I'm hearing that Terry Murray doesn't have the votes for an override of the Gov's veto, so DeLeo's giving up. No special session.
Right now … this is kind of a win-for-losing thing for the gov. He doesn't have to stand by an indefensible outcome — slots — coming up on the election. OTOH, he's 0 for 2 on resort casinos.
(Charlie Baker thinks there should be more slots. And that they should be banned. And he totally could have done it better.)
UPDATE: From State House News Service:
“I think the Senate president’s been pretty clear that she’s about a couple of votes short in terms of coming back, so right now I don’t look that as an option for us. So, I’m moving ahead accordingly,”
DeLeo said. Asked if the chances were “pretty low” for action on the gambling bill this fall, DeLeo replied, “Well yes.”
Boston Herald online NO gambling bill this year
<
p>Maybe by the time gambling gets legs again – if it does – so many casinos have gone bankrupt, Atlantic City will be under state ownership, and the economic impact of green manufacturing and other initiatives will have moved the focus to real jobs, with real GNP value added and away from cannibal jobs in gambling with no future.
<
p>I note, too, for all those crying crocodile tears for Wonderland – that Fidelity shed more than 3000 jobs (silence deafening from those sobbing for Wonderland), Verizon sent its call center to Mubai (silence abounded), financial management firms like State Street Bank and Wellington management eliminated their back room “IT” by outsourcing to Mumbai (nary a peep)…not that I don’t feel for the Wonderland folks – but when my husband’s IT job went overseas, who made a noise except ME?
You win; we lose. I am really very angry about this. If you are really sincere about your distaste for gambling, then you should go on a mission to end the lottery in Massachusetts. That is the biggest, most hostile imposition of hope vs. scam perpetrated by our government.
<
p>By the way, Foxwoods is hosting the Titatic Artifact Exhibition. I’ll be traveling there to spend the $50. in discretionary dollars I will have next month. My son is very interested in the Titanic disaster and he will be completely absorbed in this exhibition. While we are there, we will have lunch at a nearby restaurant.
<
p>Thanks for all the parenting. At age 49, I can’t imagine how I would get through life without you telling me what I can and can’t do in my own state.
it is just one form of gambling, that is different from the others and has different repercussions. It is possible to be against one form of gambling, but okay or indifferent to another. I don’t see a lot of people for cock fighting.
<
p>Nice try at obfuscating the issue, though.
Gambling is gambling. I guess it’s the same as those who are opposed to hard liquor, but OK with beer and wine. An alcoholic will take the beer and wine and be just as much of a drain on the system as those drinking vodka.
<
p>I’m not going to argue about this. We’ve already debated this time and again. I am just voicing my opinion because, hey, it’s America. I am disappointed. I don’t care about the gambling aspect; I wanted the resort. I think Massachusetts needs it and I know we surely needed the lift in our corner of the state. We’ll just keep crawling along and see what happens. Thank goodness Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are only 90 minutes away.
For $600 million, you get a SLOT BARN!
(see previous posts)
<
p>Maybe this has been discussed repeatedly in this forum, but I am truly disappointed that you still don’t seem to understand.
<
p>SLOTS which have been called the “Crack Cocaine of Gambling” are designed to be ADDICTIVE are subsidizing your historical visit and your meal. How fortunate for Connecticut that you will be visiting a Tribal Casino that pays no state taxes, doesn’t contribute to the surrounding communities, and significantly increases the DUIs and crime. (See Spectrum Gaming Report posted here: United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts)
<
p>Before you leave, make sure you purchase gas that doesn’t have any state taxes.
<
p>It has been estimated that each SLOT MACHINE permanently removes ONE JOB from the local economy.
<
p>SLOT BARNS are designed to get you in the door and keep you in your seat feeding a reverse ATM machine, hence no clocks and an environment designed for that purpose.
<
p>SLOT BARNS
<
p>1. are NOT economic development.
<
p>2. will create low wage dead end jobs that will suck discretionary income from the local economy, destroying local businesses. How can a local restaurant compete when you’re enjoying your subsidized meal that isn’t contributing any taxes, doesn’t have to adhere to state/local regulations? (BTW, don’t get hurt on the premises. They’re Sovereign and you can’t sue for your injuries, like the man who lost both legs because a parking valet put a car in gear or like the woman who suffered severe nerve damage when she was electrocuted by a SLOT MACHINE and survived.)
<
p>BTW, both CT Slot Parlors were unable to fill those low wage jobs locally and recruited overseas, impacting the public school systems. The communities surrounding Foxwoods teach how many foreign languages? It was 30 last time I checked.
CT Slot Parlors
<
p>3. exist SOLELY because they create ADDICTION.
<
p>4. GAMBLING ADDICTION has the lowest rate of self-referral of all addictions and the highest rate of suicide, the ultimate price.
<
p>5. the job creation and revenue numbers are wildly overstated.
<
p>6. the impacts on the host community and surrounding communities are OUTRAGEOUS – and the flawed legislation failed to consider those costs. Estimates seem to indicate the costs/impacts will be about $50 million per year. Where is that included in this legislation? Where has it been discussed? It hasn’t. Senator Rosenberg, the Casino Guru, dismissed the issue.
<
p>7. the entire Beacon Hill process epitomizes BAD GOVERNMENT and what is unacceptable.
<
p>One need only visit the State House to witness the lobbyists slithering around the hallowed Halls, wearing suits costing more than my entire wardrobe, dictating legislation behind closed doors. (See Gladys Kravitz) The public was excluded from the process, the legislation grossly flawed, public hearings were a sham.
<
p>8. refusal to conduct an INDEPENDENT COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS has concealed from you that this is a NET LOSER – it will cost taxpayers more than revenue generated. Casino Dollars Will Simply Pour In! Not!
<
p>A federal study determined that for every $1 in revenue provided by the gambling industry, the cost to taxpayers is $3. Surely you’ve read that report available here: United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts
<
p>9. My favorite of all – the BLOATED REGULATORY BUREAUCRACY that they can’t even provide an estimate for – will it be $50 million? And if you think the Probation Dept. scandal was bad, this will be filled with political hacks and relatives that will dwarf that. This will expand government to new heights.
<
p>There are numerous other reasons that have been addressed in this forum and elsewhere.
<
p>There are heroes in this process who conducted their research, stood up, testified against this flawed legislation and are to be commended. Unfortunately, we have surrounded them with cowards and Bobble Heads, unwilling to jeopardize chairmenships, the loss of staff and offices and extra money to speak out for what’s right and defend the future of the Commonwealth.
<
p>Other than basing your opinion on the canned rhetoric provided by the Gambling Vultures themselves, Live and Let Live? Wonderful philosophy! But I refuse to pay for it!
<
p>
And consider that the approach in Hancock v. Driscoll would have been superior to the false premise of funding education via lottery.
<
p>Besides, I am not telling “you” what to do, but as a taxpayer making my preference known that my tax dollars not fund addiction.
<
p>As to the Titanic exhibit out of state, I hope it is well done and not the shabby stuff that is done at say, Atlantic City and called an exhibition.
<
p>There are excellent exhibitions up at the Museum of Science right now and your money would go father (how much of your claimed discretionary income will go on gas?)
<
p>Besides, we have an equal right to state our views, I doubt my one voice carried the day – collectively many voices said “NO” to relying on attempting to balance the state budget on bogus figures and addiction.
the objections.
<
p>It is the state licensing of slot parlors that is objectionable. No one is opposed to resorts. An educational based museum style resort sounds fabulous!
<
p>Are you planning to take your son into the slot parlor and help encourage his interest in a new hobby. If not, how can you support it happening to someone else’s child, parent or loved one?
<
p>Slot parlors are about the cynical parting the desperate, lonely, addicted and less than bright from their money. Massachusetts needs these as much as resort style opium dens. (A little marketing and highly paid lobbyists could turn sharpen up their image too!)
<
p>The legal system is all about keeping us safe by making cost benefit analysis, (morals). Beer, wine, prostitution, marijuana, highway speed limits, assault, child abuse, labor laws, property laws….
<
p>The argument over legislating morals is a red herring – all legislation is about defining morally acceptable behavior. Instead show us where we got the cost benefit analysis wrong.
<
p>Also has your son checked out the Woods Hole site or http://www.expeditiontitanic.com/
This is very cool!
It just might work. It will be much better for the state if they continue to collect all the low-income gambling addicts funds through the state lottery.
<
p>An educational based museum style resort sound incredibly boring. Besides, we have plenty of museums across the state. When I think of resort, I’m thinking more of concerts, comedy shows, dining, spa, and shopping. We’ve already been to many of the museums the state offers.
<
p>Actually, I am the type of parent that WOULD bring my child into a slot parlor if we happened to be near one(if it were legal). We would talk about what it is and how it might be fun as long as you’re careful. I would walk him through it and explain the dangers of gambling addiction. I would ask him to always be aware of the potential that this could happen, and then explain that it can happen with scratch tickets and nightly draws too. We would watch a few people play and try to determine if they were addicted or not. Then we would walk out and he would be a more enlightened child because of it.
<
p>Yes, Woods Hole is a very cool place. I love all of Cape Cod. It’s a 2-1/2 hour drive, so it makes for an uncomfortable day trip. Thanks for the tip, but I think we will go to the one at Foxwoods.
<
p>woohoo!! Who wants to make the real argument, anyway? BTW: would you say the same thing about pot and heroin? I suppose because they’re both drugs, they’re just the same, right? See what I mean… let’s stick to the real point, because your straw man is a house of cards.
<
p>As for how slots are “different” when it comes to how it effects the individual user, I’ll let MIT’s Natasha Schull explain it, if you’re even willing to listen.
<
p>
<
p>Slots also have a much different impact on the greater economy and community than other forms of gambling, like horse racing. Casinos are huge, big-box one-stop entertainment houses that sell all their food, shows and shopping goods at below-market rates, just to get people in the door. There’s the free drinks, too, as well as the smoking — both of which are completely illegal for small businesses in Massachusetts.
<
p>No small businesses can compete with these things, which is one of the reasons why small businesses go under when casinos come in. Atlantic City went from over 250 restaurants, bars and clubs to under 60 today, because of casinos. AmberPaw’s talked about how casinos have wiped out small businesses across Detroit. So, whether you look at the impacts of slots on individual users or on the small business community surrounding casinos, you simply can’t just say “gambling is gambling.” That’s completely fallacious.
<
p>
<
p>I can easily understand why: you’re wrong. It’s no fun to dig your head in the sand and argue for indefensible things.
and you’ve heard the pro-casino arguments before. I’ll give you that we would probably be in a better place in this world if slot machines didn’t exit. We would also be in a better place if lottery tickets, alcohol, cigarettes, video games, and guns didn’t exist too.
<
p>Gambling is gambling. You’re the one with your head in the sand. There’s another reason why I don’t want to argue about this. It becomes a hateful dialogue and I have no interest in carrying it forward.
in one ear, out the other. /sigh
The thing is, in terms of economics, the lottery is a much better deal for MA than slots or casinos are. Why?
<
p>1. Nearly all of the money stays in MA. The revenue comes nearly entirely from Massachusetts (just like the casino would). However, the expenses from the lottery are low and they are generally paid to MA contractors and employees — resort casinos shell out big bucks to entertainers and national contractors for equipment. Furthermore, the profits from the lottery stay in MA, and are disbursed directly to town governments; profits from casinos are taken right out of the MA economy because the casino owners aren’t likely MA residents, they’re shareholders.
<
p>I don’t like the lottery (esp. keno and scratch offs) and would love to see them phased out, but they simply don’t do the economic damage that casinos do, and I seriously doubt that they do the immediate personal damage, though I suspect that the long term damage is substantial.
The lottery may be a better deal for the state, but it’s likely a much worse deal for the gambler, especially a resort casino with $10 tables and $0.50 slots – poor people can’t afford Foxwoods, but Keno and the lottery? That’s easy.
<
p>I understand that the anti-casino crowd didn’t achieve an all out victory here, we’re going to be left with a governor, speaker and president who all support gambling next year, so they’ve got to keep focused on stopping the slot barns and can’t win a fight to end the lottery. But let’s not pretend that the lottery isn’t a disgusting business, especially for the state to own.
<
p>Folks can flog their ‘slots are crack cocaine’ and the fact that they get 90% of revenues from 1,000 pensioners they handcuff to the machine every evening, but the fact remains that the lottery prays on the poor in a far more acute and insidious way than any resort casino would – on slot barns, I agree, they’re Keno on steroids.
<
p>We know a lot about lottery players, for instance in 1999 lottery players with household incomes under $10,000 spend $597 per capita (over 6% of total income) compared to just $225 for households making between $50 and $100K (roughly 3% of income).
<
p>That’s just not true of casino gamblers, who according to surveys conducted by the industry have a higher median income than the population overall. If you don’t trust the industry, look at a study done for New Jersey.
<
p>If the folks opposed to slots really do win, if the casino bill really does die, they should lead the fight for abolition of the lottery. I’ll give the benefit of the doubt to the opponents. However, it’s easy to see the gnashing of teeth of middle class folks in communities near the proposed casinos couching their arguments as being concerned about the well being of the poor, but not lifting a finger to end a system that takes money out of poor communities and sends it right back to them.
There is an national organization called Stop Predatory Gambling that is actively opposed to state lotteries. It was founded, incidentally, by one of the founders of the Mass. anti-casino/slots movement.
<
p>A campaign to defeat such an entrenched concept as the lottery requires full-time funding and is well beyond the capacity of grass-roots activists going up against a multi-billion dollar industry, which obviously has the ear, if not it’s hand on the wheel, of Beacon Hill.
<
p>Grassroots anti-casino activists in this state have had to battle on numerous fronts, including racinos, resort-casinos, tribal casinos and related sovereignty/historical/federal issues, as well as consumer protection issues surrounding the slot machine itself, which is the source of 70 – 80% of resort casino revenue, with 60% of that revenue coming from problem and pathological gamblers.
<
p>That’s a lot of fronts for some average people who woke up one day to find their neighborhood targeted for a casino. So please excuse us if we lack the funding and manpower to tackle yet another. But we do oppose the lottery on the same principles.
<
p>As for me, when I was told a tribal casino was ‘inevitable’ in the next town, aside from the “ick” factor, I was mostly concerned about traffic, 24/7 drunk drivers on the winding country road where my kids wait for the bus, and increases in crime. When I did my research I found there was a lot more to be afraid of.
<
p>And well, I suppose I have gnashed my teeth on occasion, but I’ve also worked for 3 1/2 years, unpaid, to educate people about the many facets of this issue. And I’m just one of many “middle-class folks in communities near the proposed casinos” still here fighting.
<
p>If everybody in this state had their community targeted for a casino, I suspect we’d have a lot more eyes opened to what a bad deal, and what terrible public policy expanded gambling really is.
<
p>In the meantime, I’ll give those who gnash their teeth over casino opponents who don’t also take on the the lottery the benefit of the doubt that they’ve personally supported grassroots efforts such as Stop Predatory Gambling to end, or phase out the lottery.
I’ll get right on board with the campaign, campaign for them, write a check, but don’t give me any benefit of the doubt, I haven’t supported SPG and probably won’t in the future.
<
p>See, I’m not opposed to a resort casino, even one with predatory slots, because I haven’t seen evidence that shows the people who go to resort style casinos can’t afford to choose their form of entertainment, no matter how addictive it is. However, I’ve learned from United to Stop Slots, that resort casinos would have a huge negative impact on state lottery revenues. Sure, the state could respond by getting more aggressive with the lottery, which would be bad, but everyone from united to stop slots would lead the charge to kill the lottery and you might even stand a chance in succeeding. That’s a public policy win in my book, we take a regressive tax and make it less regressive by shifting gambling from low income people to middle income people.
Harrah’s, the country’s largest casino chain, makes 90% of its profits off the backs of 10% of its players. I’ll give you a hint: those players aren’t wealthy.
The source you’re relying on claims that 90% of Harrah’s profits come from 10% of its customers. So Harrah’s had net income of $825 million in 2009. Now I don’t know how many customers they had, but according to their 10-K, they had about 58,000 slot machines (an estimate, but probably pretty close). Let’s assume 20 customers per slot machines, over 365 days, that’s 423 million customers. So $742 million in profits came from 42 million customers – that’s $18 per day per addict.
<
p>I’m rushing here and have had a couple glasses of wine, so check my math, but at a an average max of $12K of losses per addict. Are they wealthy? Are they poor? I don’t know, you don’t know. If they’re spending 50% of their wages on gambling, they’re poor, if they’re spending 5%, they’re not. Show me some evidence that they’re poor, I’ll listen, but until you do, I am going to have a hard time to believing that resort casinos aren’t less regressive than lotteries and therefore a better policy option (plus a good place to blow a few hundred bucks every few months)…
<
p>This by the way assumes the figure from Winner Takes All is accurate. In the context of the book, it’s thrown out there without any confirmation from Harrah’s or explanation of the methodology.
<
p>
BTW, your logic and math is flawed and incorrect.
<
p>You used ‘profit’ to make a determination and not GGR.
Not acknowledging and not denying are different things. Ryan’s figure comes from the book “Winner Takes All” by Christina Binkley. The quote on page 184 is
<
p>It might not be sloppy financial reporting, but it’s sloppy writing and certainly can’t be used the way you’re using it. But once again, let’s assume she is talking GGR – because if she is, it undermines Ryan’s point even further. Harrah’s had $7.1 Billion in gambling revenue in 2009 and direct gambling expense of $3.9 billion for a very rough GGR of $3.2 billion. Now that’s not really the GGR, which doesn’t look like it’s reported, but having a smaller number helps you, so let’s keep it.
<
p>Once again, I’m assuming 20 customers every day per each of their 58,000 slot machines (certainly rough, so come up with a better model and I’ll listen…) for 423 million customers. Ten percent of that is 42 million customers who supposedly make up 90% of their gross gambling revenue… That’s $25K per addict, more than my original estimate, which brings us back to the question, are they poor? If they are, resort casinos are indeed a form of regressive taxation.
<
p>Let me know how the logic is wrong and I’ll reconsider.
<
p>Poor people can’t afford a $0.50 slot? A $10 table? Of course they can. Poor != destitute and penniless. Is a scratch off more readily available? Yup. Is it as exciting as a casino? Not for most.
<
p>I’m not so sure that the lottery is worse for a gambling addict than a casino — but that wasn’t my argument one way or the other.
<
p>
<
p>I’ve done no such thing.
<
p>Regarding destination casinos, there are no casinos which could be built in MA which would “require” significant “travel [or] overnight stay.” This is MA, not WY. There’s no doubt that a resort casino is a very different situation than a lottery ticket. Mincing exactly which kind of person is more likely to be hurt by either isn’t really helpful.
<
p>The fact is, we’ve got lottery now, and we have a pretty good understanding of the benefits and costs, by and large. Most folks in MA are OK with it, and it’s awfully hard to change the status quo. This is different from casinos — where folks simply don’t understand the benefits and costs, nor are casinos currently the status quo.
<
p>
<
p>It makes sense to fight casinos now… and when it settles down a bit, then try to push back the lottery. To complain that the folks who are opposing the slot barns are doing good but not fighting enough things at the same time seems like weak tea to me.
Posting information from 1996 forced me the remember where technology was.
<
p>Let’s be realistic here. I bought a 1.2 MB PC that year, considered impressive. And it’s a report prepared by the Industry? Curious!
<
p>Today, SLOT BARNS offer their customer cards to track their customer, create loyalty, offer promotions and record the speed at which they play, the frequency of their visits, their $$$ played, and record their losses in REAL TIME. Harrah’s began sending a trained employee to a patron losing to convince the patron to continue feeding the machine, maybe by offering a free drink or free meal. Cheer up! Just keep feeding the machine! We love you!
<
p>They KNOW who their customers are.
<
p>You clearly haven’t read “Winner Takes All” or “Jackpot,”
but allow me: Harrah’s
<
p>that includes:
<
p>
<
p>How about The McDonald’s of Gambling
<
p>
<
p>Or a homeless woman at a “Destination Resort Casino” : Ameristar Casino: 27 animals found in hot car
<
p>The facts prove otherwise.
I had no idea that the median income of the gamblers bringing $30 per day, five times a week was $X or that Y% were african american, Z% were men and N% made less than $25,000 per year.
<
p>I was also swayed by the reference to the homeless woman, I had no idea that A% of resort casino patrons were homeless or had so many cats. A data point is not a trend, a collection of anecdotes do not prove a point about 10% of a casinos customers.
<
p>If Harrah’s knows about it’s customers, surely there’s data to back up your claims, where is it?
together and pronounce yourself Mathematical Genius, “Case closed!” and then you post a snarky nonsensical reply such as this?
<
p>You posted this link:
http://squaringtheglobe.blogsp…
that included:
<
p>
<
p>You will note in ALL of my previous posts, I have NEVER raised the issue of regressivity because most people don’t understand tax policy. There are reports that exist that document the regressive nature of GAMBLING as fiscal policy and since you seem to be good at finding things, I don’t doubt you could locate those reports without attacking me for issues I haven’t raised.
<
p>The increased crime, increased personal bankruptcies, increased child/spousal abuse, increased investigation, enforcement, court, incarceration costs, increased poverty, and the ultimate price of GAMBLING ADDICTION: increased suicides, speak for themselves about whether a patron can afford to feed a SLOT MACHINE, IMO.
<
p>What I have posted regarding the lottery is taken from the Spectrum Gaming Report, for which you, as a taxpayer, paid $189,000, that projected reductions in lottery revenue of $144 million which is direct aid to cities and towns.
<
p>As to Harrah’s numbers in Christina Binkley’s book? Similar numbers have been posted elsewhere. Whether it’s 90%/10% or 80%/20%, makes little difference in my estimation. It’s GAMBLING ADDICTION that defines the Industry. Their business model is dependent upon compelling patrons to “Play to Extinction” – their term, not mine.
<
p>When a national study determined that every $1 in gambling revenue paid to the state, costs taxpayers $3, setting aside all other issues, does that even make sense? Why would we subsidize already wealthy gambling vultures with tax dollars?
<
p>State sponsored predatory gambling sucks discretionary income out of local economies. A fact to which Donald Trump testified.
<
p>If you’d like to consider yourself Mathematical Genius, I would recommend that you focus on the costs and impacts, which as far as I can tell makes this endeavor a losing proposition that I, as a taxpayer, don’t want to support.
<
p>The phony BENEFITS reports produced at taxpayer expense to JUSTIFY this bogus proposal won’t produce the jobs and revenues being proclaimed – that’s easily disproven.
<
p>And as the Mathematical Genius, what will that BLOATED REGULATORY BUREAUCRACY cost? Surely you must know – the Hack-O-Rama that will dwarf the Probation Dept., be filled with every political hack and relative? What will the increased State Police, staff at the Attorney General’s cost? Court costs for an already struggling system? Local law enforcement to stop those drunk drivers?
<
p>The Spectrum Gaming Report prepared for the CT DOSR addressed some of those issues, but keep in mind their scope was limited due to cost.
<
p>My recurring question is, if SLOTS pave the street with gold, what happened to Atlantic City or Las Vegas?
I wholeheartedly agree with you that the Lottery is TERRIBLE public policy, is a horrifically regressive way of raising state revenue, and should be abolished.
<
p>A small (one to five percent) increase in the gift/estate tax on non-home wealth for estates in excess of $10M would comfortably offset the loss of Lottery income and balance the state budget for years to come.
In fiscal year 2008 the Estate and Inheritance tax brought in $253 million, while the Mass Lottery distributed $935 million in local aid. There is no “small” increase in the estate tax that will come anywhere close to replacing the money brought in by the lottery.
from lower income or poor people. Are you OK with that? I just can’t believe that all of the energy poured into the anti-casino arguments does not at all transfer into an equal and even greater energy to get rid of the state lottery. Don’t you think?
I’ve always thought of the Lottery as a tax on being bad at math. It’s probably not a great policy to rely on a bad at math tax for a significant source of revenue. But whether it’s good policy or not, it’s a source of revenue that MA has come to rely on. BrooklineTom proposed getting rid of that revenue, and replacing it with another source of revenue. Except that he invented some numbers that have no basis in reality. His answer was to increase taxes by maybe $100 million and pretend that can replace $935 million, and call it a day (and even pretend that there is some left over to balance budget shortfalls for years to come).
I did, in fact, blow my thumbnail calculation of the revenue potential of an increase in the estate tax. I appreciate your clarifying the actual 2008 collections (though I’d like to see a cite). The fact remains that there is about $2.5B/year in inter-generational wealth transfers in Massachusetts. We seem to therefore be getting about 10% of that.
<
p>In my view, the point that liveandletlive makes remains valid — we are collecting nearly a BILLION dollars a year from those in our population least able to afford it, in order to protect the inheritances of the handful of those in our population who are most able to afford it.
<
p>In my view, the passive voice you use in your argument (“it’s a source of revenue that MA has come to rely on”) signals the real issue: you write as if this disgustingly regressive tax policy “just happened”, or is some sort of externally-imposed natural phenomena. It’s NOT. It is, instead, our intentionally-imposed public policy, one that we choose to enact each year with each democratically-enacted budget.
<
p>We are collecting nearly a billion dollars a year from our poorest, most ignorant, least powerful, and most easily manipulated residents while as a society we spend billions of dollars a year on fancy “sports” arenas, luxury yachts, astronomically expensive and huge homes, and all the other trappings of the ostentatiously wealthy.
<
p>Our bridges are falling down, our public schools are in trouble, our health care system is in chaos, our streets and transportation systems flood in virtually every passing rainstorm.
<
p>The very wealthiest among us have already sucked the rest of our economy dry, and still clamor for yet more.
<
p>If you want to talk about being “bad at math”, I suggest you look long and hard at the math skills of those who conflate “income” and “wealth”, at those unable to discern the implications of the enormous spread between mean and median household wealth, and at those who are unable or unwilling to consider the consequences of the extraordinary wealth distribution graphs of today’s Massachusetts population.
My numbers came from the MA DOR annual report available on their website. mass.gov/dor, click on “News and Reports” then click on “DOR Annual Reports.” I would link to it, but I’m posting this using my phone.
<
p>Your tangential points about the general state of our society aside, do you have a specific plan to make up for the $935 million decrease in municipal aid if the lottery were eliminated? You’re right that implementing the lottery was at one point a deliberate policy decision. But now it’s revenue that the state and municipalities rely on. You’re arguing to change the status quo by getting rid of the lottery, I think the burden lies on you to also point out other spending cuts or revenue sources that would make up that $935 million. Ranting about the general state of society is all well and good, but where would you cut or where would you raise additional revenue?
<
p>And do you have a cite for the $2.5 billion in inter-generational wealth transfers?
Thanks for the link to the MA DOR report, I’ll look it later.
<
p>I fear that in the heat of the exchange, I was closer to correct the first time — it’s actually $1.5T over a 50 year period. I think that’s about $30B per year.
<
p>I have two cites, both published in 2006 and available from the Boston College Center for Wealth and Philanthropy:
<
p>
<
p>The second is a technical report.
<
p>I call your attention to Table 2 of the second link: “Distribution of Household Weath (sic) Among Households with Positive Wealth, Boston Metropolitan Area. There, we see that the top 1.56% of the Boston-area households has an astounding 35.06% of the cumulative net worth.
<
p>You ask me to defend a public policy of plundering the poor to the tune of $935M/year while the top ONE and ONE HALF PERCENT of local households collectively holds $351,082,510,000!
<
p>At $30B/year (1.5T divided by 50), if the state collects an additional one percent of that amount, it generates $3B/year in new revenue. If we restrict those increased taxes to households whose household net worth is in excess of $10M, we still collect (based on the astounding statistic above) 35% of the total — about $1B/year.
<
p>Raise the multiple from 1% to 5%, exclude real estate from the household net worth calculation, and I suggest it is still very possible to end up with $2-3B in new revenue.
<
p>The wealth is, in fact, all around us. I have outlined a way to tax it that is both progressive and relatively painless. This is more than enough revenue to end the Lottery.
<
p>It is time we stop plundering and pillaging the poorest among us. That may be “tangential” in your value system; I do not agree.
Tangential does not mean unimportant, it just means that it’s not exactly on point with the current discussion. Public schools, infrastructure, and dealing with poverty are very important issues, but they are tangential to the discussion of whether increasing the estate tax can raise as much revenue as the lottery.
<
p>And I still don’t understand your idea that will raise $2-3 billion per year by only raising the estate tax 1-5%. Once again, the estate tax in its current form only produces around $250 million per year. You can’t raise $2-3 billion by slightly increasing the rate.
<
p>I am mostly making a mathematical point. It’s hard to get to the point where we can have a serious policy discussion when your premise is that a slight increase in the estate tax rate could increase estate tax collections by 800-1,200%.
I don’t mean add 1-5% of $250M ($2.5-12.5M).
<
p>I mean to collect 5-10% of the annual generational wealth transfer. That’s 5-10% of roughly $30B/year.
<
p>Perhaps our mis-communication is like the similar confusion over changing the sales tax rate “by one percent” — the proposal to raise the sales tax “by one percent” meant changing it from 5% to 6% (not from 5% to 5.05%). It appears that in 2008, we collected $250M in estate and gift taxes. To simplify the math, let’s say the inter-generational wealth transfer in 2008 was $25B (as opposed to the $30B estimate from the above links). By my calculations, that’s an effective rate of about 1% (25010^6 / 2510^9).
<
p>I suggest we raise that effective rate a factor of ten, from 1% to, say, 10.0% — that would result in about $2.5 B in revenue, of which $2.25 B would be new revenue (beyond the $0.250 B you cite from 2008).
<
p>THAT is how we close the budget deficit and end the Lottery.
<
p>
Why not maintain the gambling status quo, and implement a small (one to five percent) increase in the gift/estate tax on non-home wealth for estates in excess of $10M anyway?
<
p>The extra revenue for the state could go toward what John Quincy Adams called “works of beneficence.”
<
p>State school tuition could be reduced.
<
p>Clean energy research and development, or other kinds of research and development could be subsidized at state schools.
<
p>New rail lines could be built.
<
p>Public works projects of many kinds could be implemented by the state itself, putting the unemployed back to work.
<
p>And this is just a short summary of what could be done with higher state revenue, paid for by those who can afford it.
but I don’t feel it necessary to “go on a mission” to end it anymore than I feel I need to kill myself trying to stop any number of other things I don’t like. That is a bogus argument.
<
p>One thing is for sure, you aren’t going to see any fancy exhibits at a slot parlor.
I do not work for Governor Patrick. I just agree with his plan for casinos.
<
p>Governor Patrick wants, basically, 3 Foxwoods type casinos, called “resort-style.”
<
p>That means slots and card games, stores and restaurants and hotels all under one roof, in 3 locations throughout the state (to get different crowds).
<
p>His main concern is getting the most jobs out of any changes in gambling law.
<
p>With his plan there will be jobs in:
<
p>Construction of the buildings
<
p>Restaurants
<
p>Stores
<
p>Hotels
<
p>Staffing Table Games
<
p>Having slots go up in an existing facility would not provide anywhere near as many jobs.
<
p>Patrick has said that it would be better for the state to change nothing than to get it wrong on how gambling is expanded in Massachusetts.
<
p>If gambling law is to change in Massachusetts, it should be done Patrick’s way, to maximize job creation from the project.
The job and revenue numbers are grossly over-inflated as any child could readily see.
<
p>Patrick has isolated himself with “Yes” men who provided BENEFITS REPORTS on which he based his flawed decision.
<
p>Apparently there is no one around the Governor to tell him the Emperor has no clothes.
<
p>Those BENEFITS REPORTS have been repeatedly de-bunked elsewhere, if you would read.
<
p>Since the Commonwealth is not the first to consider this matter, we have the evidence of the failure of many other states to consider. Their deficits are higher than the Commonwealth, their unemployment is higher.
<
p>Las Vegas has high crime, high poverty, the nation’s highest dropout rate, poor college graduation, high suicides, high per capita police officers, 5 times that national rate of foreclosures.
<
p>Atlantic City is no prize either. Poverty is higher now than pre-casinos, unemployment has remained higher than the national average and now the state is proposing to rake over control.
<
p>Sound fiscal policy is not based on exploitation.
In addition to the fact that Nevada’s budget deficit represents 40+% of their entire budget, the Massachusetts Lottery (which puts most of the money it receives right back to cities and towns) earns for Massachusetts roughly the same amount that all of the 200+ casinos and slot parlors earn Las Vegas. Casinos would be taxed at roughly 20%, which means there would have to be an awfully lot of new casino players (many more than projected) to even offset the losses to our state lottery, projected to be roughly 10%, should a casino come in and cannibalize that income.
<
p>The thing is… there is no way casinos will be a ‘net plus’ for us in terms of revenue. None. This is why none of the “Big Three” on Beacon Hill are willing to fund a study that looks at the costs. They, themselves, don’t even want to know the full costs — never mind let the public know it, too.
I asked my 30 something daughter what she thought about the Casino issue. Her response: Why casinos? Can’t they get IKEA to set up shop. They have what people need and want and can hire a lot of people. Hmmmm
In the past decade I’ve dropped a couple thousand at the Stoughton, Mass. IKEA (and it’s not even my decorating style) and $zero at any casino, anywhere. It’s always packed, no matter what time of day it is, with an employee at every turn. You can take your kids (despite it’s lack of a Titanic exhibit) and even get a decent meal there. If you leave and drive a 1/4 mile down the road, you can check out Jordon’s Furniture, where you can gamble that the Red Sox will hit a spot on a wall in Fenway Park on a certain date and potentially win a free sofa, and then take the kids on MOM (the motion odyssey movie ride – $6)or see a $5 laser light show. You may not get a free drink, but if you buy something, there’s a good chance you’ll take home a “free” LED 60″ HDTV and Blueray DVD player. And while you may develop an addiction to plush leather recliners along the way, it’s doubtful you’ll empty the kid’s college account so you can go back for more.