Massachusetts Liberal sees casino gambling in our future, especially in light of the tight fiscal situation, declining lottery revenue and legislative resistance to the local option meals tax.
Well, I don’t like the idea of casino gambling in MA. I don’t actually have a problem with people gambling in and of itself, all things being equal; if you want to go to Vegas or Foxwoods and trim some of the fat off your bank account, go ahead. You can call it a “voluntary tax”, if you like. And hey, that money is already flowing out of state, anyway. Why not keep it here? All fine arguments. And for most gamblers in MA, it wouldn’t be that bad.
But for some folks, for some families, they would end up paying everything they have. Gambling addiction is serious stuff, and some folks would doubtless end up blowing money they simply don’t have — next month’s rent, heating, junior’s college fund — at the state’s explicit encouragement. Should the state be in the business of creating misery — even for a few?
That just doesn’t seem right to me. At least with a local meals option, no one goes to the poorhouse. Heck, even at 3% — the maximum Gov. Patrick has suggested — you’re only talking about $1.50 on a $50 restaurant bill. And I’m pretty sure concerns about regressivity are overblown, because of the possibility of substitution: You can always pack a lunch if you’re really strapped for cash.
Add this to the real situation of the so-called Commonwealth of TAXACHUSETTS — from State House News Service’s weekly roundup:
Based on a review of fiscal 2004 taxes and spending, the [Massachusetts] Budget and Policy Center found that, compared to the other 49 states, Massachusetts not only taxes its citizens more lightly than average, as percentage of personal income, it spends less on education and employs fewer public workers. The implication was obvious – the state is not overspending relative to citizens’ ability to pay, and it’s not looney leftism to suggest new revenue sources be found for more police officers, more student loans and higher salaries for teachers.
Let’s give localities the option of raising the money they need for these things, not create a monstrous “attractive nuisance” in the middle of the state.
While I tend to agree with you that gambling hits Chelsea harder than Carlisle, “explicit encouragement” might be overstating things, except for the lottery, which already exists.
<
p>
The state wouldn’t be the operator of the casino. It would just allow the casino to exist. That’s not explicitly encouraging excessive gambling any more than allowing the sale of alcohol explicitly encourages drunk driving.
<
p>
That said, Foxwoods is close enough, and probablly too close already, thank you.
CMD, you raise an interesting point about casinos not being state owned. If we are to entertain the casino idea because the state wants to make money from it, why not have a state-run casino? Why let organized crime or some business skim a huge percentage off the top? Isn’t the lottery state owned and operated? If it is to be a casino, there should be no cash giveaway to non-governmental casino owners.
<
p>
A second thought – what about just slot machines? It’s harder to go broke on, and you don’t have to fill in a wetland to stage one. And again, no need to give a huge profit share to machine hosts.
<
p>
I actually loathe the idea of casinos for so many reasons, but if they’re to be considered, I think this ownership issue should not be allowed to slide by unexamined.
I would just point out that the excess of income over expenses for the operation of a business is not a “cash giveaway.” It is profit.
Having to go out of state is good. It not only discourages lazy people and people who can’t afford the gas money, it also sends a message that we don’t allow gambling here. Together, those things surely cut down on the number of people who gamble, and how often. It puts it into the catagory of a vacation trip. Yeah it’s too bad that another state gets our money, but maybe we should try asking them for our share back.
And already a lottery.
<
p>
Is the state budget posted anywhere? I’d like to know how much goes to funding genetic research. I know at one time Massachusetts owned the patent on SCNT, and the Worcester company ACT is a spin off from research done at UMass Worcester.
(or however it’s actually spelled… I’m a wrong word monster)
<
p>
Were it up to me, I’d do the following:
1. Implement the optional 3% meals tax
2. Raise the gas tax a penny a year, forever. Automagically renewed.
3. Not allow casinos.
4. Expand the tolls to 91 and x95. I agree that it’s unfair that the MassPike users have to pay but the others don’t. That being said, I’d create a carpool lane during rush hour times that doesn’t get charged, and I’d make the FastLane/ezPass/whatever its called easier to obtain and have no initial surcharge in a big effort to expand its usage — thereby allowing me to have fewer paid toll collectors per toll so that I could cut costs.
<
p>
There’s your extra revenue. I’d use some of it to:
5. Actually cut the advertising for the lottery, beginning (but not ending) with billboards.
6. Take off a bit of the MBTA’s bond burden, but not the huge amount currently proposed. I’d also work with the T to allow the state to take on more of the future capital costs, so that over time the T’s debt burden is reduced. In fact, I’d demand it. In doing so, I’d dump money on both (a) expansion of the T’s services, but also (b) improving the current services, like a massive overhaul of Kenmore-Gov’t Center. Reducing travel time and reducing variance makes the T far more attractive. I’d also (c) try to work with Amtrak (spending some MA money in the process) in speeding up the Massachusetts part of the Acela line and other passenger rail lines. It isn’t the slowest part of the trip, but every reduction in mean time and variance helps.
<
p>
I’m not saying that I could convince the lege to pass this, or that if I did that I’d get re-elected. It’d take a lot of salesmanship to get these sorts of things through, on both the revenue and the cost side.
I believe — but am not sure — that tolls on 91 or 95 (or 93, for that matter) are pretty much not an option because of federal restrictions.
<
p>
Also, tolls=toll booths=traffic jams at rush hour. Until they install super-duper EZ-pass readers that let you pay without slowing down, no thanks. Traffic sucks enough already.
but I do know that tolls don’t have to slow down traffic, even with the current slow mph readers.
<
p>
Why? It has to do with spacing traffic. Results from queueing theory, demonstrated with both equations and real applications ranging from assembly lines to automobile traffic flow, show that using tolls (or other service time multi-queues) can actually help downstream traffic move more quickly because it spaces the cars more homogeneously in the queue and allows speedsters the chance to pass “average” speed drivers immediately after the toll. Finally, since big rigs accelerate the slowest, certain roads also provide the benefit of letting gobs of cars get around that really slow truck. This effect is most pronounced on a two lane highway, but I thought I’d mention it.
<
p>
So, I can’t speak to their feasibility w.r.t. federal regulations, but I can say with certainty that under heavy traffic conditions, the (slow) EZ-pass system can actually help traffic move more quickly by better organizing and spacing the traffic.
The NYNJ Port Authority has these. I drove through them at the Outerbridge Crossing — between New Jersey and Staten Island.
It’s not an either/or, it’s both. Both are a means of generating additional revenue that might be needed. I don’t see this as if we grant local meals tax options then we do not need to build a casino in MA. The reason is that it is too politically damaging to raise income tax. The lege won’t go for it, and Deval will look very bad if he goes that route.
<
p>
We need to ask ourselves are dog and horse tracks are alright then? The Lottery? What about online gambling? How about a drive to Lynn to get on a boat and gamble? How about alcohol, cigarettes? Alcoholism is a terrible disease, I think we can all agree on that. If we can save one person it will be worth it? It’s all a load of crap. The fact of the matter we already have gambiling in MA and so do all of the other states. Casinos in are a majority of states already. Gambiling happens with MA residents, inside and outside of Massachusetts why not have the money stay here instead of elsewhere?
I am absolutely against taxing alcohol and sigarettes unless that money goes directly into funds for treatment or research for related diseases/conditions. Upping the tax on alcohol will not deter an alcoholic from drinking – it just doesn’t work that way, so don’t even try to sell it as an benevelant deterrant like a gasoline tax. Targeting those particular groups of people to pay for general gov’t services is unjust.
That these vices exist here in MA already. What I see written here is that we won’t allow it in MA. So let’s talk about these vices. We already gamble in many different ways including casio gambling already. If we are preaching the moral high ground, then we should not allow drinking or smoking either, because of the arguement that “if we save one life” that I feel is a load of BS. Well if we live in utopia then I believe we can make a stong case about the abuse of alcohol and it’s effects on the abuser and family. It’s a casino not the downfall of civilization.
If we want to make money from vices, why not tax porn and have a regulated, taxed prostitution industry? You know, the Dutch model. Seems to work for NV too. It would be a great compliment to any casino, but of course would flourish in any case.
<
p>
Numerous studies have shown that high cigarette prices are particularly effective in reducing the amount that young people smoke. (one of many corroborating sources) What makes you think the same thing wouldn’t happen with alcohol? Sure, it might not dissuade a raging alcoholic from buying more booze, but it might certainly help reduce the number of new alcoholics in society by dissuading alcohol use amongst those who are most susceptible to the risk of becoming an alcoholic — young people.
<
p>
Furthermore, smokers and drinkers exact additional costs on society, ranging from littering to increased auto accidents to increased costly medical problems. Discouraging consumption with taxes is useful in and of itself — there’s no logical reason to link that money to treating the problems people are imposing on themselves with blindness to the problems that these groups impose on society at large.
<
p>
P.S. Yes, I know, individuals litter and drive drunk and get themselves cancer. Still, society as a whole deals with the effects that the sub-society of smokers/drinkers create, and create in a wholly voluntary manner.
<
p>
P.P.S. This isn’t different in my mind from taxing drivers more than non-drivers. After all, the amount of road and gasoline you consume is controllable to a large extent, at least in the long run (where you choose to live, what you choose to drive, how well maintained your auto is, how efficiently you drive it, etc).
Cigarettes are not intoxicating…I think there is a bit of difference in how rational people will be about paying for a non-intoxicating substance vs. an intoxicating substance like alcohol (and illegal drugs, for which people will pay a very high price). Gambling is sort of half-way into the “intoxicating” category, in the sense that those addicted to it experience something like intoxication.
<
p>
On the other hand, I agree that taxes on cigarettes and alcohol (and gambling) are appropriate ways to raise revenue as well as provide disincentives to unhealthy behavior. Not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic, and (this will be more controversial) not everyone who smokes is a hopeless addict. Those who drink in moderation are said to be slightly ahead of non-drinkers in terms of heart health. Many smokers are on-again, off-again, and a lot of people who smoke their way through their 20s manage to quit when they finally grow up.
<
p>
As for gambling, the lottery hits those who can afford it least…and outlawing casino gambling in Massachusetts doesn’t do much for gambling addicts when Foxwoods is so close by. Maybe the best idea for Massachusetts would be to allow some sort of high-stakes only…something that your ordinary working class person couldn’t afford to get in the door, but would suck in some of that Euro-trash and other rich kids that have money coming out of their ears…
…You present the issue as though it were a dichotomy between casino gambling an an increase in the meals (read it: sales) taxes.
<
p>
IT ISN’T.
<
p>
Let’s understand something. If it is believed that the state or a locality (with the approval of the state, more on that later) wants to increase its revenue by adding taxes, fees, or whatever, it can do so by adding taxes, fees or whatever, without having to resort to allowing casino gambling into the respective community. Contrariwise, if the state or community allows for casino gambling, that will not necessarily mean that it or they will forego increasing taxes, fees or whatever.
<
p>
Let’s disambiguate the two (casino gambling vs. increased meal/sales taxes), since they have nothing to do with one another.
<
p>
Let’s get down to brass tacks. One, I personally have no particular objection to MA allowing casino gambling in the state. Why? In part because casino gambling is permitted in neighboring states, and it is sophistry to suggest that MA should not allow similar institutions to exist within and be taxed by MA. Two, the MA state government already provides for casino-like gambling, not only with the lottery, but also with whatever goes on with convenience stores and dog&pony tracks. Three, and most telling, the MA allows one of the major religious institutions, the Roman Catholic Church, Inc. (RCCi, the hierarchy) to run bingo (gambling) parlors that are intended to separate elderly women from their (and, by extension, their potential heirs’) money. Please, the idea that casino gambling is a problem is a sophistry.
<
p>
Two, if the cities and towns believe they need an extra source of revenue, above and beyond the rather exorbitant property taxes here in MA (our property taxes in Wellesley are over US$6300/year, for virtually no services, our property taxes in Munich Germany, on a property worth several times our Wellesley property, is on the order of US$300/year), perhaps the state of MA should allow for local option taxes. Local sales taxes, local income taxes, local excise taxes, and so forth. Such things are not unheard of in other states. And I would add to that the local option to tax properties owned by churches and colleges. Here in Wellesley, over half the property in town is owned by churches–including the fag-bashing RCCi–and colleges such as Wellesley and Babson, most of whose students are not only from out of town, but also from out of the country. They do nothing for the town except to look pretty. Let Wellesley and Babson College pay their full freight, and add the cost to the tuition charged to the out-of-towners.
<
p>
Let’s shift the discussion to one of fairness. This state needs a progressive income tax. There are 35 states where income taxes (as a % of personal income) are higher. So, let’s raise the income tax, but, more importantly, let’s ask higher-income earners to pay their fair share. As it stands, all of our tax sources are regressive. Why add to the problem?
Proposing the meals tax option as a solution to local fiscal ills is, at best, an illusion. Our fiscal chickens have come to roost, so to speak, as we face lagging income tax receipts, skyrocketing property tax levies and flat line lottery sales. While Patrick may mean well, he doesn’t have a plan to reduce local property taxes and will be lucky to stabilize them over the next four years. The Commonwealth will never set as a set percentage of revenue for local aid: there are too many interests and bureaucrats relying on these funds. Arguments against casinos based on the evil of gambling “addiction” are pretty Victorian, especially in light of the Commonwealth’s virtual monopoly on gambling vis a vis the lottery. No one in power is calling for the lottery’s ban, in spite of the fact that lottery opportunities abound in every truck stop, convenience and liquor store, not to mention the many coffee shops and grocery stores that dot the landscape. Talk about promoting gambling addiction! This Commonwealth has lost BILLIONS in gambling revenue that should have found its way into public coffers since the Foxwood/Mohegan Sun’s opening, not to mention the many hundreds of construction and thousands of permanent, decent paying service jobs generated by such facilities. Communities in the Berkshires, central and southeast Mass. have always supported casino construction as being good for regional and state economies. The state politicos oppose casinos to protect their patronage pit at the lottery and are thoroughly pleased that do-gooders pave the way with their respectable arguments and rationales. These do-gooders unknowingly carry other peoples’ water and we’re all the worse, fiscally.
Actually, there is a lot factually wrong with the previous coment. First, We have not lost billions to the Connecticut casinos, and what we have lost would cost us more to get back than we would make.
Second, we do not prohibit casinos to protect patronage pits. There are many who do not like the lottery, as it is a regressive tax. However, it is already here and we live with it because it sends money back to cities and towns that they are desperate for. And when one looks to the problems of gambling or whether this will solve our fiscal problems, the lottery is a good place to look. We started off in the midseventies with a little green ticket (daily number) that was supposed to pay for education. Today we have the bi-weekly games, mass cash, mass million, megabucks, plus, the big game, an expanded (to Sunday) daily number, 35 scratch tickets at any given time, and keno firing off every four minutes! And cities and towns are saying this still isn’t enough revenue. Once you legalize some form of gaming, it begins to expand almost immediately. This inhibits other forms of economic growth. Just ask Connecticut officials. Even the Governor of Nevada has said that gambling is a failed economic strategy (2005 state of the state address) .
Third, communities in Western and Central Massachusetts have not always supported casinos. Even the newspapers have come around on this. If that statement were true, the gaming interests would call for a referendum on casinos. They do not because they would not win.
Economies are elastic, but only to a point. Last year, the two best producing casinos in the US, Foxwood and the Mohegan Sun sent back over $400 million to the state of Connecticut. Our lottery sent back over $950 million to the cities and towns in the Commonwealth. How much more is expected and what other economic displacement would that cause?
For me, this has never been a moral issue on the ills of gaming. It is bad fiscal policy that doesn’t produce the money that has been promised, unless of course you are a casino operator.
Are you aware of any single community in Mass that actually seeks a casino within its borders?
…neighbors should be allowed to deny the right of a business operator to operate a business. Your presumption as to that is…what?
You may presume to understand the context of my question. You do not. You probably are even unaware of the position of the poster with whom I inquired.
I don’t know of any communities asking or advocating for a casino at this time. There have been several proposed in the past as you are probably aware. The most recent proposal of substance was Fall River about ten years ago. Other than that the Town of Revere has been in to the legislature supporting slots at the race tracks.There are several proposals (as there are every year) before the legislature this year that would either place several casinos around the state or would allow slots at the race tracks.
There was also a proposal a few years ago that would have permitted native american casinos in Massachusetts. That was filed on behalf of the Nipmuc people and was predicated on their receiving federal recognition of the tribe. After preliminary approval, the tribe has not received recognition.