To be clear, this is only an idea and has not been formally proposed by anyone. Still….
One of the options that the movers and shakers behind Boston 2024 have explored is their very own game run by the Lottery, which typically funnels money only to cities and towns. Though both sides say the talks were preliminary and led nowhere, the door has been left open just the slightest to revisit the issue….
[Said Boston 2024 executive vice president Erin Murphy-Rafferty:] “Our financial team conducted some very preliminary due diligence on the lottery ticket programs used by our local sports teams but chose not to pursue this any further with the Massachusetts Lottery.”
But they could pursue it with the Legislature, which [State Lottery Commission Beth] Bresnahan said they would need to do [because at present state law requires that all net lottery proceeds go to local aid]…. State Rep. John Scibak of South Hadley is House chairman of the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure, the committee that hears most bills related to the Lottery. Scibak said there would probably be resistance from cities and towns to watering down local aid funds but he said the possibility of a dedicated Olympic ticket was intriguing.
Oy. Let’s just rattle off a couple of the ways in which this is a truly awful idea.
- The Lottery, as problematic as it is, funds local aid to cities and towns. If you drop a new, high-profile game into the mix whose proceeds go to fund the Olympics instead, that will almost certainly siphon off money that otherwise would have gone to paying firefighters and schoolteachers.
- Lottery tickets are purchased overwhelmingly by people with relatively low income. Yes, it’s voluntary, but the fact remains that if a lottery ticket is dedicated to funding the Olympics, then that portion of Olympic funding will be coming directly from the people who can least afford it. That’s a far cry from the promises we’ve consistently heard from Boston 2024, which is that all the operating costs will be covered by corporations etc.
- It’s impossible to precisely estimate how much revenue this would generate. So if it’s part of the budget and doesn’t meet projections, someone else has to pick up the tab.
Please, someone, put this idea out of its misery before it gains any traction.
corporatist types I avoid a Democratic functions.
And each one of then we’re going to have to very vocally fend off. It’s also an example of something that could be snuck into a big bill or the budget.
Let’s all be vigilant.
If there’s going to be a Boston Olympics, corporate sponsors should have to fully fund it – including security costs and Olympic specific infrastructure.
and the Red Sox, Celtics, Bruins and Patriots have all cashed in by renting out their names and logos to appear on instant game tickets.
As former Treasurer Tim Cahill put it:
I have the feeling the IOC would be supportive.
in those cases the revenue still goes to local aid, as I understand it. The teams may obtain revenue in other ways, but I don’t think it comes from ticket sales. E.g., from the MassLive story you linked:
Good point that the money going to the Red Sox is not coming from Lottery revenues but instead from some company called Scientific Games.
So that made me wonder why is Scientific Games would be donating money to the Red Sox. The answer appears to be that it’s not — Scientific Games is getting paid, too. The company also supplies the Instant Game tickets to the Lottery.
Fairly certain the IOC has strict anti-gambling and sports gambling rules, of course, we all know how well they follow their own rules, but this would be a very public admission of hypocrisy on their part. I am certain the far stricter USOC has similar rules in place as well. Though I guess if the four major sports franchises didn’t run afoul of their own leagues prohibitions than it might be viable. Seems like a really bad idea. Next thing you know we will just have to build more casinos, just think of the Olympians and the children!
From the Commonwealth Mag story:
…are concerned with betting on the outcome of the games/events themselves, rather than a licensing relationship.
the people anything, but would pay for themselves. At least that was the impression given by the promoters. Now, all of a sudden, they have their hand out for this lottery money. Will the public make any profit from the venture, or will that be restricted to these interested parties. Already, we are seeing the fiasco develop. I wonder what conclusion they will draw from reaction to this trial balloon?
…whereas the lottery is a voluntary fundraiser.
The organizers will say whatever they think we want to hear. In reality, they are perfectly willing to take any kind of tax revenue they can get their hands on.
And does anyone actually believe that this would not be a redirection of lottery revenue?
That reminds me of Mitt Romney’s boast that he didn’t raise taxes, all the while raising fees left and right. AFAIC, a dollar from my pocket through a government sponsored function is a tax, no matter what you call it. The lottery may be voluntary, but it is still government sponsored, using the authority of the government. Besides, if lottery gamblers choose to buy Olympic funding tickets, it will not be all new lottery dollars, but many dollars that otherwise would go to the general lottery pot.
Fees are for a service that you are required to pay if you want the service. Lottery tickets are just something you either buy or you don’t completely independent of anything else. I don’t see anything wrong with it being state sponsored, but you’re right that it may end up competing for dollars with those intended for local aid.
Check out this video if you haven’t seen it already.
There isn’t one.
http://youtu.be/9PK-netuhHA
It looks ike YouTube has ended support for the old style embed code, which is a shame, since that was the code that actually worked on sites like BMG, and may be the reason the video didn’t embed above.
… If this is a bad idea in particular regard to the Olympics (and I agree, it is) then it is a bad idea in general and the notion of rejecting it for the Olympics — while leaving it in place for other receipts– is actually quiet sickening. It it is bad, it is bad. If it isn’t bad (disagree, but for purposes of the argument…) then it isn’t bad and what’s the point of quibbling if it goes here or it goes there… ?
Tax me more. I’ll say it here and now. Tax me more. I would rather pay higher taxes than have teachers and firefighters dependent upon the vagaries and passive-regression of lottery receipts.
Tax. Me. More. I’ll pay. I’d rather pay. I want to pay. I would willingly double my taxes if it would mean the total elimination of the lottery. If the people who can least afford it most play it, abolish it altogether. Call me paternalistic. Call me the nanny-in-chief of the nanniest of nanny states but rid the CommonWealth of the stain of poaching upon the hopes of the poor purely for the sake of avoiding taxation. I’d rather have taxation.
But I don’t see validity to selective application of opposition only when it comes to the Olympics. If it is bad, stop doing it. If it is not bad, what difference does it make how the state promotes or allocates lottery resources or funds?
Whether the lottery is a good or a bad way to raise money, it still makes a difference how that money is spent. Spending money on something good (like roads or schools) is better than spending on something bad (like an Olympics bid that would have a devastating effect on low and moderate income tenants).
A.Tax.on.you. might be a good thing, compared to a special lottery. For the sake of argument let’s say it is. So, if we use a good tax to fund a good thing, that’s good. If we use a good tax for a bad thing, or a bad tax for a good thing—that’s somewhere in the middle.
And a Bad Tax (like a lottery) used to fund a bad idea (like disrupting the city for the Olympics) that’s bad. Logically speaking, it’s the least desirable of the four permuations.
The “validity to selective application of opposition only when it comes to the Olympics” should be obvious. Avoiding the worst outcome is always valid (and logical).
… since after I killed my parents, I became an orphan.
There was, also, that one time when I robbed a bank to feed my children. Once the cops caught up with me — and I explained it to them– they let me go because, without saying whether my method of acquisition was good or bad, it made the difference how that money was spent.
PffFfft…
Your reasoning assumes, as I have assiduously pointed out, that the Olympics is this big overwhelming thing that we are powerless before: The Olympics are too big; The City too small. I’m not convinced the inconvenience will be at all greater on any given day of the Olympics than that seen on any given Marathon day. Maybe it will be. Maybe it won’t be. Saying it definitively will be over and over and over again doesn’t prove it.
It sounds as though bob-gardner is arguing that opposition to using the lottery to fund the Olympics isn’t a selective application of opposition.
You each agree that the lottery is a bad tax. Both of you oppose the lottery, it seems. At least one of you also thinks the bid for the Olympics is a bad idea. Since Peter opposes the special game because he opposes the lottery, and Bob opposes the special game because he thinks the Olympic bid is a bad idea, then both of you oppose the special game to fund the Olympic bid.
Maybe that’s close enough!
The local hick oligarchs are so avid to throw this cumbersome stink pile down an indifferent public’s maw that they now eye the chump tax system, that pathetic crappy ‘investment’ that helps to pauperize the clueless… scratchies..
When it gets to this, I have a feeling despair and a jettisoning of the whole conceit of this world class city pipe dream can’t be far away
Let’s have an Olympic lottery ticket. Scratch off. $20,000 a piece, payable only through a bank-to-bank transfer. Total payout: 40% to ticket holder, 50% to Olympic fund, 10% to be spread among the 351 according to their current payout share.
It’s fun to think about Mr. Fish running around getting his pals to kick in ten large each for the adrenaline rush.
This sort of thing strikes me as entirely predictable and even expected given the embrace by “Democrats” of regressive and exploitative Lottery and casino gambling revenues.
This reminds me of the philandering spouse who shockingly has yet another tryst after rationalizing away the first two or three. Once the threshold is crossed, it’s very hard to turn back.
Look for more and more “special” games — such abuses will continue as long as we encourage them.
There was talk that the Olympics might be funded by turning Routes 93 & 95 into toll roads for the three months previous. Thoughts on that?
If we are in no condition to run the circus, as is, right now, we have no business speculating on stupid pipe dreams… period.
As many have noted, there may well be structural flaws with the infrastructure layout of a borderline medieval city design with haphazard modern elements layered on across several scheming centuries.
The idea that we should ream the old carcass out to accommodate a cumbersome spectacle for the 1% is so far beyond stupid, it may as well occupy an alternate universe.
Fund it through corporate sponsors and ticket costs. Let the IOC and/or NBC underwrite the loan.
If that doesn’t cut it, F them.