Casinos in Ohio - Issue 3 - How are you voting?

[rick37]

I am a gambler but I have yet to read the proposal, If it is giving a company a monopoly as far as they are the only ones allowed to have casinos in ohio then I will vote no but if it is opening the door to having different companies to build as they wish then yes.There are few questions left unanswered that need answered

[jj1]

I am a gambler but I have yet to read the proposal, If it is giving a company a monopoly as far as they are the only ones allowed to have casinos in ohio then I will vote no but if it is opening the door to having different companies to build as they wish then yes.There are few questions left unanswered that need answered

The current proposal only allows for 4 total, Clvland, Cbus, Cinci, Toledo...

after reading a few more of the articles that casper posted about the tax rate, I feel better.... But the question does remain... Y only 4??

[jporter12]

No.

[Disclaimer]

For the regional monopoly they do get, the tax rate should be higher than 33%... just saying.

I'm still undecided.

[Likwid]

The current proposal only allows for 4 total, Clvland, Cbus, Cinci, Toledo...

after reading a few more of the articles that casper posted about the tax rate, I feel better.... But the question does remain... Y only 4??

My best guess is to avoid everyone freaking out and thinking there are going to be "Casinos on every street corner"

[Ruffryder63]

I'm not a gambler, but why let all that tax money go to bordering states?

I'm rather shocked it hasn't passed before?

[fusion]

My best guess is to avoid everyone freaking out and thinking there are going to be "Casinos on every street corner"

Similar to what I was thinking. This actually limits the locations to larger population centers in Ohio.

[chandu_732]

Yes..

Reason1: Anyways I'll loose money at the casino. Atleast I'll save on gas

Reason2: Boost the economy in the state in the form of jobs, revenue etc

[Casper]

But the question does remain... Y only 4??

Michigan only has two. WV one. PA three I think. Four isn't a low number really, but they did it right. One per metropolitan area.

[buildit]

I'll vote No, it appears to me that the State of Ohio is a failure in many ways when it comes to use of tax revenue from the already existing lottery. Million of dollars ment for schools are wasted on a bureaucracy that is wastefull and self perpetuating. Aside from that I have little faith in the ability of casinos in Ohio to create half the permanent jobs they predict and will more likely result in far more government involvement and money. In effect I see the result being far from the wonderfull money maker our politicians envision.

The Indianapolis Star

Addicted to gambling revenue

Indiana isn't the only state suddenly losing its bet on pumping up revenue through gambling. The 12 states that push casinos on their residents and visitors suffered an 8.5 percent drop in revenue from those operations from 2008 to this year, according to a study by the Rockefeller Institute.

Statehouse powerbrokers for years viewed gambling as a painless way to generate more tax revenue. But with the market saturated and revenue evaporating, the shortsightedness of that position has been painfully exposed.

[Casper]

For the regional monopoly they do get, the tax rate should be higher than 33%... just saying.

I'm still undecided.

33% is high, 4th highest out of 13 I believe.

[Disclaimer]

Moral victory.

[Likwid]

I'll vote No, it appears to me that the State of Ohio is a failure in many ways when it comes to use of tax revenue from the already existing lottery. Million of dollars ment for schools are wasted on a bureaucracy that is wastefull and self perpetuating. Aside from that I have little faith in the ability of casinos in Ohio to create half the permanent jobs they predict and will more likely result in far more government involvement and money. In effect I see the result being far from the wonderfull money maker our politicians envision.

The Indianapolis Star

Addicted to gambling revenue

Indiana isn't the only state suddenly losing its bet on pumping up revenue through gambling. The 12 states that push casinos on their residents and visitors suffered an 8.5 percent drop in revenue from those operations from 2008 to this year, according to a study by the Rockefeller Institute.

Statehouse powerbrokers for years viewed gambling as a painless way to generate more tax revenue. But with the market saturated and revenue evaporating, the shortsightedness of that position has been painfully exposed.

But what you're missing on is the fact that SOME money is better than NO money.... voting no GUARANTEES the state doesn't get any money, voting yes means the state at least gets SOME money.

[scottb]

I will vote yes. I am not much of a gambler, but if the state has a chance to make some money,good for them. Plus IF I want to gamble, I wont have to drive out of state.

[Disclaimer]

I don't think the debate is "something better than nothing"

The debate is whether a 'flawed' policy should be implemented in the first place.

It's not fair to the casino owners to decide 3 years down the road to increase their tax rate because someone over/underestimated some figures.

I'd rather start high and move to low, than try to work the other way. I bet even at a 50% tax rate it'd still be profitable to own/operate a casino.

[gsxr750girl]

I'm voting yes, and I hope it passes! Cbrgirl and I need a closer place to go!

[buildit]

But what you're missing on is the fact that SOME money is better than NO money.... voting no GUARANTEES the state doesn't get any money, voting yes means the state at least gets SOME money.

Who is guaranteeing this? I have not seen any guarentees. If someone is guarenteeing this let them step forward now so they can be praised if it works or strung up like a convict if it fails.

Remember this is Ohio. We love the Buckeyes but God help them if they lose to Michigan because we'll set campus on fire!

[fusion]

I don't think the debate is "something better than nothing"

The debate is whether a 'flawed' policy should be implemented in the first place.

It's not fair to the casino owners to decide 3 years down the road to increase their tax rate because someone over/underestimated some figures.

I'd rather start high and move to low, than try to work the other way. I bet even at a 50% tax rate it'd still be profitable to own/operate a casino.

You don't honestly think that they would lower the taxes on the casino do you? At least not if it's not in the schedule to be done automatically. What other businesses pay a 50% tax rate on profits to the state?

[buildit]

You don't honestly think that they would lower the taxes on the casino do you? At least not if it's not in the schedule to be done automatically. What other businesses pay a 50% tax rate on profits to the state?

Tobacco?

[Disclaimer]

You don't honestly think that they would lower the taxes on the casino do you? At least not if it's not in the schedule to be done automatically. What other businesses pay a 50% tax rate on profits to the state?

As it's been said...some casino profit is better than no casino profit, eh?

50/50 still wouldn't be a bad split for an owner.

Make it a bidding process. Start at 50%, and if no one agrees to build one, lower it to 45%, and two guys might jump at the opportunity. Then, they're set at 45% rate. Then the rest of the casino owners can get no better rate than 45%. Unless it's put to a vote again.

Someone will cave and bite at a higher rate because the 'first mover' opportunity is a premium.

Edited October 8, 2009 by JRMMiii

[fusion]

Tobacco?

lol I guess that is true in some cases. $1.25 per pack or something if I remember right.

[wrillo]

But what you're missing on is the fact that SOME money is better than NO money.... voting no GUARANTEES the state doesn't get any money, voting yes means the state at least gets SOME money.

Going to plan devil's advocate for a minute. Why is the state getting money such a good thing? Its not like that money is going to any of us, so how do we know it won't just be pissed away? With these casinos we'll need more roads, more maintenance, more police, more more more. So how much money is left after we clean up the mess the casino brings in? Now we have a bigger, more costly government, and nothing in our pockets to show for it.

[buildit]

What happens if the casinos fail? Does the government step in and bail them out on our $$$ so they don't look like losers for backing them in the first place?

I find it very telling that the FOP backs the casinos since that is job security for them. Casinos would need to hire off duty police to patrol and guard the casinos from trouble, no?

[mello dude]

Voting Yes - I want some place closer to go play poker.

MD

[Likwid]

Going to plan devil's advocate for a minute. Why is the state getting money such a good thing? Its not like that money is going to any of us, so how do we know it won't just be pissed away? With these casinos we'll need more roads, more maintenance, more police, more more more. So how much money is left after we clean up the mess the casino brings in? Now we have a bigger, more costly government, and nothing in our pockets to show for it.

Definitely understand the thought there, but those are all what-ifs, we won't know until we try. Now, why would more roads, maintenance, and police be a bad thing.... I know why you're saying this, but those are all jobs...

Why should we wait for a PERFECT amendment? If they need to raise the taxes they can issue another amendment, this isn't in stone folks.

The guarantee is that they are GOING to build the casinos, which guarantee's construction, even if they outsourced the construction to 100% out of state work, the state of ohio still gets to tax the build and casino income.

If the casinos fail 100% than guess what, we still got the income, and now we have 4 very large/nice buildings that will become hotels, etc etc.... but that would take way more than 1-3 years.