State Treasurer Tom Cahill has proposed allowing slot machines to help the state with is budget deficit. The gambling machines would raise revenue in licensing and taxes. He then went on to advocate for privatizing the lottery. See this post on the Blue Mass Group about the proposal.
I personally am opposed to gambling and ...
...wish the state would get rid of the lottery. The benefits of this gambling are easily measured in the budget but I think the costs are not that easy to quantify. I believe that if the costs could be measured accurately, they would outweigh the benefits. What do you think about the state running or licensing gambling operations
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Slots and privatized lottery
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Its simply a tax on the stupid. The people who pay are the ones who can least afford it generally.Thats why those little stores in the lower income areas are exploding with lottery tickets and keno and numbers and we have very few casinos. I dont have a problem with casino's. you go see a show gamble alittle(within reason)maybe eat then you go home. you dont do it every week. The lottery is a daily thing
While I'm not a gambler myself, I have no moral problem with gambling.
What I do have a problem with is the state licensing monopolies. What this stuff is about, is big private companies getting contracts. If I own a store or bar, why can't I throw a few slots in there to increase revenue? Maybe run some poker games out of my basement? Is your average Joe taxpayer going to be able to apply for a gaming license? Who decides what cities or towns get the casino? I've heard a lot of talk about Middleboro getting a casino. I wonder how the people in Carver or Lakeville feel about that?
In the end I don't believe there is any big benefit to the state and energies could be used better to develop other income resources. I don't support an expansion of gambling in MA.
I think RI gov Carcieri got it right when he discussed why he can't see big time gambling as the answer for state's budget problems. Every state in the region is looking to get at least 1 if not more big time casinos in their staes. Once each state gets its gaming parlours the money that gets sent to each state will be the money from it's own citizens - there will be no money generated by these things. CT as the first staet into this in the NE has been doing well but their days are numbered. They were first in so they reaped the benefits of draining out of state people's money. They captured countless billions from out of state gamblers.
Betting on casinos to save us is a fool's bet at best. And it has nothing to do with morals one way or another.
No to casinos. If the economy is so bad, who are these people who will be going to casinos anyway?
Slots are the same thing...not good for us in the long run.
The casinos in Conn. have done well for the casinos. Ask the surrounding residents how they feel about them. The casino employees are taxing their communities. They use services such as the schools and hospitals but they don't contribute financially to the communities and for the most part receive free medical care. It is not a good situation and I do not want to see casinos in MA. I am not a big fan of slots or the lottery either. I think they prey on the poor.
I did some research on the casinos in Conn. The local rest. suffered, infrastructure suffered, traffic jams, accidents etc, police calls increased, EMT and 911 calls increased. People would actually leave children locked in their cars so they could go in to the casino for a few hours! People go to the casino and then go home. It does NOTHING for the area. Maybe gas stations in the area did okay.
For the most part, it has not helped the economy in Conn. Just more people spending money they don't have.
Post a Comment