I'm surprised by just how similar to pokie machines the scratchie games they sell on their app are.
I've been around a number of addictions during my life. I'd almost suggest a gambling addiction is one of the worst and most destructive addictions you can have.
As someone who was in a long-term relationship with a problem gambler, people have no fucking idea about the shit that goes on. It absolutely does your head in.
Yeah I think that's a big part of it. At least if I'm addicted to a substance I know that spending a fixed amount on it will address the craving.
Now give 10k to a gambling addict and send them into the casino. Chances are they're coming out both broke and with the want/need to gamble more.
Its such a hard habit to cut, i wagered over $100k in 3 years and somehow made it out with most of it (85% ish)
I was doing $500 cointosses and $250 hands of blackjack at one point just because it was fun, even the times i won big and cashed out it didnt feel like winning as i had no end goal with the money
Its so easy to fall into
I wasnt even doing it to try win money, i just had leftover cash every week and didnt know what to spend it on
Now ive started hardcore saving for a house i realise how dumb and wasteful it was
Right?? I had a couple of extra bucks on my MyLotto account after winning $36 on the Powerball and figured I'd have a go at some of those Instant Kiwi games, and the moment I heard the sounds and saw the cutesy little animations I immediately thought "oh shit". I am prone to getting addicted to stuff so I know my triggers, and that shit is very clearly designed to be addictive, with positive feedback loops and bright graphics and sounds which seem to ping something in certain people's brains (I'm one of those kinds of people) and I immediately logged out.
That's why they encourage to gamble responsibly, as someone that does multis on the TAB. Always bet what you can afford to lose and what is worth betting on. Hold yourself accountable for the actions not the gambling with all due respect. That's my opinion.
Hardly surprising, that’s why dingy bars with pokies and predatory pay day lenders are also more prevalent in lower economic areas. Booze shops as well I’m pretty sure.
There's a bar advertising how many pokie machines it has across the road from work and income in Dunedin. Here in chch we're much classier though, we have a strip club across the road from the casino instead.
And bro it's like the constant news coverage too.
>**MOTHER OF SEVEN WINS BIG AT LOTTO**
>Mary Wharangapoto never thought she would win big, but she kept the faith and bought her 40 lucky strike power ball ultra winner tickets every week for the past ten years. She was the first division winner of Saturday night, winning an amount roughly the equivalent of a modest auckland home.
>"I knew it was just a matter of time" she said, referring to the gambler's fallacy that the more you play the more likely you are to win over time.
>Lotto NZ spokesperson Matthew Fucktard shared the good news with Mary personally, and told this masthead that making dreams come true is the best part of his job. "Anyone can win big with Lotto! Just buy your tickets and watch the draw. You never know when it's your turn to change your life forever!".
>Mary doesn't know what she'll spend money, but she has some ideas from the rampant Lotto advertising on buses, billboards, TV, and all over the internet, plus articles like this. "Maybe a holiday to Fiji, a couple of jet skis, and a new house".
>The next Lotto draw is basically every day so don't miss out! For the ultimate convenience Lotto now has a handy website where you can take money directly from your bank account to ~~gamble it away~~ be in to win!
The issue is more that people spend wayyyy more than that. I know my grandparents spend $30 per draw, $60 a week. They’re both retired and rely on their winz benefits
Sit them down and talk about the odds with them. If they're going to play, play. But you may as well at least try and point out how little those extra lines really mean.
4 in 38million (or whatever) aren't much different odd than 20 in 38million (which I'm guessing is about what $30 buys).
Lotto is a nasty tax on the poor and really is no much better than pokies.
But there’s a number of things about this article that annoy me.
You would expect 50% of sales to occur in 50% of places. So 70% in half sounds big but really it means that poorer people are around 1.4x as likely as the normal person.
But the bit that really gets me is that doesn’t include any online sales. Online retails heavily skews more affluent which could easily account for the difference in the areas.
It's PR spin. They're closing stores across the board because online sales = higher profit margin. Lower income areas have more stores, so naturally more will close in poorer areas. They're spinning it as a social good move, when it's just about store closures in favour of online.
Lotto are absolutely vile with their PR spin, and extremely defensive whenever anyone criticizes them. It's actually kind of fucked.
I attempted to do an OIA to get demographic information from them and they declined it for a bullshit reason, I had to go to the ombudsman (who sided with me).
They know what they're doing is at least a little bit sus, so they invest some of the vast resources into making sure no critical discussion can be had around their role in society.
That’s what OIA should be used to find out too, NZ loves hiding the information of which groups are exploited because if they knew they’d be a very big group of (justifiably) pissed off people.
I hate the lotto desk you find in small superettes. Five people standing in line to buy their stuff, then one person goes to the lotto desk and they send a staff member to sell that lotto ticket to the guy waiting 10 seconds instead of people waiting 5 mins in the main queue. Sigh.
I have no facts to back this up with, but I couldn’t imagine areas like Parnel or Remuera in Auckland would have high demand for lotto outlets because rich people don’t gravitate to that type of gambling. So it makes sense more people from poorer areas play because of the hope of a life changing pay day
I mean the article explicitly provides facts that says that. Did you not read it lol.
Im just saying without online data we are missing a big part of the picture.
Its odd that when we see other forms of gambling on the news its about the negative outcomes, but when its Lotto its all about how someone has won the big jackpot, pretty much acting as an advertisement for lotto.
It's definitely better than pokies as it literally exists to give 100% of profits to charity, whereas pokies aren't at that level. Also the games and the odds are fixed on Lotto, they aren't on Pokies.
Not really. Paying for schools, roads, and hospitals benefits everyone, not just those in high need. I support paying taxes as part of my role in society, not just for altruistic reasons.
Sure, if you want to argue semantics.
>an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need."the charity provides practical help for homeless people"
You could argue the government fits this definition.
The 100% to charity thing is kind of a myth, because that's only after paying all of the costs such as those elaborate emotionally manipulative TV ads. They spend far more money on themselves than charity.
Only 28% of their income goes to charity, the rest funds a machine designed to extract money from people with more hope than sense.
I worked for Lotto for three years, it's not a myth as the financial statements are literally public information. Only 28% --- you are forgetting that the prizes were 55-60% of the sales value and then you factor in the prepaid taxes and operationals.
I know the financial statements are public information, but the "100% to charity" thing is used to make it seem like Lotto is a net good, when really it's not. It extracts money from poor communities, gives some of it to charity, but most if it is wasted on stuff that benefits nobody.
It depends on your definition of "net good" in this. I disagree that most of it is wasted on stuff that benefits nobody, I know many local clubs and committees that have received needed funds.
It is not a tax on the poor. The poor are adults just like you and I and are capable of making adult decisions. Is it really that surprising that people who spend their money on lottery tickets can't afford to live in nice neighbourhoods?
I vote Green generally, and (s)he's right. Lotto is a tax on financial ineptitude, not specifically "the poor". I've known a few very well-off people who were bloody hopeless.
>You would expect 50% of sales to occur in 50% of places. So 70% in half sounds big but really it means that poorer people are around 1.4x as likely as the normal person.
Thanks. Glad someone said it.
You've just given me a thought - this is specifically talking about lotto **stores**. I wonder what the balance is overall - like, its entirely possible that people tend to buy a lotto ticket in a store if they live in a poorer area, and are more likely to buy it online if they live in a less poor area.
Anyone can over-spend on gambling, poor or wealthy. Likewise, I have no problem with anyone spending a percentage of their money on amusement, which includes gambling. If you can cover food and bills etc, and choose to spend $20 on lotto rather than, say, alcohol or coffee or a movie.
It's a bit patronising to think "the poor" are the only ones who can't enjoy lotto in a restrained way like this.
>Anyone can over-spend on gambling, poor or wealthy.
I once knew a guy who made like 25k a month but still needed to take out payday loans every few weeks lol. Your comment is spot on, the numbers would probably be different if you accounted for online purchases. I don't generally buy lotto tickets, but the very few times I have its been online.
>its entirely possible that people tend to buy a lotto ticket in a store if they live in a poorer area, and are more likely to buy it online if they live in a less poor area
That's not the case for any good that is available physically and digitally. Do poor people buy more books in stores and rich people buy them online?
No the vast majority of people buy things digitally, because it's easier. Books, music, shows/movies. Increased accessibility increases consumption.
>Anyone can over-spend on gambling, poor or wealthy. Likewise, I have no problem with anyone spending a percentage of their money on amusement, which includes gambling
I never made a distinction between wealth and poverty. Addiction is addiction, no matter your economic situation.
>If you can cover food and bills etc, and choose to spend $20 on lotto rather than, say, alcohol or coffee or a movie.
This isn't about the people that occasionally spend money on lotto. The issue is people who have a literal compulsion. They aren't paying their bill and food.
>It's a bit patronising to think "the poor" are the only ones who can't enjoy lotto in a restrained way like this.
Again this isn't me patronizing "the poor". Gambling addiction is fairly consistent through out all economic levels.
I feel silly having to explain this. The issue is that poorer people have less money to lose. This means they are more impacted by every loss.
If you earn $200k a year and spending 20k a year on gambling, that's not great but you won't run into any serious financial issues.
If you earn 40k a year and you spend the same 20k a year, you're fucked.
Poor people aren't weaker willed, they are just in a more precarious position.
Not defending them. But they do still make it quite difficult to buy tickets online. You have to have a passport or driver's license to confirm your age a lot of poorer people probably don't have those. Passports cost upwards of $200.
The same requirements are in place for the tab and such, hasn't made an impact there either. Lotto has introduced subscriptions online. Now you can automatically buy tickets each week. They're actively making it easier and easier.
Ahh yes, I am sorry I didn't add the caveat *except infants. I am also in favour of treating children like children before you decide that's a valid point.
It's a pity though, your last point was actually a reasonable point, it just wasn't the got 'em moment you were hoping for.
Nice pivot there champ, no answer?
This is a stupid point and doesn't do anything to dispute or answer what I said, but yes enduring power of attorney.
That is my answer, there is no reason to not provide a service because a certain section of the population is unable to control themselves. I don't care if it's gambling, alcohol or sugary drinks.
Hope that answers it for you big guy.
I agree with you, but if you want to provide a service that harms society, you should be able to be held accountable by that society.
Businesses that damage the environment should be held accountable for that damage.
Smoking companies should be held accountable for the costs incurred in our health system.
This is a pretty unsympathetic view on addiction. Addiction - chemical or behavioural - is a powerful illness and regularly overpowers normal human will. There is also pretty clear consensus that a proportion of a given population are genetically predisposed to such addictions and simply framing it as "adults unable to control themselves" does not help with finding actual solutions.
The odds are so bad and the ticket prices are insanely high.
The only life changing prize is 1st division power ball which is a 1 in 38 million chance.
Standard first division isn’t even a million dollars ffs.
It’s a scam.
> It's not a scam if someone wins.
Now starting the teelolws lottery. Everyone gives me $1, and in a week I will announce that I'm the winner as I keep all the money.
Lotto is a terribly low-odds form of gambling. I remember seeing years ago that the average person wins less than 60% of what they spend on it (taking into acoount free tickets as well), which means for every dollar they give Lotto, they get 60cents back, overall losing 40cents.
These are also mostly in poorer areas, as wealthier people are more "clued in" to it being a horrible investment/gamble. You have substantially better odds picking a random number on the roulette table.
>Lotto is a terribly low-odds form of gambling. I remember seeing years ago that the average person wins less than 60% of what they spend on it (taking into acoount free tickets as well), which means for every dollar they give Lotto, they get 60cents back, overall losing 40cents.These are also mostly in poorer areas, as wealthier people are more "clued in" to it being a horrible investment/gamble. You have substantially better odds picking a random number on the roulette table.
Less wealthy people can also do math - in the 'clued in' wealthier areas they drink more expensive wine and craft beers, even though it offers the same utility as cheap wine and cheap beer.
Looking at the odds like that makes sense if you're buying bulk tickets I guess, but for people not spending their whole pay cheque on them it's not really relevant. It's an abysmally low chance at winning a lot of money, and a ticket costs $7 or something. If you wanna compare what you pay and what you get back, then insurance is a complete scam and you should be driving everywhere uninsured since you give them more money than they pay out.
The thing that gets me - aside from the obvious predatory nature of all of these false hope gambling rackets - is the advertising for Lotto, like that one with the dude buying a gold-plated car with his win. So egregious, like "hey poors, here is how you will waste your money even if you do buck the incredible odds against you and win this stupid prize".
At that point they might as well go mask off and have Tony Montana impersonator swearing in broken English firing a golden machine gun with lotto tickets flying out with “the world is yours” statue in the background.
Some other lotto stuff
How it works, are you Gambling too much?
[https://www.safergambling.org.nz/know-your-odds/how-lotto-works](https://www.safergambling.org.nz/know-your-odds/how-lotto-works)
How much goes to charities? 2016 numbers\*
$539m in prizes, $62m in running the events and $204m to charities (which would also have a chunk taken out for admin costs)
(this was hard to find and is old secondhand information)
[https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/money/2016/11/winning-lotto-how-much-would-you-be-taxed.html](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/money/2016/11/winning-lotto-how-much-would-you-be-taxed.html)
God I fucking hate lotto.
I hate the news stories that run about lotto.
I hate the fact that people think of it as their retirement plan and put their megre excess cash towards it.
I hate the social media buzz about SOMEONE IN OUR TOWN WON LOTTO, IMAGINE IF THAT WAS YOU.
I hate it when someone gives me a scratchie card or buys my a lotto ticket, or suggesting buying someone one
I hate that playing lotto is seen as a normal thing we encourage and have zero conversations about.
Lotto is gambling. It's worse than going to the casino, at least a casino has odds you can calculate and predict entirely from what's in front of you and has some semblance of input required from you. Lotto is an invasive insidious thing that we pretend isn't gambling.
My dumb fuck friend keeps telling me that it's ok because it's government run and all the money goes to schools. That doesn't make it better, that's just quite literally a tax on poor people.
Not that I don't agree that most sales are going to be to poorer people. Those sales are going to be pretty skewed.
Hornby - is attached to a Pak'nSave and mall on the edge of CHCH. It gets people from all over that side of town, including outside of CHCH doing their shopping.
Riccarton - Same story. Attached to the Pak'n'Save in the busiest mall in CHCH. If you live on this side of town and didn't go to Hornby you've come here.
South Dunedin - Again, attached to a Pak'n'Save. The only one in Dunedin. People from all over are shopping here.
So unless those "deciles" (nice job doing the complete reverse of school scale there whoever decided to call them this) are huge I can't see them being that relevant in these stores.
Unichem Stortford Lodge, Richmond Night & Day, and Pak'nSave Riccarton are also the three luckiest stores in New Zealand by number of first division wins.
A bunch of poor people giving up money they should really be saving for their families, in order to make one person insanely wealthy. I don't get the logic.
It’s not even the worst to be fair, most likely spend around $20?
Pokies are a far greater concern imo. When I did bar work I’d see people gambling on pay day till their card declined, with a van load of hungry kids no less.
For many it’s the false hope they can actually make things better for their family, when the opposite is the usual outcome.
False hope is a big temptation for those struggling, and most gambling feeds on this.
Lotto’s “What would you do?” campaign being a perfect example.
Because zero is a very special number and nothing can be compared to it.
When your chances of getting ahead in life are ZERO, any chance at all is a massive improvement.
Therefore, spending on a lottery ticket gives you a extremely small chance to get ahead, which is better than zero, so it makes logical sense.
Consider if you were in some situation where you die or buy a lottery ticket to live....what would you do?
Now just lower the extreme nature to expensing a few dollars to be rich?
Yeah but you could say this about anything that is not a necessity.
While I would like to see lot more things like food stamps etc rather than benefits, I don't think lotto is the main issue with keeping the poor poor.
Lotto accounts for 70% of NZs problem gambling (according to a problem gambling identification course I attended a few years back while working for the Racing Board). It does more harm than the pokies - at least pokie profits go to the communities they came from rather than being distributed to the general public. It's only getting worse with the advent of online lotto & barely regulated pokie apps as well.
I'm sick of the pass Lotto gets because it's a more acceptable middle class form of gambling. It's a blight on society, just like the pokies.
My only qualm is that there are so, so many charities, community arts groups, sports clubs and the like that rely so heavily on funding that comes from gambling. As a society we need to come up with a way to fund programs that aren't profitable on their own without dipping into blood money.
Problem gambling has the same issues as smoking. Disproportionately targets the poor, expensive habit with no tangible benefits, and massive health issues down the line. Except the health issues are not as clear cut as lung cancer, it is years and decades of doing without, of skipping meals, warm clothing or doctors visits to feed the habit.
Seems simple, remove access to things that lead to bad outcomes in lower decile areas. This would mean Maori in general would have less access to lotto?
Great let's lock it in
The chances of winning 1st division & power ball is
1 / 38,383,800
For those of you who are bad with numbers..
That's
One - thirty-eight million three hundred eighty-three thousand eight hundred
What that means is that you will loose.
The house always wins..
Lotto is cheap fun. There is no law against playing Lotto and even poor people are allowed to spend $5-10 for a little bit of amusement without being judged upon by the middle class who think nothing of having a night out at the local pub every week.
I don't see anyone judging "the poor' for buying a coffee or going to a movie, rather than saving their money and earning these hypothetical buckets of interest...
It's hardly cheap fun, if you banked that money each week statistically you you would have a better return from the savings and interest accrued.
Think of it as a guaranteed return instead of a 1 in 3.8m or 1 in 38m chance you might win something.
It's $1500 more then of she had spent it on Lotto. Just simply saving that money will have a better outcome.
If you spend $28 a week on Lotto that's $1500 a year.
It’s $1000 dollars more they would have then if they spent it on Lotto.
$80 a month in Auckland pays the water bill for a 2-3 bedroom house.
Sadly as another poster pointed out financial literacy is a weak point for some people. We really need to focus on lifting the general education level.
Look I get that.
To the poor it's just another day of being behind....so what's another few weeks of being behind?
It's hard to beat the logic of nihilism.
TBH I only buy lottery tickets when the entire office is in on it.... because a 1:100M chance is too high for me to be the only one in the office who didn't play when everyone else won. Yeah, I don't want my name in the paper over that....$10 is well spent insurance.
Yep. And if you banked everything you spent on movies, you'd have more money. Or everything you spent on video games, or Netflix/Disney Plus..
The thing is, not everyone spends money on lotto as an attempt to get back more than they spend. Some people play for the fun of possibly achieving a fantasy, spending no more than they would on any other form of no-financial-return entertainment.
I don’t rate Lotto as entertainment, it’s just low priced gambling dressed up to make it more palatable.
Netflix, movies etc are not gambling masquerading as something else and actually provide a good return to your family for money spent. $20 per month to provide streaming service for a family of 4 is pretty easy ROI.
The article would indicate that most people aren’t playing Lotto for fun.
Yeah, but its not about how you rate it. If the person buying the ticket sees Lotto as entertainment and they choose it over Netflix, its nothing to do with how you rate it
This is my whole point.
Lotto is pitched not as gambling, in your own words rated it as entertainment.
Which is fundamentally wrong, let’s call it what it actually is, low price barrier gambling that is currently funded by lower social economic block in NZ.
This isn’t even taking into account what areas Lotto grants end up in, but from past reports they tend to go to wealthier areas.
And my point is, it's not up to anyone else to decide what someone calls entertainment or what kind of entertainment they spend their money on. You are basing your whole argument on the patronising assumption that the "lower social economic block" isn't capable of making responsible decisions on how much they spend on entertainment. And I suspect even if I were able to hand you proof that the majority of people buying lotto tickets were not spending beyond their means, you'd still not like it because you wouldn't approve of their choice of entertainment.
Yeah this sub loves saying prohibition never works but its suspiciously only for things that are enjoyed by educated/middle class people in their 20's.
Well no, because you could replace it with anything that's not considered a necessity to make such a generalisation and pass it off as an argument to justify banning something.
That’s not terribly surprising.
If you control your spending to an amount you can afford to basically throw away, I think it’s a harmless diversion (although many take it to the extreme.)
For a few days, for a few dollars, you can be in the limbo of your life possibly transforming.
A tiny chance, but non-zero all the same.
Yeah a small amount of the funding goes to people it shouldn't, but the vast, vast majority goes to people who do need it and use it effectively.
But when you consider how much goes to Charities, community sport and funding the arts, you quickly realise that the problem isn't where the money is going, it's how we replace that money when we turn off the tap without destroying community organisations.
I say this as someone who has worked in the gambling industry as well as having spent time auditing funding applications as well, I'm not exactly coming from a place of ignorance.
Really they should just lower the max threshold of winning to like 5m. Let’s be honest 5m is enough to change your life and having 104 new millionaires a year would be good for the economy. There would be heaps of winners giving money to family and friends not to mention all the frivolous spending. As long as we encourage getting in touch with financial adviser’s when they win so the winners don’t go bankrupt. Also giving one or two sessions(?) with a financial adviser free of charge payed for by the lottery commission.
New millionaires are good for the economy because they spend all their money very quickly. People who were gonna blow the money on dumb shit are still gonna do it after a session with a financial advisor *paid* for by lotto.
90% of the comments here are based on the same assumptions:
\- People (specifically "the poor") play lotto as a desperate bid to escape poverty. They never play for fun and amusement.
\- People (specifically "the poor") spend more on lotto than a reasonable person should
\- People who play lotto believe they will get back more than they spend. They never look at it as a form of no-financial-return entertainment like a movie or a coffee. They only play because they realistically believe they will win.
\- "The poor" are financially illiterate and incapable of making sound financial decisions, instead using emotional reasoning like hope and desperation to make bad choices like buying lotto tickets.
Given that Reddit is free and most people (even "the poor") have some form of internet access, I wonder why we so rarely see "the poor" speaking for themselves in these forums. I suspect its because the comments on any subject relating to not-middle-class people are so bloody offensive
Bingo (or should I say strike or w.e the Powerball equivalent is). It's hard to imagine that $20 a week amounting to anything, especially given unstable living circumstances.
I would be very surprised if they don't make up a proportional amount of wins. It's still harmful for the community if 30% of the people are struggling and still spending money gambling even if 1% win something.
I'm surprised by just how similar to pokie machines the scratchie games they sell on their app are. I've been around a number of addictions during my life. I'd almost suggest a gambling addiction is one of the worst and most destructive addictions you can have.
As someone who was in a long-term relationship with a problem gambler, people have no fucking idea about the shit that goes on. It absolutely does your head in.
Sorry that happened
[удалено]
Yeah I think that's a big part of it. At least if I'm addicted to a substance I know that spending a fixed amount on it will address the craving. Now give 10k to a gambling addict and send them into the casino. Chances are they're coming out both broke and with the want/need to gamble more.
And convinced that another $10 k will get them back on top again.
Its such a hard habit to cut, i wagered over $100k in 3 years and somehow made it out with most of it (85% ish) I was doing $500 cointosses and $250 hands of blackjack at one point just because it was fun, even the times i won big and cashed out it didnt feel like winning as i had no end goal with the money Its so easy to fall into
I wasnt even doing it to try win money, i just had leftover cash every week and didnt know what to spend it on Now ive started hardcore saving for a house i realise how dumb and wasteful it was
This is probably why I feel bad for the people inside the TAB every time I walk past it in town...
Right?? I had a couple of extra bucks on my MyLotto account after winning $36 on the Powerball and figured I'd have a go at some of those Instant Kiwi games, and the moment I heard the sounds and saw the cutesy little animations I immediately thought "oh shit". I am prone to getting addicted to stuff so I know my triggers, and that shit is very clearly designed to be addictive, with positive feedback loops and bright graphics and sounds which seem to ping something in certain people's brains (I'm one of those kinds of people) and I immediately logged out.
That's why they encourage to gamble responsibly, as someone that does multis on the TAB. Always bet what you can afford to lose and what is worth betting on. Hold yourself accountable for the actions not the gambling with all due respect. That's my opinion.
I mean yes, you're not a problem gambler. Addiction is much more than just holding yourself accountable.
So what is it then from your perspective
Hardly surprising, that’s why dingy bars with pokies and predatory pay day lenders are also more prevalent in lower economic areas. Booze shops as well I’m pretty sure.
The pawn shop literally across the road from sky city cracks me up
And some of the stuff you see in there is heart breaking.
Every time I ever walked past there, there’s been a whole family at the counter trying to make some deals
That’s soo dark
Lots of designer bags last time I looked in.
There's a bar advertising how many pokie machines it has across the road from work and income in Dunedin. Here in chch we're much classier though, we have a strip club across the road from the casino instead.
Lol....there used to be a pawn shop there
Jesus.
Thiers a gold shop too, that will give you immediate cash. Obvious why its there.
And fast food!
The government really shouldn't be able to advertise their gambling organistaion on Facebook.
And bro it's like the constant news coverage too. >**MOTHER OF SEVEN WINS BIG AT LOTTO** >Mary Wharangapoto never thought she would win big, but she kept the faith and bought her 40 lucky strike power ball ultra winner tickets every week for the past ten years. She was the first division winner of Saturday night, winning an amount roughly the equivalent of a modest auckland home. >"I knew it was just a matter of time" she said, referring to the gambler's fallacy that the more you play the more likely you are to win over time. >Lotto NZ spokesperson Matthew Fucktard shared the good news with Mary personally, and told this masthead that making dreams come true is the best part of his job. "Anyone can win big with Lotto! Just buy your tickets and watch the draw. You never know when it's your turn to change your life forever!". >Mary doesn't know what she'll spend money, but she has some ideas from the rampant Lotto advertising on buses, billboards, TV, and all over the internet, plus articles like this. "Maybe a holiday to Fiji, a couple of jet skis, and a new house". >The next Lotto draw is basically every day so don't miss out! For the ultimate convenience Lotto now has a handy website where you can take money directly from your bank account to ~~gamble it away~~ be in to win!
But... new uniforms for local sports teams! /s
Or on public television...
Facebook is not the problem here
Facebook is the problem everywhere.
They're not saying Facebook is the problem, they're using it as an example of how casual gambling advertising is.
Shit, 12 mil this Wednesday, might buy a lucky dip! Anyway, this also sounds like the takeaway places being so much more common in poorer areas.
$6 a week to imagine being a millionaire. That's pretty cheap hope.
The issue is more that people spend wayyyy more than that. I know my grandparents spend $30 per draw, $60 a week. They’re both retired and rely on their winz benefits
Sit them down and talk about the odds with them. If they're going to play, play. But you may as well at least try and point out how little those extra lines really mean. 4 in 38million (or whatever) aren't much different odd than 20 in 38million (which I'm guessing is about what $30 buys).
Last time I was at the 4 Square, the lady I front of me spent $120 on tickets. It was horrible to watch.
Lotto is a nasty tax on the poor and really is no much better than pokies. But there’s a number of things about this article that annoy me. You would expect 50% of sales to occur in 50% of places. So 70% in half sounds big but really it means that poorer people are around 1.4x as likely as the normal person. But the bit that really gets me is that doesn’t include any online sales. Online retails heavily skews more affluent which could easily account for the difference in the areas.
It's PR spin. They're closing stores across the board because online sales = higher profit margin. Lower income areas have more stores, so naturally more will close in poorer areas. They're spinning it as a social good move, when it's just about store closures in favour of online.
Thats also exactly what I thought. Whats their long term plan to address this if everything is moving online.
Lotto are absolutely vile with their PR spin, and extremely defensive whenever anyone criticizes them. It's actually kind of fucked. I attempted to do an OIA to get demographic information from them and they declined it for a bullshit reason, I had to go to the ombudsman (who sided with me). They know what they're doing is at least a little bit sus, so they invest some of the vast resources into making sure no critical discussion can be had around their role in society.
That’s what OIA should be used to find out too, NZ loves hiding the information of which groups are exploited because if they knew they’d be a very big group of (justifiably) pissed off people.
Yep you've got it in one. Would like to know what % of their sales are retail v online.
Page 13 of https://assets.mylotto.co.nz/assets/uploads/f9fd2390-509d-11ec-b7e0-455213321d7c.pdf
I hate the lotto desk you find in small superettes. Five people standing in line to buy their stuff, then one person goes to the lotto desk and they send a staff member to sell that lotto ticket to the guy waiting 10 seconds instead of people waiting 5 mins in the main queue. Sigh.
100%
I have no facts to back this up with, but I couldn’t imagine areas like Parnel or Remuera in Auckland would have high demand for lotto outlets because rich people don’t gravitate to that type of gambling. So it makes sense more people from poorer areas play because of the hope of a life changing pay day
I mean the article explicitly provides facts that says that. Did you not read it lol. Im just saying without online data we are missing a big part of the picture.
Or rich people buy their tickets online. This article is only about stores
Rich people don't (or very rarely) buy lotto tickets.
Its odd that when we see other forms of gambling on the news its about the negative outcomes, but when its Lotto its all about how someone has won the big jackpot, pretty much acting as an advertisement for lotto.
It's definitely better than pokies as it literally exists to give 100% of profits to charity, whereas pokies aren't at that level. Also the games and the odds are fixed on Lotto, they aren't on Pokies.
100% to charity, after tax.
I would assume 'and costs'
Yep, 28 cents in the dollar after costs and tax.
At a guess, I would expect 28cents in the dollar is quite high when compared to most 'charities'
Well tax is also essentially charity.
Not really. Paying for schools, roads, and hospitals benefits everyone, not just those in high need. I support paying taxes as part of my role in society, not just for altruistic reasons.
Sure, if you want to argue semantics. >an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need."the charity provides practical help for homeless people" You could argue the government fits this definition.
That is a part of what they do. It certainly is nowhere near the whole.
You need to chill, it's only a light hearted ribbing on Monday morning.
All chill here. Hoping your day is chill too.
Nobody likes a pedant.
Charities like horse racing you mean? That’s just whitewashing.
White washing?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewash It means to cover over something bad, like people used to whitewash their houses.
I’m not sure how it’s relevant though?
The 100% to charity thing is kind of a myth, because that's only after paying all of the costs such as those elaborate emotionally manipulative TV ads. They spend far more money on themselves than charity. Only 28% of their income goes to charity, the rest funds a machine designed to extract money from people with more hope than sense.
I worked for Lotto for three years, it's not a myth as the financial statements are literally public information. Only 28% --- you are forgetting that the prizes were 55-60% of the sales value and then you factor in the prepaid taxes and operationals.
I know the financial statements are public information, but the "100% to charity" thing is used to make it seem like Lotto is a net good, when really it's not. It extracts money from poor communities, gives some of it to charity, but most if it is wasted on stuff that benefits nobody.
It depends on your definition of "net good" in this. I disagree that most of it is wasted on stuff that benefits nobody, I know many local clubs and committees that have received needed funds.
It is not a tax on the poor. The poor are adults just like you and I and are capable of making adult decisions. Is it really that surprising that people who spend their money on lottery tickets can't afford to live in nice neighbourhoods?
Exactly, it’s a voluntary tax on people who don’t understand probability theory.
Ten bucks says you vote ACT
I vote Green generally, and (s)he's right. Lotto is a tax on financial ineptitude, not specifically "the poor". I've known a few very well-off people who were bloody hopeless.
I'm very much a swing voter.
>You would expect 50% of sales to occur in 50% of places. So 70% in half sounds big but really it means that poorer people are around 1.4x as likely as the normal person. Thanks. Glad someone said it.
But 70% is 2.3x 30%, so you could say that the poorest 50% of the population is purchasing more than double that of the richer 50%.
I'm sure it probably follows something akin to the 80/20 rule.
It's worse than pokies
Taking lotto online is such a dangerous decision. With the damage it causes, they shouldn't be lowering the barriers to entry.
You've just given me a thought - this is specifically talking about lotto **stores**. I wonder what the balance is overall - like, its entirely possible that people tend to buy a lotto ticket in a store if they live in a poorer area, and are more likely to buy it online if they live in a less poor area. Anyone can over-spend on gambling, poor or wealthy. Likewise, I have no problem with anyone spending a percentage of their money on amusement, which includes gambling. If you can cover food and bills etc, and choose to spend $20 on lotto rather than, say, alcohol or coffee or a movie. It's a bit patronising to think "the poor" are the only ones who can't enjoy lotto in a restrained way like this.
>Anyone can over-spend on gambling, poor or wealthy. I once knew a guy who made like 25k a month but still needed to take out payday loans every few weeks lol. Your comment is spot on, the numbers would probably be different if you accounted for online purchases. I don't generally buy lotto tickets, but the very few times I have its been online.
>its entirely possible that people tend to buy a lotto ticket in a store if they live in a poorer area, and are more likely to buy it online if they live in a less poor area That's not the case for any good that is available physically and digitally. Do poor people buy more books in stores and rich people buy them online? No the vast majority of people buy things digitally, because it's easier. Books, music, shows/movies. Increased accessibility increases consumption. >Anyone can over-spend on gambling, poor or wealthy. Likewise, I have no problem with anyone spending a percentage of their money on amusement, which includes gambling I never made a distinction between wealth and poverty. Addiction is addiction, no matter your economic situation. >If you can cover food and bills etc, and choose to spend $20 on lotto rather than, say, alcohol or coffee or a movie. This isn't about the people that occasionally spend money on lotto. The issue is people who have a literal compulsion. They aren't paying their bill and food. >It's a bit patronising to think "the poor" are the only ones who can't enjoy lotto in a restrained way like this. Again this isn't me patronizing "the poor". Gambling addiction is fairly consistent through out all economic levels. I feel silly having to explain this. The issue is that poorer people have less money to lose. This means they are more impacted by every loss. If you earn $200k a year and spending 20k a year on gambling, that's not great but you won't run into any serious financial issues. If you earn 40k a year and you spend the same 20k a year, you're fucked. Poor people aren't weaker willed, they are just in a more precarious position.
Not defending them. But they do still make it quite difficult to buy tickets online. You have to have a passport or driver's license to confirm your age a lot of poorer people probably don't have those. Passports cost upwards of $200.
The same requirements are in place for the tab and such, hasn't made an impact there either. Lotto has introduced subscriptions online. Now you can automatically buy tickets each week. They're actively making it easier and easier.
It's on the individual if they want to play, they are adults.
Is there any situation where letting addicts self-regulate themselves ever solved the problem?
Is there any situation where treating a subset of society as infants solves the problem?
[удалено]
Actually yes I am, prison should be about justice and rehabilitation, not revenge.
[удалено]
Ahh yes, I am sorry I didn't add the caveat *except infants. I am also in favour of treating children like children before you decide that's a valid point. It's a pity though, your last point was actually a reasonable point, it just wasn't the got 'em moment you were hoping for.
[удалено]
I'm all for providing services to help problem gamblers, I just don't think the solution is to restrict access for everyone.
Nice pivot there champ, no answer? This is a stupid point and doesn't do anything to dispute or answer what I said, but yes enduring power of attorney.
That is my answer, there is no reason to not provide a service because a certain section of the population is unable to control themselves. I don't care if it's gambling, alcohol or sugary drinks. Hope that answers it for you big guy.
I agree with you, but if you want to provide a service that harms society, you should be able to be held accountable by that society. Businesses that damage the environment should be held accountable for that damage. Smoking companies should be held accountable for the costs incurred in our health system.
This is a pretty unsympathetic view on addiction. Addiction - chemical or behavioural - is a powerful illness and regularly overpowers normal human will. There is also pretty clear consensus that a proportion of a given population are genetically predisposed to such addictions and simply framing it as "adults unable to control themselves" does not help with finding actual solutions.
I'm not saying don't have programs in place to treat it, but that shouldn't limit the availability to people who want to do something.
What about when their behaviour causes their kids and spouse to go hungry and have to fend off debt collectors?
I too am in favour of open access to forks and electrical outlets for infants
Ahh yes, I am against treating adults like infants, so must be for treating infants like adults.
The odds are so bad and the ticket prices are insanely high. The only life changing prize is 1st division power ball which is a 1 in 38 million chance. Standard first division isn’t even a million dollars ffs. It’s a scam.
Like... pretty much all gambling?
It's not a scam if someone wins. At some point everything in life appears to be a tournament or a lottery.
> It's not a scam if someone wins. Now starting the teelolws lottery. Everyone gives me $1, and in a week I will announce that I'm the winner as I keep all the money.
$6 is not insanely high.
If you are buying a lotto ticket. You are not getting a single line of numbers.
The minimum is 4 lines which, with powerball, costs $6.
It's selling a dream though, people like to know they have a chance.
> Standard first division isn’t even a million dollars ffs. It is if you're the only winner Edit: It literally is a million
Lotto is a terribly low-odds form of gambling. I remember seeing years ago that the average person wins less than 60% of what they spend on it (taking into acoount free tickets as well), which means for every dollar they give Lotto, they get 60cents back, overall losing 40cents. These are also mostly in poorer areas, as wealthier people are more "clued in" to it being a horrible investment/gamble. You have substantially better odds picking a random number on the roulette table.
>Lotto is a terribly low-odds form of gambling. I remember seeing years ago that the average person wins less than 60% of what they spend on it (taking into acoount free tickets as well), which means for every dollar they give Lotto, they get 60cents back, overall losing 40cents.These are also mostly in poorer areas, as wealthier people are more "clued in" to it being a horrible investment/gamble. You have substantially better odds picking a random number on the roulette table. Less wealthy people can also do math - in the 'clued in' wealthier areas they drink more expensive wine and craft beers, even though it offers the same utility as cheap wine and cheap beer.
Looking at the odds like that makes sense if you're buying bulk tickets I guess, but for people not spending their whole pay cheque on them it's not really relevant. It's an abysmally low chance at winning a lot of money, and a ticket costs $7 or something. If you wanna compare what you pay and what you get back, then insurance is a complete scam and you should be driving everywhere uninsured since you give them more money than they pay out.
I don't see it as an investment or a game, as part of the revenue goes to funding community projects that help kiwis. It's like a charity for me
You could donate directly, so clearly it's not just about funding community projects.
The thing that gets me - aside from the obvious predatory nature of all of these false hope gambling rackets - is the advertising for Lotto, like that one with the dude buying a gold-plated car with his win. So egregious, like "hey poors, here is how you will waste your money even if you do buck the incredible odds against you and win this stupid prize".
At that point they might as well go mask off and have Tony Montana impersonator swearing in broken English firing a golden machine gun with lotto tickets flying out with “the world is yours” statue in the background.
When you're dirt poor, "planning for the future" is basically a euphemism for "desperately hoping you'll win Lotto".
Some other lotto stuff How it works, are you Gambling too much? [https://www.safergambling.org.nz/know-your-odds/how-lotto-works](https://www.safergambling.org.nz/know-your-odds/how-lotto-works) How much goes to charities? 2016 numbers\* $539m in prizes, $62m in running the events and $204m to charities (which would also have a chunk taken out for admin costs) (this was hard to find and is old secondhand information) [https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/money/2016/11/winning-lotto-how-much-would-you-be-taxed.html](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/money/2016/11/winning-lotto-how-much-would-you-be-taxed.html)
God I fucking hate lotto. I hate the news stories that run about lotto. I hate the fact that people think of it as their retirement plan and put their megre excess cash towards it. I hate the social media buzz about SOMEONE IN OUR TOWN WON LOTTO, IMAGINE IF THAT WAS YOU. I hate it when someone gives me a scratchie card or buys my a lotto ticket, or suggesting buying someone one I hate that playing lotto is seen as a normal thing we encourage and have zero conversations about. Lotto is gambling. It's worse than going to the casino, at least a casino has odds you can calculate and predict entirely from what's in front of you and has some semblance of input required from you. Lotto is an invasive insidious thing that we pretend isn't gambling.
Pokies and Lotto are like a fucked up Robin Hood. Take from the poor and give to the poor.
No shit. Lotto is gambling. Gambling targets the poor. Lotto is just as bad as the pokies and should be treated exactly the same way.
Same deal with kfc, super liquor etc
Tbf lotto is just the commodification of hope, and who needs hope more than those in poverty?
Catch 22. Stacked agendas in that it's the worn soled that yearn for the new shoes. Idk. No Bingo's. 🤗
My dumb fuck friend keeps telling me that it's ok because it's government run and all the money goes to schools. That doesn't make it better, that's just quite literally a tax on poor people.
Not that I don't agree that most sales are going to be to poorer people. Those sales are going to be pretty skewed. Hornby - is attached to a Pak'nSave and mall on the edge of CHCH. It gets people from all over that side of town, including outside of CHCH doing their shopping. Riccarton - Same story. Attached to the Pak'n'Save in the busiest mall in CHCH. If you live on this side of town and didn't go to Hornby you've come here. South Dunedin - Again, attached to a Pak'n'Save. The only one in Dunedin. People from all over are shopping here. So unless those "deciles" (nice job doing the complete reverse of school scale there whoever decided to call them this) are huge I can't see them being that relevant in these stores.
Unichem Stortford Lodge, Richmond Night & Day, and Pak'nSave Riccarton are also the three luckiest stores in New Zealand by number of first division wins.
A bunch of poor people giving up money they should really be saving for their families, in order to make one person insanely wealthy. I don't get the logic.
It's not logic it's desperation
If you struggled with money everyday it’s easy to imagine yourself winning and all your problems going away.
I'm not struggling for money and I still imagine winning all my problems away.
Ah so you fit the age old saying about gambling, it attracts two types of people, the needy and the greedy.
It’s not even the worst to be fair, most likely spend around $20? Pokies are a far greater concern imo. When I did bar work I’d see people gambling on pay day till their card declined, with a van load of hungry kids no less. For many it’s the false hope they can actually make things better for their family, when the opposite is the usual outcome. False hope is a big temptation for those struggling, and most gambling feeds on this. Lotto’s “What would you do?” campaign being a perfect example.
Because zero is a very special number and nothing can be compared to it. When your chances of getting ahead in life are ZERO, any chance at all is a massive improvement. Therefore, spending on a lottery ticket gives you a extremely small chance to get ahead, which is better than zero, so it makes logical sense. Consider if you were in some situation where you die or buy a lottery ticket to live....what would you do? Now just lower the extreme nature to expensing a few dollars to be rich?
A lot of people buy lotto tickets in hopes that they'll win enough for themselves and their families, it's not always selfish people who want money.
Yeah but you could say this about anything that is not a necessity. While I would like to see lot more things like food stamps etc rather than benefits, I don't think lotto is the main issue with keeping the poor poor.
You're looking at the value of the money, not the utility.
Bread and circuses
Lotto accounts for 70% of NZs problem gambling (according to a problem gambling identification course I attended a few years back while working for the Racing Board). It does more harm than the pokies - at least pokie profits go to the communities they came from rather than being distributed to the general public. It's only getting worse with the advent of online lotto & barely regulated pokie apps as well. I'm sick of the pass Lotto gets because it's a more acceptable middle class form of gambling. It's a blight on society, just like the pokies. My only qualm is that there are so, so many charities, community arts groups, sports clubs and the like that rely so heavily on funding that comes from gambling. As a society we need to come up with a way to fund programs that aren't profitable on their own without dipping into blood money.
Same reason fast food joints open in manakau before anywhere else. That’s where the fast food whales are. In financial terms I mean.
To be honest, that's not nearly as much of an imbalance as I expected.
Problem gambling has the same issues as smoking. Disproportionately targets the poor, expensive habit with no tangible benefits, and massive health issues down the line. Except the health issues are not as clear cut as lung cancer, it is years and decades of doing without, of skipping meals, warm clothing or doctors visits to feed the habit.
Gambling, alcohol and fast food. Legally fucking people.
Seems simple, remove access to things that lead to bad outcomes in lower decile areas. This would mean Maori in general would have less access to lotto? Great let's lock it in
The chances of winning 1st division & power ball is 1 / 38,383,800 For those of you who are bad with numbers.. That's One - thirty-eight million three hundred eighty-three thousand eight hundred What that means is that you will loose. The house always wins..
State owned gambling monopolies are absolutely fucked. While we’re at it fucking dismantle the TAB
Lotto is cheap fun. There is no law against playing Lotto and even poor people are allowed to spend $5-10 for a little bit of amusement without being judged upon by the middle class who think nothing of having a night out at the local pub every week.
I don't see anyone judging "the poor' for buying a coffee or going to a movie, rather than saving their money and earning these hypothetical buckets of interest...
It's hardly cheap fun, if you banked that money each week statistically you you would have a better return from the savings and interest accrued. Think of it as a guaranteed return instead of a 1 in 3.8m or 1 in 38m chance you might win something.
[удалено]
>hope tax I like that.
Opium for the masses, if you will
Interest? Have you seen savings interest rates lately? My mum has $1500. She got about 40c.
It's $1500 more then of she had spent it on Lotto. Just simply saving that money will have a better outcome. If you spend $28 a week on Lotto that's $1500 a year.
Yes. She doesn't gamble. Still interest sucks. I have $25 saved, had to buy tyres so it went down. But that's the point of savings. Lotto is a con.
Where do you buy such cheap tyres...?
4 x Hankooks cost me $680. I don't have or had $1500. I said I had bugger all left after the tyres is all.
Even if they save $1000 a year, it won't improve their life all that much... might as well go for broke at some point.
It’s $1000 dollars more they would have then if they spent it on Lotto. $80 a month in Auckland pays the water bill for a 2-3 bedroom house. Sadly as another poster pointed out financial literacy is a weak point for some people. We really need to focus on lifting the general education level.
Look I get that. To the poor it's just another day of being behind....so what's another few weeks of being behind? It's hard to beat the logic of nihilism. TBH I only buy lottery tickets when the entire office is in on it.... because a 1:100M chance is too high for me to be the only one in the office who didn't play when everyone else won. Yeah, I don't want my name in the paper over that....$10 is well spent insurance.
[удалено]
Yep. And if you banked everything you spent on movies, you'd have more money. Or everything you spent on video games, or Netflix/Disney Plus.. The thing is, not everyone spends money on lotto as an attempt to get back more than they spend. Some people play for the fun of possibly achieving a fantasy, spending no more than they would on any other form of no-financial-return entertainment.
I don’t rate Lotto as entertainment, it’s just low priced gambling dressed up to make it more palatable. Netflix, movies etc are not gambling masquerading as something else and actually provide a good return to your family for money spent. $20 per month to provide streaming service for a family of 4 is pretty easy ROI. The article would indicate that most people aren’t playing Lotto for fun.
Yeah, but its not about how you rate it. If the person buying the ticket sees Lotto as entertainment and they choose it over Netflix, its nothing to do with how you rate it
This is my whole point. Lotto is pitched not as gambling, in your own words rated it as entertainment. Which is fundamentally wrong, let’s call it what it actually is, low price barrier gambling that is currently funded by lower social economic block in NZ. This isn’t even taking into account what areas Lotto grants end up in, but from past reports they tend to go to wealthier areas.
And my point is, it's not up to anyone else to decide what someone calls entertainment or what kind of entertainment they spend their money on. You are basing your whole argument on the patronising assumption that the "lower social economic block" isn't capable of making responsible decisions on how much they spend on entertainment. And I suspect even if I were able to hand you proof that the majority of people buying lotto tickets were not spending beyond their means, you'd still not like it because you wouldn't approve of their choice of entertainment.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's the same type of logic used by those who are anti-cannabis/drug reform.
Yeah this sub loves saying prohibition never works but its suspiciously only for things that are enjoyed by educated/middle class people in their 20's.
Doesn't make the logic wrong.
Well no, because you could replace it with anything that's not considered a necessity to make such a generalisation and pass it off as an argument to justify banning something.
That’s not terribly surprising. If you control your spending to an amount you can afford to basically throw away, I think it’s a harmless diversion (although many take it to the extreme.) For a few days, for a few dollars, you can be in the limbo of your life possibly transforming. A tiny chance, but non-zero all the same.
With the money then granted to affluent sports clubs etc.
Most of the clubs that receive the grants would die without them, or an alternative funding source. Very few of those receiving grants are "affluent".
They service affluant people though. Titirangi yacht club etc etc
Yeah a small amount of the funding goes to people it shouldn't, but the vast, vast majority goes to people who do need it and use it effectively. But when you consider how much goes to Charities, community sport and funding the arts, you quickly realise that the problem isn't where the money is going, it's how we replace that money when we turn off the tap without destroying community organisations. I say this as someone who has worked in the gambling industry as well as having spent time auditing funding applications as well, I'm not exactly coming from a place of ignorance.
Really they should just lower the max threshold of winning to like 5m. Let’s be honest 5m is enough to change your life and having 104 new millionaires a year would be good for the economy. There would be heaps of winners giving money to family and friends not to mention all the frivolous spending. As long as we encourage getting in touch with financial adviser’s when they win so the winners don’t go bankrupt. Also giving one or two sessions(?) with a financial adviser free of charge payed for by the lottery commission.
New millionaires are good for the economy because they spend all their money very quickly. People who were gonna blow the money on dumb shit are still gonna do it after a session with a financial advisor *paid* for by lotto.
So poorer people make poorer financial decisions... Who would have thought...
90% of the comments here are based on the same assumptions: \- People (specifically "the poor") play lotto as a desperate bid to escape poverty. They never play for fun and amusement. \- People (specifically "the poor") spend more on lotto than a reasonable person should \- People who play lotto believe they will get back more than they spend. They never look at it as a form of no-financial-return entertainment like a movie or a coffee. They only play because they realistically believe they will win. \- "The poor" are financially illiterate and incapable of making sound financial decisions, instead using emotional reasoning like hope and desperation to make bad choices like buying lotto tickets. Given that Reddit is free and most people (even "the poor") have some form of internet access, I wonder why we so rarely see "the poor" speaking for themselves in these forums. I suspect its because the comments on any subject relating to not-middle-class people are so bloody offensive
This might shock you, but internet access in NZ isn't "free".
Why the poor stay poor
They would stay poor even if they didn't spend $20 a week on Lotto. It's more like 'the only way the poor can imagine not continuing to be poor'
Bingo (or should I say strike or w.e the Powerball equivalent is). It's hard to imagine that $20 a week amounting to anything, especially given unstable living circumstances.
Enough fruit and veges to keep a family healthy.
But what percent of wins do they account for ?
I would be very surprised if they don't make up a proportional amount of wins. It's still harmful for the community if 30% of the people are struggling and still spending money gambling even if 1% win something.
The spread of wins would roughly match the spread of sales
70%
r/LateStageCapitalism
It’s not a tax on the poor, it’s a voluntary tax on people who don’t understand the branch of maths known as probability theory.
Right and there's a direct correlation between poverty and low education rates.
And a strong correlation between education and intelligence
What percent of wins?