CASINO OPPONENTS STATE REASONS FOR 'NO' VOTE ON ISSUE 3

Submitted by Roldo on Tue, 09/29/2009 - 14:42.

Here are arguments against Issue 3 – the monopoly casino measure on the ballot - as stated by its major opponent group Truth Pac.

 

It says the obvious; that the measure is tilted toward wealthy casino owners and it doesn’t even require the owners to actually build.

 

It also warns against “hidden taxes” on the rest of us as cities have to upgrade roads and bridges and provide other infrastructure requirements.

 

It’s not all take, there’s a lot of give and give.

 

Also, the casinos can stay open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, really a way of taking business away from established small businesses, especially restaurants, which may have a hard time competing on hours and the ability of casinos – interested in the gambling dollar – charging less for meals and drinks.

The link is: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2009/3-truthpac_draft_argument_against.pdf

 

‹ Carl Stokes Had a Black Minister Problem, tooupCASINOS INVITE 'CORROSIVE INFLUENCES' SAYS COLUMBUS DISPATCH ›
( categories: )

Sloppily written amendment

Submitted by DifferentPointOfView on Tue, 09/29/2009 - 18:44.

Let me first say that I'm adamantly opposed to Issue 3 for a variety of reasons. That said, the amendment seems to have been very sloppily written. Take these two provisions:

(C)(2) A thirty-three percent tax shall be levied and collected by the state on all gross casino revenue received by each casino operator [...]

(C)(9)(d) “Gross casino revenue” means the total amount of money exchanged for the purchase of chips, tokens, tickets, electronic cards, or similar objects by casino patrons, less winnings paid to wagerers.

Now, consider this scenario. A thousand people each with $1000 go into a casino and buy chips. Thus, $1 million has been "exchanged for the purchase of chips ... by casino patrons." Suppose that each of the thousand then bets $1 and loses it. So, the thousand are undeniably casino patrons and wagerers, with total winnings paid to those wagerers of $0. Now, suppose the thousand cash in their remaining chips, receiving in return $999,000, with the casino gaining $1000.

From (C)(9)(d), the "gross casino revenue" on this set of transactions is $1,000,000 ($1,000,000 from the purchase of chips less $0 paid in winnings to wagerers). From (C)(2), the amount due in taxes to the state on this "gross casino revenue" is $330,000. So, the casino has a tax bill of $330,000 on a gain of $1000. (Rinse, repeat, and the casino could be bankrupted in no time.)

Is this absurd? Yes, but fully consistent with this poorly written amendment. (If you think otherwise, please identify those provisions of the amendment that would not result in a casino tax bill of $330,000 for this scenario.) I know the state legislature would in all probability remedy the faulty language, but the authors of the amendment shouldn't have messed up something so basic.

Oh Boy

Submitted by None on Tue, 09/29/2009 - 19:15.

It says less winnings; cashed in chips are winnings. Net tax is sold chips less cashed in chips.

The city gets 5%, that’s paltry, but the property is taxable (SIC)

That’s the carter road peninsula 004-28-001

Then 101-21-002 that’s Canal Road

 

Another location in the Higbees

Then 2001 W3rd street?

 

 

 

So its Forest City land explicitly that can only get a casino?

 

 (LOL) he got them to write the law so they can only build the casino on his property! 

re: Oh Boy

Submitted by DifferentPointOfView on Tue, 09/29/2009 - 20:31.

It says less winnings; cashed in chips are winnings.

How do you know that cashed-in chips are "winnings?" Before I wrote my post I checked to see if "winnings" was defined in the amendment. It isn't.

Also, am I correct that for purposes of the personal income tax, merely cashing in previously purchased chips is not a taxable event for the person who purchased the chips, i.e., it's not considered income/"winning?"

So its Forest City land explicitly that can only get a casino?

Precisely.

can i know the issues of playing online casino games...

Submitted by frank espoo on Thu, 10/29/2009 - 06:12.

spammer interrupted

If you are real

Submitted by Norm Roulet on Thu, 10/29/2009 - 08:49.

My issues with you are determining if you are a real person representing yourself, as your profile links to a website that is not registered for real use, and your profile name doesn't match your email name... and everything about your profile is connected to promoting gambling sites

Disrupt IT

LOLThe bought chip are

Submitted by None on Tue, 09/29/2009 - 23:03.

LOL

 

The bought chips are losses and then the cashed in are winnings.

Buy 1000 chips and sit in the corner all night its a wash... no taxes

Federal Tax Law

http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc419.html

the tax is on gross revenue not gross sales. 

 

re: LOL The bought chip are

Submitted by DifferentPointOfView on Wed, 09/30/2009 - 01:49.

Consider this scenario. I walk into a casino and buy $10,000 in chips. I immediately turn around and cash in my chips and receive back $10,000. According to your definition of "winnings paid to wagerers" (the wording in the amendment), the casino has paid out $10,000 in winnings. When someone pays out winnings, someone else must receive them. Because I was the one who cashed in the chips, I must be the one who received (by your definition) "winnings paid to wagerers" of $10,000.

For this situation, here are a few problems with equating "cashed in chips" to "winnings paid to wagerers:"
1) I never placed a wager, so what I received could not be "winnings paid to wagerers."
2) Winnings normally entail a decrease in assets of the payer, and an increase in assets for the payee. In the example above, the assets of neither the payer nor payee change.
3) The transaction I outlined above has no income tax implications for me (or the casino) because the IRS does not recognize the transaction as involving any winnings.
4) If I proclaimed, "I had casino winnings of $10,000," to anyone who knew the circumstances of the above transaction, that person would think I was saying something absurd.

If you could cite any law or legal ruling that equates "cashed in chips" to "winnings paid to wagerers," I would strongly consider changing my opinion. (Let me be specific. I am willing to stipulate that all winnings paid to wagerers are equivalent to cashed in chips. I reject the notion that all cashed in chips are equivalent to winnings paid to wagerers.)

In any event, the basic point of my posts is that the definition of "gross casino revenue" in the amendment is defective. (C)(9)(d) should have read something like this: "'Gross casino revenue' means the total amount of money paid to the casino by casino patrons for the purchase of chips, tokens, tickets, electronic cards, or similar objects, less the total amount of money paid by the casino to casino patrons for the surrender of chips, tokens, tickets, electronic cards or similar objects."

As has been observed elsewhere, the amendment's definition of "gross casino revenue" also fails to include actual money used to wager, e.g., quarters in slot machines, when computing gross casino revenue.

not paid in money

Submitted by None on Wed, 09/30/2009 - 09:37.

3769-16-01 Winnings.

Winnings shall include all prizes up to the time appointed for the start and shall apply to all races in any country and shall embrace walking over or receiving forfeit but shall not include second money or lower or the value of any prize not paid in money.

R.C. 119.032 review dates: 09/09/2005 and 09/09/2010

Promulgated Under: 119.03

Statutory Authority: 3769.03

Rule Amplifies: 3769.03

Prior Effective Dates: 3/15/66, 1/1/85

re: not paid in money

Submitted by DifferentPointOfView on Wed, 09/30/2009 - 20:45.

Yes, winnings can be non-monetary. However, I don't see the relevance of that--or this statute--to the issue under discussion. Please explain, if you wish.

"Also, the casinos can stay

Submitted by csurugby on Mon, 10/26/2009 - 14:32.

"Also, the casinos can stay open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, really a way of taking business away from established small businesses, especially restaurants, which may have a hard time competing on hours and the ability of casinos – interested in the gambling dollar – charging less for meals and drinks."

As a lifelong Clevelander, I fail to see how this is an issue. You can't take business away from already darkened storefronts. Downtown Cleveland is effectively a ghost town by 9pm, save W. 6th and E. 3rd streets, where bars/clubs are the prevalent drawing point. The shops at Tower City aren't unique - they're the same places you can find in your suburban malls. Try finding a 24 hour diner or a vegetarian restaurant in the downtown area - it's impossible. Try to eat downtown while on a budget... not happening. Cleveland lacks the draw that many major cities within a stone's throw of us have to offer - variety. The RTA is sketchy and unpredictable, police presence in the downtown core is sparse, Cleveland has a very high crime rate, and if you've seen the Rock HOF, don't want to watch live sports, and aren't drinking, your options are non-existent. Terminal Tower was built to be the Grand Central Terminal of the midwest, but that dream soon fizzled out as Cleveland lost its jobs and population. Our central gateway location on the map in relation to lots of other 'hot spots' - Chicago, Pittsburgh, Toronto, NYC, Philadelphia - should alone make Cleveland a draw, but we don't have anything here that legitimately draws people in.

Building a casino will be a desperately needed revitalization shot to this city. It will draw tourists in, which in turn will draw business owners back into downtown Cleveland and spur growth. Boarded up storefronts and desolate streets will once again buzz with people. Jobs will be created - not just including the ones that the casino will create. People will once again want to visit and live in Cleveland. After all, we can buy lottery tickets and bet on horses in this city, so why not have a casino?

 

Submitted by csurugby on Mon, 10/26/2009 - 14:33.

 

I agree that we definately

Submitted by ward14resident on Mon, 10/26/2009 - 14:53.

I agree that we definately need something to revitalize the downtown area. I am planning to vote YES for the casino.  Gambling is not evil...if it was all the churches would have to stop bingo and all the other gambling that occurs at the various festivals.  Gambling is a game and it is entertainment.  I am not a gambler but if people want to gamble why not let them gamble here and bring some life back into our downtown area?  What are those who are opposed to it afraid it will do?  I am trying to see both sides of the argument here, but so far I am leaning in favor of the casino. 

 

Built between the Q and the

Submitted by None on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 07:44.

 

Built between the Q and the river. 

Proposed $600 Million casino site announced yesterday night and the Cavs opening game.