Hassan budget plan includes expanded gambling

When is enough,enough? Is this the type of state we want to live in?


http://www.wmur.com/news/politics/Sources-Hassan-budget-plan-includes-expanded-gambling/-/9857748/18534552/-/eoisb9/-/index.html

You don't like the gambling, fish?

fshnski wrote:When is enough,enough? Is this the type of state we want to live in?

Dunno...



Is it time to "Soak the Poor?"

Gambling affects those the most that can least afford it.

The way I feel is the people who like to gamble are going to gamble whether they go to Maine, Conn, Mass. or whatever state has gambling. NH might as well get some of the proceeds.

Four years ago, it was Massachusetts (only) that was losing population.

Now it's all of New England that is losing population.

That leaves an even larger ratio of population of "Takers" to support by fewer "Producers".

Yup...Let's rob Maine.

"Yup, Let's rob Maine."

Of what?

We have seen this on the national stage and now Moonbat Maggie is bringing this home to New Hampshire.

She is using assumed future revenue increases to substantiate spending today. Democrats always make budgets based on future windfalls.

Don’t be a useful idiot.

Future windfalls that never materialize and then we have a deficit. A huge deficit. Democrats are dreamers. Have you ever met someone that is a dreamer? They are going to get a job, when, they are going to get rich, when, they are going to be happy when, etc. etc. They are always waiting for "it" to happen without doing anything to make "it" happen.

Rob Maine of it's takers? It is one state that has more takers than producers.

"The Underinformed" don't understand how the Capitalist system works: they'll try to beat the system through gambling, and whether they cross the border to New Hampshire or drift from Manchester, "The House" is designed to be rigged.

It's just another regressive tax, that robs from innovation.

What happened to gambling being a vice?

I think we should consider all options. This seems to be working elsewhere.

Prostitution pumps millions into Nevada's economy

In most states it's a dirty word, used to describe illegal and some would say immoral acts. But in Nevada, the state made famous by embracing vices shunned elsewhere, prostitution has become legitimate big business.

Since counties began legalizing prostitution in the early 1970s, they have been reaping an economic benefit from a variety of brothel-related revenue sources, including licensing fees, property tax, work card fees and liquor licenses. In total the sources pump more than $10 million into county coffers annually, according to one state study.

Kate Hausbeck, a sociologist at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, said that while historically the legalization of prostitution in Nevada was an economically driven endeavor, the ecomomics no longer account for the continued existence of the brothels.

"It's really problematic to say that this (economics) is why they exist," Hausbeck said.

She said in some rural communities other businesses have grown to overshadow the brothels as the largest contributor to county budgets but the brothels themselves continue to exist if not for monetary reasons, then for those of tradition or civic participation.

Getting a handle on the economics of prostitution in Nevada is a difficult task at best. For one, it is still considered a taboo topic by certain segments of the population. For that reason, state and county officials shy away from touting their earnings off prostitution.

Another obstacle is the lack of studies on the issue. The only recent state-sanctioned study was done nearly five years ago by an interim legislative committee, said Ted Zuend, fiscal analyst for the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

That study, conducted by the bureau, placed the total county revenues from legal prostitution statewide at $10 million for the 1994-95 fiscal year. Normally the bureau -- or any other state agency for that matter -- doesn't keep track of such revenues.

"I wasn't involved in that study, but I don't believe anything else has been done since then," Zuend said.

Last year, two University of Nevada-Las Vegas researchers began one of the few other known studies on the industry. Prostitution, either legal or illegal, is rarely studied in Nevada, they said.

One reason seems to be a lack of available data. Hausbeck said they have access to public records, such as tax returns and county budgets, but in terms of what the brothels make in profit beyond that is a very private thing that's difficult to get information on.

"Actual raw amounts of money and how they flowto the house, to the womenthey're very protective of that information," she said.

Hausbeck said we tend to ask questions of brothels and other parts of the sex industry that we don't ask of other legal cash-based businesses. She added it is unlikely that other cash businesses, such as bars or restaurants, would be any more forthcoming than the brothels with such private information.

This lack of study comes as no small surprise given that fact that the state doesn't reap the rewards of this million-dollar industry. Because there are no state taxes and because it is up to each individual county to decide if it wants to allow prostitution within its borders, the only real revenue the state sees come from sales tax on bar sales, said Nevada State Tax Examiner Ruth Jones.

"Bars associated with the houses pay sales tax," Jones said. "I don't know that much about the houses but I assume most of them have bars."

These state revenues are above and beyond the estimated $10 million collected from county sources. But how much above is unclear. The Department of Taxation does not separate tax from brothel bar sales from taxes from other establishments, so no estimate of the state economic impact is available, Jones said.

One other minor fee goes to the state. Brothels, like all other businesses, also are required to purchase a state business license, with fees of $25 for each full-time employee paid on a quarterly basis.

Figuring that impact is equally problematic, because estimates of the number of prostitutes working legally in the state vary widely -- 300 to 800 in 33 to 35 establishments.

Bar sales tax and licensing fees are where the state's involvement ends--even the liquor licenses are obtained from the county.

In fact there is only minor mention of prostitution in state law--prohibiting it in counties with populations exceeding 400,000--a law which only excludes Clark and Washoe counties. Of the remaining 15 counties in Nevada, 10 allow brothels to operate within county borders.

CONCORD, N.H. —New Hampshire's net benefit could be zero if a proposed casino is built in the southern part of the state in competition with one in Massachusetts, once social and regulatory costs are counted, according to a study released Thursday.


The New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies released its analysis of what would happen if the state authorizes one casino to be built requiring a $500 million investment and authorizing 5,000 video slot machines.

The center estimates the state would break even at best if a casino is opened at Suffolk Downs in Massachusetts as planned. The center estimates the New Hampshire casino would generate $138 million in revenues without a casino at Suffolk Downs, but only $68 million with the opening of the nearby Massachusetts facility. The study estimates the social and regulatory costs would be $68 million, leaving the state with a net benefit of zero.

"While allowing a casino to operate in New Hampshire will undoubtedly result in tax revenue to the state, the amount of the revenue depends on the established tax rate and license fees charged to developers," concluded the study. "Tax rates and license fees may in turn indirectly determine the size and attractiveness of the gambling facility. At the same time, the regulatory and social costs of expanded gambling could very well cancel out the benefits of increased state revenue, depending on the tax rate and the size of the facility constructed."

The study said competition from Maine and particularly from three planned casinos and a slot parlor in Massachusetts will have an impact on the state's revenues.

The study said a mid-sized casino with 3,000 video slots, an investment of $300 million and a 30 percent tax on proceeds combined with the opening of a facility at Suffolk Downs, could mean a minus $2 million net state benefit. If the state charged a 40 percent tax, the net state benefit rises to $32 million, the study concluded.

Gov. Maggie Hassan is supporting construction of one high-end, highly regulated casino and testified in support of a Senate bill that would legalize up to 5,000 video slot machines and 150 table games. The proposal would tax the proceeds at 30 percent and require a $425 million investment.

Read more: http://www.wmur.com/news/nh-news/Study-NH-may-reap-zero-benefits-from-casino/-/9857858/19121678/-/m7bxj6/-/index.html#ixzz2MhQ29acw

A bill backed by Gov. Maggie Hassan to legalize a casino in New Hampshire has gotten the support of the Senate Ways and Means Committee.

On Tuesday, the committee voted 4-1 to recommend passage of the bill that would legalize up to 5,000 video slot machines and 150 table games.

Committee chairman Bob Odell was the only vote in opposition. He said he feels the bill is premature.

Sen. Lou D'Allesandro, a longtime supporter of expanded gambling, said he believes the bill sends a strong message and that the time for expanded gaming in New Hampshire is now.

The proposal would tax the video slot proceeds at 30 percent and table games at 14 percent. It would require a $425 million investment.

Five percent of the video lottery revenue would go to the host community, neighboring communities and services for problem gambling.

The rest would be used to fund highway improvements, higher education and North Country development. The table gaming revenue would all go to higher education.

The bill now moves to a vote in the state Senate, where it is expected to pass next week. The bill faces a more uncertain future in the House.

WMUR

fshnski wrote:The bill faces a more uncertain future in the House.

Good.

I don't want to be like any other state. I want New Hampshire to be something special. I want to live in a state that doesn't condone money making schemes that were illegal not that long ago. I'm sick of compromising my principles so the minority can benefit.!

As I recall, New Hampshire was the first state in the Union to start a Lottery!

Not that I approve of gambling—entertainment for the Rich, OK.

The Poor?

Not so much. "The House" is set up to win.

"Other Peoples Money" shouldn't be used to gamble, but we know that EBT-card benefits are traded for cash.

Do you think people who gamble won't go to another state to gamble? My point is they are going to gamble anyway, so why not let our state have the taxes?

I don't want to live in a state that encourages vice.

And you are not alone. A lot of people feel that way. I kind of don't care strongly one way or the other. I would just as soon they cut spending, but you know that won't happen. I am just saying if they want to keep spending they need to find money to do it. And everything and everybody else are stretched to their limits. I think we are at the point where there is not more taxes people can or will pay. Look at all the houses for sale on the lake. People are sick of the high taxes. Even some who can afford them have just had enough.

WHL wrote:"...Look at all the houses for sale on the lake. People are sick of the high taxes. Even some who can afford them have just had enough..."

...and New Hampshire is one of the more rational states!

Even then, we will be forced to pay—endlessly—for the bloated pensions approved 25-years ago.

Casino foes give it their all in pitch to NH lawmakers

CONCORD - Opponents of expanded gambling in New Hampshire mustered their forces for a full-court press Wednesday, as a panel of prominent speakers took turns urging a roomful of lawmakers to vote against the idea at a well-attended forum across the street from the State House.

The informational luncheon for legislators at the Concord Holiday Inn was sponsored by the Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling, and attracted about 200 state representatives and senators.

A representative of the N.H. Council of Churches said the idea was immoral. A former attorney general said it would destroy the New Hampshire way of life. A GOP national committee member and former state party chair said it would damage the state's brand as a tourist destination.

The former president of the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation said it would "weaken the social capital that holds us together."

And a senior Democratic lawmaker with years of budget-writing experience said lawmakers shouldn't feel compelled to choose gambling over program cuts.

"Do not feel for a nanosecond that you have to support gambling to fund the programs you care about," said Marjorie Smith, D-Durham.

In response to questions after the presentation, lawmakers were told that gambling would have a corrosive effect on state politics, due to lobbying and campaign contributions by gambling interests; that gaming is declining in other states that had banked on it for big revenue; that the rooms and meals taxes the state relies on will decline; and that entertainment venues now operating in the state will see a 7 to 15 percent decline in revenues.

Former attorney general Phil McLaughlin, who served from 1997 to 2002, invoked retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter, recalling a letter from the New Hampshire jurist, who succeeded Warren Rudman as New Hampshire attorney general in 1976.

"He (Souter) felt of all the things that could happen in this state, that casino gambling would have the most destructive effect on the way of life in New Hampshire," McLaughlin said.

GOP activist Steve Duprey reminded Republicans in the room that opposition to expanded gambling is embedded in the GOP platform they were elected to represent. He described how casinos have had a damaging effect on the hospitality business in surrounding communities wherever they are located.

Lew Feldstein, former president of the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation and a member of the Governor's Gaming Study Commission, predicted the state would see 10,000 new gambling addicts and a spike in serious crime in the communities near the casino.

"Once it gets approved, and we have gambling, it will never go away," he said. "It will only grow and spread."

Smith, now in her eighth term as a state representative, said Gov. Maggie Hassan's position that gambling revenues are necessary to fund the state university system and many social services creates a false choice.

"If you are opposed to gambling, but support these programs, it's not either, or," she said.

For her part, Hassan said she intends to continue to push for one high-end, well-regulated casino along the border with Massachusetts, where at least three casinos will be licensed in the near future. In a briefing with reporters after the Executive Council meeting, as the anti-gambling luncheon was under way, the governor said the state cannot afford to walk away from $75 million a year once a casino is up and running, not to mention $80 million to $100 million in licensing fees to get started. "The people of New Hampshire support the priorities we've identified in our budget and they support one casino," she said. "It's really critical that we seize that opportunity in this window of time. Without doing so, we will lose $75 million a year."

Union Leader

But with that $75 Million, the state can hire more Government workers, and increase Government worker's pensions and benefits!

Sounds like a good idea—NOT!

Yes, just what we need-bigger government.

CONCORD, N.H. —A survey of state lawmakers shows that a plan to bring a casino to New Hampshire is up in the air.


The bill to allow expanded gambling in the state passed the Senate earlier this month, but similar measures have consistently failed in the House. An $80 million licensing fee for a casino is a key part of Gov. Maggie Hassan's budget plan.

Casino opponents have said they have the votes to block passage, while supporters said the vote is close, but they believe they have the momentum to win this time around.

News 9 contacted each House member to see how likely the bill is to pass. Because of some resignations, there are 397 House members, and News 9 has heard back from more than half of them.

Ninety-six said they would vote against the casino bill, while 81 said they were for it. Fifty House members said they were undecided, and six others have made up their mind but wouldn't say how they would vote.

News 9 is still trying to get answers from 164 others.

With dozens of lawmakers still undecided, the next few weeks leading up to the vote could be critical.

Read more: http://www.wmur.com/news/politics/Survey-shows-House-split-on-casino/-/9857748/19493526/-/j2vn1/-/index.html#ixzz2OmZVLDlf