Originally Posted by
justcurious55
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.
Yes they do. The propositions
increase the amount paid.
And they will have to pay into the state's general fund, about 15% of what they make.
Up to 25%. An huge amount. Imagine if you had to pay up to 25% of your income.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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'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.