one small problem. only five nations were listed in that article. i also hear ireland is trying to get in on EuroMillions.

We need a global lottery.  I remember reading not too long ago that they were working on it untill something happened and the talks collapsed.  Hopefully they start talking about it again.  Lottery starting at $20-25 million and getting upto $500 million (unlike MM) would be nice to see.

Quote: Originally posted by twisted on October 05, 2004

---

We need a global lottery.  I remember reading not too long ago that they were working on it untill something happened and the talks collapsed.  Hopefully they start talking about it again.  Lottery starting at $20-25 million and getting upto $500 million (unlike MM) would be nice to see.

---

That would be excellent to see. Seeing the jackpot in multiple currencies. Mike Pace on the BBC. How could you go wrong?!

Euro Millions already uses two currencies (British pound & Euro).

If you go to Euro Millions online you'll see the jackpot listed in three currencies.

does anyone see EuroMillions expanding to all of Europe?

also, are lotteries of US territories allowed to participate in Powerball or Mega Millions?

The US Virgin Islands participate in Powerball.

>We need a global lottery. 

Do we? Is that because we need someone to win $500 million or more?

Just for fun, MM is $12 mil tonight, cash option after taxes is $4.9 mil. That means you could spend $10,208 a month for the next 40 years. And that's as low as a jackpot can get. PB is $177 mil, cash option after taxes $65.8 mil, or $137,083 a month for the next 40 years.  If there was a monster world jackpot game where someone could win $400 mil after taxes, they would be able to spend $833,333 a month every month for 40 years. I guess it is all relative. Look at the Forbes 400 richest list. One of the owners of Wal Mart has a fortune of $17.5 billion. He could spend $36,458,333 a month every month for 40 years. 

here's why we do not need a world lottery. IT COULD CRIPPLE SMALLER COUNTRIES. if every nation put in a share of the money, and someone from one country won it all, then their country would benefit from the taxes, BUT other nations would lose that money. a smaller nation such as lichtenstein or cuba would go under just paying their share of one large jackpot.

Quote: Originally posted by DoctorEw220 on October 06, 2004

---

here's why we do not need a world lottery. IT COULD CRIPPLE SMALLER COUNTRIES. if every nation put in a share of the money, and someone from one country won it all, then their country would benefit from the taxes, BUT other nations would lose that money. a smaller nation such as lichtenstein or cuba would go under just paying their share of one large jackpot.

---

Not all the money acquired by the lotteries goes to the large jackpot.  Some goes to administrative fees, some to fund state projects, etc.  The point of having a world lottery would be to have higher jackpots, increasing sales which inturn leads to more money for worthwhile state projects.

Euro-Millions is played in more than one country, how do you explain their reasoning?  And the jackpots in Euromillions are tax free.

tha doc makes a good point ...

Let me first say I don't necessarily like the idea of one big global lottery game.

On the issue of hurting smaller countries, I actually see it the other way around.  I think a big lottery helps smaller jurisdictions a great deal.

Take the United States for example.  Powerball has a ton of smaller states, and they are helped greatly by that big jackpot game.  The main reason is that they would never be able to generate huge jackpots on their own, and huge jackpots are what fuel insane ticket-buying, which in turn feeds the government (as a volunteer tax).

The smaller countries would only contribute toward the jackpot what money they actually sell in tickets, the same way small states contribute to the Powerball jackpot.

A smaller country can get a big tax windfall by having a winner reside there, but that's not what the countries will rely on.  They rely on ticket sales, plain and simple.

A global lottery would not be setup in order to shift money from richer countries to poorer countries; that's not its purpose.  The reason for creating it is to setup a volunteer tax, so that the government of each member country, rich or poor, can take in additional revenue from its citizens.

If you want to make the argument that setting up a lottery is a bad idea in the first place (because it creates a volunteer tax), then that's a valid argument, but I don't think you can say that it's a bad idea because small countries wouldn't get tax revenue generated from outside the country.  That's a "Robin Hood" type of thing, and not the reason for creating a lottery.

Getting back to the global lottery thing, I think that creating a global lottery would be a bad idea mainly because it would be so large and complex of an administrative task, that it would not be an efficient generator of revenue.  That means less percentage of money going into prizes (than what it could potentially have), and too many people with their hand in the pot.

I favor the idea, even though different countries will have different regulations.