What is the deal on the Indian gaming propositions in Ca?

Posted by admin on Feb 12, 2010 • comments(2)

David L asked:

There are a bunch of propostions coming up in California that deal with Indian gaming.

More slot machines=more money for the state yes?

What would I care if it is more money for the state considering I would not and could not even put a PENNY in a slot machine.

If people are foolish enough to play slots and that means more money for the state (which is broke!) then why not?

I have been seeing nothing but confusing ads in this regard. What is the truth about this matter?

Related Blogs

  • Related Blogs on Propostions

Related Blogs

  • Related Blogs on Propostions


Tagged as , ,
Categorized as Government

2 Comments

  1. Chit P says:
    February 13th, 2010 at 10:07 am

    dark chocolate

    indian gaming wouldn’t mean anything but more tourism for the state of california. the reservations are independant nations.

  2. Elmo15 says:
    February 14th, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    ph test strip

    The truth is complex. I’ve read up some because of friends that live out there in Palm Desert near where most of these tribes have their casinos. The deal is, Indian tribes have never paid their share of tax to the government. And they owe it because of things like roads, police, fire departments, schools, all the things surrounding their nations that they enjoy the benefit of without currently having to shoulder the fair burden for.

    Well now, the agreements are up for review.

    Schwarzenegger’s people put together propositions that outline a plan to increase revenue tax on these casinos and in return, the casinos will be allowed to expand their businesses.

    The plus side in theory is that the state of California will finally starting seeing some decent coin out of these casinos. The downside is, as it’s written, the accounting is left somewhat in the hands of each tribe’s accounting. Kind of like how Hollywood’s accounting system shows that only 3 movies in the history of filmmaking have ever made money.

    Argument for is that there should billions in new taxes to pay for schools, etc. over the next few years and that is much needed.

    Argument against is that there is no proper accounting system so the Indian tribes will get away with paying a pittance and in return, get the permission to vastly expand their operations.

    Another argument FOR is that something is better than nothing. The Indian tribes are in a “contract year” as it were and they’re performing. If we don’t lock them down now, we could lose this revenue for a while(I don’t know how long).

    Another argument AGAINST is that the system will be in place for years if passed and we will be forced to live with a bad deal for a long time to come.

    The NO commercials as you’ve seen on television are paid for primarily by a non-Indian casino owner for obvious reasons. Increased operations means maybe some don’t go to the other casinos because their guidelines are not as liberal. It’s a fair argument.

    My personal read goes back to the contract year metaphor. To inject a bad pun, these tribes are holding all the cards and the state’s budget is in such disarray, they want to make sure they get something. And though it means they’re kind of living with a bad deal for another few decades and the casino employees get screwed, there is currently, no other choice.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.