Yet, it was actually in Genoa that playing the lottery became a popular pastime. Citizens would bet on the name of Great Council members, and these would be drawn out by chance. Five out of 90 candidates would be drawn every six months, and the gambling that people did on these events was known as Lotto or Semenaiu. Should people have the interest in gambling more than twice per year, they would start to substitute the candidates names with numbers, and thus, the modern idea of lotto was born.
In , King Francis I of France happened to come across lottery games during his campaigns in Italy. Upon his return to France, he chose to organise such lotteries to help with state finances. This led to the first French lottery being held in that same year, entitled the Loterie Royale. However, the attempt at hosting such was quite the issue, considering that tickets were so pricey, and those social classes who could afford to partake opposed it. The following two centuries saw lotteries in France completely forbidden.
However, the story is slightly different in England, where the first recorded official lottery was chartered by Queen Elizabeth I.
Each of the ticket holders won a prize, with the total value of those prizes being equal to the amount of money raised. Those prizes would come in the form of silver plate and other commodities of worth. That lottery was promoted via scrolls being posted throughout England. Basically, the money received from that English lottery was sort of like an interest free loan to the government.
And it is for this reason that it took three years for the lottery to be drawn in the end. Later on, the government sold the rights to lottery tickets to brokers. Further to this, many private lotteries were also held, such as the one that was used to raise money for The Virginia Company of London. That money was sent on to support its settlement in America at Jamestown. From through to , the English State Lottery was operational, running for over years.
However, with the government being under constant pressure from the opposition parliament to close it down, it eventually had to proceed with such, declaring the final lottery in Lotteries in colonial America played quite a significant part in helping to finance private and public ventures. More than lotteries were actually sanctioned between and Through these, roads, libraries, churches, canals and so on were able to be financed, and the foundation of Princeton and Columbia Universities was also financed by lotteries in the s.
During the French and Indian Wars, multiple colonies utilised lotteries as a way of financing fortifications and their local militia.
Benjamin Franklin then went on to organise a lottery in order to raise money for the purchase of cannons to defend Philadelphia. Since its first draw back in The Hague in , it has been going strong and funding masses of projects within The Netherlands. This operates as a Christmastime lottery, and can be considered a larger tradition than welcoming Santa Claus to the country. This lottery eventually died out, but there were similar draws held between and The National Lottery began in — with the first draw taking place on November 19 th.
Incredibly, the broadcast was watched by 22 million people. Given that the population of the UK in was The winning numbers were: 30, 3, 5, 44, 14 and 22, with 10 as the bonus ball. The Health Lottery is not a national lottery but a charity or society lottery which began in — it was launched in October of that year.
The results were broadcast live on ITV. Critics charge that lottery advertising seeks "to stimulate rather than merely accommodate demand," a role for the state that "may be inconsistent with other functions of government Lottery advertisements must either encourage existing players to buy more tickets or entice non-players into becoming players. In the words of one, lottery play depends on encouraging people's "magical thinking," which advertising must target.
To this end, lotteries use traditional marketing methods, such as identifying likely players, compiling extensive socio-economic profiles, conducting focus group research, test marketing new products, etc. The media plan for the Iowa lottery stated its strategy as "to target our message demographically against those that we know to be heavy users, while encouraging purchases among light or non-users.
Critics charge that much lottery advertising is deceptive, commonly presenting misleading information about the odds of winning the jackpot, inflating the value of the money won lotto jackpot prizes are usually paid in equal annual installments over 20 years, with inflation and taxes dramatically eroding the current value ; and so forth.
Growing criticism has helped to persuade some legislatures to mandate restrictions on lottery advertising. Lottery advocates claim that the Massachusetts lottery spent no money on advertising in outside of point-of-purchase sites i. As a direct result, there was an absolute decline in lottery revenue for the first time. Despite the increasing salience of the issue, only three states -- Minnesota, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- have imposed significant restrictions on lottery advertising Massachusetts' legislature did the same by means of its virtual elimination of the advertising budget; other states have similarly reduced the advertising budget, but for a variety of reasons.
But many state lottery organizations claim to have significantly reduced their overall advertising on their own initiative, or to have changed it in ways to make it more "socially responsible.
Criticism of the advertising practices of lotteries is not confined to critics outside of the industry. Speaking to a meeting of his fellow lottery directors, Jeff Perlee, Director of the New York State Lottery, warned that although most lottery advertising was responsible in its claims, lottery officials:.
Add to that the fact that our advertising is often relentless in its frequency, and lottery critics and even supporters are left wondering what public purpose is served when a state's primary message to its constituents is a frequent and enticing appeal to the gambling instinct. The answer is none. No legitimate public purpose justifies the excesses to which some lottery advertising has resorted. A Maryland state budget examiner's report on that state's lottery advertising stated that it contained "misleading gimmickry" that exaggerated the benefits to the public from lottery revenues.
The focus on convincing non-players or infrequent players to utilize the lottery, as well as persuading frequent players to play even more, is the source of an additional array of criticisms. Giving force to this concern is the widespread conception that the lottery is a regressive tax because it draws a disproportionate amount of its revenues from lower-income groups. The image of the state promoting a highly regressive scheme among its poorest citizens by playing on their unrealistic hopes is a highly evocative one.
The most frequently cited, and most egregious, example of this was a billboard in one of Chicago's poorest neighborhoods that touted the lottery as: "How to go from Washington Boulevard to Easy Street - Play the Illinois State Lottery. This assumption, however, may not be accurate. Much depends on the definition of "regressive. In that sense, given the fact that a lottery ticket is the same price to all, regardless of income, it is by definition regressive and is considered an "implicit" tax because the revenues go to the state.
But this simple approach does not capture such variables as frequency of play and the amounts of money generated by the lottery by income group. Here the evidence divides by the type of game played. The data suggests although is far from conclusive that the bulk of lotto players and revenues come from middle-income neighborhoods, and that far fewer proportionally come from either high-income or low-income areas.
Clotfelter and Cook cite one study in the s which concluded that "'the poor' participate in the state lottery games at levels disproportionately less than their percentage of the population.
The popular belief is that the poor are much heavier users of the lottery than the rich and the middle classes. In fact, however, although "lottery play is systematically related to social class, [it is] perhaps not always as strongly as the conventional wisdom would suggest. Absolute expenditures appear to be remarkably uniform over a broad range of incomes.
Assuming this is true, the lottery may still be termed regressive because the state takes greater percentage of income from those with lower incomes. Although total expenditures on the lottery may be broadly similar by income group, the type of game they play differs considerably. An analysis by the Chicago Sun-Times revealed that lower-income individuals concentrate much more heavily on the numbers games, "trading lower payoffs with a higher chance of winning. They also are likely to be frequent players, often daily players.
Lotto - with its big-money jackpots and slim odds -- appears to appeal more to upper-income groups, most of whom are only occasional players, usually when the prize money reaches large proportions. This tendency toward regressivity in certain types of lottery games is also borne out in the figures for the Massachusetts lottery. Less compelling, although significant, evidence exists in the media plans of the lotteries. Clotfelter and Cook report that lottery marketing strategies do seem to explicitly target lower-income groups.
For example, the advertising plan for Ohio's SuperLotto game stated that lottery promotions should be timed to coincide with the receipt of "Government benefits, payroll and Social Security payments. Income aside, there are clear differences in lottery play by socio-economic group and other factors. Men tend to play more than women; blacks and Hispanics more than whites; the old and the young play less than those in the middle age ranges; and Catholics tend to play more than Protestants.
Interestingly, "lottery play falls with formal education" even though non-lottery gambling in general tends to increase. There is growing evidence that the new games the lotteries have introduced to increase sales are more addictive, and are compounding the problem of compulsive gamblers. The study also concluded that keno in particular fosters addiction. This link is widely recognized, even by those in the industry.
In the words of one lottery director: "[G]ambling, including playing the lottery, is Despite significant annual revenues from the lottery, however, treatment of compulsive gambling receives relatively little money from the state.
Five states require a telephone number for help for problem gamblers be printed on its lottery tickets. The lottery has also apparently had a negative impact on charitable gambling.
Competition from the lottery is usually blamed, especially following the introduction of keno. The negative impact on state politics of money connected with the lotteries is often cited by critics, with the commercial suppliers and operators commonly used as examples.
GTech and Automated Wagering International AWI are the two companies that dominate the lottery supply and lottery operations businesses. These two companies have contributed heavily to state races. In addition, both companies devote substantial sums to lobbying state legislatures and officials.
It needs to be emphasized that although lottery officials are often lightening rods for criticism, they are not free agents operating on their own; they must respond to directions from state officials, which often contain conflicting goals.
Thus, they may be told to reduce advertising even as their performance is measured by their ability to increase lottery revenues. This schizophrenic approach can lead to many problems. For example, in Massachusetts, the pressure on the lottery to produce additional revenue remained even after the legislature dramatically reduced the funding for advertising.
This in turn generated an investigation by the Massachusetts Attorney General's office, but also prompted the IRS to investigate the alleged non-reporting of income in its eyes, the coupons were being used as money. The most important issue regarding lotteries is the ability of government at any level to manage an activity from which it profits. In an anti-tax era, many state governments have become dependent on "painless" lottery revenues, and pressures are always there to increase them.
A study done in Oregon found that one result common to every state financial crisis over the past couple of decades was that a new form of gambling had been legalized for the state to profit from. As a consequence, Oregon currently has more forms of legal gambling than any other state outside of Nevada.
Clearly there are conflicting goals which can only be prioritized by political officials, be they in the executive or legislative branch. There have been surprisingly few attempts to grapple with this problem. The evolution of state lotteries is a classic case of public policy being made piecemeal and incrementally, with little or no general overview. Authority - and thus pressures on the lottery officials -- is divided between the legislative and executive branches and further fragmented within each, with the result that the general public welfare is taken into consideration only intermittently, if at all.
Few, if any states, have a coherent "gambling policy" or even a "lottery policy.
0コメント