Then ma-earth I suggest you vote no on this issue, and if it does indeed pass and you don't want to support it just don't frequent any casinos in this state. Until then I look forward to your next post where you will no doubt be regurgitating someone elses ideas in place on any original thoughts on this matter.
According to the webpage of the Secretary of State, Prop A would "repeal the current individual maximum loss limit for gambling; prohibit any future loss limits;
require identification to enter the gambling area only if necessary to establish that an individual is at least 21 years old; restrict the number of casinos to those already built or being built; increase the casino gambling tax from 20% to 21%; create a new specific education fund from gambling tax proceeds generated as a result of this measure called the "Schools First Elementary and Secondary Education Improvement Fund"; and require annual audits of this new fund." I don't think that any change should prohibit change as in "prohibit any future loss limits." And I do agree with the legislator who posted his opinion that any dollar figures would be impossible to determine, such as those posed on the same website: "State governmental entities will receive an estimated $105.1 to $130.0 million annually for elementary and secondary education, and $5.0 to $7.0 million annually for higher education, early childhood development, veterans, and other programs. Local governmental entities receiving gambling boat tax and fee revenues will receive an estimated $18.1 to $19.0 million annually." But the sneakiest caveat in the change would be that Ameristar Casinos would be guaranteed that no future competitors (who might be able to bring more money into school coffers) could muscle into their action...Who am I? Well, I can tell you, Jambo, that I'm not a hockey mom.
How much exactly is a gazillion dollars? Of course it benefits the the casios, but it also adds more tax money for the state and with tax revenue down state wide right now that will surely help. Missouri by the way is the only state that has a loss limit, and as Iowa who got rid of the only other one 10 years ago will tell you they don't work in curtailing problem gamblers, and eliminating their loss limit increased overall revenue for the state.
Who are you, Jambo? The casinos aren't spending gazillions of dollars to get this thing passed for the benefit of the schools. And spending limits, if anything, keep habitual gamblers from becoming wards of the state. The house doesn't lose.
Who is this guy? All Joplin would see is benefits from this proposal while the areas with the casinos fund the schools. What is anti-family? Anti-family is having schools that don't work and a national dropout rate of 40%. Missouri casinos allready pay more in taxes than every other business in the state combined. Why not have them pay a little more?
If casinos are so "anti-family" then why is Ray Salva trying so hard to get one for his district? Just more negative spin from this politician. I'm voting YES on Prop A - the loss limit is ineffective in controlling problem gamblers and Missouri schools can use the revenue.
Home | Login | Contact Us | Forum
© 2001-2016 Joplin Independent