Letter: A better lottery
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Ken Livingstone thinks the National Lottery's rewards should be redistributed (Comment, 1 December). He believes a not-for-profit organisation will raise more funds for needy causes at lower cost.
But even if his dubious proposition could work, I doubt that genuinely good causes will be the beneficiaries. Already this government has diverted "good causes" funds, which after all represent only 28 per cent of lottery monies, to help pay for health and education initiatives which are the responsibility of government. This is on top of the tax take of 13 per cent of all lottery money.
If Ken Livingstone really wants to improve the Lottery, and to minimise its regressive tax burden, he should campaign that government should match with a reduction in the lottery tax (at a ratio of at least two to one) any savings achieved by the appointment of a new lottery operator. And he should campaign that lottery funds should go only to causes, chosen independently of central government.
Anyway, why should there be only one lottery operator: why not appoint two, one not-for-profit, and one for-profit? We would then see real competition to raise more funds at lower cost.
MICHAEL BRYANT
Honfleur, France
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments