs, programs that frankly will not be getting an alternative funding stream for quite some time.
Let’s take off the tinfoil hats and put down the Carrie Nation bats and focus on what we can actually attain in the next year. Repealing casinos, raising the gas tax, raising the minimum wage, and paid family leave. All four are essential priorities that will ensure we can generate revenue that we can reinvest in the state.
This entire lottery thread is a distraction to those efforts and frankly undermines them. Your reforms were quite sensible though and advanced this discussion considerably and I applaud you for proposing them. AFIK the Treasurer does not have the power to enact these reforms on his own, but it’s definitely something worth pursuing in the leg. Those other four priorities are much higher on my list for the time being. We are biting the hand that feeds us on this one.
Grossman moved money to Mass banks, and wasn’t squeezed on the accusation that he isn’t maximizing every penny of earned interest. He could enact some of those changes with no change to revenue/profitibility. He could enact others with really, really negligible changes. And I don’t know exactly where the line is on what the treasurer can do on his own, but of the list above, methinks the only one he might need legislative approval for is the removal of keno in places where liquor is served. I’d love to hear any explanation why he’d need anybody’s approval for any of the other reforms I suggested.
1) Grossman is disqualified for Governor because he ran the lottery as Treasurer
I was unsurprised to see the hyperbolic OP, who has rarely posted here, make this kind of assertion. Unsurprised to see DFW latch onto anything that enables him to bash a progressive MA pol. I was more surprised to see long time and reasonable posters like Tom, like stomv, and even David entertain this idea.
We all remember Grossman’s predecessor grossly mismanaged the lottery and it lost revenue and served as an avenue for him to line his cronies pockets. Under Grossman the corruption has been cleaned up, the lottery is generating revenue again, and it is in a strong position. To fault Grossman for the continued existence of the lottery and the state’s reliance on it is the equivalent of faulting Kathleen Sebelius for not inserting single payer into the ACA. The legislature, in both instances, is the main body charged with determining the law and the cabinet or commonwealth officer merely executes it.
I might add that none of Grossman’s opponents are proposing eliminating the lottery, and only one of them is against casinos. So that’s a wash. If we are to hold Grossman to this standard than AG Coakley should also be held accountable for not using her office to remove a clearly unjust and regressive law from the books and protecting consumers from a predatory industry sponsored by the state. It’s an incredibly dumb argument.
2) The lottery is just as bad, or worse, than casinos
Pretty hard to take your objections seriously Tom when you are shouting ‘blood money’-that truly is the internet equivalent of Carrie Nation taking a baseball bat to the whiskey bottles in a saloon. Stomv at least offered several reasonable and attainable reforms to the status quo-ones that I am pretty sure the legislature could pass if we pushed it to, but ones again (see point 1) that Grossman cannot enact via fiat.
But as David pointed out, if the average loss is $800 a year, the upper and lower limits cannot be that excessive. I had a client at my old bankruptcy firm who was a Chicago cop that lost their entire pension at the Horseshoe Casino in Gary, IN. They even were able to link their pensio to a debit card at the casino. They exist to steal the money of hard working people. And we can look at Gary, or Joliet, or the areas around Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, or downtown Aurora, and see post-industrial cities that looked to casino’s as saviors and have seen crime go up, property values go down, and now see little of that revenue reinvested in the community. The Gary casino is in fact as far away from downtown Gary as possible within the city limits, and one can drive from Chicago straight to the casino without every setting foot in a Gary business. Same with the Aurora and Joliet casinos. These industries are predatory, don’t deserve tax breaks, don’t deserve the generous licensing system we have given them here in Massachusetts, and don’t have revenue redirected into their communities.
You’d be hard pressed to find someone who lost everything on the lottery. That’s your argument’s equivalent of Reagan’s welfare queen. If you do find him/her it’s the exception that does not prove the rule.
3) Pursuing this line of reasoning actually hurts reason based opposition to casinos
Opposing casinos is going to be an incredibly tough fight, they are around 50/50 approval statewide and it will take all of the resources of the progressive community working in concert with the conservative NIMBY and faith based opposition to them as well, to ensure we shut them down. I too, am attracted to Berwick precisely because he is the only candidate with the guts to say this revenue is dirty and we can get it somewhere else.
To equate the lottery with that is a fallacy and one that undermines the very reason based case against casinos. The lottery is incredibly popular, generates money that actually goes to cities and towns in Massachusetts, and the very constituency you think you are protecting would be up in arms if you took it away. It’s politically unfeasible to get rid of it. Let’s focus on the possible-stomv’s reasonable reforms and killing casinos. If we can get those two, and then pursue a progressive income tax for it’s own sake and alternative revenue generation streams, than maybe it is sensible to put the lottery on the table. Right now it’s a misguided purity test that is being applied unfairly and exclusively to Steve Grossman.
I wonder how many candidates running for governor believe in their heart of hearts that Mass. should have a progressive state income tax, and that the lottery and gambling should be scrapped. It would take serious political guts to take those positions and perhaps it’s a suicide mission because you have to explain how you’d make up for the lost revenue and that circles back to taxes.
If we are to apply Tom and the OPs purity test on this question-so far none of the candidates favor both. And I would agree it’s a political suicide mission. We would have a hard enough time convincing the tax averse voting public to back a progressive income tax, we will have a hard enough time convincing MA residents that love the drive down to CT to vote against casinos, we will have a hard enough time to convince people to tax their gas consumption. Adding the lottery elimination to that list is really a stretch.
I think the OP and gambling opponents can go after Grossman fairly on casinos-it’s frankly the reason I always say I ‘lean’ Grossman since he is so clearly wrong on that issue. But I also think it’s going to be hard enough to repeal casinos and sustain that opposition in the legislature to target the lottery as well. Linking casino repeal and progressive income to lottery elimination will doom the former two proposals without advancing the latter.
1. It has long been illegal to knowingly accept money that the recipient knows to be proceeds from stolen merchandise. David and others have put the facts on the table, and they are clear and obvious: The lottery is a transfer of wealth from our poorest to our most affluent residents. Calling that “blood money” hardly puts me in league with “Carrie Nation”. Did you similarly disparage the divestiture movement when apartheid had to be stopped?
2. You mischaracterize my opposition to this aspect of Tim Grossman’s campaign. Mr. Grossman is running for Governor, and as a candidate for Governor there is no need for him to promote the Lottery in its current form — yet he does so. I am, proudly, a *progressive*. I think the very wealthy are taxed far too low and the very poor are taxed far too high. I think we who live in Massachusetts are among the wealthiest people WHO HAVE EVER LIVED (we are among the most prosperous states of the most prosperous nation in human history). I think that the protestations about our taxes are therefore nothing more than old-fashioned venal greed. Mr. Grossman has chosen to duck the entire matter of wealth concentration, and I will therefore turn my attention to another candidate.
3. “If we can get those two, and then pursue a progressive income tax for it’s own sake and alternative revenue generation streams, than maybe it is sensible to put the lottery on the table.” I see. You call me “naive”, while you write about some day “put[ting] the lottery on the table” because we won’t need the money? Pleeeeze, think about walking that one back.
Apparently your posture is that plundering the poor in order to fund arts programs for the already-wealthy is just one of those necessary evils that we must tolerate. I guess we just disagree on this one.
Are you honestly comparing the lottery with apartheid? The vast majority of lottery players are not compulsive gamblers, most enjoy playing it, if the average loss is $800 a year that is significantly less than what gamblers in casinos lose, and I am sure the demographics align between lottery players and those that don’t want their taxes raised. If that same group of voters that refuses to raise their taxes aligns with those that voluntarily tax themselves via the lottery I am not that sympathetic. I also fully support stomv’s reforms to ensure that the lottery is significantly less regressive. I’ve never called that a Carrie Nation effort-simply your ridiculous over the top rhetoric on this and ridiculing your opponents and dismissing Steve Grossman out of hand WHEN ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES WILL DO JUST AS MUCH TO SUPPORT THE LOTTERY.
You’d be hard pressed to find someone who hasn’t been talking about income inequality here, I’d refer you to any of my posts on the subject. I also strongly oppose casinos. I am saying eliminating the lottery won’t solve income inequality and a fight over that now would hurt efforts against casinos and in favor of progressive reforms.
Steve Grossman (and it’s Steve not Tim btw) has not ducked this issue and in fact his campaign was the first to bring it to BMGs attention in this race. Stan Rosenberg who has introduced the amendment to the legislature, will be our next Senate President, endorsed Grossman and presumably they will work together to enact that very progressive income tax we all want. He has also backed paid leave, raising the minimum wage, earned sick time, a long time friend of labor, ran a closed shop business, and wants to revive industrial policy and focus on full employment. These are all old school liberal ideas being revived in this election. I might add, I am undecided between Grossman and Berwick and both are very good on these issues. But to argue all Grossman has run on is the lottery does his record and candidacy a disservice.
THIS election we can pass a raised minimum wage, repeal casinos, get paid family leave, and pass a gas tax increase. If we elect a Democrat and back progressive in the legislature we can get a progressive income tax as well. Berwick will even pursue a VT style single payer system. There will be a climate for more revenue and investment. I think all of the priorities I stated are actually possible. Eliminating the lottery is not politically feasible at this time or any other, and I won’t support it until we can get the revenue from somewhere else. And the rich kids arts programs shows how entrenched and ideological your opposition is, since the people that have been backing me on this thread are teachers like joeltpatterson and selectman like mark bail who know this revenue is vital to our local communities. With local aid getting cut by almost 30% in the last five years if we want to restore it we need all the revenue we need. Cutting revenue on the basis of a moral aversion to how it is generated strikes me as utterly naive.
It’s been cut by 45% and general lottery revenue is the only funding source for local aid at present. Yeah it’s a lot more than arts programs for rich kids Tom….
I agree with you about the minimum wage, casino repeal, family leave, and a gas tax increase. I, apparently like you, am leaning towards Mr. Berwick. I agree with you that these are possible.
I’m actually not demanding that any candidate eliminate the lottery. I guess I’m reacting to Mr. Grossman’s overenthusiastic (in my view) support and promotion of it. I understand how vital the local aid program is. In my view, it is unconscionable and TERRIBLE public policy to tie that local aid to the lottery. I am reminded of the similarly awful decision to fund the MBTA from the sales tax.
I am perhaps overly cynical about the way so many of the candidates (not just Mr. Grossman) propose an absolutely necessary and utterly insufficient increase in the minimum wage and wrap that in the banner of “income inequality”. Horse feathers.
Wealth concentration is the problem, and a three dollar increase in the minimum wage spread over three years does nothing whatsoever about it.
Let me please put this in context. The current minimum wage proposal is for an increase of ONE DOLLAR PER HOUR PER YEAR. There are 2,000 standard work-hours in a year (50 weeks @ 40 hours per week). So the proposal is to offer a $2,000/year raise over three years. Most reasonable financial managers provide at LEAST a 5% annual yield on a reasonable portfolio. That means that anybody with more than $40,000 in their portfolio will match the proposed minimum wage increase simply by breathing for the next three years.
When I write of “wealth concentration”, I refer to Massachusetts residents whose non-household wealth is in excess of MILLIONS of dollars. At the same very conservative 5% annual yield, a wealthy individual with a $10M portfolio will earn $500,000 per year over the same three years that we are phasing in the minimum wage increase. So while our “progressive” candidates are patting themselves on the back for the steps they propose to fight income inequality, this fictional wealthy individual will gain TWO HUNDRED FIFTY times that — again, just by breathing. Oh, and by the way, with reasonable financial advice (so that those gains are long-term capital gains), that wealthy taxpayer will pay THE SAME tax on that $500,000 that the minimum wage worker pays on their extra $2,000.
The proposed minimum wage increase is simply NOT relevant to addressing income inequality or wealth concentration.
The million or so Massachusetts workers whose annual income will go up over 30% don’t think it’s not relevant. They don’t care that someone with $40K in a portfolio also made two grand in X year. Right now that’s happening without the concrete benefit for the low-wage worker.
Of course in the big picture things like progressive income taxation implicate more dollars. Of course we need to focus on that too. We don’t stop with a minimum wage increase, but it’s not irrelevant.
I didn’t mean to get snarky Tom , we need the revenue and until we get a better way passed we have to live with it. But that doesn’t mean we give up or accept half measures. I am saying that this year we can get my four priorities passed. If the next Governor rests on the laurels of raising the minimum wage alone than he or she will have done the minimum we expected and deserve to be called a failure. I am saying that’s lay a foundation and keep building on it.
Please re-read my comment. I fully and enthusiastically support increasing the minimum wage. The current Massachusetts minimum wage is an insult and an embarrassment. If anything, I’d like to see it go to something closer to $20-25/hr, and I think it should apply immediately.
Nevertheless, I stand by my assertion that the proposed minimum wage increase is irrelevant *to income disparity*. It’s certainly relevant to quality of life, and to a host of other things. It will NOT, however, do ANYTHING about income disparity or — more importantly — wealth concentration.
In some ways, you make my point for me in the last sentence of your first paragraph. The increase in wealth for the already wealthy is happening right now and has been accelerating for years, while the rest of us squabble about a buck an hour. If they “don’t care …”, then they are simply incorrect — the engine of our consumer economy is starved for fuel (consumer wealth). It is starved for fuel precisely because of that disparity that “they don’t care” about.
Yes, pass the minimum wage. But when candidates tell me they care about “income disparity”, I want to see them — literally — put their money where their mouth is.
I want to see proposals for how we REVERSE the wealth concentration that our government — Democrats and Republicans alike — has allowed to accumulate.
“Grossman said that with a limited advertising budget of about $2 million, the lottery needs new ways to reach younger players who get their information in nontraditional ways”
Grossman said “We’re going to make the lottery a little fresher, a little more interesting, a little more imaginative”.
Grossman said he was “exploring social media as part of a wider strategy to boost sales, from selling tickets at Logan Airport to enlisting lottery sales agents who speak languages other than English to reach immigrant communities.” Welcome to America Mr. and Mrs. Immigrant. Don’t save for a rainy day, play the MA Lottery.
“While some past Massachusetts treasurers have expressed ambivalence about promoting gambling, Grossman said he has few such qualms.
“I don’t have any moral opposition to the lottery,” he said. “I think you have to let people spend their own money the way they decide they want to spend their money.”
In all seriousness, Grossman is out of control and is very scary for having these ideas.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/02/13/mass-to-boost-lotterys-profile-on-social-media/#
Really look at the company you are keeping on this side of the issue Tom, Stomv, and David.
if the Lottery is a litmus test, Dan has BMG support for governor!
My ideas are my own, and I write from where I think righteous and ethics lie. Just because somebody agrees with me — a somebody with whom I often disagree and a somebody who’s tactics can be questionable at best — doesn’t make my position any less righteous or ethical.
Come on jconway. That’s a shameful approach to a debate.
That is just a hilarious image.
It’s very hard to imagine someone routinely accused of having no personality and being a bland businessman cavorting with his underlings to hook our precious kids on Keno. But it’s an amusing image at least.
He starts them off in grade school getting them hooked on Yugio and Pokemon cards. In middle school, the treasurer surreptitiously disseminates scratch and sniff cards to get them used to scratching. Then they hit 18–the age when they can vote, own a gun, and stuff–and they start getting lottery tickets.
Dans okay with them having guns-but Gino of all the damage scratch tickets will cause!
All the hyperventilating about “ending the lottery” is a little dishonest.
My gripe with Grossman isn’t that he runs the lottery. It’s that he is agressively trying to expand it by targeting people through TV ads.
We tolerate liquor and tobacco sales, and gambling. but we don’t tolerate agressive TV ads targeting kids for alcohol or tobacco.
It’s not okay to tolerate agressive ad campaigns targeting young people for gambling.