Asklemmy

44123 readers

469 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

121

Does money corrupt, or is money attractive to questionable people? (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

61 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I was gonna include a third option about how money is easier to achieve without considering the morality of your actions but that's not really a philosophy as much as it is an objective fact.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Lotteries are no different than stepping on people. They have to buy into the process, but the amounts allocated from lotteries for education or other grants is outpaced by what is given up in prizes. And many lotteries engage in games and mechanisms to keep people in the feedback loop of pouring money in. It's a tax on the stupid and the poor.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

True, but I wouldn't really hold the people that buy in responsible for each other's misery. They're doing it to themselves just as much.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I can't say that I agree. If lotteries don't bring in more money to fund public services than they pay out, then that's a failing of a political nature. That means it could be a failing of an entire state population if that state represents a democracy, or it could be a failing of a states corrupt political class if that state isn't a democracy. Regardless, it's not necessarily a corruption of the winner which I was referring to earlier. Additionally, I've heard the "tax on the stupid and the poor" concept multiple times before, and the level of condescension towards the lower class in a discussion about financial ethics has never sat right with me. It also ignores the entertainment aspect of playing the lottery. If we really want to do away with a tax on the poor as well as the foolish, then perhaps it's more important to end excise (AKA sin) taxes, but that's also beside the subject.