Thread Rating:

rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 158
  • Posts: 8996
March 13th, 2010 at 6:52:24 PM permalink
Well, I live in Vegas so I'm interested in that in particular. I suppose it is a complicated question. If casinos are taxed more, would it work against their business and actually be bad for the local area because they bring in less? On the other hand, extra profits from very low taxes could just end up funding new casinos in China, or elsewhere.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 217
  • Posts: 10983
March 15th, 2010 at 8:03:25 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Well, I live in Vegas so I'm interested in that in particular. I suppose it is a complicated question. If casinos are taxed more, would it work against their business and actually be bad for the local area because they bring in less? On the other hand, extra profits from very low taxes could just end up funding new casinos in China, or elsewhere.



If you raise the cost of something you get less of it. Taxes are a cost. Raise the tax on casinos in NV and they will surely start to build elsewhere. Keep taxes lower and you will get better casinos, better game rules, and more employment in the industry.
Tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing
cardshark
cardshark
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 239
March 15th, 2010 at 8:14:47 AM permalink
Better yet, have governments and charities (worthwhile charities!) be the only ones allowed to run casinos. Use the profits to fund public works projects like building bridges, schools and hospitals, hosting the Olympics or funding cancer research.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 217
  • Posts: 10983
March 15th, 2010 at 9:02:58 AM permalink
Quote: cardshark

Better yet, have governments and charities (worthwhile charities!) be the only ones allowed to run casinos. Use the profits to fund public works projects like building bridges, schools and hospitals, hosting the Olympics or funding cancer research.



That didn't work in the USSR and won't work here. Unless you want your casino to be like the DMV or Post Office.

There is nothing wrong with profit.
Tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5988
March 15th, 2010 at 9:34:06 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: cardshark

Better yet, have governments and charities (worthwhile charities!) be the only ones allowed to run casinos. Use the profits to fund public works projects like building bridges, schools and hospitals, hosting the Olympics or funding cancer research.



That didn't work in the USSR and won't work here. Unless you want your casino to be like the DMV or Post Office.

There is nothing wrong with profit.



That's funny. The Ontario government run casinos are exactly like the Post Office. I pay them $5 in cash and I get this funny red thing that I can only use there. Once I left the casino, I tried to give the red thing to someone at the 7-11 for a Slurpee and they just looked at me strange.

But seriously, the government does run six casinos and another twelve slots only facilities here in Ontario and they are quite successful. They all have Player's Card programs. No you can't smoke in them (there's smoking sections outside) and you have to pay for drinks, and they cut you off when you're too drunk. Employees are unionized and get paid salary and split tips among themselves. They are generally happy.

There is nothing wrong with profit, but here, I like my slot revenues and losings to go to back to the local governments who host the casino and charities.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
Doc
Doc
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
  • Threads: 45
  • Posts: 6873
March 15th, 2010 at 10:03:48 AM permalink
I have played in the two casinos in Niagara Falls (plus up at Rama), and I like the way they work. However, the only government operated gambling I know in the US is the state lotteries, with ~50% "house" advantage. Not the way I would like to see a casino run.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 217
  • Posts: 10983
March 15th, 2010 at 10:23:55 AM permalink
Quote: boymimbo



But seriously, the government does run six casinos and another twelve slots only facilities here in Ontario and they are quite successful. They all have Player's Card programs. No you can't smoke in them (there's smoking sections outside) and you have to pay for drinks, and they cut you off when you're too drunk. Employees are unionized and get paid salary and split tips among themselves. They are generally happy.

There is nothing wrong with profit, but here, I like my slot revenues and losings to go to back to the local governments who host the casino and charities.




So lets see. You have to pay for drinks. Would that be the case if there was actual competition going on? Unless the government outlawed free drinks some owner would go for that advantage. As a nonsmoker I like smokefree, but a smart owner would put in a smoking section as there seems to be a number of smokers who gamble hard and fast. Simply put, it is less choice.

You are clearly free to your opinion, but please realize what you are advocating is socialism. And socialism will always lead to less choice, higher prices, lower service levels, or some combination of the above.

As for myself, keep the government out except to see the regulations are followed. And keep the tax rate as low as possible. The casino owner can't give me as good of a value if the government is ahead of him in line at the count room.
Tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing
cardshark
cardshark
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 239
March 15th, 2010 at 10:46:31 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: boymimbo



But seriously, the government does run six casinos and another twelve slots only facilities here in Ontario and they are quite successful. They all have Player's Card programs. No you can't smoke in them (there's smoking sections outside) and you have to pay for drinks, and they cut you off when you're too drunk. Employees are unionized and get paid salary and split tips among themselves. They are generally happy.

There is nothing wrong with profit, but here, I like my slot revenues and losings to go to back to the local governments who host the casino and charities.




So lets see. You have to pay for drinks. Would that be the case if there was actual competition going on? Unless the government outlawed free drinks some owner would go for that advantage. As a nonsmoker I like smokefree, but a smart owner would put in a smoking section as there seems to be a number of smokers who gamble hard and fast. Simply put, it is less choice.

You are clearly free to your opinion, but please realize what you are advocating is socialism. And socialism will always lead to less choice, higher prices, lower service levels, or some combination of the above.

As for myself, keep the government out except to see the regulations are followed. And keep the tax rate as low as possible. The casino owner can't give me as good of a value if the government is ahead of him in line at the count room.



I'm not going to get into a political debate on this, but I just wanted to point out two things regarding Ontario and its government and charity only casinos:

-Smoking is banned in Ontario casinos, but not because of a casino management decision. Smoking is banned by law EVERYWHERE in Canada that is a public space (this includes all workplaces, shopping malls, restaurants and even outdoor patios).

-Giving out free alcohol has also been banned by the government of Ontario. It was a not a decision made to sap more money out of casino players. That law banning giving out alcohol for free was established before the first casino opened in Canada.

The casinos in Ontario operate very similarly to those in Vegas and the USA, other than the above. There is even competition in some areas, such as Niagara Falls and Windsor, which have multiple casinos competing against each other. Not to mention the competition they face from casinos on the other side of the border in Detroit, Upstate New York and Québec.

Rules are very comparable and sometimes better than what you'll find in most (non-Vegas) casinos.
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5988
March 15th, 2010 at 10:58:57 AM permalink
Quote: cardshark

Quote: AZDuffman

So lets see. You have to pay for drinks. Would that be the case if there was actual competition going on? Unless the government outlawed free drinks some owner would go for that advantage. As a nonsmoker I like smokefree, but a smart owner would put in a smoking section as there seems to be a number of smokers who gamble hard and fast. Simply put, it is less choice.

You are clearly free to your opinion, but please realize what you are advocating is socialism. And socialism will always lead to less choice, higher prices, lower service levels, or some combination of the above.

As for myself, keep the government out except to see the regulations are followed. And keep the tax rate as low as possible. The casino owner can't give me as good of a value if the government is ahead of him in line at the count room.



I'm not going to get into a political debate on this, but I just wanted to point out two things regarding Ontario and its government and charity only casinos:

-Smoking is banned in Ontario casinos, but not because of a casino management decision. Smoking is banned by law EVERYWHERE in Canada that is a public space (this includes all workplaces, shopping malls, restaurants and even outdoor patios).

-Giving out free alcohol has also been banned by the government of Ontario. It was a not a decision made to sap more money out of casino players. That law banning giving out alcohol for free was established before the first casino opened in Canada.

The casinos in Ontario operate very similarly to those in Vegas and the USA, other than the above. There is even competition in some areas, such as Niagara Falls and Windsor, which have multiple casinos competing against each other. Not to mention the competition they face from casinos on the other side of the border in Detroit, Upstate New York and Québec.

Rules are very comparable and sometimes better than what you'll find in most (non-Vegas) casinos.



Not to contradict myself, but the Casinos in Niagara Falls (2 of them), Windsor, and Rama are privately held and pay a licensing fee to the government similar to a tax structure in the states. That said, the government run casinos offer pretty much all of the games that the "big 4" do. The casino in Niagara Falls is unionized -- not sure about the one in Rama or in Windsor (which is operated by Harrahs).

I do advocate socialism. And so do most Americans without realizing it: the postal service, the Military, Medicare, Social Security are all representations of socialism, all subsidized and paid for by the taxpayer. Certainly on the health care debate I think everyone should have health care as a basic right. I don't have a problem here with the way the government has advocated gambling as it keeps them from raising the Provincial tax rate.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
March 15th, 2010 at 11:19:49 AM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

I do advocate socialism. And so do most Americans without realizing it: the postal service, the Military, Medicare, Social Security are all representations of socialism, all subsidized and paid for by the taxpayer.



You're wrong about the military (and the courts and police, which you left out). The purpose of a government in a free state is to secure and protect individual rigths. That is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and it's the rationale for the US Constitution ("To secure the blessings of liberty"). And for that you need the courts and the police for protection against internal threats, and the armed forces against external ones.

In a free state the government has a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. Not all force, just that used in retaliation for a wrongful act. Thus you can use force in self defense or ind efense of a third party, but only when there's imminent danger. Once the danger has passed, you cannot arrest someone and punish him, no matter what wrong he may have done you. Thats' the government's role.

The reason for a monopoly on such kind of force is self-evident: to avoid all sorts of injustice and strife. That's why the government has limitations placed upoin itself to excercise the use of force (such as rules of evidence, limited powers for search and seizure, etc), and why it has to convict a criminal before any kind of punishment and/or reparations are imposed on him.

So there's nothing at all socialistic about the military, the police and the courts.

As to the post office, it would go broke in weeks if any kind of free competition were allowed. I'll be charitable and say maybe it was needed as a part of government when transportation between cities, and even within cities, was slow, sporadic and expensive. But it's not needed now.

Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are doing a fine job of pushing up the national debt and bankrupting the country.

Quote: boymimbo

Certainly on the health care debate I think everyone should have health care as a basic right.



This isn't the place for a debate on the issue. So I'll just say this: what right have you to the labor of anyone at all?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal

  • Jump to: