Is there a reason that most of the time there is only 1 jackpot winner? When the winning money goes into the tens of millions I always think, why not just share the money out over lots of people and give say 10,000 here and 500,000 there. Wouldn’t this be better for the economy rather than having just 1 person have it all?
In: Economics
Lotteries can only pay out what people pay in.
If 10 people play a lottery and each one pays $1 for a ticket, you can have one winner who gets $10 and nine losers who get nothing.
You could also have 10 people who get $1 each, but that would rather go against the point of a lottery int he first place if everyone just got their money back.
And that does not even go into the fact that the lottery itself is for profit, they do not give out all the money they take in, but keep some to pay the cost of printing tickets and their employees and stuff and some additional money to be profit.
The economy isn’t really that affected no matter how the winning are distributed. It is bad either way.
Lottery are in effect a regressive tax that mostly takes money from poorer people.
Poor people having more money would be good for the economy because they spend it all.
Latest Answers