A fine post from Julia Reischel and Paul McMorrow at the Weekly Dig. They have been burrowing through the hundreds of pages of casino-related documents released last week by the Patrick administration. Here’s their basic conclusion (which, it must be said, Ryan anticipated).
This past March, Dr. Clyde Barrow, the director of the Center for Policy Analysis (CFPA) at UMass Dartmouth, authored a paper outlining his recommendations for how to introduce casino gambling into Massachusetts…. Despite the warnings from his staff, a little over a month after receiving a copy of Barrow’s blueprint, Patrick returned from his sojourn in the woods to deliver a gambling plan remarkably similar to Barrow’s proposal…. Outside of Barrow’s papers and studies that casinos have funded (some of which rely on Barrow’s research), hard numbers for casinos’ economic benefits, by and large, don’t exist. And if it’s problematic that Patrick built a major policy decision on one man’s research, it’s doubly so that that research comes with a warning from the governor’s own staff.
Barrow, a highly public figure in the state’s casino debate and local journalists’ go-to person for gambling quotes, pioneered a controversial technique known as “patron origin” analysis. It consists of counting cars in casinos’ parking lots. Barrow estimates that the percentage of out-of-state license plates equals the percentages of out-of-state residents gambling at the casino, which, in turn, is equal to the percent of out-of-state money being spent there. Barrow’s research is the only apparent source for the widely-repeated statistic that Massachusetts residents spent $1.1 billion at out-of-state casinos last year, which is often used to point to more than a billion dollars of “untapped demand” for gambling in Massachusetts.
Ugh. If totting up the number of out-of-state license plates at Foxwoods is really the only basis for estimates of how much money we’re sending to Connecticut each year, then this is my stop — I’m off the train. It seems to me absolutely essential that, if we’re going to seriously consider doing this, we can’t just be relying on a single prof from UMass who has ties to the casino industry (he’s worked for them in the past) and whose methods seem, well, shaky.
In materials Patrick’s staff released last week, the administration claimed that it had based its decision on “our initial economic modeling.” But a review of the research materials Patrick used to make his decision only shows that the study group compiled the research of others. In the process, it did little to distinguish dubious casino-funded studies from other, more authoritative sources …. Several reports in Patrick’s research packet cast doubt on the economic benefits of legalized casino gambling…. Asked how such questionable research was allowed to go before the governor at all, let alone possibly form the foundation of such a monumental policy decision, Patrick spokeswoman Cyndi Roy said, “The mission of this group was never to verify information; it was to pull together all the information that was out there.”
Sorry, Cyndi, but that’s not good enough.
1. Rental cars. I don’t own a car; I rent to go anywhere [like Springfield this weekend to go to The Big E]. How often is my plate a MA plate? About half time time, given that I rent from non-airport locations, from both Avis and Enterprise.
<
p>
2. Car pooling. I’d guess that, on average, the farther a car traveled to get to the casino, the more people were in it. After all, the drive around the corner doesn’t benefit from companionship; a multi-hour drive often does.
<
p>
3. Buses. In terms of people, this is a big wild card. Furthermore, do people who arrive on buses deposit more or less at the casino than average?
<
p>
4. Time of day and length of stay. Do people who drive farther stay longer? Less long? What time do out-of-staters arrive and leave? The time of day one chooses to count can swing the numbers substantially.
<
p>
5. Employees. Are they sharing the lot?
<
p>
6. Non-gamblers. Who’s here just for the buffet and the entertainment? Is that skewed by distance from home?
<
p>
7. Other lot users. Folks who “stash” their car in the parking lot to meet up with friends to go elsewhere, etc.
This is just off the top of my head. I would expect that the average amount spent by a [single vehicle with MA plate]’s occupants in a CT casino is statistically different than the average amount spent by a [single vehicle with CT plate]’s occupants in a CT casino. Combine that with the other biases listed above and not listed above, and you’ve got huge sources of error.
you just don’t get it, see?
<
p>
<
p>
If you’ve got some spare time, I think it would be truly awesome to publish a BMG analysis of Professor Barrow’s methods. I think we can get a hold of the study, if you’re interested. Let me know.
not an applied statistician. Sure, I use statistical methods in my work, but I’m certainly not an expert in sampling. I can find potential for sample bias, but I certainly don’t have the qualifications to critique his methods from a rigorous academic standpoint.
<
p>
I do wonder though: what would happen if a BMG editor contacted a local university math & statistics department and spoke with a professor who does specialize in sampling for statistical analysis. Other departments which may have experts include economics and public policy/gov’t departments.
<
p>
If you can get the study easily enough, do send it my way and I’ll look over his data collection methods. Still, the best I can do is question them; I certainly can’t demonstrate that they are problematic using academic rigor.
There seems to be a pretty good blog in which the blogger explains statistics fairly well. The blog is entitled Good Math-Bad Math and the URL is http://www.sciencebl…
<
p>
Several months ago he had an extensive discussion of the interplay between “margin of error” and “confidence interval” at a level that even I as a layman in statistics could understand. The mathematics aren’t quite as simple as some might want to believe, and reports of “margin of error” usually leave off the crucial “confidence level.”
<
p>
But, on the other hand, statistics largely amounts to counting. The issue with statistics is, what do the counts mean–what are they telling us? And how reliable are the statistics based on how we do the counting?
on a prof that would be interested, or on someone who could put us in touch with the right person, let me know (on email if you’d like). Someone you know personally and would be willing to approach about this would be best.
The point of any executive’s staff is to do a little quality assurance on the info that goes into the executive’s decision.
<
p>
I don’t know if anybody needs to be fired about this, but definitely several staffers need to clearly promise their manager that this kind of thing will never happen again.
……….examining and analyzing all incoming data and presenting several unbiased options for action, along with a neat list of consequences and measurable outcomes.
<
p>
Let us picture a harried government official meeting with an internal group trying to decide for or against a controversial pending policy. We will assume that this public official’s internal working group is made up of mostly smart, capable, and loyal staffers:
<
p>
some are experienced, if not expert, in dealing with the problem at hand
<
p>
some are knowledgeable about the public and political environment surrounding the problem and its solutions
<
p>
all, if not practiced in the art of scientific analysis, are at least committed to making decisions informed by facts. (We must also assume that at least a couple of people lack experience, good judgment, substantive knowledge, and, instead of brains, have birds flying around in their heads.)
<
p>
Finally, we can only hope that this public official is not afraid of people who know more than she or he does and that she or he isn’t afraid to change her or his mind when new information comes to light. The working group will surely examine and assess these factors:
<
p>
Previous Commitments
<
p> 1. Public commitments or value judgments already made by the department, as well as any projects already begun that are related to the upcoming decision. (Issues like deinstiutionalization, legalization of drugs, and a woman’s right to choose fall into the “value judgments” category.)
<
p>
2. Adequate Information
<
p>
The quality and timeliness of policy information available to the department. It is hoped that at least one person at the table can answer this question: “What exactly is going on?” If no one can answer the question, it is hoped someone knows how long it will take to get the group up to speed. The workgroup’s ability to absorb, analyze and measure all incoming information. It is hoped that a number of people at the table will agree to stay late for a couple of days to gather information, consult outside experts, and write memos outlining the problem and listing optional solutions and their consequences.
<
p>
3. Internal Resources and Restrictions
<
p>
The professional ambitions and availability of the primary decision-maker and members of the workgroup. High- level public officials are happy to make themselves available to help solve controversial problems when a solution will make them look smart and effective. The direct and indirect demands or limits imposed by the chief executive officer. Staffers presenting policy options to their boss often find themselves in the same position as the dog food marketing director who doesn’t understand why the stuff isn’t selling despite the most attractive can and the best ingredients. After 3 months of market research, he finally figures out that dogs don’t like it.
<
p>
We will not speculate endlessly and cynically here on the relative weight of the factors listed. It depends quite frankly on the values, personalities, and capabilities of the players, from the governor on down to the summer intern who collected and photocopied the public testimony and press clippings.
<
p>
Blessed is the public official who has a staff capable of examining and analyzing all incoming data and presenting several unbiased options for action, along with a neat list of consequences and measurable outcomes.
<
p>
And blessed is the policy staffer who has a boss unafraid to change his or her mind when presented with new information and who isn’t afraid of people who know more than he or she does. And who doesn’t blame staffers for not listing all the unintended consequences, especially the ones that inevitably occur.
<
p>
from Real Clout
Blessed is the public official who has a staff capable of examining and analyzing all incoming data and presenting several unbiased options for action, along with a neat list of consequences and measurable outcomes.
<
p>
Deval Patrick took all summer to come up with a decision on casinos. It’s a decision that could impact Massachusetts forever. It’s not as if he’s deciding whether the official book of Massachusetts should be Moby Dick or the Scarlet Letter, or something. This was a major decision with major ramifications – and the Governor completely failed at doing an honest and thorough review, even after he took long enough to do one.
Does that mean he did not do an honest and thorough review?
If journalists at an alter-alternative paper can find this in a week, why couldn’t the “experts” find it in a few months?
<
p>
And why do you want to engage in cheap shots rather than discuss the issue?
I’ve talked about how the methodology of Barrow was flawed, as did David. Obviously, just because I disagree with the Governor, doesn’t mean I don’t think he did an honest and thorough review. The fact that he’s using one man’s research as a basis for his casino recommendations that includes such flawed data is why I don’t think he did an honest and thorough review.
<
p>
That enough for you?
<
p>
I thought the dishonesty was on the part of his staff who provided him with dodgy material. Wampanoags of Mass Destruction, anybody?
his staff included an unusually explicit warning along with the Barrow study. According to the Dig:
<
p>
Is there any evidence that the Governor studied some additional economic analysis from other supporters AND opponents of expanded gaming and carefully compared them before he came to the conclusion he did?
I probably should have followed up on my post about Barrow, but I thought the coincidences and their meeting was enough. I’m glad the Dig digged this up – as well as the fact that you read the Dig, so you could write about it here.
<
p>
I kept trying to say his studies were suspect – and certainly looking at license plates aren’t going to be an accurate method of determining how much people from Massachusetts spend at casinos. Not only do you have to worry about license plates as being an accurate way to determine just who spends their time at a casino (hello, huge busses from all over), but they probably aren’t an accurate description of just how much money people with those license plates spend. Case in point: we know that people who live within a casino are twice as likely to be addicted – and 20% of all casinos’ revenue comes from regulars and addicts.
<
p>
Isn’t it likely that there are people from Connecticut who are spending a lot more money there than Massachusetts citizens? So that money isn’t money being stolen, or likely to ever come to Massachusetts (why drive 150 miles when you can drive less than 50?). Furthermore, those addicts spending all their money at casinos isn’t helping the economy; they’re an economic drag. I don’t want to double the addicts in Massachusetts, thank you very much. They’re diverting whatever cash they have to only the casinos, which then translates into 25% of slot revenue to the state – and lots of local businesses being hurt from the lack of 10s of thousands of citizens buying their products.
This whole thing stinks in my narrow view.
<
p>
It was a closed group making a huge decision (hello Cheney Energy Policy Task Force or whatever it was called). I think the Dig and David and Ryan all raise the important points that need to be taken into consideration.
<
p>
However, if we are simply going to attack the Governor because he let us down – we need to make sure we do it with a strong foundation.
<
p>
Where do our numbers come from? Who is paying for our research?
I’ve blogged about hard core numbers on income redistribution, on how casinos effect gambling addicts, etc. etc. etc. The gambling addiction numbers comes from the US Congress – and it’s safe to say that study is very reputable.
<
p>
Furthermore, Barrow’s methodology is flawed and his past is suspect. The Dig wrote about that in detail. The onus shouldn’t be on anti-casino folks to prove why casinos are bad for Massachusetts, it should be on the pro-casino side to show just why casinos are so great, great, great that we need to risk local economies, casino addiction and the character of this great Commonwealth in building them.
<
p>
It’s obvious, given the fact that Barrow is at the center of the pro-casino side’s argument, that their argument is entirely flawed. At the very least, we should put all this business on hold until we can commission a truly thorough review on how casinos will impact Massachusetts that extends waaaaaay beyond the usual players, none of whom are truly neutral. The State House ought to make that commission and ask that it be ready for a year from now, when we can open committee sessions for public hearing to address them.
…but it strikes me that counting license plates (as one input) is better than nothing. If, in fact, most casino customers are from within 50 miles of the casino, it is likely that the customers would go via auto, from the area. This won’t be Las Vegas, and probably neither are the casinos in CT.
<
p>
A few nits. The evidence can be made more accurate by taking into account a number of factors.
<
p>
(i) Measure how long the cars are in the parking lot
<
p>
(ii) For cars who are from a rental agency, contact the rental agencies and find out where the customers are from. Not necessary to find out who the customers are.
<
p>
(iii) For busses, ask the bus drivers where they originated.
<
p>
No data acquisition strategy is going to be perfect, since the dollars are not marked as to state of origin.
I’m not sure that “better than nothing” should be the standard on which to base a policy decision of this magnitude. Just because the real work of figuring these numbers out, taking into account the variables you mention, as well as others, hasn’t been done, doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
Why not demand several different ways of counting? There are completely different ways to do it, such as surveying those who stay at Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods and surveying Massachusetts citizens at random and ask them about their gambling habits. It would be better to look at a multitude of different ways of looking at information than relying on one particular one that even major pro-casino advocates (such as the leader of aquinnah wampanoags) have said is “long on assumptions that weren’t really articulated.”
Those resorts aren’t going to let someone conduct market alnalysis on their customers on behalf of a potential competitor.
<
p>
I’m really not all that sure that a casino would be a good thing in Massachusetts or not. Most of the arguments against seem, at bottom, to be schoolmarmish scolding about how people spend their time and money.
<
p>
But what you and David seem to be doing is to set some sort of burden of proof for casiono proponents that just happens to be impossible to meet. I’m sure this is unrelated to your opposition to casinos.
<
p>
Can you point me to a single post — other than this one — in which I expressed opposition to casinos? Just one will do.
You have not, obviously.
<
p>
Nevertheless, in your attack on the parking lot survey, that you have set an impossible standard for the pro- evidence here, as crystalized by the comments that followed.
<
p>
Regardless of whether the parked cars can demontsrate how much money is being spent by Mass residents in Connecticut, it seems beyond dispute that the answer is at least “a hell of a lot.”
…it wasn’t impossible. I had thought that I had made it clear that the “counting” could be made more accurate using additional factors than just counting license plates.
<
p>
Contrariwise, if most regional “gaming” consumers live within 50 miles of a casino, it strikes me that that should be taken into account also.
the chronological ages of MA gamblers at the CT and RI gaming establishments. Consideration as to the level of income and amount of disposable income of these gamers. Are these gamers employed or retired? What is the frequency that these gamers travel to CT or RI.
<
p>
There are way too many unanswered questions and relying on one individuals dubious calculations and research is crazy. Did Patrick and his cohort think that no one would begin to inquire as to basis of their decision ? Something is rotting in Denmark.
I want to rebut your actual point.
<
p>
<
p>
I’m sure they drive in cars and can be counted as being there, but I think it’s downright near impossible to conclude how much each person spends at a casino based on who’s actually there. It’s also hard to tell who would use other means of transit more often: local people, who probably have more access to it, or people who live far away. I can think of reasons why it could be either, which only further calls into question Barrow’s methodology.
<
p>
One of many reasons I’ve said this sort of thing is flawed is because addicts are twice as likely to live within 50 miles of a casino. They spend far, far more than other casino costumers and account for upwards of around 20% of a casino’s actual profits. How do you account for them in using license plates as a determination? Furthermore, a lot of these people who live close may take public transportation or other forms of transport than cars and, conceivably, it could be easier for them to get that sort of access than people who live far away.
<
p>
Finally, the fact that addicts are spending so much money at casinos really calls into question whether we want them at all. 4.4% of people within 50 miles of a casino are addicted to gambling, compared to 2.2% of people elsewhere. That’s a lot of people, almost 1 in 20. It’s not money that Massachusetts residents are spending now in Connecticut – and it’s not money that I’d want anyway, even if they were.
Certainly seems to call into question the emotional arguments about the profound social costs of casinos…
<
p>
Abstract of an article: “ROLLING THE DICE? CASINOS, TAX REVENUES, AND THE SOCIAL COSTS OF GAMING” by JUN KOO, MARK S. ROSENTRAUB, and ABIGAIL HORN
Journal of Urban Affairs 29 (4), 367-381.
<
p>
<
p>
Also, did anyone catch a radio ad in favor of casinos and praising the Governor? I believe it was sponsored by a union, but I didn’t catch which one. Claimed resort casinos would create 20,000 new jobs.
Stated on WFCR 88.5FM Amherst today that the casinos would create 20,000 jobs and 30,000 construction jobs. Mayor Mary Clare Higgins questioned him on the negative impact on local restaurants and businesses. The Governor replied casinos could have a positive effect to increase competition. Honest to God, that's what he said! They haven't posted a link to the call-in show, but here's their contact info. if you want to call and ask them if he really said that…geez even Barrows doesn't go that far…
http://www.wfcr.org/…
…30,000 construction jobs…
<
p>
Unless I am missing something, these construction jobs would generally be relatively shortly lived. Unless the casino companies plan on continually reconstructing their casinos.
<
p>
I suppose that would be possible, but I doubt it. I wouldn’t even think of including that in the mix.
<
p>
Moreover, query whether a substantial number of the construction workers would come from the respective areas.
Raj, with respect, no construction job is ever permanent. It’s the nature of the business. Once you’ve built something, you have to go find something else to build. If a region stops providing construction jobs, though, that’s when local construction workers start getting laid off. So it’s perfectly valid for Deval to tout the 30,000 construction jobs.
<
p>
Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that you should build the casinos because they will provide these jobs. But neither is it intellectually or politically dishonest (my words, not yours) to include them in the decision making process.
It was carried on WFCR
[http://www.wbur.org/…]
you can get a copy of this article?
<
p>
Here’s a thought: who cares?
<
p>
Seriously, why bother? I can’t see any possible reason to either believe the numbers or trust their predicate assumptions. The worst predicate is the belief that money spent elsewhere somehow magically returns, with the salmon, to it’s origin. If somebody bothers to get in their car, travel hundreds of miles to gamble and otherwise spend money, then return, what possible reason could there be to assume gambling is the sole and only motivator? Why do you think gambling, if brought closer, will thrive? Leaf peepers are spending money in norther Vermont and New Hampshire right now! I don’t see that being used as an argument to plant more trees here?
<
p>
I would like to vacation in Hawaii. Why? They got sun there and beaches and warm weather and the ocean. We got that here too… why not stay? Well, because part of the pleasure is the travel and not being here.
<
p>
We got Tanglewoods and that’s it… why don’t we build more music halls and theatres to capture back the money spend in NY city?
<
p>
There’s any number of other examples of money going out of state where no effort whatsoever is made to capture it back. Why bother in this instance…?
Petr,
<
p>
Leaf peepers? Hawaiian vacations?
<
p>
These are matters of climate.
<
p>
People don’t travel to Vermont and New Hampshire to see the beautiful leaves because we’ve got a lack of leaves in Massachusetts. They travel there beacuse the climate in Vermont and New hampshire (being farther north) result in more brilliant leaves.
<
p>
And, sure, we have sun and beaches, but Hawaii has sun all year ’round. Furthermore, the beaches are nicer. In fact, they’re a hell of a lot nicer. The water is cleaner and more beutiful. Surfing is better (bigger waves). Diving is better (more colorful fish, clearer water, warmer water). The tropical flowers are incredible. The list goes on and on.
<
p>
Casinos, on the other hand, have little (if anything) to do with climate. People don’t go to Foxwoods because CT. has beautiful weather. They go there because it’s closer than Atlantic City or Las Vegas.
<
p>
So what? You’ve agreed with my point that people travel for different reasons. So what? You’ve completely skipped over the main point(s): Do they A) ONLY travel for gambling and 2) if so, will they patronize local gambling joints if given the choice?
<
p>
There is NO evidence (none-zero-zilch-zip-nada-bupkis) to support the assumption that the money will come home. NONE AT ALL. I only brought up the Hawaiian vacation because 1) I want to go there and B) it’s illustrative of my point…
That the only times I have travelled to either Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun, it was to go to Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun, respectively.
My argument was that petr’s examples that he was using to back up HIS argument were poor examples and didn’t support the case that he was trying to make.
<
p>
He claims that you can’t assume that all money spent by MA residents in CT casinos would stay in MA if there were casinos in MA.
<
p>
I agree!
<
p>
Some people go for the sporting events, some for the concerts, some stop by because they happen to be in CT for other reasons and figure, “Hey, why not stop at Foxwoods while we’re here?” That won’t change.
<
p>
But the argument that MA residents travel to CT casinos in the same fashion that MA residents travel to HI or VT (for leaf season) is just plain silly. Traveling because of indoor recreational activities that can be replicated anywhere and traveling because of outdoor recreational activities that can’t be replicated everywhere are two HUGELY different things.
<
p>
As for Vegas, I agree totally.
<
p>
People travel to Vegas for the experience–an experiaence that is radically different than either of the CT casinos and that would be equally radically different from any MA casinos. Vegas has different liquor laws (you can drink on the street and clubs can stay open 24 hours a day); the Vegas strip is impressive in its crazy neon way and Vegas offers way more choices for gambling, dining, golfing, dancing, etc., etc., etc. than any one Casino in CT or proposed casino in MA.
<
p>
But you can hardly argue that CT casinos offer this type of experience and that, if MA casinos were built, MA residents would continue to travel south in the numbers they do today because of the ‘experience.’ That argument is absurd on its face.
Data is data, and as long as it was systematically collected and the conditions are reported alongside the data, that’s not the issue.
<
p>
The problem is that Barrow took this data and made an analysis. He essentially claims* that the law of large numbers makes his analysis right, ignoring any potential or actual bias in the data.
<
p>
If there is a skew to the data, then his analysis does a disservice, which is far worse than no service at all.
<
p> * Based on his glib people who criticize the report don’t understand statistics remark quoted upward.
…the issue is whether the extent of the collected data was adequate to support the broader conclusions of the report. I believe that I had made that clear. But if I had not, I apologize.
<
p>
The adequacy of the data (i.e., the number of variables taken into account in performing the analyses) which gave rise to the conclusions in the report were drawn was the purpose of my comment, as I had believed should have been evident from the comment.
Not only is this a seriously good piece of journalism, but damn, you may have talked David off the train. Bravo!!!
Q: “Deval Patrick”
<
p>
A: “What is the secret weapon of the anti-casino movement?”
I don’t see it, well not yet anyway. What about Cahill, wasn’t he the one who put a state run plan on the table? I think people see what they want to see. There are large holes and a great deal of faith needed to make the links that the Dig made before going after Barrow. There is no link whatsoever that Barrow’s plan shaped anything.
<
p>
This is what we do know, CT has two casinos, slot tax revenue for the state was $427 million. We also know that casinos in tribal lands give less money than the state run casinos. I don’t think that it’s out of the realm of possibility to say that three casinos could bring in an additional $400 million to the state. Plus property tax, other new business are taxed, employees have payroll tax, etc.
<
p>
That being said, like everyone else, I would like to see all the data and reports used. But I am nowhere near believing that Deval completely lost his senses and cannot made a sound decision. That’s not his background. Especially with the Dig making links that are not proven to cast Barrow as the architect of the plan.
<
p>
Well, at least you have Keller with you. Yuck!
Seriously, don’t you think the similarities between Barrow’s and Patrick’s plan are just a tad eerie?
<
p>
I’ll go a step further and say there are striking similarities. But do we know for a fact that those similarities were unique to Barrow? Was this specific to Barrow like stated in the Dig column or a common idea with figures based on what other states have done with casino slot taxes. There are 11 other states with state run casinos and the idea for state run casinos in MA first came from Cahill. In reading the article I see the Dig first try to make a connection with Barrow’s plan and Patrick then go nuts attacking Barrow. I’m often skeptical with those kind of articles. I’d still like to see the documents and saying that the figures are inflated is a load of crap (just my opinion).
Calls for a very low tax rate, 27% of profits. It’s a tad higher than Connecicut, but at the vast amounts of money they’re making, we could be pushing for 35-45%, easy. I don’t know anyone who works full time and only pays 27% of their income to taxes.
<
p>
You kidding? I don’t know but a handful of people who pay an average income tax ratehigh as 27%.
<
p>
Stats: http://www.taxpolicy…
I thought income taxes were a bit higher, but the highest bracket (and certainly a casino will be making highest-bracket kind of money) – paying 25.9% in federal dollars – also pays about 5% in Massachusetts. We’re at 31.9%. Then, let’s add sales tax, tolls, gas tax, property tax, excise tax, etc. etc. etc… that’s got to be another 5-10% collectively, so we’re at 36.9-41.9% of their income going toward taxes. Not to mention medicare/social security dollars, etc…
<
p>
Even someone making an average salary in Massachusetts is going to be paying around 27% of their income to taxes, factoring in all the numbers you ignored by just linking to the federal rates.
<
p>
So pardon me for being a bit ignorant of the over all rates at the federal level, but my point absolutely still remains. We could be pushing for 35-45%, not settling for 27, but I’ll spend my time pushing for no casinos instead.
<
p>
Oh, wait, I forget. Obscenely wealthy people are great at hiding their money and avoiding a lot of their taxes. Maybe you’re right and we should just let the casinos go tax free, or something. /snark off.
<
p>
No one, except perhaps maybe some of the very highest income taxpayers, in Massachusetts, pays 27% of their income in taxes.
<
p>
The one thing the tax discussion focuses is the extreme focus on government cash: upwards to 35% in marginal federal income tax; 27% in state income tax (while other corps pay closer to 10%); add the other taxes you mention, and is it any wonder the Legislators are “
pigs at the troughchanging their mind”.<
p>
I think we should put a casino in Richmond, Mass.
The middle quintile pays 14.4% to the feds – and many people are in that quintile in Massachusetts, given the fact that our salaries are significantly higher than the national average (which also means many, many MA residents pay at the 25% federal rate). Add to that 5% for the state income tax. Add to that property taxes, which averages just over $4k for a single-family home in Massachusetts. With the average salary in Massachusetts being around 47k, that’s almost 10% of someone’s salary right there. Split with a spouse and it’s still about 5%.
<
p>
Just with federal income tax, state income tax and property taxes alone the middle quintile would be paying between 24.4-29.4% – which is, shockingly, “around 27%.” Wowzers! I didn’t even have to factor in sales, gas, tolls, etc.
<
p>
But feel free to continue to ignore my actual point (that 27% isn’t a very high tax on the massive profits casinos would make) by derailing the thread. Sometimes it’s hard for certain people to engage in the actual topic when there are minor details to derail threads over dispute – it’s just funny that you’re even wrong there, too.
<
p>
Marginal rate: the tax you pay on the next dollar
<
p>
Average rate: The tax you pay divided by your total income
<
p>
Look on your 1040 and your Mass return. Add the total tax together. Divide it by your income. That’s the average tax rate. Try the exercise on friends, family, etc. Should you find a single family or individual that pays 25% average income tax, please report. You will find very few individuals, and those individuals will have taxable income well in excess of $200K.
<
p>
<
p>
For purposes of your argument, you’re eroniously comparing marginal rates to average rates and then display a bravado borne of ignorance.
<
p>
Casino: 27% tax to state, 35% tax to federal plus other taxes like property tax, excise, payroll. So of each dollar, the casino pays over 62% tax and you claim it’s too low?
<
p>
To generate those Deval-esque jobs, there must be some profits left to intice investors. How much more of that 38% do you propose go to the state?
Where does the 35% come from?
http://www.smbiz.com…
Do you promise never to take a job with any casino in our state, or any vendor or lobbying group associated with them?
<
p>
This is just going to be another hack haven.
WBUR this morning mentions that Patrick doesn’t necessarily want a casino in Boston or in a city. Hmmmm, sounds exactly like Barrow’s plan. More holes in this piece than swiss cheese.
<
p>
With the breathless…
<
p>
– the only apparent source of statistics is from Barrow counting licence plates.
<
p>
Really? Where did you get that from. Mom? At the bar?
From the Herald, Patrick is open to having the proposal be evaluated by outside review. Patrick said:
<
p>
<
p>
Yes, I would have been good if Patrick had an outside review of the proposal before coming out with his plan. I agree with that, but it’s out there and it seems as the House will take him up on it. As to the Dig column, it’s a bunch of hooey, I’d rather have something more substantial than a hit piece.
It would be good if any Chief Executive of the Commonwealth properly vetted his/her plan (containing major polcy implications) with outside independent review, prior to releasing it to the public. Now, he's bailing on the Boston scenario that was one of the three legs in his casino barstool.
No leadership skills exhibited whatsoever, just smooth talk.
…where is there enough empty land in Boston that just might be able to support a casino? Or was there a suggestion that the state take land by eminent domain and provide it to a casino developer (ref. the US Supreme Court’s Kelo decision a few years ago)?
in E. Boston. They have quite a bit of land there.
I think he’s rolling it out rather well. I’m no fan of gambling, and I bet Deval isn’t either, but I am at the point where I’m shrugging my shoulders and saying “Tough times call for tough decisions and, on balance, not a bad idea.” Apparently a lot of other people feel this way.
<
p>
“No leadership skills exhibited whatsoever”?!? Who have you led?
Has anyone seen a state-by-state comparison of the economic benefits of introducing casino gambling? Wouldn’t this be the proof of the pudding? In what ways is Connecticut, or Illinois, or Mississippi doing better as a result of having casinos? One can contemplate a variety of measures that might be used as benchmarks: property taxes, educational performance, suicide rates. Take your pick. What is the actual evidence that Connecticut is doing better and Massachusetts worse as a result of casinos in Connecticut and not in Massachusetts? Why on earth would anyone base a policy decision on the sketchily supported assertion that citizens of the Commonwealth are spending money in Connecticut, as though that money weren’t flowing out of Connecticut to gambling interests elsewhere in the country, or as though residents of Massachusetts don’t spend money on all kinds of other things outside the state? As far as I can tell, the governor has based his decision on two wild guesses: that Massachusetts can recover money (who knows how much?) now being spent in Connecticut and that Massachusetts will somehow do it so much better than Connecticut that people will flock from great distances to play golf within easy walking distance of slot machines. “Together we can?” I guess we should have asked what the object of that sentence was.