Why I am against bringing casinos to our Commonwealth

All when and good (0.00 / 0)

but the reality is that the Commonwealth sold their soul a long time ago with the Lottery.  Alan, we've already legalized predatory gambling; in fact, the Commonwealth runs the rackets.  We are the mob; just go into any convenience store for proof. I'm certainly opposed to casinos, but you better pick a better argument than that, unless you want to also outlaw the Lottery Commission.

---

by: Mike from Norwell @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 21:48:02 PM CDT

Indeed! (6.00 / 4)

And winding down lottery casino revenue would be a tough sell right at the moment, but it seems to me that when revenue increases, the state would do well to contract the state lottery.  How would I do it?

1.  No advertising with out-of-state companies.  That means no ClearChannel, etc.  At the very least, the advertising money raised by MA citizens ought to be providing MA citizens jobs at the highest rate possible.

2.  No more linking the lottery with professional sports.  No Red Sox tickets, etc.  Pro sports has enough problems; linking it with gambling, even tangentially, should be verboten.

3.  Freeze on "new" games.  No new scratch off ticket games.  There are over 20 now (minus (2)), and no new ones.

4.  Gradually phase out the ones we have.  Every three months, eliminate one game.

Extra Credit: Eliminate Keno.  Start by denying any new Keno applications.  Then, eliminate it in any place that serves alcohol (bars and pubs), on the grounds that alcohol clouds judgment.  Then, reduce the time of turnover from every 15 minutes to every 30 minutes, to once an hour.  From there, whittle away or eliminate completely.

The thing is, all four of the scratch-off steps could be done and it would be a one day story.  The reduction of advertising with out of state companies might play reasonably well.  Decoupling pro sports and the lottery might be considered justified too.  As for (3) and (4), just do it without fanfare or even a press conference.

The reduction wouldn't happen all at once, and don't forget that due to governor and legislative caps in the second half of the 2000s that have been eliminated, the amount paid out directly to cities and towns has actually gone up about 50%.  There's no reason why the state can't freeze that out, ratchet it down, or supplement it with revenue from another source instead.

---

by: stomv @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 05:28:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Local Aid (0.00 / 0)

supplement it with revenue from another source instead.

And the other source would be?

---

by: Striker57 @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 09:07:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Time it with an improving economy (6.00 / 1)

and the other source will be from just about every other source -- sales tax, income tax, fees, etc.

---

by: stomv @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 11:11:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, we all hope for an improving economy... (6.00 / 2)

However, it is also a known fact that Massachusetts has a structural budget problem that would have resulted in revenue shortfalls no matter what the state of the economy, and an economic recovery is not going to haul our chestnuts out of the fire.

I've posted many other times on this topic, so won't repeat myself, other than to summarize my observations that higher state tax rates will help to create jobs and stimulate our economy.

So, rather than sitting around passively awaiting the arrival of good times, we should be aggressively moving to help create good jobs, as Alan mentioned.

An increase in the income tax rate (with a corresponding increase in the personal deduction and other measures to hold harmless those in lower brackets), and extending the sales tax to more services are progressive ways to increase our revenue base and save or even add jobs that are vitally needed in this Commonwealth.  

---

by: Michael Forbes Wilcox @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 17:54:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not sure (0.00 / 0)

that increasing the income tax rate will do anything other than convert our high income earners to stay another month down in Florida to switch their resident status.  Or just to shift operations out of MA entirely.

A progressive way to balance the budget for sure, but you have to take into account that people act in their own economic self-interest (I know, I have many high income progressive clients who do the same, however they post on the Internet).  Come on, if you're contemplating buying that new computer/TV/whatever, are you going to go to the Best Buy in MA, or maybe toodle over to the Best Buy lurking in Nashua/Salem?  If you're spending a thousand bucks, think that $62.50 savings for the same price will counteract extra time or gas costs for driving an extra 20 miles.  This is a tiny state, not Montana.

---

by: Mike from Norwell @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 18:46:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Tax arbitrage is a poor argument, imho (0.00 / 0)

Sure, people could move somewhere else. But then they use less services here. Net wash?

Not the place for a lengthy discussion, so I'll just offer a couple of anecdotes. Before I do, let me recommend the MBPC website as a good source of objective information about the Massachusetts tax system and comparisons with other states. There is, for example, their tax primer. And, a literature survey supporting my idea that higher state taxes lead to economic betterment.

I live in the Berkshires, and spend a lot of time in the Pioneer Valley, with frequent trips to the eastern part of the state (Worcester area, even as far as Boston!). Gas prices in the Pioneer Valley, in my observation, are the lowest in the Commonwealth, probably because it's smack dab in the middle of the state, where there is less opportunity for drivers to fill up in other states. Gas prices around my house are at least ten to fifteen cents higher than they are in the Springfield area. The reason for this, in my opinion, is not that it costs so much more to transport fuel the few miles west, but that we live so close to NY state, which has a much higher gas tax. So, the oil companies are playing a tax arbitrage of their own -- why should they give the windfall of a lower tax in the Bay State to the consumer?!

Second anecdote: I have a new grandson in NC, and we had a wonderful family vaca on the beach this summer. NC, as you may know, is one of those states reputed to be attracting Mass. residents to move away -- not sure if that's true, but if it is, it sure isn't because of taxes. Their sales tax is 7.75% on non-food items and 2% on food. Their (progressive) income tax is also 7.75% for the tax bracket that would apply to most families, I think. So why don't all those NC folks move to Massachusetts, where taxes are so much lower? ;)

---

by: Michael Forbes Wilcox @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 04:38:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Curious though (0.00 / 0)

many states with these progressively higher rates also typically piggyback off of the Federal AGI.  Given that MA does not provide for mortgage interest, property tax, or charitable deductions, are we talking apples to apples in these comparisons?  If I'm paying 7% with maybe 25% of my income not being subject to tax due to deductions, think I'm better off than 5.3% on all of my income.

---

by: Mike from Norwell @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 06:37:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Three reasons why predatory gambling is a national issue (6.00 / 2)

Reason #1: State-sponsored predatory gambling exploded over the last twenty years in America not because it was believed to be good public policy on its merits. But rather, the dominant argument has been and continues to be citizens were "going out of state" to visit casinos so we might as well legalize them in our state to allow people to lose their money here.

What served as the starting gun for this nationwide race to the bottom? The passage of the Indian Gaming Rights Act by Congress in 1988 which allowed federally recognized tribes to obtain whatever form of gambling was legal in a state. These tribes became bankrolled by millionaire casino operators who then began an intense effort to exploit state laws around charity gambling (like what happened in CT). Casino capitalism had officially begun its takeoff.

Shortly after that, Iowa's state government, looking for jobs and public revenues in the middle of a down economy and concerned about the growing threat of neighboring Minnesota tribal casinos, pushed through a riverboat casino proposal backed by gambling interests in 1990. Ever since, this three-part "they're going out-of-state", "jobs" and "revenues" story line has been relentlessly repeated in almost every state in America, fueled by the predatory gambling trade's limitless spending on lobbying and advertising. In 2008 alone, the predatory gambling trade spent $260 million on just nine referendums held around the country.

Reason #2: Only the federal government can stop the predatory gambling trade - states are too dependent on the revenue coming from predatory gambling to do it for themselves. There are more than 800,000 electronic gambling machines in America- 1 for every 395 Americans- and there is literally no transparency about how these machines work, the business model behind them and the predatory marketing used to promote them. A MIT Professor has called electronic gambling machines "a high tech version of loaded dice" which means for you non-EGM users out there, the machines are cheating people. Congress held high profile hearings investigating whether millionaire athletes were cheating at baseball by using steroids. How can they not hold the same kind of hearings about a product that has been charged with swindling millions of Americans?

Reason #3: Predatory gambling betrays the American Promise. One of the Constitution's most vital missions established clearly in its preamble is "to promote the general welfare." State-sponsored predatory gambling violates this mission by engaging in a practice of creating addicted, out-of-control and heavily indebted people in the name of funding public services. It's taxation by exploitation.

State-sponsored predatory gambling, which includes state lotteries and casinos, also plays a major role in trapping millions of Americans in debt. During the Great Depression, government leaders challenged Americans to save money by promoting savings bonds and it enabled people to accumulate the capital they needed to live the American Dream. Today during the Great Recession, the government's daily voice is lottery advertising, encouraging people to spend their money on virtually worthless lottery tickets.

Leaders like FDR led America through turbulent times by inspiring us to hope for the best and then challenging us to go work for it. They called on us to invest in a common purpose. It's the same kind of spirit we need today, not only in the U.S. Senate, but at all levels of government.

Les Bernal

---

by: StopPredatoryGambling @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 00:01:30 AM CDT

Spilka n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: JimC @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 07:28:05 AM CST

Khazei's another of those politically-correct losers... (0.00 / 0)

...and it figures he'd have plenty of support from the wing nut base of BMG!

---

by: proudlib @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 15:20:37 PM CST