- Forms Of Gambling In The Philippines
- All Forms Of Gambling Should Be Abolished In The United States
- All Forms Of Gambling Should Be Abolished In California
Nov 21, 2019 Some forms of gambling are highly sociable. For example, many people go to bingo halls to spend time with friends. Society accepts people spending (“wasting”?) money on other leisure pursuits with no material benefits (e.g. Cinema tickets, watching sport) – gambling should not be any different.
Did you know that 40% of all problem gamblers started gambling before they were seventeen? Or that problem gambling causes the most suicides out of all the recognized addictions? Even with these facts, the most startling truth is that not one federal dollar, out of the billions collected in gambling taxes, has been spent to treat or help problem gamblers. Gambling is the activity or practice of playing at a game of chance for money or other stakes. Activities that are considered gambling are sports and race bets, lotteries, games like blackjack and poker, and casino games like slots and roulette. Bingo and raffles are technically gambling, but there are no major concerns about them, so they are not included here. Gambling has been legalized by many states, but just because it is does not make it right. Even though gambling is legal, it should not be because of its harmful economic, governmental, and social effects.
There are many detrimental economic effects of gambling, but there are two major ones: it siphons money from other industries, and states attempt to use lotteries to boost income. Gambling takes money from consumers that would otherwise be spent in an important industry or charity. Instead, it is essentially thrown away in hopes of getting rich quick. The removal of money from other industries often causes businesses to go bankrupt, therefore creating more unemployed people. You could argue that casinos create jobs, but those jobs do not make enough money to really support a family. The other economic problem that gambling creates is the use of lotteries. States typically use lotteries to make more money, but it is nowhere near as effective as other methods that are in use. The state makes 40% of the money that is put into lotteries, while they make 99% of the money that goes into taxes. Also, sources say that since the poor buy so many more lottery tickets than everyone else, the lotteries have become a tax on the poor and economically disadvantaged. The economic effects may be bad, but the governmental and social effects are far more hurtful.
There are a few different damaging effects that gambling has on the government, but they fall into two categories: the government’s role and illegal activity. The government’s role in gambling is not what it should be. Drugs and gambling are both known to be self-destructive, yet drugs are banned and gambling is legalized? To the people that are compulsive gamblers, gambling is a drug to them, so it should be illegal like all other drugs. The other poor role the government has in gambling is that the government gets a cut of the profits from it in the form of taxes. As it was mentioned earlier, the poor and lower-middle class gamble more, so it is essentially a tax on the poor. Illegal activity is another damaging governmental effect of gambling. Since betting on sports and races are legal, it has become far easier for organized crime to make money off of fixed sporting events and racing. From a sports standpoint, it makes “point-shaving” scandals a potentially larger issue, and can take away from the integrity of the game. Additionally, in areas where gambling is legalized, illegal gambling increases. Since people think it is okay to gamble, they now go to an illegal gambling location so that their winnings, if any, are not taxed by the government. The destructive governmental and economical effects of gambling are horrible, but the social effects are the worst of all.
The harmful social effects of gambling are it forces the poor to stay poor, compulsive gamblers bring massive problems, and gambling can ruin lives and families. Gambling at casinos and in lotteries have terrible odds of winning, but the poor, who desperately need the money, try time and time again in hopes of getting lucky to pull out of their economic problems. However, they rarely win, and the amount of money that they pour in forces them stay poor. Even if you are not poor and you start to gamble constantly, you will become poor very quickly. Another harmful social effect of gambling is the presence of compulsive gamblers. Compulsive, or problem, gamblers are people who are addicted to gambling. Gambling is a drug to them, and they cannot stop gambling, no matter the consequences. A study showed that most compulsive gamblers started during their teen years, and that they are in close to $80,000 in debt. Because of the staggering amount of debt they are in, they are a huge burden to their families. The last harmful social effect of gambling is it destroys families. The amount of debt that a compulsive gambler gets into puts way too much strain on the rest of the family to help him or her out of debt. If you are married to a compulsive gambler, it is like being married to a hard-core drug addict, they are forced to throw away money to satisfy their addiction. Unfortunately, sometimes the debt is too much, and the spouse will divorce, shattering the family. The social effects of gambling are the worst, but all the effects of gambling are awful.
Unfortunately for us, gambling is legal in almost every state, allowing these hurtful effects to exist. Even though gambling is legal, it should not be because of its harmful economic, governmental, and social effects. If you are considering gambling sometime, think about what you are supporting, and how it could ruin your life.
Government Welfare
By: Alexander Hung
What is Government Welfare?
Forms Of Gambling In The Philippines
Shouldall forms of government welfare be abolished?Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens when thegovernment takes money from hard working individuals and redistributes themoney to 'needy' citizens.This may sound harsh since the needy are being attacked for theiressentials, however, many of these people do not have the desire to work a dayin their lives.Many of theseindividuals who need help do not contribute even a day in the working classsociety.Therefore, it only makessense that those who do not contribute should not receive any benefits.Government welfare should be abolishedbecause it is abused, it puts the working class at risk, and it teachesbad work ethics.
Abuse of Government Welfare
Abuseof government welfare can be seen in many different ways even with the currentprotections in place.For example,mothers continue having children out of wedlock to increase the amount of moneythey receive on welfare checks.According to Murray, “ Woman…who wants to have babies… thinks that theprospect of having a baby is attractive, but so is having money to spend onthemselves” (65).This is one ofthe largest problems with the current system in place; women continue to becomepregnant because it brings in an extra $583 each month, amounting to $7,000annually.These benefits areclearly abused when th
e money is not used for the care of the infant.The horror does not stop there, itcontinues when mothers become reliant upon government welfare to attain steadyincome.In the creation of asystem that is supposed to help citizens in hard times, there are more who justcannot seem to get enough free money.For instance, it is encouraged to those who are on welfare checks to notsearch for jobs because doing that would repeal their benefits. The original intent of welfare was toprovide a safety net for a small period of time.In reality '...the U.S. Welfare system actually makespoverty more attractive…to those who would otherwise have been motivated towork and support themselves' (Westfall 1).In having a system that does not motivate unemployed workersto find employment, nothing will stop reliance on the system.Not only does dependency create alarger problem in itself, but it siphons money out of the accounts of hardworking individuals.Who is at Risk?
What Does Government Welfare Teach?
Overtime many depend on government welfare checks and no longer have the will towork.This proves to be especiallytrue since many shelters are supported with government funding.In John Stossel's, report he interviewsmany of the poor people on the street and in the shelter that rely ongovernment shelters to live. Their desire to work is little to none.Although twenty feet away there is anemployment center where jobs are plentiful, even to those without degrees. The government’s welfare system hasdeveloped the worst mindset where the needy would never have to work a day intheir lives and still get by for free. To some, this may not annoy themone bit, however, they are clearly not aware of what exactly is happening.Because money is a limited resource, itwill run out if used improperly. It is very apparent that those who donot contribute to society are putting every hard working; tax-payingindividuals at risk for having nothing when retirement comes around.
Conclusion
As one can see, government welfareshould be abolished. There are a variety of reasons why the “needy” arenot exactly needy.Specifically,these so called needy people abuse the system. They do this by havingmore children out of wedlock to attain more money in their welfare checks.Another reason, is that these welfarecheck receivers put everyone else at high risk in the future by draining thelimited resources, money, straight into their pockets for doing nothing.Finally, these welfare payments overalldestroy a person’s morale to work hard. Many no longer work because theydo not need to in order to get by every single day.For these reasons, the government welfare programs need tobe eliminated for the present and future.
'Historical Development.' SSA,26 July 2011. Web. 21 October 2011.Murray, Charles. In Our Hands. Washington D.C.: The AEI Press, 2005. Print.
Westfall, Joseph. 'The Welfare of the Community.' SCU
All Forms Of Gambling Should Be Abolished In The United States
, 3 August 1997. Web. 23 October 2011.Zavis, Alexandra. 'Homeless shelter to drop government-funded programs.' Los Angeles Times, 25 June 2011. Web.
23 October 2011.