Disclaimer Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 Basically -- it taxes this casino at 'x' percent, unless a competitor casino moves in.If a competitor moves in, then the orig. casino is taxed equal to or lesser than the competitor. Seems reasonable until you realize a competitor could be an Indian casino which is assessed 0% taxes, thus dropping the effective rate of the orig. casino to 0, which negates all the "goodness" of having a casino support things with tax money - though I suppose having a casino still creates a bunch of low wage jobs.http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ohio_Issue_6_(2008) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 So the "loophole" is in the event an indian casino opens in Ohio? So first the government would have to approve federal indian lands in Ohio and then they would have to build a casino. That is also forgetting that there are other taxes like sales and income taxes that will be injected as well.The "loophole" sounds like a bit of a stretch that could be closed even after the amendment is passed if need be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 Yes, but there is pending litigation from the Shawnee tribe to get Ohio lands, so that's already in process.Then, if the original casino is already approved, then the door's already open for the Indian casino.Per the linkArguments For: It would bring 5,000 jobs to Ohio. As the economy is declining, proponents of Issue 6 are making this a main focus of their campaign.[8] The casino would generate $800 million a year in revenue, with $240 million to be split among Ohio counties based on population.[9] Ohioans who currently leave the state to gamble at casinos in other states, such as the Argosy Casino in Indianan, 30 miles from downtown Cincinnati, will instead stay in Ohio to gamble.Arguments Against: It is a $1 billion give-away to a private casino company; if there is to be another casino, the state of Ohio could sell the right to open one for up to $1 billion.[15] The proposal would give a monopoly on casino gambling to one company, and the casino would pay virtually nothing under the proposal to the state of Ohio for the privilege. Some states have charged in the hundreds of millions for extending a similar privilege to casinos. The claim that it would bring crime and cause families to lose money they need for basic household expenses.[16] The wording of the initiative allows loopholes for more than one casino to be built in the state by Indian tribes. Opponents argue the measure would provide a boost to an Oklahoma-based Indian tribe that's been struggling for years to win federal approval to open one or more casinos in Ohio. If the Eastern Shawnee tribe succeeds, the wording of Issue 6 would allow the operators of the Clinton County casino to lower their tax rate from the 30 percent in the ballot measure to as little as zero. "It causes tremendous concern in the community and generates a tremendous need for social services that need to be provided." "If Indian casinos locate in Ohio and are taxed at the federal rate of zero, I think under terms of the amendment, the tax rate on the casino would drop to zero and the counties would get nothing," said D. Michael Grodhaus, attorney for the Vote No Casinos group.[17] The UNITE Here union believes the new casino would be non-union and that the jobs would not pay as well as its supporters have been saying.And it's pretty much been shot down by all the major newspapers Editorial boards opposed The Ohio Vindicator is opposed to Issue 6, saying, "We remain convinced that regardless of the additional tax revenue promised by casino operators, the social costs of gambling are, in the end, higher. Casino gambling is the biggest redistribution of wealth scheme ever invented; it takes from the poor and gives to the rich."[20] The Cleveland Plain Dealer is opposed to Issue 6 saying, "[E]ven if the [tax] estimate is solid (foes say it can't be), that's just 5 cents a day per resident. If that's a windfall, ping-pong balls are hailstones... For Greater Clevelanders, Issue 6 may offer a marginal upside -- additional cash for Cuyahoga County's government. But it also offers a major downside -- geography. A casino 200 miles from Cleveland won't stanch the flow to Detroit and Erie of Greater Cleveland entertainment dollars. The Plain Dealer recommends a "no" vote on Issue 6."[21] The Zanesville Times Recorder is opposed, saying, "The only way to keep the house from winning your money is not to play. Any initiative written by gaming interests is a bad bet for Ohio."[22] The Toledo Blade is opposed, saying that a gambling casino monopoly should not be enshrined in Ohio's Constitution. "Ohio's economy cannot be rebuilt by taking advantage of human frailty, only by encouraging industries that create good jobs producing beneficial products. And its Constitution should not be cluttered with special-interest provisions."[23] The Chilliclothe Gazette is opposed, saying, "...the current ballot issue is too risky - one our state shouldn't take.[24] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putty Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 I voted Yes on 6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 yeah I already read that site and Newspapers are just businesses so their "opinions" don't mean much to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.