Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 29 Jun '09 19:24
    Just out of curiosity, who favors the state sponsering gambling to help pay off deficits. I have seen several states turn to gambling to help there economic woes. So what do you all think, is it beneficial or detrimental to society?
  2. 29 Jun '09 19:26
    Originally posted by whodey
    Just out of curiosity, who favors the state sponsering gambling to help pay off deficits. I have seen several states turn to gambling to help there economic woes. So what do you all think, is it beneficial or detrimental to society?
    It is detrimental.clearly too many minorities would be gambling and it would be rigged so only they would loose and only white men would win
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    29 Jun '09 19:34
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    It is detrimental.clearly too many minorities would be gambling and it would be rigged so only they would loose and only white men would win
    Someone's on a new idiotic kick.
  4. 29 Jun '09 19:46
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    It is detrimental.clearly too many minorities would be gambling and it would be rigged so only they would loose and only white men would win
    well - actually - in many states, gambling is rigged so that only Native Americans can run casinos
  5. Standard member DrKF
    incipit parodia
    29 Jun '09 19:46
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    It is detrimental.clearly too many minorities would be gambling and it would be rigged so only they would loose and only white men would win
    Step away from your computer. Get some fresh air, have something to eat. Maybe some sleep?
  6. 29 Jun '09 19:54
    Originally posted by whodey
    Just out of curiosity, who favors the state sponsering gambling to help pay off deficits. I have seen several states turn to gambling to help there economic woes. So what do you all think, is it beneficial or detrimental to society?
    State run gambling could be looked at as a tax of the poor (as it tends to be the poor that gamble on such things as loteries or at least a higher proportion of thier income). Also since a proportion is paid out as winnings it is not as effective as a flat out tax. It may be more popular than a tax as it is optional. It also must double the costs to collect it as you have two tax systems running. Apart from all that, it won't solve anything that tax wont solve, so why not tax?
  7. Standard member StTito
    The Mullverine
    29 Jun '09 20:25
    When I go to the casinos I see a mix of incomes and in the NW of the US there are many casinos within a short driving distance. The machines in the bars however tend to be mid to lower class incomes. The state where it is out of hand is Montana. Every 7-11, laundramat, and hardware store has a mini casino on their property. Montana was so desperate and in such bad economic straits that they let the gambling industry run rampant. Some small towns in Colorado seem to have followed suit, and Nevada, well how else are you going to make money in the middle of the desert? I think, like all addictive practices, it should be regulated so people do it in some form of moderation, and if some revenue comes from it then fine.
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    29 Jun '09 22:56
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    State run gambling could be looked at as a tax of the poor (as it tends to be the poor that gamble on such things as loteries or at least a higher proportion of thier income). Also since a proportion is paid out as winnings it is not as effective as a flat out tax. It may be more popular than a tax as it is optional. It also must double the costs to colle ...[text shortened]... tems running. Apart from all that, it won't solve anything that tax wont solve, so why not tax?
    Losing money gambling is not a tax. It's a choice. You don't have to gamble. Losing money gambling is not being "taxed" out of that money. It's just losing that money because you're stupid. Of course, if you can afford it and you're doing it for fun, then it's not stupid, it's just expensive entertainment. Either way, to call it a tax of the poor is class-baiting nonsense.

    Why not just tax? Because if gambling raises the same revenue as a given tax, then it's being raised strictly from people who can afford it or people who are too stupid to avoid gambling away money that they can't afford to gamble away. Also because, for reasons that completely escapes me, some people consider it fun. I've rarely heard people calling paying taxes fun. Also, gambling helps support other businesses in the area and can help an area's economy in many such hidden ways.

    Mind you, I'm not in favor of legalizing gambling. Certainly not in my neighborhood, anyway.
  9. 29 Jun '09 23:03
    Originally posted by sh76
    Losing money gambling is not a tax. It's a choice. You don't have to gamble. Losing money gambling is not being "taxed" out of that money. It's just losing that money because you're stupid. Of course, if you can afford it and you're doing it for fun, then it's not stupid, it's just expensive entertainment. Either way, to call it a tax of the poor is class-baiti ...[text shortened]... I'm not in favor of legalizing gambling. Certainly not in my neighborhood, anyway.
    If you are court ordered to maintain health insurance, you are forced to gamble.
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    29 Jun '09 23:07
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    If you are court ordered to maintain health insurance, you are forced to gamble.
    Do I need to point out the differences between paying for your own potential health care and putting a dollar in a slot machine?

    Really; do I?
  11. 29 Jun '09 23:12
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    State run gambling could be looked at as a tax of the poor (as it tends to be the poor that gamble on such things as loteries or at least a higher proportion of thier income). Also since a proportion is paid out as winnings it is not as effective as a flat out tax. It may be more popular than a tax as it is optional. It also must double the costs to colle ...[text shortened]... tems running. Apart from all that, it won't solve anything that tax wont solve, so why not tax?
    rich people probably gamble just as much as the poor

    but rich people do their gambling on the stock market (especially the ones that make trades multiple times per day).....or they buy a lot of houses, expecting the price to keep going up and...
  12. 30 Jun '09 02:27
    Originally posted by sh76
    [b]Losing money gambling is not a tax. It's a choice. You don't have to gamble. Losing money gambling is not being "taxed" out of that money. It's just losing that money because you're stupid. Of course, if you can afford it and you're doing it for fun, then it's not stupid, it's just expensive entertainment. Either way, to call it a tax of the poor is class-baiting nonsense.
    You could say that gambling is a voluntary tax, however, if one is addicted is it still voluntary?
  13. 30 Jun '09 02:30
    Originally posted by sh76
    Do I need to point out the differences between paying for your own potential health care and putting a dollar in a slot machine?

    Really; do I?
    Are you saying insurance is not a form of gambling?
  14. 30 Jun '09 07:55
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    State run gambling could be looked at as a tax of the poor (as it tends to be the poor that gamble on such things as loteries or at least a higher proportion of thier income). Also since a proportion is paid out as winnings it is not as effective as a flat out tax. It may be more popular than a tax as it is optional. It also must double the costs to colle ...[text shortened]... tems running. Apart from all that, it won't solve anything that tax wont solve, so why not tax?
    the lottery system is likely to be a LOT more efficient than the state income tax system.

    they should convert the tax system to be like the lottery system!

    mongolia had a good shot but don't know that it came of anything. an electronic monetary system. everybody with debit/credit cards, or something like that.

    the govt could shave off its cut at the point of sale.
  15. 30 Jun '09 10:54
    Originally posted by sh76
    Why not just tax? Because if gambling raises the same revenue as a given tax, then it's being raised strictly from people who can afford it or people who are too stupid to avoid gambling away money that they can't afford to gamble away. Also because, for reasons that completely escapes me, some people consider it fun. I've rarely heard people calling paying taxes ...[text shortened]... ind you, I'm not in favor of legalizing gambling. Certainly not in my neighborhood, anyway.[/b]
    Why not tax? It is because people don't like to here the word tax. Of course, they insist on Big Brother paying for everything for them, but they certainly don't like the "T" word. I think preying on the poor with gambling is much more preferable to people than paying taxes.