From the Seattle P-I:
The effect on the Mississippi economy could be severe. About 14,000 people
work in the dozen casinos along the Mississippi coastline. Each casino
has a land-based hotel.
The hurricane damage could cost Mississippi some
$400,000 to $500,000 a day in lost gambling taxes. Last year, the
state's casinos generated $2.7 billion in revenue.
My questions:
If casino's aren't fleecing working people out of $500,000 per day, plus the
Casino's cut, won't the people have more of their own money to pay for things
they need?Don't casinos really just bleed money from an economy like
medieval physicians would bleed a sick patient?
Casino's don't produce anything. They don't invest in anything except their own proliferation. Jobs are 'created' by having casino's, but those are necessarily a fraction of the value of the money that is being skimmed off for profit and taxes.
With apologies to those whose living is tied to the gambling industry, is the damage done to gambling in Mississippi truly damage to the economy?
Clue me in if I'm off the mark here.
7 comments :
A lot of what you claim rings true to me although there is a significant amount that isn't mentioned in the articles you quote.
1) the $500,000 is taxes OF the Casino BY the local authority. So, that is only a part of what is "fleeced", just the tax to the local authority. Which makes it sound worse at first blush.
but...
2) Casinos sometimes, I can't speak for all of them, do invest in other things. The indian casinos around here for example do tend to invest in developing their land and schools to a greater extent than has ever been done before. And other gambling establishements do occaisionally sponsor community events such as parades and other things. A strong argument could probably be made for how that is gratuitous sponsorship and represents a small portion of the profits but they aren't entirely self-centered.
What your argument does seem to make excruciatingly clear, is that in the face of budget cuts of all sorts, where communities (like Washington) have voted out many proven methods of arguably equitable taxation and authorities (like the Bush Administration) have continued to cut taxes despite astronomical spending (this is indisputable), authorities lean very heavily on this regressive and morally questionable tax. When a natural or un-natural disaster cuts that lifeline it hurts ever so much more.
Cool points!
Tribal casinos are a great example of some of the logic that I left out.
The juxtaposition that really got me to write about this is that the reporters were tabulating losses of casinos and tax dollars at a time when hundreds have lost their lives and thousands their homes.
I know that concern for gambling doesn't negate concern for other misfortune. The case I wanted to present, I think, is that loss of gambling, including its tax revenue, is not even in the same ballpark as the tragedy of losing thousands of homes, infrastructure and lives.
From what I understand, the casinos in Miss. bring a lot of people to the area that would not otherwise go to Mississippi - can say that I blame them. From someone whom has had to personaly deal with people that have gambling addictions I think that there is no great loss to society by losing a few casinos. I do feel for the loss of life and personal property however.
Tom Buss
The notion that gambling is ok when it brings income to a poor area is suspect. I call it unneighborly to extract that kind of money through trickery just because your town has no real industry.
I think the gaping hole in my argument is that I don't know what percentage of Biloxi's, or Las Vegas' customers 'used' more than they are 'entertained'. That is the gray area where arguments about gambling will probably always go to die.
Here's an idea: teach gambling math in schools. Show the kids just how heavily in favor of the house it is. Perhaps that would take some of the superstition and suspense out of it? Take that away and the entertainment value diminishes to nil.
I don't want prohibition-style social reform. I don't want vocal minorities dictating how we all can live. The amount of human life dedicated to fruitless money-reshuffling saddens me though.
I am not talking here about the eternal gambler, to him a casino is like a liquor store to an alcoholic. However, I think that every person has something that is equally dangerous to themselves and on which they waste money due to lack of knowledge. The guy with an impending heart attack has just thrown away $5 on that Big Mac that he is going to chuck up in 5 minutes, the guy who just bought a house which is going to burn down next week has just wasted $300,000. Personally, I, who know nothing about fashion, have wasted thousands of dollars over a lifetime buying seemingly always the 'wrong' piece, and that at a 50% or more markup! Life is a gamble. Now ain't it?
These are also some interesting points, and great food for thought.
There certainly seem to be boundless opportunities to waste one's money. And each person has his own foibles.
I might postulate that of all the chances we take in life, one activity that is among the most certain to waste money is gambling at a casino. Somewhat ironic, I think, that an activity with such a high degree of certainty is the one we call gambling.
I think the Big Mac analogy is perhaps the closest in that most of the money you put towards a Big Mac is wasted.
The fashion point is a good one too. I can think of many such ways I have wasted money, but I won't mention them, because that too saddens me. :D
Hee hee. You're right, why is it called gambling when you are, in all probability, going to CERTAINLY lose. But IF you do hit it big, well, then......oh, why not try it just once...........hee hee hee..............
Post a Comment