British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby iain » Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:38 am

lionelp1 wrote:Gabriella , when you talk shite , you make a great job of it. Firstly, the Camelot stats on the profile of the average punter makes absolute rubbish about 75quid a week scrubbers. A lot of poorer people spend no more than a quid a week but collect for friends and neighbours. My local newsagent in town, WHSmith, will tell you that the average ticket purchase is between 1 and 2 per head; your 10 quid a week statement is beyond absurd.
Whats the stuff about 75 quid a week?? The unemployed adults and families in the UK receive after filling in the forms etc a lot more than £75 a week( Must have got your facts from the Guardian via the Toynbee creep)
Well over £20,000 a week if you know the way to claim the benefits. You would need to be part of a family with kids, ok, but the £75 a week people reference is , as you really know, misleading in the extreme, if it purports to be the average payment received by the lottery players.
I would suggest you do better to stick to multi-events!!


:lol: :roll:
iain
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:50 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby mump boy » Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:22 am

mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby eldanielfire » Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:44 am

Gabriella wrote:Let's be honest here; it's the poor scrubbers on 75quid a week dole money that spend 10quid of it on the lottery. That is the reality. However, the point is it is voluntary, so it isn't a tax.

Ideally lottery players should have more say in what lottery funding goes to, but as it stands they/we don't and most accept a certain amount being spent on sport and the arts, not just more obvious charitable causes.


While countries like the USA have a historic poor buy tickets culture in the UK the lottery is a rather middle class tickle and not dominated by one social economic group.

This is backed up by studies. The lack of historic poor culture in lottery buying is owed probably due to the lottery being a relatively recent introduction and always been a centre piece on the establishment institution the BBC.
eldanielfire
 
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:07 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby John G » Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:40 am

eldanielfire wrote:While countries like the USA have a historic poor buy tickets culture in the UK the lottery is a rather middle class tickle and not dominated by one social economic group.

This is backed up by studies. The lack of historic poor culture in lottery buying is owed probably due to the lottery being a relatively recent introduction and always been a centre piece on the establishment institution the BBC.



Can you provide details of the studies that back up your view? I'd like to believe what you write is true but the only study I can find, from 2009, provides contrary evidence:
"Manual workers and the unemployed are significantly more likely to play National Lottery scratch cards than those in the top managerial, professional careers and supervisory and clerical posts, research for the public theology think tank Theos has shown".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -poor.html
John G
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby mump boy » Fri Oct 25, 2013 4:23 pm

Who cares

There's no compulsion to buy a ticket, if you don't like were the proceeds are being spent go to bingo instead :roll:
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby jackbean » Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:19 am

JumboElliott wrote:
mump boy wrote:British sports people aren't funded by taxes, they're funded by profits from the National Lottery

So they're funded by taxing the poor.


I know! What a dopey comment by mump boy - stealth tax, but a tax nonetheless.
jackbean
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:45 pm

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby mump boy » Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:38 am

jackbean wrote:
JumboElliott wrote:
mump boy wrote:British sports people aren't funded by taxes, they're funded by profits from the National Lottery

So they're funded by taxing the poor.


I know! What a dopey comment by mump boy - stealth tax, but a tax nonetheless.


It's not a tax, there is no compulsion to pay it, it is a personal choice.

If you donate to the local hospital, a veterans charity or youth club is that a tax as well ??
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby John G » Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:09 am

mump boy wrote:
jackbean wrote:
JumboElliott wrote:
mump boy wrote:British sports people aren't funded by taxes, they're funded by profits from the National Lottery

So they're funded by taxing the poor.


I know! What a dopey comment by mump boy - stealth tax, but a tax nonetheless.


It's not a tax, there is no compulsion to pay it, it is a personal choice.

If you donate to the local hospital, a veterans charity or youth club is that a tax as well ??


Mump, I'm not an economist but I think the lottery acts like an indirect tax, such as VAT. Most items we buy that include VAT are not things that we absolutely have to buy - there's some choice in it.
John G
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby fez » Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:27 am

The poor also give more money to charity as a percentage of their income then the rich.

Is it not possible that many lottery players are attracted by its altruistic side, as well as the possibility of winning millions? As opposed to simply gambling on the horses or in a casino, which serves no other purpose.
fez
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby lonewolf » Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:17 am

fez wrote:The poor also give more money to charity as a percentage of their income then the rich.

Is it not possible that many lottery players are attracted by its altruistic side, .

Anything is possible but I would bet in 99.99999 % of the cases, the motivation is the prospect of winning money, not altruism.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby Wang Lung » Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:25 pm

fez wrote:The poor also give more money to charity as a percentage of their income then the rich.

Is it not possible that many lottery players are attracted by its altruistic side, as well as the possibility of winning millions? As opposed to simply gambling on the horses or in a casino, which serves no other purpose.


LOL I've worked in a charity run gambling house for 20 years now. It's a bingo hall. Our swim team is funded by proceeds. We net about 18% from a gross of $2,000,000 per year. First of all, 80% of the gross is sourced from welfare. Even a lot of the regular players don't even know we are a charity. Very little altruism occurring. Second of all, in my opinion, if you have enough money left over after receiving your unemployment check, that you can afford to gamble with it, you are receiving too much benefit. Even though we are beneficiaries, I don't like it.

The local newspaper did a profile of a woman on welfare who was complaining she couldn't make ends meet. Yet, there she was, every Saturday night, in our bingo hall, spending $28 a session. They didn't bother mentioning that. To Fez's point, I imagine her percentage of giving is a larger percentage than most. But there ain't a darn thing altruistic about it.
Wang Lung
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:57 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: British Athletics cuts funds to major track stars

Postby Daisy » Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:54 pm

Wang Lung wrote:Second of all, in my opinion, if you have enough money left over after receiving your unemployment check, that you can afford to gamble with it, you are receiving too much benefit.

But if you look at it from Lonewolf's perspective they see it as a chance to get more money, however unlikely that might be. I agree that altruism probably has nothing to do with their behavior.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 2 guests