Casper Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I'm voting yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FocusDave01 Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 def yes here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 A word or two on why (yes or no) would be helpful for the uninformed.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I'm voting for hookers and blow. This is Pedro and I approved this message. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kreator Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Yes, because the casino will be next to my work and they might offer free drinks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siggywiggy Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 i voted for it last year and will again. it will only help the local economy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FocusDave01 Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 yeah i feel it will help economy out here in ohio with jobs and what not...and it would be nice to not have to travel out of cbus to go to a casino... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 i'm leaning toward yes for a few reasons:- i have yet to see any compelling evidence that casinos attract or promote all the crime and negative elements the opposition claims (yes, crime goes up - that happens when there are simply more people in an area)- I don't believe the 'loophole' claims about cash-gambling being tax-free. 95% of casino games are chip or token driven. If they can get away without taxing slots, I don't really care...- the tax revenue should be a welcome addition to the state budget, even if it's not as high as the supporters project- 34,000 jobs is a good thing. What I would like to see is a breakdown of how many of those jobs are tied up in the construction of casinos, and how many of them are waged, how many are salaried, and at what approximate dollar amount. if it's 34,000 jobs, 80% of which are the 2-4 year construction of casinos... not such a fan. if it's 34,000 long-term job positions, for the life of the casino, i'm intrigued. if it's 34,000 jobs for hte life of the casino, but they're all making $7/hour without benefits or sick time, i'll drive to Windsor to gamble... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVTPilot Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Hell yes. Everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. There is a ton of taxable revenue that is lost each year over our borders or potential income that won't be realized until this happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jj1 Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I hate to say it but at this point I think I am going w/ NO.Reason being, if you look at the orginal TAX amount that the race track are going to have to pay for SLOTS!! it was like 50%The Casions are only having to pay 32%.... I dont see how that is fair to change that... if it is bout incoming revenue then why would you chage the casinos less? Most states chage 50-75%... why is the state offering it up so CHEAP if that want to make money?????I do agree that it would be beneficial and bring in Jobs and money..... but the diffrence in the tax rates bothers me...http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090917/EDIT03/909200314 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted October 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I hate to say it but at this point I think I am going w/ NO.Reason being, if you look at the orginal TAX amount that the race track are going to have to pay for SLOTS!! it was like 50%The Casions are only having to pay 32%.... I dont see how that is fair to change that... if it is bout incoming revenue then why would you chage the casinos less? Most states chage 50-75%... why is the state offering it up so CHEAP if that want to make money?????I do agree that it would be beneficial and bring in Jobs and money..... but the diffrence in the tax rates bothers me...http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090917/EDIT03/909200314You realize slots at the tracks and this casino issue are completely separate, right? Taxes weren't changed. They're unrelated. The slots at tracks was the governors own deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted October 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I hate to say it but at this point I think I am going w/ NO.Reason being, if you look at the orginal TAX amount that the race track are going to have to pay for SLOTS!! it was like 50%The Casions are only having to pay 32%.... I dont see how that is fair to change that... if it is bout incoming revenue then why would you chage the casinos less? Most states chage 50-75%... why is the state offering it up so CHEAP if that want to make money?????I do agree that it would be beneficial and bring in Jobs and money..... but the diffrence in the tax rates bothers me...http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090917/EDIT03/909200314Oh, and of course Cincinnati is against it. They have three huge river boat casinos that bring tourism and $$$$$. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jj1 Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 You realize slots at the tracks and this casino issue are completely separate, right? Taxes weren't changed. They're unrelated. The slots at tracks was the governors own deal.yes... but again... why is it that the state is charging the LOWEST precentage out of all states? And was on par for the slots. I guess I was unclear when I said changed.. I should have said DIffrent!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 yes... but again... why is it that the state is charging the LOWEST precentage out of all states? And was on par for the slots. I guess I was unclear when I said changed.. I should have said DIffrent!!You're right nothing is clearly better something and everybody loves paying higher taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I'm voting for hookers and blow. This is Pedro and I approved this message. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 what about the claim that there's some 'loophole' that allows out-of-state casino owners to not pay taxes on cash betting? wouldn't most slots qualify?not trying to argue a point - legitimately askign the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted October 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 yes... but again... why is it that the state is charging the LOWEST precentage out of all states? And was on par for the slots. I guess I was unclear when I said changed.. I should have said DIffrent!!Why does the state give tax abatements to businesses who move to Ohio? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted October 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 what about the claim that there's some 'loophole' that allows out-of-state casino owners to not pay taxes on cash betting? wouldn't most slots qualify?not trying to argue a point - legitimately askign the question.Slots don't give cash back. They give you tickets. Hence, there has been an exchange made so it's taxable. No cash gambling. Here's a good article:http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/08/26/copy/MONEY.ART_ART_08-26-09_B3_01ESIBF.html?sid=101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Here's the WV Code: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/Code.cfm?chap=29&art=25#25Here's the PA Code: http://www.pgcb.state.pa.us/files/legislation/Current_Statute_Title_4.pdfAlong with an additional Bill in 2006: http://www.pgcb.state.pa.us/files/legislation/Senate_Bill_862_-_November_1_2006.pdfHere's the MI Code: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/PA69_56070_7.pdfNow... whoever wants to look through all this mess and create a nice spreadsheet on the differences on each state as far as license fees, taxes, % tax distribution to what 'causes', etc, etc.... be my guest. And throw the Ohio proposal on there as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted October 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 http://www.columbusunderground.com/questions-answered-on-the-ohio-casino-proposal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted October 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Here's a good one about the tax rate: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/09/ohios_casinos_issue_may_hinge.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted October 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Here's the WV Code: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/Code.cfm?chap=29&art=25#25Here's the PA Code: http://www.pgcb.state.pa.us/files/legislation/Current_Statute_Title_4.pdfAlong with an additional Bill in 2006: http://www.pgcb.state.pa.us/files/legislation/Senate_Bill_862_-_November_1_2006.pdfHere's the MI Code: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/PA69_56070_7.pdfNow... whoever wants to look through all this mess and create a nice spreadsheet on the differences on each state as far as license fees, taxes, % tax distribution to what 'causes', etc, etc.... be my guest. And throw the Ohio proposal on there as well.Someone already compared PA and OH: http://glasscityjungle.com/wordpress/?p=9951 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessPratt Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost1888 Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Voting yes and wanting to play some Hold em' !!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted October 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 No.Why? 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.