Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-26-2008, 05:47 PM
 
2,153 posts, read 5,518,520 times
Reputation: 655

Advertisements

Quote:
Missouri Proposition A, the Schools First Elementary and Secondary Education Funding Initiative, also informally known as the Gambling Loss Limits Initiative, would provide new revenue to Missouri schools by increasing the state tax casinos pay to 21% and eliminating Missouri's $500 buy-in limit (often described as a "loss limit.") The limit was enacted in 1992 and prohibits a casino patron from buying more than $500 in chips or tokens during a two-hour period.
The initiative would also generate new funds for early childhood programs and other state and local services from the $2-per-visitor excursion fee paid by casinos. It would also limit the number of casinos in Missouri to those already built or under construction. The measure is an initiated state statute.

On August 5, the Missouri Secretary of State announced that the measure will appear as Proposition A on the state's November 4, 2008 ballot.[1],[2],[3]

Thoughts? The info is from wikipedia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-26-2008, 06:04 PM
 
Location: Orlando, FL
973 posts, read 2,220,482 times
Reputation: 383
If Missouri wants to walk down Florida's path, this proposition A is a major step in that direction. Florida reduces the state funding for schools by increasing the portion of the lotto dedicated to funding schools. This sounds like a similar plan to not increase school funding, but to find a different way of spending Missouri's tax dollars.. at the cost of those who may have a problem with gambling. The $500/2hr limit is there for the gambler's protection - If they play for 24 hours, they can't lose more than $6,000 in a day. Take away that limit, and you'll see some people be abused by their addiction. Of course the casinos that are already there would love to have that limit removed, including the limit on more casinos (competition) from being built. Imagine your spouse has a gambling problem you didn't know about. Instead of $6000 showing up on the credit card tomorrow, you see it's maxed at $25,000, $50,000, or $100,000 from one day at the local casino? If someone wants to be a high roller, fly to Vegas or Atlantic City for a weekend..

This proposition is asking for some families to be crippled by a gambling problem for a single day.. and it gives the state/local government the ability to reduce funding for schools by increasing casino's tax burden (which is not as steady of a source of tax revenue, unlike property & sales taxes..).

I'll be moving to Missouri next summer, but if I were already there, I'd vote "no" based on what I've seen happen in Florida by subsidizing school funding by other means. If there is a condition that current local & state funding will not be reduced as a percentage of tax revenue currently collected, I'd be slightly more inclined to vote yes. (But I highly doubt government would create specific minimums on school funding..)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2008, 09:22 PM
 
Location: Southern Illinois
10,364 posts, read 20,714,814 times
Reputation: 15642
I gnash my teeth in rage when the gambling casinos use the promise of more school funding to get what they want. This is not about school funding--it's about the casinos not losing any more money. If I actually thought it would improve the schools I'd be all for it, but I never saw any difference in the schools when they legalized gambling in MO in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2008, 10:05 PM
 
Location: North Idaho
2,140 posts, read 4,429,763 times
Reputation: 1576
Quote:
Originally Posted by stepka View Post
I gnash my teeth in rage when the gambling casinos use the promise of more school funding to get what they want. This is not about school funding--it's about the casinos not losing any more money. If I actually thought it would improve the schools I'd be all for it, but I never saw any difference in the schools when they legalized gambling in MO in the first place.
I couldn't agree more! We in California have had Indian casinos popping up like weeds all over the state, with the same dog-and-pony show over how they're going to help balance the state budget . Same thing with the California Lottery which dates back earlier than the casinos. The lottery was touted as the solution to public education funding.

So we in California have the lottery and more Indian casinos than you can count, and we also have a state budget that's still about $20 billion out of balance, plus a state government education bureaucracy that will never, ever, ever stop crying poormouth.

If I lived in Missouri, this proposition A would be a no-brainer: No.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2008, 01:46 PM
 
Location: Missouri
6,044 posts, read 24,017,427 times
Reputation: 5182
I'm fine with Prop A. I think a gambling limit is ridiculous. If a person has an addiction issue, there's very little a gambling limit will do to save them IMO. Addicts will always find an outlet if they are determined to do so, and I think a limit hurts tourism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2008, 03:39 PM
 
Location: North Idaho
2,140 posts, read 4,429,763 times
Reputation: 1576
Christina, I do wholeheartedly agree with you about the gambling loss limit. My objection to this proposition has more to do with how it is being touted as an ideal source of public education funding. I have a problem with taxing bad behavior for good public projects and endeavors. If people stop engaging in the bad behavior, the good public projects become imperiled, creating a very perverse incentive for people to continue with the bad behavior (gambling, smoking and drinking to excess).

***Another California Bash Alert!!! ***

And here in California, when a proposition was approved a few years ago that raised the tax on a pack of cigarettes by 50 cents a pack (Make note: I do NOT smoke), the voters were promised that the additional revenue would be used for an array of children's programs. For the most part, that never materialized. Most of the monies have just been going into the state general fund.

Last edited by northbayeric; 10-27-2008 at 03:48 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2008, 08:50 AM
 
12,282 posts, read 13,159,425 times
Reputation: 4985
I have had several friends destroy ther lives with gambling. We don't need to increase loss limits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2008, 08:34 PM
 
Location: Joplin
2,201 posts, read 2,507,214 times
Reputation: 4280
Leaving the issue of gambling out, this gives more money to some schools and limits funding to others. If you are a small school district it may help you but if you are a larger district it could really have negitive effects, from what I understand. I know that the teachers and administrators of schools in my area are aginst it
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri
Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top