Gambling would be a new STATE bureaucracy

[Ruger Mason]

Jane,

Most people here are probably of the viewpoint that it is better for the state steal from gamblers than it is to incarcerate them.  And if some bureaucrats do shady things with that money, so what?  Maybe a few of them will end up in jail.  I just don't think you're going to get much traction for your anti-gambling crusade here.

Incarcerate? I don't think that is what this is about. I don't know of anyone who's been arrested for gambling lately do you? That part of it never entered mymind. As always I think it's about money and who controls that money.

Are you telling me if I open a slot machine parlor I won't be arrested?

The state will just act as if it were the mafia in the whole situation.

The state already does.  If I open a slot machine parlor today, the state's mafia will surely come for me.

To me I guess it means enabling bigger government and I'm just surprised so many of you would not see it that way.

That certainly is a concern, but a minor one in my view.

[CNHT]

Someone else explained it this way:

"The introduction of gambling into NH is a ploy by the statists to grow government by
showering it with more money. The gambling money won't replace any
taxes, it will merely work to enlarge an already far too large state
government."

With that I agree.

"...Anyone should be able and allowed to gamble
in any way they want; that's the way of individual freedom. In this
case, if the corporate "profits tax" was abolished, and other taxes
were abolished or reduced, dollar for dollar (or better yet, two
dollars of tax reduction for every dollar brought in by gambling),
then it would be great, and we could hardly object to it.

Unfortunately, the problem, as everyone on this list knows, is that
the forces arguing in favor of gambling and the money it would bring
in are doing so because they want state government to grow
ever-larger. Thus, I think the correct position for all of us in this
case is to oppose gambling that is controlled or taxed by government,
unless other taxes are reduced by at least one dollar for each dollar
brought in. And that would have to be etched in steel, as we know how
state-worshippers lie in order to grow their beloved governments."


So I guess it boils down to -- if you trust the government to do the right thing with the extra money it steals from  you, then support STATE RUN GAMBLING.

I don't trust the government, as shown by the studies of Conn and New Jersey which both have gambling but also STILL have high sales, income and property taxes.

[Quantrill]

I don't like most of the points in that article.  I'll speak on this one:

Damage our state?s growing economy.  Industry proposals are for convenience (local customer) casinos, because the New Hampshire market is too small for Las Vegas-type destination-resort casinos.  Because most casino patrons live nearby, convenience casinos would drain revenue from existing New Hampshire businesses, such as restaurants, hospitality, theaters and auto dealers.  Loss of revenue by these businesses is not voluntary.

Does this mean that people shouldn't be free to choose whether they want to go to theaters, restaurants, etc... or to a casino?  It's my money, if I want to gamble, why should it matter what I do with it?  Every new  business potentially takes money from another.  When I get to NH I'll probably get season tix to the Manchester Monarchs if possible.  Sure I could spend this money on restaurants or theaters or auto dealers but it's my own money.  Small businesses may suffer, but such is Capitalism.  I try to spend money at "mom and pop" stores when possible but it wouldn't be right to disallow a big company from opening just because other stores may suffer.  Competition is a good thing.


As far as the state being in control, yeah it sucks.  Here in Missouri there are all kinds of things that go on (you're only allowed to spend $500 every few hours, so you don't lose "too much".  Hey if I'm dumb enough to lose my whole paycheck that should be my decision).  Is the state spending the money how they're supposed to?  Not likely.

The pros about legalized gambling in NH - MORE JOBS.  There could be a couple hundred people at a decent sized casino.  That's a very good thing, economically speaking.  REVENUE FROM OTHER STATES.  Even if the casinos are not large, if they are strategically-placed then visitors will come from MA, VT, ME and possibly Canada.  NIGHTLIFE.  A casino is something to do, and being relatively young I'm all for having as many sources of entertainment as possible.  I could see a PORC night where a bunch of us get together and hang out, discuss politics and throw money away.  Aren't many of the current meetings in pizza parlors or diners?  A casino would be a more entertaining option.  PROFESSIONAL GAMBLERS.  It's possible to make money at casinos if you know what you're doing.  For those looking for income without needing a SSN, this would be an option.

The cons about legalized gambling in NH - REVENUE LEAVING THE STATE.  Just as casinos would bring in money from visitors of other states, it's a virtual certainty that the owners of these casinos would not live in NH.  Thus the guys making millions per year would probably not be spending much of that money in state.  MORE BUREACRACY.  By and large state committees overseeing gambling are crooked as hell.  They would do their best to make things difficult.  MORE TAX DOLLARS FOR THE STATE.  While most of us would like to "starve the beast" so to speak, the millions of additional dollars in state money would only fuel the desire for more.  We would have to work very diligently to ensure they don't mismanage the money (of course they will anyway).

Overall, I'm in favor of legalized gambling in NH.  While I wouldn't be a fan of the state-sanctioned oversight I think it would be good economically for the state.  And don't forget that it MAY be possible for Lion's clubs, bars etc... to have slot machines or blackjack tables if enough people speak up.  If gambling is legalized that doesn't necessarily mean that only the big-name casinos would be allowed.  It's likely but not guranteed.  This would all have to be negotiated in advance...

[CNHT]

Some of his excuses are lame I admit. But Ed could talk more about what it would do to our legislature when it creates this huge government run business with the bureacracy to go with it.

Most people do not realize this is just not a decrim of gambling but creating a STATE MONOPOLY.

[LiveFree]

First post on here, yay!

Anyways, I'd have to agree with the argument that it would only go to create bigger government.  I still think that government has a place in public education (only if it's done properly, though, I have some major beefs w/ it right now) and roads (NH does a pretty good job in this area) and would like to think that any revenue generated from gambling would go towards these, or even help reduce other taxes.

But realistically, I can't see this happening.  What I CAN see if the state were to monopolize gambling is some CROOKED people being involved, more funding going towards things like police (it'd make a lot of politicians appear better for the moral crusader crowd), crap like that.

[error]

First post on here, yay!

Welcome!

Anyways, I'd have to agree with the argument that it would only go to create bigger government.  I still think that government has a place in public education (only if it's done properly, though, I have some major beefs w/ it right now) and roads (NH does a pretty good job in this area) and would like to think that any revenue generated from gambling would go towards these, or even help reduce other taxes.

Don't worry, you'll lose those misconceptions pretty fast.

[LiveFree]

First post on here, yay!

Welcome!

Anyways, I'd have to agree with the argument that it would only go to create bigger government.  I still think that government has a place in public education (only if it's done properly, though, I have some major beefs w/ it right now) and roads (NH does a pretty good job in this area) and would like to think that any revenue generated from gambling would go towards these, or even help reduce other taxes.

Don't worry, you'll lose those misconceptions pretty fast.

Thanks for the welcome.  And I'm willing to see some arguments in PM form.

[lildog]

Someone else explained it this way:

"The introduction of gambling into NH is a ploy by the statists to grow government by
showering it with more money. The gambling money won't replace any
taxes, it will merely work to enlarge an already far too large state
government."

I've seen that many times over with local government.  If it's "self funded" people look at that as an excuse to ignore any spending on it.  It's like the money comes from somewhere.

What is the point to government creating a new branch (the gaming commission or whatever) to cover this if they use 100% of the new funds they bring it.  It would be like creating government for the sake of creating government.

And with them controlling any gambling you wouldn't see true gaming, you'd see government gaming which you know being the nature of what government is they would screw up somehow.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Gaming experts plan the casinos.  The government doesn't.  You get all the forms of gambling you get anywhere else.  Why not create a bureaucracy that is planned to 'sunset' after the casinos are running for a few years, if they can't prove the casinos can't police themselves.

[eques]

Gaming experts plan the casinos.  The government doesn't.  You get all the forms of gambling you get anywhere else.  Why not create a bureaucracy that is planned to 'sunset' after the casinos are running for a few years, if they can't prove the casinos can't police themselves.

Hopefully it's different in New Hampshire than elsewhere (and federally), but how can you guarantee that the bureaucracy will go away once it's created, even if it has a "sunset" clause?

[Lloyd Danforth]

Thousands of people moving to one state and initiating change has never happened before, either.

[CNHT]

Gaming experts plan the casinos.  The government doesn't.  You get all the forms of gambling you get anywhere else.  Why not create a bureaucracy that is planned to 'sunset' after the casinos are running for a few years, if they can't prove the casinos can't police themselves.

Like other gov't boondoggles, I doubt it would ever go away.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Try a little imagination, Jane.  I'm sure people have told you that you won't get anywhere because thing will always be as they have been.

The next state in New England to allow casinos anywheres near an interstate highway is going to be a Big winner. 

Bureaucracy or not.

[CNHT]

Try a little imagination, Jane.  I'm sure people have told you that you won't get anywhere because thing will always be as they have been.

The next state in New England to allow casinos anywheres near an interstate highway is going to be a Big winner. 

Bureaucracy or not.

I don't care to feed bigger government. It will just reinforce public education, etc. Is that what you want?

[eques]

Thousands of people moving to one state and initiating change has never happened before, either.

I had a thought (I get those every so often).

A good way to structure such a bureaucracy would be to make it so that people aren't able to depend on it for their income.

Seems we have a model for that already, no?