Jim Hiestand wrote:

>    In referring to tax revenues in Georgia Prof. Dumas did not say
> which of the two methods used there but not employed currently in
> Tennessee he is supporting.  Since he described it as popular, I
> assume he meant the lottery rather than their income tax.

I assumed only that recipients would read the subject line of the
message, which was retained in your reply as well as this message.
Certainly the mention of its popularity would "clue in" even those who
failed to note the title.  There was definitely no attempt whatsoever
at stealth.

> His failure to mention it by name is characteristic of the lottery for
> it is a stealth tax, a regressive tax on the statistically challenged that
> reduces the tax burden on higher income residents smart enough not to pay.

Prof. Hiestand's misstatement above is characteristic of lottery
opponents for they seek to misrepresent a lottery as a tax, which it
patently is not.  Merriam-Webster defines "tax" as:

1 : to assess or determine judicially the amount of (costs in a court
action)
2 : to levy a tax on
3 obsolete : to enter (a name) in a list <there went out a decree...
that all the world should be taxed -- Luke 2:1 (Authorized Version)>
4 : CHARGE, ACCUSE <taxed him with neglect of duty>; also : CENSURE
5 : to make onerous and rigorous demands on <the job taxed her
strength>

Definition 2 is probably the most appropriate one in this sense,
although my personal preference, given my recollection of my
activities prior to April 15, is for number 5.  To "levy" is further
defined as:  to impose or collect by legal authority <levy a tax> b :
to require by authority.  A tax, therefore, is a payment to a
governing authority which is required by law.  Participation in a
lottery is 100% voluntary, not required; payment of taxes is required
under penalty of law including fines and/or imprisonment.  A lottery
is *not* a tax, and therefore logically cannot be a regressive tax.

[As an aside, not specifically on the subject of the lottery, I reject
the entire notion of arguing against a lottery, or any other means of
raising revenue, as "regressive".  Everything we buy is priced
"regressively" in the sense that it costs a greater percentage of
income for some people than for others.  For example, consider three
people:  a minimum-wage worker, a UTC professor making (let's be
optimistic :) $50,000 per year, and an industry CEO making, say,
$500,000 a year.  All three of these people walk into Bi-Lo and
purchase a loaf of bread.  If bread were priced "progressively" then
the person making minimum wage might pay 49 cents for the bread, while
the UTC prof might pay $1.29 and the CEO $12.90.  Is this the way it
works?  No, all three pay the same price because all three are buying
the same thing.  If all three went to buy a car, or anything else on
the free market, they would pay the same price if they bought the same
thing.  (Even if the CEO bought a Mercedes to the professor's Toyota
to the wage earner's used Chevy, and paid considerably more for it, it
would be a much smaller portion of his income than the car purchases
made by the others.)  Unfair?  Or just the free market coupled with
the inescapable fact that some people are always better or worse off
than others?  So my question is, if different people with different
incomes pay the same price for other things, why should we charge
well-off people (who likely make considerably less use of government
services than do the poor) more for government services?  "From each
according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is Marxism
according to the originator, and I just don't go for that, but it
seems to be the way government is run in the good ole USA.]

> By this reduction a lottery tends to distract us from the true cost of
> government and we become inclined to watch it less closely. Therefore it
> is to be rejected.

I agree that we all need to be more watchful of how government is
spending *our* money.  Nashville doesn't make money, they take it from
the citizens :(  But I don't see this as a valid reason for rejecting
a lottery.  I find it less morally repugnant to accept, even solicit,
people to give money for government than to take it from them by
force.  My analogy:  a poor man (the government) stands out on
McCallie Avenue in need of money.  He can panhandle change from
passers-by, in which case we call him a beggar; he can pick their
pockets, in which case we call him a thief; or he can brandish a
weapon and take their money by force, in which case we call him an
armed robber.  A lottery is the equivalent of begging.  An income tax
is not even as benign as pickpocketing; it is taking money from people
by force or the threat of force.  Maybe Prof. Hiestand sees this as
morally superior to a lottery; I do not.

>    I much prefer that government come to its citizens with both its
> proposals and their cost and let me decide if they are worth paying for.
> An income tax is the fairest tax and tends to make us pay attention.  I
> think it is preferable.

Taxes in general are an "onerous, rigorous" (see above) way to get
money for government operations.  An income tax is the most onerous of
all taxes because it imposes a huge accounting and record-keeping
burden on the citizens, and most of all because it requires the
government to intrude into the private lives of individuals and keep
tabs on what should be their private financial dealings.  Think of how
much you "love" having to deal with the federal IRS and how much
additional "fun" it would be to have to deal with a Tennessee
equivalent thereof.  At least a sales tax imposes these burdens only
on businesses, which do not have the same rights as private
individuals and which already have a significant level of necessary
record-keeping.  Individuals can also regulate their exposure to sales
taxes to some extent by limiting their spending.  (I do favor
eliminating at least the sales tax on food even if we can't eliminate
the tax on other items, since it's pretty difficult to avoid buying
food.)  A lottery imposes no privacy intrusions or record-keeping
burden on anyone except those involved (by choice) in
selling/redeeming tickets.  I think it is preferable.

The situation is this:  partially due to legitimate functions of
government, and more so due to wasteful, ineffective social(ist)
government spending, money is needed for the government to operate.
The best alternative from the taxpayers' point of view would be to
spend less.  The less of our money the government takes and spends,
the more we have left to better the lives of ourselves, our families,
and others.  Failing that, we have to have some way of raising
additional money.  It is a fact that Tennesseans, like people all over
the world, gamble.  There was gambling long before there was a
Tennessee or United States government, and there will no doubt be
gambling long after Nashville and Washington, D.C. have crumbled into
dust.  People in Tennessee currently have the choice of gambling
illegaly, where the money goes into the underworld, or of crossing the
state line to play lotteries in Georgia, Virginia, or Kentucky,
frequent casinos in North Carolina or Mississippi, or bet at dog
tracks in Alabama, which will likely soon have a lottery of its own.
In all of these latter cases money leaves Tennessee and benefits the
people of the surrounding states.  (If you don't think it benefits
them, ask anyone who has moved from TN to GA in *spite* of the GA
income tax so their children can attend the lottery-enhanced schools
there.)  Most Tennesseans who choose to gamble would probably prefer
to do it conveniently, legally, close to home, if they could.  And if
they could, that money would stay in Tennessee to benefit
Tennesseans.  That makes sense to me--a whole lot more sense than
enacting another tax.

Joe Dumas