 |
Hello, Everyone,
I am not sure if this is the best place to ask this, but I have been researching California Prop 94 to 97 for hours over the last few weeks, and have yet to come to a solid conclusion. If you're knowledgeable about this propositions, please do share the facts and your opinions.
Thank you,
Victor Ly
I'm not an expert or anything, but my understang is this:
Currently, the major native american casinos don't pay anything into the state's general fund. They give money to local government, poorer tribes, and special interests and are then able to keep leftover profits for themselvs.
If the props pass, the casinos will be able to have more slot machines (think rivalry with the largest in las vegas), which means way more money. And they will have to pay into the state's general fund, about 15% of what they make. Which is estimated to be about 4.3 BILLION dollars. The only argument I've heard against them was completely unconvincing. It said that 1) the casinos should have to pay 50% of their earnings into the state's general fund (even though they had already admitted that the 15% tax was already far higher than any other company's tax) and 2) it would be wrong to take money from the casino's profits because most of the profits they make are thanks to people with gambling addiction problem. Personally, I think it sounds like a great plan. And I've also heard from numerous sources that all of the commercials we've been seeing against the props are being paid for by Las Vegas casinos because they don't want rivalries.
If you believe that two wrongs makes one right, then a YES on Prop 94-97 is justified.
94, 95, 96, and 97 do this:
1. Require four tribes in California to increase the amount of revenue contribution to the state's General Fund from circa eight percent to up to 25%. The power to tax is the power to oppress when it is exercised to such extents. The people of California are forcing the tribes to give them up to 25 dollars of every hundred they earn.
2. Removes accountability on the Government's part to ensure fiscal responsibility. The Governor endorses the Propositions because he promised to close the budget deficit gap and has done the opposite: he has spent more than his predecessor. A YES would move the burden of the government to the Indian tribes.
3. Create dependency and justification on and for the Gambling Industry. Casinos can now say that the California is dependent on them to close the budget deficit gap. They can claim to benefit the economy, when they are actually creating problems for it.
They can also justify their existence based on the aforementioned reasons.
4. Increase the power of casinos to gain more money. Propositions 94 to 97 allow a total of 17,000 more slot machines for the casinos involved. These four propositions are actually a scheme used by the casinos to gain for revenues for themselves.
Clearly, Propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97 are not a viable option for making California's economy stabler, create a safer society by reducing gambling, and increasing government responsibility.
Yes they do. The propositions increase the amount paid.Quote:
Originally Posted by justcurious55
Up to 25%. An huge amount. Imagine if you had to pay up to 25% of your income.Quote:
And they will have to pay into the state's general fund, about 15% of what they make.
That argument was about increasing the tax from 8 to 50%, which is clearly not right. Increasing taxes is not right at all, therefore both the above (50% tax) and the propositions (25% tax) should not be passed.Quote:
The only argument I've heard against them was completely unconvincing. It said that 1) the casinos should have to pay 50% of their earnings into the state's general fund (even though they had already admitted that the 15% tax was already far higher than any other company's tax)
True, this is a very weak argument against the measures, however, it is wrong to force casinos to give up their profits. Casinos are no different from other private businesses.Quote:
2) it would be wrong to take money from the casino's profits because most of the profits they make are thanks to people with gambling addiction problem.
I'm not a gambler nor a casino supporter, but the above simply doesn't make sense. If Las Vegas casinos don't want competition, why are they against a bill that would supposedly weaken the casinos? On the contrary, the measures allow more slot machines to provide more revenue for the casinos.Quote:
Personally, I think it sounds like a great plan. And I've also heard from numerous sources that all of the commercials we've been seeing against the props are being paid for by Las Vegas casinos because they don't want rivalries.
I would like to also chime in on this one. I have had this argument with many people.
Not only does the tribe contribute to the state but the tribal members also contribute to the state. I know the more that I make the more I have to pay the state. I also contribute to the economy around the state. I spend my money here in California.
Also, I pay my Federal taxes. My tax bill is larger than most people make in one year. I don't want to sound selfish in anyway.
If you think about it why is it so hard to allow a successful business grow. It does everything to help out all around it. I happen to know of several organizations that help the tribes that have CHOSEN not to have a casino. I did a Google on the man that is "the head of an indian organization" that is against the propositions. He is angry because he was a tribal member that was kicked out of his own tribe. He was part of large lawsuit that he lost. I personally don't know all that the proposition details but I do know that my tribe spends a lot of it's money in the state of California.
I hope that no one comes to my place of business when I want to add some new machinery and tells me that I can't because I would make too much money.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:51 AM. |