Prof. Dumas is right.  I had overlooked the subject line of his
message.  I regret my misstatement of fact.

   But I was not accusing him of deception.  I thought I had an
inadvertent example of the way in which a lottery is not quite what it
seems.

   I am not going to argue about the meaning of tax.  I was using the term
as equivalent to revenues going to the state.  Years ago, when Nelson
Rockefeller first ran for governor of my home state of New York, he
promised not to raise taxes.  Instead, after becoming governor, he raised
"fees"  on lots of things, including auto licenses.  Likewise, we don't
charge our in-state students tuition; we charge them maintenance fees.

   Of course to play or not play the lottery is a choice unlike a direct
tax on incomes.  One can buy selectively to somewhat reduce paying the
sales tax.  One can even avoid paying almost all money to Tenn. by making
most purchases in Georgia where the sales tax is lower.  This is not
impossible nor even inconvenient if you live say, in East Ridge.  But I
don't think such a one is paying his fair share of being a resident of
Tennessee.

   I think it was Oliver W. Holmes who said taxes are the price we pay for
civilization.  I am willing to pay for I also want the benefits which
government provides (e.g. police protection, public schools).  Taxes back
home in New York are too high; here they are too low.

Dumas is correct that purchases tend to be regressive.  I don't think
taxes should be.  Probably the poor do benefit more from government than
do the better off.  I think this is reasonable. It is not clear that the
working poor benefit more than do the wealthy.  The latter may pay more
for home owners private insurance but they pay no more for public fire
protection nor to attend public schools nor to use the roads.

Jim Hiestand

(423) 755 4355 work
(423) 755 5229 FAX