While listening to the Freakonomics podcast the other day, I ran across the episode entitled “Lottery Loopholes and Deadly Doctors”. The episode put forth a problem: how can you increase the savings rate, especially for the poorest people? Stephen Dubner states that, even though the poorest do not have enough money in the bank to help counter the smallest of emergencies, many are still willing to put a few dollars a week into the lottery in the hopes of winning big. His argument is that the poorest believe that a few dollars a week will not hurt them, will never get them out of their financial mess, but winning the lottery big would make their problems go away even though the chances of winning are very, very small.
As a possible solution, Dubner describes something called Prize-Linked Savings (PLS) accounts. Basically, it is a special savings account where you get slightly less interest than normal. Periodically, maybe once a month or once a quarter, one winner is chosen from those that contributed (likely proportional to their contributions) for a big prize that is composed of the reduced interest on all of the contributions. That way, it is revenue-neutral for the banks offering the product and it plays on the needs of people to gamble on the “big win” to get them to save. Even better, if you don’t win, you still get to keep the money in the savings account, plus the interest that it accrued. Nobody loses.
Well, that isn’t quite true. You see, even though no one is actually risking any money, the States still consider it gambling and in competition with their own, State-run lotteries. The States argue that they would lose revenue for things like education if people were not participating in their lotteries. So, it is actually illegal to have the PLS accounts in most States. Personally, I think that the PLS accounts are a great idea. If the States see revenue fall from a lack of people playing the lottery, then the programs that revenue stream supports should be re-evaluated for necessity. If the programs are necessary, taxes should be raised according so everyone shares the burden of the necessary programs. That would reveal more about the true costs to each citizen of government and open the door to programs like the PLS accounts that might actually get people to save money for emergencies.
Popularity: 2% [?]


