To the Editor of the "Nonru-Cuna Dany News"
Sm—Many criticisms directed against the State Lottery have appeared inthe correspondence columns of your esteemed journal lately. "They may be classified under the following three points: (1) The operators. (Chinese Government) kept 50 por cent. of the gross receipt, much more than the 20 per cent. Kept by the operators of the Irish Hospital Sweep; (2) 20 per cent, of winnings deducted; and (3) Winning subjected 40 deduction not stipulated fon the tickets, It should be noted that the object of the State Lottery is for the purpose.raising funds from amongst. the Chinese people for the promotion of aviation and reconstruction and is never intended for foreign consumption in China or abroad. The Chinese buyers are giving the money more as a contribution to a worthy cause rather than for prize-gaining, there-the 50 per cent, kept Is not as rapacious" as charged by our foreign critics, particularly foreign buying is negligible. It, should dise be noted that quite a bit of the State Lottery okets are unsold at the time of drawing and so In spite of the 50 per cent. Kept, the Government Is Rot realizing so much money from the lottery for the worthy causes it had in view. Furthermore, the purchase of lottery tickets is entirely optional; no high-pressure salesmanship or "'muscling" have been employed. Since a lottery ticket is nonessential; those who do not find them worth while would do well to refrain from buying It or buying Irish Sweeps, etc, Instead.
The 20 per cent. deduction on the winnings has nothing to do with the State Lottery. It ig the operation of the income tax recently promulgated. The State Lottery in deducting the 20 per cent. of the winnings, merely acts for the Chinese Government to whose jurisdiction it is subject and it has only acted under the instruc-ion of the same Government. By coincidence the recipient of the two sums of money is one and the same legal_person, namely the Chinese Government, Hence the tirades. If the lottery in question were operated by private individuals the income tax would have to be pald just the ime, only in the latter case the sums' would go to two different per= sons, the first sum to the private body operating the lottery and. th second sum to the Government, Yet what difference does it make to the purchasers of these lottery' tlekels whom the two sums of money go?
As for the complaint that the winings are subjected to deductions not stipulated on the tickets, this is fat most a technicality and if desired can be rectified easily enough, But the Slate Lottery under such obligation? I do not think so, The payment of income tax is a matter between the buyers of the Uckets and the Government, "Moreover it is naturally understood that the wine rinings would be subjected to income tax. The State Lottery is under no obligation to insert such a condition on ts tickets no more than a seller of any other commodity would be under obligation to inform his buyer that if the buyer should subsequent ly make money on the goods bought, he wontd have to pay income tax thereon, Shanghai, Feb, 20, Kao Kwox.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.