Against the Odds, and Against the Common Good: a Summary
H. Kidd Kidd 1
Joanne Sanchez, Ph.D.
A-NCCT 3330.05: Summary Paper
9 February 2011
Summary on: Against the Odds, and Against the Common Good
In her essay, “Against the Odds, and Against the Common Good,” Gloria Jimenez evaluates the debate for state-run lotteries and surmises that state representatives, having citizens’ welfare in mind, should not pass bills urging them to gamble. In today’s society, state-run lotteries are common establishments considering the majority of our country has one. Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia all have lotteries justified as necessary state funds beneficial to the common good. But with state lotteries no one wins—not schools, not the government and not the American public. (1) The lottery system does not contribute notable funds to the state or schools (2) it is a regressive form of taxation (3) it creates limited jobs (4) it is harmful to American values and society (5)but they claim to be fair and honest. Overall, lotteries are neither practical nor fair, and they are harmful to the common good. First, let me point out that lotteries do not achieve their first goal of contributing notable funds to the state or schools. The most valid defense for lotteries is that they will increase
Kidd 2
Educational funding, when, in fact, contributes very little. In her research, Jimenez briefly explains her findings and deducts “the lotteries have been paying out roughly 4 percent to the businesses while taking in almost $20 billion in 2002.” (New York Times, May 18, 2003, sec. 4, p. 1). If states raised income tax by a fraction of a percent, they could generate just as much revenue as state lotteries. That is how insignificant they are. As well as being an ineffective money raising scheme, the lottery is also a regressive form of taxation. The
Joanne Sanchez, Ph.D.
A-NCCT 3330.05: Summary Paper
9 February 2011
Summary on: Against the Odds, and Against the Common Good
In her essay, “Against the Odds, and Against the Common Good,” Gloria Jimenez evaluates the debate for state-run lotteries and surmises that state representatives, having citizens’ welfare in mind, should not pass bills urging them to gamble. In today’s society, state-run lotteries are common establishments considering the majority of our country has one. Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia all have lotteries justified as necessary state funds beneficial to the common good. But with state lotteries no one wins—not schools, not the government and not the American public. (1) The lottery system does not contribute notable funds to the state or schools (2) it is a regressive form of taxation (3) it creates limited jobs (4) it is harmful to American values and society (5)but they claim to be fair and honest. Overall, lotteries are neither practical nor fair, and they are harmful to the common good. First, let me point out that lotteries do not achieve their first goal of contributing notable funds to the state or schools. The most valid defense for lotteries is that they will increase
Kidd 2
Educational funding, when, in fact, contributes very little. In her research, Jimenez briefly explains her findings and deducts “the lotteries have been paying out roughly 4 percent to the businesses while taking in almost $20 billion in 2002.” (New York Times, May 18, 2003, sec. 4, p. 1). If states raised income tax by a fraction of a percent, they could generate just as much revenue as state lotteries. That is how insignificant they are. As well as being an ineffective money raising scheme, the lottery is also a regressive form of taxation. The
Cited: Jimenez, Gloria. “Against the Odds, and Against the Common Good.” Pg. 112-114. Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing. Barnett & Bedau. New York. Bedford/St. Martin.2008. Print