[quote user="canarydan23"]I''m making no comparison between the National Lottery and Leo Vegas; the National Lottery was bought up and I''ve merely set out my opinion on why the whole thing is a con and a clever piece of Tory politics. We''re the 5th largest economy in the world. We don''t really need to rely on the poorest members of our society being hoodwinked into believing they need to do the Lottery or scratchcards as without them, they do not believe there is any way to escape a life of relative poverty. Lottery grants are maintaining our public parks, keeping museums afloat, sustaining charities on which people fundamentally rely, funding an elite athlete program that has provided Olympic success. The 5th largest economy in the world could fund this out of taxation from companies and individuals with the deepest pockets but the Major government did not like the sound of that. They wanted all those things but they didn''t want to create a tax environment that bought in the necessary funds; they certainly did not want to ask society''s wealthiest to pay for it. No, what they needed was a device that could extract more money from the have-nots, but tax rises wouldn''t be palatable at all. There must be a device where we could willingly extract the funds from them; why not a lottery? Let them believe it could be them, sell it as a potential route out of a poverty that they need not be in. I''ll give you some numerical context. In the 2016-2017 tax year, £1.6 billion was given the charitable projects. In the 2014 tax year, Amazon UK paid only £11.9 million in tax on profits of £34.4 million on the back of £679 million turnover. In the same tax year it generated £5.3 billion in UK sales, but these were washed through Amazon Luxembourg to get around paying UK tax. By the same ratio as the UK figures, this would have amounted to a £93 million tax bill for HM Treasury. So 6% of the funding from the National Lottery could have been acquired if Amazon was taxed in the same way an SME in the UK pays its taxes. 6%. From one company. In the tax year before last, Google allegedly hit £4.92 billion in UK revenues, but reduced their tax bill not much more than Amazon. So they would have probably accounted for around 5% of the total annual Lotto funding. So, just by taxing Amazon and Google in the same way an independent British company pays its taxes, we''d have brought in over 10% of the National Lottery''s charitable fund, and the money would have been coming from people with deep, deep pockets, rather than people who are spending a significant percentage of their disposable income on something they feel that must participate in order to have aspirations for their future. There are so, so many ways the government could raise £1.6 billion a year to continue funding all the Lotto projects if they so wished; however, they choose to do it in such a way that burdens the poor rather than targeting wealthy individuals and corporations. I think we all know the reasons why.[/quote] isn''t this the same as ncfc asking for 3.5 mil to fund an academy?