SACRIFICE VIA THE TOTALISATOR.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 199, 1 February 1915, Page 3

SACRIFICE VIA THE TOTALISATOR.

Tq the Editor. I Sir,— Kindly allow me a remark on your leader of Tuesday. I too read with much pleasure the notes from Bishop (Averill's sermon and agree that for our country each and all should be ready to make sacrifice according to his position. But I scarcely see how there is any sacrifice on the part of those who put money on the totalisa-, tor. Your apology for the machine that, "The money passing through the totalisator is at least circulated instead of hoarded, and may even denote a ceri tain amount of self-sacrifice," to me, is not at all evident. Those who invest in the gamble do so for gain and for nothing else; and those making contributions to relief funds by this means cannot be said to Tie making any sacrifice. The S.A. officer at the entertainment lately given by the Eltliam boys on behalf of the Belgian Fund explained the position very well; he said that the audience had received value for "their admission money in the performance they had -witnessed, and now he asked for a straight out gift from those present in aid of the fund. The same applies to all such indirect means of raising money for charitable purposes. People flatter themselves that they are making sacrifice when in reality they are getting value (of a sort) for their money. But what I especially want to draw your attention to is the, to me, economic error in the .pasasge I quote above. The money spent on the totalisator is truly circulated, hut if. it were hoarded, in the usual way of hoarding by a bank credit, it would be circulated nevertheless, only by an agent—the bank—instead of by the principal. The fault is that the time and proportion of investment that goes to pay those eonducting the gamble—for they must be paid—would be much better spent if, sav, only in decorating the long rows oftelegraph posts along our streets and roads. The economic position of the totalisator is no more justifiable than its moral position. I will not deal with the latter. Economically it is only waste. It docs not add to the sum total of weath—no one pretends that it does; neither docs it assist in the just and equitable distribution of wealth. To imply that it is better that money were put on the totalisator than hoarded is a bit of political economy that would take a lot of logic to prove; and it is just a handy plea for the unthinking gambler to use in defence of his action. What we want Is something to increase the national store of weaith, and then a fair distribution of the same to all. The totalisator does neither the one nor the other, and so it cannot be justified on economic grounds; and other pleas are needed to show why it should be retained.—l am. etc., . ■ • - 11.