Um, it's not voluntary. Buying the product is voluntary. But the state taking a cut once you do buy the product is not voluntary. Don't mix those two aspects.
It's voluntary to buy a pound of chicken feet. It's not voluntary to pay VAT on that purchase.
It's voluntary to go to work and earn a salary. It's not voluntary to pay income tax on that salary once you earn it.
> And why not ban the lottery entirely if you're not going to use it as a revenue source? Keep it around just to entertain poor people?
One reason is to keep a legal way to do this, since otherwise illegal ones have higher demand and pop up. It's more expensive (and arguably worse for society) if you make gambling entirely illegal and instead need to go hunt down illegal lotteries with more police resources.
> 99.999% of them will still lose money anyway if it's morality you're worried about. Does it really matter to the winners whether they take home $100mm or $70mm (and the gov the remaining $30mm)?
You clearly don't play the lottery (and I don't mean that negatively). Most wins are small. $400 here, $2000 there. That's how you keep people hooked. And in those orders of magnitude, it makes quite a difference in practice.
The comment you're responding to tells you why it shouldn't be banned: because then it will be held by criminals (by definition) instead. And those criminals tend to have ties to less nice forms of crime too. So it's sort of a damage containment strategy, but it could (in the eyes of GP) be executed better.
And why not ban the lottery entirely if you're not going to use it as a revenue source? Keep it around just to entertain poor people? 99.999% of them will still lose money anyway if it's morality you're worried about. Does it really matter to the winners whether they take home $100mm or $70mm (and the gov the remaining $30mm)?
It doesn't matter for the losers, they're out their money either way.