Tax the heck out of them...
Mo money, mo cash...
Just thought I would post here about some taxation I certainly would support. The various tribes that operate their casinos in California, half a dozen which are within 30-40 minutes of my home, pay little to no taxes here in the state on what is a 5 billion, moving to 10 billion a year operation. Since I personally don't gamble and consider it a vice that harms society with no true benefit, I wouldn't mind the level of taxation being quite high just like it currently is for cigarettes.
I say 50% for starters... what say you? If they refuse to reopen the gambling compacts, I would threaten to legalize gambling statewide while declaring no future compacts would be signed for expansion of Indian gaming. Twist the arms until the break off.
Thoughts?
Nick
Just thought I would post here about some taxation I certainly would support. The various tribes that operate their casinos in California, half a dozen which are within 30-40 minutes of my home, pay little to no taxes here in the state on what is a 5 billion, moving to 10 billion a year operation. Since I personally don't gamble and consider it a vice that harms society with no true benefit, I wouldn't mind the level of taxation being quite high just like it currently is for cigarettes.
I say 50% for starters... what say you? If they refuse to reopen the gambling compacts, I would threaten to legalize gambling statewide while declaring no future compacts would be signed for expansion of Indian gaming. Twist the arms until the break off.
Thoughts?
Nick
Comments
We have that little "Pursuit of happiness" clause in there. I don't like it when my government tries to block me from happiness. And it's not like gambling has a direct, negative impact on people other than the gamblers.
And it's not like gambling has a direct, negative impact on people other than the gamblers.
uh, yeah. right up until dad gambles away the house and business, the kids are on the street, and mom's working two jobs to try and make ends meet.
no direct impact.....
I have two responses:
1) Compassion isn't a pill, it's a cure.
2) Survival of the Fittest
There are two extreme positions: banning gambling and having no restrictions on gambling. As Alcimedes suggests, banning gambling would remove the possibility of "dad gambling the house away." So banning gambling might be considered to be a compassionate move along the ethic of "being your brother's keeper."
I disagree. I am familiar with many ethical standards from varying cultures. There is not one so misinterpreted as compassion. While putting blocks on organized gambling may have some moderate effect on curbing gambling and the after-effects of irresponsible gambling, it is not a cure. Perhaps the truly compassionate move is to promote self-discovery instead of blanketing restrictions across a society which, overall, has hardly a noticeable addiction to gambling. I can't say I'm the best to judge how to govern a society, but then again, who is? I would argue that it's not until the house is lost that a compulsive gambler will learn how to handle himself.
On the other side of the fence would be the position that has no desire to ban gambling anyway. From a completely scientific point of view, banning individuals from actions is a block on natural progress. The unfit shouldn't survive. If gambling is a razor by which the chaff can be separated from the wheat, from a purely naturalistic standpoint it is an utter and complete boon to human progress.
I could write all night about why I find silly any argument that champions a melodramatic worst-case-scenario on a remote and local level. The real worst case scenario is making a restriction that negatively affects the vast majority of people and reduces overall wellfare.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I thought of that argument. As a technicality, that's definitely an indirect cause.
I have two responses:
1) Compassion isn't a pill, it's a cure.
2) Survival of the Fittest
There are two extreme positions: banning gambling and having no restrictions on gambling. As Alcimedes suggests, banning gambling would remove the possibility of "dad gambling the house away." So banning gambling might be considered to be a compassionate move along the ethic of "being your brother's keeper."
I disagree. I am familiar with many ethical standards from varying cultures. There is not one so misinterpreted as compassion. While putting blocks on organized gambling may have some moderate effect on curbing gambling and the after-effects of irresponsible gambling, it is not a cure. Perhaps the truly compassionate move is to promote self-discovery instead of blanketing restrictions across a society which, overall, has hardly a noticeable addiction to gambling. I can't say I'm the best to judge how to govern a society, but then again, who is? I would argue that it's not until the house is lost that a compulsive gambler will learn how to handle himself.
On the other side of the fence would be the position that has no desire to ban gambling anyway. From a completely scientific point of view, banning individuals from actions is a block on natural progress. The unfit shouldn't survive. If gambling is a razor by which the chaff can be separated from the wheat, from a purely naturalistic standpoint it is an utter and complete boon to human progress.
I could write all night about why I find silly any argument that champions a melodramatic worst-case-scenario on a remote and local level. The real worst case scenario is making a restriction that negatively affects the vast majority of people and reduces overall wellfare.
Really, that's all very nice.
So... tax the hell out of it or no?
Nick
I'm not even sure if there are laws which stipulate that certain revenue-sharing activities must take place within the reservations, on a state by state basis.
My feeling is this: the casinos are there to help the people of the reservation recoup some of what society has taken from them over the course of many decades.
Therefore, if a particular "Indian Casino" does not have to share its profits (to a meaningful degree) with the reservation and / or town where it is located... if a good chunk of that money isn't being used to help build better civic facilities or water service or whatever, then the owners should be taxed heavily. I don't know about 50% but something pretty high. That money should then go directly BACK to the reservation in terms of building a real community.
I know many reservations in Montana and elsewhere have crappy health facilities and poorly equipped schools. That's where the tax money should go... not to the rest of the state like any other business' tax payments would go. Whitey don't get a share, dig?
If, on the other hand, a large portion of a casino's proceeds DO end up back in the hands of the people of that reservation, it should NOT be taxed heavily. Perhaps a nominal business tax to help keep local roads and such in good condition... but otherwise no.
Make sense?
As for survival of the fittest, while gambling can be a lot more harmful to one's survival than most other addictions and vices, [leaving these people to destroy their lives without any interdiction] is not going to remove those people's genes from the societal gene pool over time. It will just end up creating a [lot of criminals].
In a perfect world, I'm all for eradicating the genes in a society that compel people to: gamble their lives away (and their family's lives away), smoke crack, kill their neighbors, leave lawn furniture in the back yard all winter, watch WWF Smackdown every week with their kids, wear spandex tank tops, give their kids mullets, and all the rest... but then it may not be a question of genes but how a person was raised. And maybe someone else wants to eradicate the genes of people like me who don't approve of spandex tank tops and WWF.
In short, it ain't gonna happen so let's stop applying a rule generally meant for wild animals to humans in a modern society, shall we?
The lottery is legal right? You're odds are better at a slot machine. The Indian Casinos do so well because the have no competition.
Originally posted by Moogs
The thing I've never quite undertood about Native American casino operations is how the proceeds from any given outfit are divied up among the residents of the local reservation (or not). I've heard varying degrees -- everything from all proceeds split to help build the school, get a fire house, pay for groceries, blah blah... to no one gets squat except the big honchos who run the casino and their friends.
Well having lived by and worked with folks from tribes for years I do believe I have a bit of insight on this. Part of the money is used to develop and improve the tribe land. Also a large part of it is given out to tribe members each month simply in the form of a check. Sort of like the world's biggest paycheck that you do nothing but be Indian to receive.
Likewise there have been serious issues with them being a sovereign nation. For example you can't sue them individually since they don't live in the U.S. (weird I know) This causes the members to actually have to put cash up front for a lot of things. Now they have it of course, but they didn't in the past which compounded the poverty and still does for the many tribes that do not have casinos.
I'm not even sure if there are laws which stipulate that certain revenue-sharing activities must take place within the reservations, on a state by state basis.
There aren't any. Worse yet many of the casino owning tribes are made up of an incredibly small number of people and they no longer seem to admit any more members. Some of them have even tossed out members. Even more amazing is that there are now fake groups attempting to claim tribal status so they can operate a casino.
I am who I say I am
By the way just so we understand where I am coming from, this is the Indian tribe closest to me.
Cabazon
This article has a pretty good take on it as well.
Casinos
My feeling is this: the casinos are there to help the people of the reservation recoup some of what society has taken from them over the course of many decades.
Therefore, if a particular "Indian Casino" does not have to share its profits (to a meaningful degree) with the reservation and / or town where it is located... if a good chunk of that money isn't being used to help build better civic facilities or water service or whatever, then the owners should be taxed heavily. I don't know about 50% but something pretty high. That money should then go directly BACK to the reservation in terms of building a real community.
I know many reservations in Montana and elsewhere have crappy health facilities and poorly equipped schools. That's where the tax money should go... not to the rest of the state like any other business' tax payments would go. Whitey don't get a share, dig?
If, on the other hand, a large portion of a casino's proceeds DO end up back in the hands of the people of that reservation, it should NOT be taxed heavily. Perhaps a nominal business tax to help keep local roads and such in good condition... but otherwise no.
Make sense?
I don't think people should be using the past and guilt associated with it to bring about political leverage today. What next casino's for the Irish since they were treated so badly when immigrating here? Sue Spain, England and France since they sent the people who started the Indian genocide? Sue smallpox and other diseases? How about sue other tribes since they often worked with colonials to help bring about results (read win fights and battles) against competing tribes.
That Weekly Standard article is the best example of the soverignty issue. The tribe is actually on the other side of me. (Cabazon to the left, San Bernadino to the right) They bought the nontribal land with the intent of building community centers and things of that nature. Now it is tribal land and instead they expand the casino with it. The surrounding community has to put up with the traffic, and problems. They don't even get a say in it since it is a sovereignty issue.
Since it is to convoluted to sort out, tax it out.
Nick
Originally posted by chu_bakka
It's the state that screws itself. Why doesn't California have legal gambling? Like Nevada or New Jersey?
The lottery is legal right? You're odds are better at a slot machine. The Indian Casinos do so well because the have no competition.
If the tribes refuse to sign new compacts, I would advocate exactly what you just said.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I don't think people should be using the past and guilt associated with it to bring about political leverage today. What next casino's for the Irish since they were treated so badly when immigrating here? Sue Spain, England and France since they sent the people who started the Indian genocide? Sue smallpox and other diseases? How about sue other tribes since they often worked with colonials to help bring about results (read win fights and battles) against competing tribes.
I suppose you are against references to the holocaust then, too, right?
How long is the statute of limitations for ethnic cleansing?
Originally posted by giant
I suppose you are against references to the holocaust then, too, right?
How long is the statute of limitations for ethnic cleansing?
I'll tell you what, when the Jewish folks apply to have their neighborhood made sovereign and then be granted exclusive rights to run all gambling establishments while paying no taxes, I assure you I will treat them in the same manner.
Likewise you show me the Jewish folks who declare they can't get through life today because of what happened not even a hundred years ago. They remember the past, however they are not using it to declare they are incapable in the present or future.
Only someone with as tortured logic and reasoning as yourself could equate running a casino to gas chambers.
Nick
Oh wait...
Sorry, I mis-understood the point...Tax THEM, not ME! Fuilthy Indians are getting rich off OUR MONEY! Theives!
On a serious note, I think the Casinos should be taxed provided we start closing the tax loopholes so-called "legitimae" California businesses use to keep from paying their fare share of taxes. We can't have it both ways.
But, I'm a liberal and that goes without saying I guess.
Greedy, republican voting, bastard Corp. Execs like those at enron work in collusion to drive up engery prices.
Greedy, republican voting, bastard Corp. Execs gourge California to the tune of $30-40 billion.
Democrat Govenor Davis asks Former Greedy, republican voting, bastard Corp. Exec Vice president cheny to step in.
Greedy, republican voting, bastard Corp. Exec, secret meeting with energy companies, Vice president cheney Does nothing to help liberal democratic voting california.
Democratic voting california gets thrown into debt, in no small part of said greedy republican voting execs and Greedy, republican voting, bastard Corp. Exec, secret meeting with energy companies, Vice president cheney.
Dastardly republicans use "fiscal irresponisilbity" (read: billions of loss due to collusion of said execs.) and 1.6 million of darrel issa the car thief's money (as reason to oust democratic govenor 8 months after being elected in real election.
Democrat lt govenor Cruz Bustamante tries to sue energy companies to get 9 billion back.
Govenor Groper joins fray barely answers any questions and despite reports of backroom deals with said energy companies wins election via the wal mart vote.
So after all this who do we go after to get more money to save this states finanical mess?
THE INDIANS.
Instead of going after energy companies for money govenor groper goes after a favorite scapegoat, "the indians" to seek to balance budget.(despite the fact that i think they fall under federal law and a govenor can't tax them)
Yep.
Its good to be a republican.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Yep.
Its good to be a republican.
Originally posted by trumptman
Really, that's all very nice.
So... tax the hell out of it or no?
Nick
No. Taxes should not be used to guide behavior.
I don't know how many hundreds of examples like this there would be, but it would be worse for the economy than even GWB has been.
Originally posted by bunge
How about this, we just give back all of their land? I don't even mean all of the U.S., but just the parts that legally were signed over to them and still stolen. Places like the Black Hills in South Dakota. After it was given to the Indians, gold was found. Well, now it's our soil again. Give it back along with the gold or the equivalent value thereof.
I don't know how many hundreds of examples like this there would be, but it would be worse for the economy than even GWB has been.
Sure and how about we make sure they hash it out to see who they stole it from respectively since the Indian nations and tribes fought are fiercely and often as the nations fought with each other in Europe.
I mean because really the only group that deserves the whole shebang is the ones who got here first. The successive migratory groups that became Indians were just earlier invaders right?
Oh course we can see from your and the other views here that any group once historical harm can be proven is ever expected to behave in an enlightened progressive manner right?
So forget casino workers unionizing. Forget medical benefits for them. Forget the taxes too.
Likewise if I can show historical harm to my people, then I shouldn't have to care about those things either. I mean I've got Irish and Italy so it shouldn't too hard.
Nick
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Actually its gets funnier:
Greedy, republican voting, bastard Corp. Execs like those at enron work in collusion to drive up engery prices.
Greedy, republican voting, bastard Corp. Execs gourge California to the tune of $30-40 billion.
Democrat Govenor Davis asks Former Greedy, republican voting, bastard Corp. Exec Vice president cheny to step in.
Greedy, republican voting, bastard Corp. Exec, secret meeting with energy companies, Vice president cheney Does nothing to help liberal democratic voting california.
Democratic voting california gets thrown into debt, in no small part of said greedy republican voting execs and Greedy, republican voting, bastard Corp. Exec, secret meeting with energy companies, Vice president cheney.
Dastardly republicans use "fiscal irresponisilbity" (read: billions of loss due to collusion of said execs.) and 1.6 million of darrel issa the car thief's money (as reason to oust democratic govenor 8 months after being elected in real election.
Democrat lt govenor Cruz Bustamante tries to sue energy companies to get 9 billion back.
Govenor Groper joins fray barely answers any questions and despite reports of backroom deals with said energy companies wins election via the wal mart vote.
So after all this who do we go after to get more money to save this states finanical mess?
THE INDIANS.
Instead of going after energy companies for money govenor groper goes after a favorite scapegoat, "the indians" to seek to balance budget.(despite the fact that i think they fall under federal law and a govenor can't tax them)
Yep.
Its good to be a republican.
Been listening to Coast to Coast again? I think you were the caller right after the channeling Elvis.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Oh course we can see from your and the other views here that any group once historical harm can be proven is ever expected to behave in an enlightened progressive manner right?
What we can see is that the U.S. doesn't have a leg to stand on with this issue. You can't shoot someone and then complain that they're bleeding.
Originally posted by bunge
What we can see is that the U.S. doesn't have a leg to stand on with this issue. You can't shoot someone and then complain that they're bleeding.
What you can't see is that any society moving toward an enlightened state has an unenlightened past. This includes the Indians in their treatment towards each other as well.
So I suppose the Indians don't have a leg to stand on unless they can prove they never fought for land or oppressed another group in their claim to this land as well.
On the next episode of Judge Bunge....
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
What you can't see is that any society moving toward an enlightened state has an unenlightened past. This includes the Indians in their treatment towards each other as well.
So I suppose the Indians don't have a leg to stand on unless they can prove they never fought for land or oppressed another group in their claim to this land as well.
On the next episode of Judge Bunge....
Nick
You're missing the point. We're discussing the U.S.A. Step down off the high horse.