Friday, June 05, 2009
Setting aside for the moment that many economists view state or multi-state lotteries as a form of regressive taxation, you have to like Neal Wanless from South Dakota, who will take home $88.5 million in after-tax cash after winning the Powerball lottery:
"Wanless said he intends to use the money to help those in need. 'My family has been helped by the community and I intend to repay that help many times over.'How can you say anything bad about a guy who talks so nicely to his horse? I am guessing that mobile home that his family recently had repossessed probably will stay with the bank even after the debt is paid off. If it's a double-wide, maybe we should take a look at it -- it could become the first TigerHawk lucky clubhouse!
"He told lottery officials that since winning, he has spent his time preparing to bale hay and doing other jobs around his family's ranch.
"Wanless said he intends to continue ranching, albeit on a larger plot of land. He said he recently told his horse, Eleanor, that 'It'd be nice if we go for a longer ride than usual on a bigger ranch of our own.'"
Hmmm.... home repossesed and this guy is playing the lottery, a game where one's chances of winning are essentially zero. After seeing this, how many more will squander their meager resources on the lottery, certain that one day their ship will come in? Well I guess there is always the local food pantry if they blow the grocery money on lottery tickets.
"First Tigerhawk Lucky Clubhouse"
Where do I sign?
As far as the lottery goes, if the odds of winner are 40 million to one and the prize is $95 million, then a $1 ticket is a good bet.
Also, if you only buy $1 tickets when the prize is much greater than the odds, you will buy fewer of them, which is better.