Massachusetts Lottery officials are replacing Mass Millions with a game aimed at increasing the odds of winning.
Cash WinFall tickets, which go on sale Sept. 13 at $2 each, will award thousands of lower-level prizes whenever the jackpot reaches $2 million. The odds of winning a prize would be one-in-six. The jackpot starts at $500,000.
The unveiling of the new game coincides with the Lottery's celebration of the 30th birthday of the widely popular "scratch ticket."
"We celebrate a Massachusetts success story - our state lottery," said executive director Joseph Sullivan yesterday.
Among those on hand for the celebration at Lottery headquarters in Braintree were former state treasurers Robert Crane and Joseph Malone, current Treasurer Timothy Cahill, longtime Lottery workers, legislators and several ticket agents.
The new Cash WinFall game is expected to continue the success of the instant game, which began on May 29, 1974.
"People want a more active game," said Cahill, of Quincy, who as treasurer is responsible for running the Lottery. "We have to build on the success these games have had in our state. "It's about local aid."
Cities and towns have received more than $12 billion in local aid since the Lottery sold its first ticket in 1972.
Crane, who was state treasurer when lottery tickets started as weekly drawings, said a key to the overwhelming success story of the Massachusetts lottery is hiring the right people.
"We were not experts," said Crane. "We tried to do everything right. We were being watched very carefully. It was gambling. Soon we were recognized as the best (lottery) in the country."
Lottery tickets for the weekly drawing called "The Game" sold for 50 cents in March 1972. The first drawing was held April 6 at Faneuil Hall in Boston. Seven people went home with $50,000 each.
The first $1 million prize for "The Game" was awarded on May 8, 1972.
Dr. William Perreault, the Lottery's first executive director from 1971 to 1983, said that it soon became clear that a weekly game wasn't enough to satisfy the public thirst for gambling, so the instant game ticket was born.
Since the Lottery developed the world's first instant game, more than $200 billion worth of tickets have been sold worldwide - more than $30 billion in Massachusetts alone.
The state Lottery sells more instant game tickets per capita than any other lottery in the world, and accounts for 15 percent of all instant ticket sales in the country, according to Lottery officials.
The Georgia-based Scientific Games introduces about 22 new games a year for the Lottery.
Now, I play the lottery and it's fun although I have never won a large prize, but this canard must be addressed. The MA lottery's money is "local aid" but it is not local aid the way it was originally intended - extra money in addition to normal tax revenue. If that was the case, you would think cities and towns would be rolling in the money - in Lynn, where I live, several fire stations have been shut down due to lack of money. How did lottery local aid help with that? The answer is that over the years, lottery money has allowed politicians to lower taxes for the wealthy and has now replaced tax revenue instead of adding to it, leaving little net financial gain. The MA lottery's latest ads show the lottery funding a school bus - why should schools be dependent on lottery income? Can't taxes pay for schools? If not, isn't there a big problem?
http://www.fguide.org/Bulletin/masscrisis.htmThese tax cuts were not evenly distributed but were focused on taxes paid by higher income residents. At the same time that the state was reducing income and corporate taxes, it increased specific sales taxes, such as that on cigarettes, and raised more from the state lottery. Borne largely by lower income residents, increases in these latter revenue streams helped to finance tax cuts for businesses and for our wealthier citizens.
In Massachusetts, as in most states, the magnitude of the current state fiscal crisis is due to a decade of tax cuts. If Massachusetts had collected the same share of personal income in taxes in 2000 as it did in 1990, state and local revenues would have increased by nearly $4 billion, $2 billion more than the current deficit. Had the federal government maintained its support for state and local governments, rather than cutting expenditures to fund tax cuts, state revenues would have increased in 2000 by another $1 billion. With $5 billion, the state could have adequately prepared its rainy-day fund for the coming recession while funding education and other state programs.
Lowered taxes for the wealthy? Sounds like you're a lib. When you lower taxes, doesn't everyone pay less - whether you're poor, middle class, or wealthy? Or do you believe that the wealthy's taxes should be increased while everyone else's should be decreased? (That, of course, is socialism, and is not the principles our great country was founded on.)
A lib socialist? Well. I guess when you show what is really going on, some people like to label and accuse the messenger instead of focussing on the facts presented. I'm not sure I said lower taxes for the wealthy was an inherently horrible idea, just that when you do it there's less money in the pot and the difference has to be made up somewhere else - the lottery, for one.
>When you lower taxes, doesn't everyone pay less - whether you're poor, middle class, or wealthy?
If there was just one type of tax and everyone paid the same percentage, then yes everyone would pay less.
In "Tax Cuts and the Recession in the Massachusetts Fiscal Crisis" by Elissa Braunstein http://www.umass.edu/peri/pdfs/WP66.pdf :
"But an analysis of state tax revenue data reveals that the major reason for the budget shortfall is legislated cuts in capital gains tax rates and declines in the yield of the corporate income tax. Without these policy decisions to cut taxes, the state would not be facing a budget crisis."
Since only those with capital gains pay capital gains tax and only businesses pay corporate income tax, if you cut those taxes you can have the average working stiff pay the same percentage and same taxes they always pay - no tax reduction for them.
Quote:Originally posted by Todd on May 27, 2004
Lowered taxes for the wealthy? Sounds like you're a lib. When you lower taxes, doesn't everyone pay less - whether you're poor, middle class, or wealthy? Or do you believe that the wealthy's taxes should be increased while everyone else's should be decreased? (That, of course, is socialism, and is not the principles our great country was founded on.)
yeah. schools shouldn't be dependent on the lottery for funding. whatever happened to bake sales? also, i'm for the flat tax idea.
Lower taxes for the wealthy is not a "horrible idea". Lower taxes for everyone, including the wealthy, is a great idea. Who do you think creates the jobs in this country? The whole reason the economy is doing so wonderfully right now is because of across-the-board tax cuts. Otherwise we'd still be languishing in the Clinton recession.
I am also for a flat-tax. Studies have proven that it would lower taxes for 90% of the folks, while keeping or expanding current tax revenues.
A big-win for everyone except those who escape taxes through massive loopholes - and most of those people are the ones who vote on the legislation. (Which is why it has a slim chance of passing.)
Cash Winfall....hmmmmm sounds like Michigans WinFall game which I enjoy playing. Michigan usually has drawings for it on Wed and Sat and now starting next month they are going to have a Monday drawing. That must be a first now too.
>"It's about local aid."
Now, I play the lottery and it's fun although I have never won a large prize, but this canard must be addressed. The MA lottery's money is "local aid" but it is not local aid the way it was originally intended - extra money in addition to normal tax revenue. If that was the case, you would think cities and towns would be rolling in the money - in Lynn, where I live, several fire stations have been shut down due to lack of money. How did lottery local aid help with that? The answer is that over the years, lottery money has allowed politicians to lower taxes for the wealthy and has now replaced tax revenue instead of adding to it, leaving little net financial gain. The MA lottery's latest ads show the lottery funding a school bus - why should schools be dependent on lottery income? Can't taxes pay for schools? If not, isn't there a big problem?
http://www.fguide.org/Bulletin/masscrisis.htm These tax cuts were not evenly distributed but were focused on taxes paid by higher income residents. At the same time that the state was reducing income and corporate taxes, it increased specific sales taxes, such as that on cigarettes, and raised more from the state lottery. Borne largely by lower income residents, increases in these latter revenue streams helped to finance tax cuts for businesses and for our wealthier citizens.
In Massachusetts, as in most states, the magnitude of the current state fiscal crisis is due to a decade of tax cuts. If Massachusetts had collected the same share of personal income in taxes in 2000 as it did in 1990, state and local revenues would have increased by nearly $4 billion, $2 billion more than the current deficit. Had the federal government maintained its support for state and local governments, rather than cutting expenditures to fund tax cuts, state revenues would have increased in 2000 by another $1 billion. With $5 billion, the state could have adequately prepared its rainy-day fund for the coming recession while funding education and other state programs.
Lowered taxes for the wealthy? Sounds like you're a lib. When you lower taxes, doesn't everyone pay less - whether you're poor, middle class, or wealthy? Or do you believe that the wealthy's taxes should be increased while everyone else's should be decreased? (That, of course, is socialism, and is not the principles our great country was founded on.)
A lib socialist? Well. I guess when you show what is really going on, some people like to label and accuse the messenger instead of focussing on the facts presented. I'm not sure I said lower taxes for the wealthy was an inherently horrible idea, just that when you do it there's less money in the pot and the difference has to be made up somewhere else - the lottery, for one.
>When you lower taxes, doesn't everyone pay less - whether you're poor, middle class, or wealthy?
If there was just one type of tax and everyone paid the same percentage, then yes everyone would pay less.
In "Tax Cuts and the Recession in the Massachusetts Fiscal Crisis" by Elissa Braunstein http://www.umass.edu/peri/pdfs/WP66.pdf :
"But an analysis of state tax revenue data reveals that the major reason for the budget shortfall is legislated cuts in capital gains tax rates and declines in the yield of the corporate income tax. Without these policy decisions to cut taxes, the state would not be facing a budget crisis."
Since only those with capital gains pay capital gains tax and only businesses pay corporate income tax, if you cut those taxes you can have the average working stiff pay the same percentage and same taxes they always pay - no tax reduction for them.
yeah. schools shouldn't be dependent on the lottery for funding. whatever happened to bake sales? also, i'm for the flat tax idea.
darnit. i quoted the wrong post. anyway, look at the one before the one i quoted to see where i'm going.
Lower taxes for the wealthy is not a "horrible idea". Lower taxes for everyone, including the wealthy, is a great idea. Who do you think creates the jobs in this country? The whole reason the economy is doing so wonderfully right now is because of across-the-board tax cuts. Otherwise we'd still be languishing in the Clinton recession.
Dr.,
I am also for a flat-tax. Studies have proven that it would lower taxes for 90% of the folks, while keeping or expanding current tax revenues.
A big-win for everyone except those who escape taxes through massive loopholes - and most of those people are the ones who vote on the legislation. (Which is why it has a slim chance of passing.)
Cash Winfall....hmmmmm sounds like Michigans WinFall game which I enjoy playing. Michigan usually has drawings for it on Wed and Sat and now starting next month they are going to have a Monday drawing. That must be a first now too.
Brad
Brad:
My guess is it will be played like the PA Match 6 (three plays for $2, with two plays automatically QPed).
Massachusetts ALSO will unveil a new version (hope with cash option) of its Megabucks.
my guess is that since the new game will offer a cash option, revamped matrix, and bigger jackpots.
the new version of megabucks, that is.
Dr:
I don't know yet if the new Megabucks will have a cash option.
i think massachusetts has learned from the mega millions winners, as well as a lot of winners from other states that most people choose a cash option.