Undecided on Proposition A
For political offices I know how I’ll be voting on November 4th. Proposition A, however, still has me undecided. Prop A will allow Missouri’s casinos to make lots more money by removing the hassle of loss-limit tracking. In exchange they are agreeing to tax themselves at a slightly higher rate than the current rate (21% vs 20%). Of course it is being sold as helping schools.
As you can tell I’m not inclined to buy into the interests of gaming officials. But I think they make a reasonable argument that it is less of a hassle for gamblers to cross a state line to be “entertained” at a neighboring state that doesn’t have loss limits. It is not wanting to lose more than $500 but avoiding the lines caused by the tracking measures the loss limit imposes.
I think I voted in favor of riverboat gambling back in the early 90s, I don’t recall. Boy have we come a long way. What is the rule now? You have to be able to see a river from the casino or at least have a painting of one in the lobby?
One interesting provision of Prop A is to lock in the number of gaming licenses to those currently operating or under construction. So the casinos will make more money and competition from within the state will be fixed. Within a decade they’ll be back saying we need more casinos.
Why don’t we just become like Nevada? Let’s have slot machines everywhere.
I say we support the no loss limit as soon as we ban smoking across the state. That would put Missouri casinos on an even footing with Illinois casinos.
So here is your chance to argue pro or con for Prop A, which way should us undecideds vote?
I’ll be voting for A simply because I don’t think the government has any business “protecting” adults from their own bad choices. If you have a gambling addiction, you should know it before you walk in (and you really shouldn’t). But if you can afford to lose $1,000 or $10,000, and find it to be “entertaining” (I sure don’t), more power to you. We all make choices, and we all have our vices, and rarely do laws come in “one size fits all”. And if you’re truly addicted to gambling, even a $500 daily loss limit won’t protect you from losing $15,000 a month.
.
I do find it interesting that they also want a cap on the number of licenses. While I’m a big believer in free enterprise, I also don’t see much need for a lot more casinos being built. What’s more likely “within a decade” is that the existing ones will just be raking in more money!
I’m voting against. This prop A looks like it was written by the casinos themselves. Remove loss limits. Remove competition. Give a bit more money to the state. If this was just remove loss limits and increase the tax to 21%, I’d probably be for it. But removing the possibility of other casinos coming in just seems like collusion to me.
I am with Kurt. Limiting the number of casinos? only increasing the tax to schools by 1%? it sounds like the primary reason for this was to repeal the loss limits which I am all for because that will entice more people with big money to the state. There are ways around it now anyway so it was more of a burden than a solution to stop compulsive gamblers. My biggest issues? 1) What about Rockaway beach? I would fully support them having a casino if it means more people can have jobs. I dont know off hand how many casinos there are currently in the state, but my guess is that this would ensure that Rockway would not get one. This part was definitely written by Harras, Pinnacle, and Ameristar 2) The token “its for the schools” pitch. Thats crap. More money for schools from casinos means less from somewhere else. It doesn’t necessarily mean that schools will get more money, it just means that politicians will be able to cut funding elsewhere. What happens when you dont diversify your portfolio of where your money comes from to pay for things? You get the stock market crash because of the housing market. We need money from schools coming from as many places as possible. Putting too much of the onus on funding from Casino’s is setting it up for disaster. We need to allow as many casino’s as possible but they must have restrictions so we dont have micro casino’s popping up everywhere, nor do we want slot machines in the airport or at every convenience store. This also means more regulation- where is the regulation in this bill? Nice idea, but they need to go back to the drawing board with this one which is why I am voting it down. Had it been just to remove loss limits I would have been all over it. That in itself would help the schools without any additional burden on the casino industry or require any limits on the number of casinos.
Yes to A.
It is not like a huge rush of Casinos plan to open on massive scales like Lumier. So I dont see the harm in limiting them now.
Plus hopefully in 10 years, we can go back and vote to remove the limit of casinos… just like we are voting to remove the loss limit.
Prop A is a no-brainer. The loss limit is idiotic. Vote yes. (And yes, I realize that the schools won’t actually get any more money. But that’s because of politicians, not casinos)
I’m voting against Prop A because it reads like the Lumiere Protection Act of 2008.
No more loss limits, no more competition, and only a 1% increase in the casino tax. “It’s for the kiddies” doesn’t sell this one. It’s stinks to high heaven.
Okay- so I checked the Missouri Gaming Association website and there are currently 12 casinos. They want to make the limit 13 which would bring the Pinnacle casino in under that umbrella that is going up near Arnold, MO. I think supply and demand should limit the number of casinos in this state, not some legal action. Competition is the best way to keep older casinos investing in their facility and not resting on their laurels. By limiting the number you also limit the competition.
http://www.missouricasinos.org/casino_locations.cfm
No to A.
Agree re: “Lumiere Protection Act of 2008”. We effectively grant a monopoly to a self-formed cabal.
Something else no one has brought up yet. Prop A would also remove gambling id cards. These cards are required in order to gamble (and to track losses). But they are also able to be revoked by self-reported gambling addicts. The STL Beacon says that 13,000 people self-reported and had their cards revoked, rendering them unable to feed their addiction (in our state at least). Those self-reported addicts would have their own restrictions removed by Prop A. Boo to that.
I’m leaning toward no on this one, as well…the casinos shouldn’t need to limit competition, and any money going to education will just allow the lawmakers to take away money coming from somewhere else, for a zero net gain.
.
I received a robo-call yesterday asking me to vote no…said that the St Louis City schools would receive NO money from this, and a few county schools would receive just a little money. I’ve read the proposition, and I don’t see anything in it that gets that specific. Anyone have more information on this?
.
.
Shall Missouri law be amended to:
.
* 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?
.
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.
In Illinois, they also have a self-reporting function. They check everyone’s ID when entering most of the Riverboats (not sure how they do it at the Queen). If you’re on the list, you go to jail.
I’m for A. I don’t care if there is a $500 loss limit. One point of clarification, the loss limit is per 2 hours, not per day, so in theory, someone could still lose $6000 a day, ~180,000 a month under the current rules. What’s the point of even having rules so loose?
Casino opponents have been caught with their hands in the pockets of the Casino Queen in Illinois.
The Illinois-based Casino Queen gave them $150,000 — and another check is said to be on on the way — because it NEEDS to keep Missouri at a competitive disadvantage. They NEED to keep Missouri’s loss limit in place because it benefits Illinois casinos.
Missouri is the only state in the nation that has this silly regulation. It send tax money across the Mississippi River — money that would otherwise go to Missouri’s school kids and Missouri’s economy.
A YES vote on Proposition A is important. The casino industry provides 12,000 much-needed jobs to our state. It also provides billions of dollars to our schools and our economy.
Vote YES on Prop A.
As a casino employee, I will be voting yes. While I don’t agree that it will bring more jobs to the casinos, I know that it will keep jobs that are already there. I don’t like the idea of limiting casinos, but that section can always be revoked by another vote, or repealed by the state senate.
I’d like to take some time to answer on some statement that people have mentioned above. Hopefully they’ll check back and see.
Throughout my post, I’ll be referring to the full text of the proposition, which you can find here: http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2008petitions/2008-035.asp
1. Jason says, “More money for schools from casinos means less from somewhere else. It doesn’t necessarily mean that schools will get more money, it just means that politicians will be able to cut funding elsewhere.” Reginald Pennypacker II says, “And yes, I realize that the schools won’t actually get any more money. But that’s because of politicians, not casinos.” Webby says, “any money going to education will just allow the lawmakers to take away money coming from somewhere else”
160.534(3) states: The amounts deposited in the schools first elementary and secondary education improvement fund pursuant to this section shall constitute new and additional funding for elementary and secondary education and shall not be used to replace existing funding provided for elementary and secondary education.
This means the money already budgeted for schools cannot change to reflect the extra money coming in through the proposition. This means that the extra money is actually extra money.
2. Jason also says, “This also means more regulation- where is the regulation in this bill?”
313.822(3) states: “The state auditor shall perform an annual audit of the gaming proceeds…”
It’s right there — the state auditor will check annually to ensure the fund is being used correctly. Also, the casinos are already heavily regulated by the Missouri Gaming Commission (or MGC). Their auditors check each casino at least annually to ensure the proper procedures are being done. This would include a check of their finances and whether they are paying the taxes correctly.
3. Noel says, “But they are also able to be revoked by self-reported gambling addicts…. Those self-reported addicts would have their own restrictions removed by Prop A.”
Every state that has casinos has an exclusion list you can place yourself on. Each has a different timespan and different rules on how to be placed on it. Missouri’s is called the Disassociated Persons List (or DAP List). People can go to any casino (or any MGC office) and ask to be placed on the list. There are some papers they have to read, then they are placed on the list.
Right now, this is easily enforced by the player’s cards. A player’s account is locked at all of the casinos, so they are unable to use their card to enter. However, many of these players enter using another person’s card. These people are caught when they hit a jackpot and have to show their ID. This happens more frequently than you think.
I know of no other state that forces players to have a player’s card, other than the ones that use the player’s card as your “money” (too complex to detail). Most of these states allow you to simply enter the casino without showing an ID (unless you appear to be under 21). If you’re on their equivalent to the DAP List, you get caught when you have to show your ID for a jackpot. This is how they’re caught. I won’t dispute that the players on the DAP List won’t start visiting the casinos when the cards go away, but they will eventually be caught.
Hopefully I’ve dispelled some of the thoughts that many of you have on voting yes for the proposition.
Yes to A.
I went to a presentation on Prop A. Personally, I don’t gamble and I’m usually suspicious of win/win measures…too good to be true. However, I’ve worked with youth in Missouri for sometime and understand first hand the challenges the schools have with funding. The measure is suppose to protect funds going to education as well as increase those funds. That’s all I needed to know. Every penny counts!!!
I support Prop A. I would also like to clarify a couple of things that Jason mentioned:
The tax increase is actually a 5% increase. 1% on 20% is a 5% increase in the tax rate. If you are making $20k and you get a 5% raise you are now at $21k. If your personal taxes went up 5% you would feel the difference.
As Andrew pointed out, there is additional regulation. Missouri casino are already required to have audits performed by the state and audits by outside auditors. There is also a staff assigned to each casino. The costs of all of this is paid for directly by the casinos in addition to the taxes being paid.
I believe the current act only allows casinos on the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. Rockaway beach tried to get this changed last year and it failed. They could not get a casino with or without the passing of Prop A.
I think Andrew addressed Jason’s other misconceptions.
It is obvious from the actions of the Casino Queen that there are a lot of Missouri dollars going to Illinois. Why not get rid of the regulation and keep the money in Missouri?
Yes on A, this is a win for the schools who we all know need all the help they can get. As a parent I want the best possible schools for my children.
If any adult( Yes only adults can enter a gaming floor in Missouri casinos) chooses this venue for their entertainment. They are an adult and that should be their choice.
Government already controls way too much of our life.
It should be my choice as it is my money..
I am voting yes and I oppose gaming.
.
The law does nothing to curb problem gambling. As other have said, under the law you can still lose thousands a day and there are ways around the sytem.
.
If people want to gamble, they will find a way. In St. Louis, you can go across the river and lose all you want. Those in KC also have that option by going to the Indian casinos in Kansas and will have a new casino in KCK at the racetrack within a year.
.
I am for limiting the number of casinos in the state. The loss limit is ineffective we can at least limit the number of gambling outlets available.
.
If the schools benefit in at the same time then it is a win-win for Missouri and a loss to the neighboring states.
Those who are bringing up schools….You do realize that schools will get ZERO new money, right? Yes, I am aware that the claim is that schools will get more money, but ignore that. Anyone with a brain and an understanding of history knows that schools will get nothing.
.
Having said that, the smart person votes yes.
Revenues from the state gaming tax are dedicated to schools by the Missouri State Constitution. That cannot be changed by the legislature or state bureaucrats.
Casinos have already sent nearly $3 Billion — that is BILLION, with a B — to Mo. Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education since the first casinos began operating in 1994.
Prop A mandates annual audits of education funds by the State Auditor to ensure that funding for schools is being increased and used as intended by Prop A.
As an SLPS teacher I’m voting no. Even if they were to give us the money, money for schools should not come from casinos.
my problem is that this will not increase funding for schools, it will simply allow the state to use the money they currently do for schools on something else, like sports stadiums. Mo schools will not receive additional funding, simply different funding.
Voting yes on A. I don’t gamble because I don’t like too, so the loss limit has no bearing on me. I agree wholeheartedly that this a backwards way of the state supporting education. Finally, limiting the number of casinos can always be changed later. So why vote yes? Because the loss limit assumes that individuals can’t be responsible for their own actions and I have a difficult time why that should be supported in my conservative mind. Less government but we need this law to protect us from too much sin. We might as well as have a hard liquor rule, you can only have two drinks in a hour and then you have to come back three hours later.
I am leaning towards NO on A.
I really could give a crap about the gamblers that lose their money at the Casinos, but I do think the Casinos pull money from our local economy. Removing the loss limits I feel expedites this process. Plus, aren’t the schools already supposed to get hundreds of millions of dollars a year?
I voted yes 10 yrs ago on the sales pitch it was to bring convention business to town. In the mean time it has been one lie after another culminating in boats in moats. The sooner these miserable enterprises go broke the better off we’ll all be.
That television billboard that is Lumiere is a disgrace.
To Andrew and “Yes on A” respondants..
Andrew: Thanks for pointing those paragraphs out. And of course I do have a response.
1. Andrew states: This means the money already budgeted for schools cannot change to reflect the extra money coming in through the proposition. This means that the extra money is actually extra money.
Response: Yes its extra money now, but the state government still needs to balance the budget at the end of the day and while they cannot take THIS money, they can certainly take it from elsewhere making schools more dependant upon the losses from gambling. Personally I would like to see schools LESS dependant on gambling as a source of revenue. Lets have more of the general revenue be directed at schools and take gambling money and direct it toward other programs to help others who may be overlooked by traditional revenue sources. I certainly don’t want my kids going to school knowing they are dependant on people losing at the casinos for the school to afford books, music, and art.
2. Andrew states: Also, the casinos are already heavily regulated by the Missouri Gaming Commission (or MGC). Their auditors check each casino at least annually to ensure the proper procedures are being done. This would include a check of their finances and whether they are paying the taxes correctly.
Response: Why should I be concerned? look at the wording that specifically states “excursion gambling boat” throughout the proposition. Now- look at what we have today. Boats that aren’t even boats. Lumiere is a prime example. I guess I know where I will be heading when the polar ice caps melt. At least I can still gamble. Lets get real legislation that gets rid of the rediculous “boat” clause which would reduce construction costs on the casino’s and be able to free up even more money to make the casino a destination. Moreso than eliminating a $500 spending cap which already resets itself after 2 hours. Instead create other rules that would restrict how and where gambling could occur.
“Yes on Prop A”- All I can say is- wow, where do you get your math? 21%-20%= 1%. Yes, the difference of $1000 on $20,000 is 5% but I sure hope we are talking about more than $20k toward schools. To use your analogy the difference would be an increase to $20,200 or 1%. Also- do you really think the Casino Queen is pulling all of the gamblers away from Harras and Ameristar? The only one possibly getting hurt is the Lumiere and thats only because people who don’t like smoke filled casino’s would head over to the Casino Queen so they dont reek of cigarettes when they get done. I hate to say it but the only real thing that could hurt Missouri “boats” is eliminating smoking. I hate smoking, but apparently most casino goers do not share this view.
So- who opposes Prop A? Here is the list that I could find. Sen- John Louden, Sen-Rob Mayer, Rep.-Bryan Stevenson, Rep.-Ed Robb, Gubernatorial candidates Kenny Hulshof and Jay Nixon, Rep.-Ray Salva, The Kansas City Star, KC Tribune, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and the Joplin Globe. (if anyone has others please post as I would love to have a complete list- but I only had so much time to devote to finding these)
Finally- all 3 missouri school unions are pulling a Switzerland and are neither for- nor against prop A with the Missouri Teachers association saying “We generally don’t take positions on ballot issues that we don’t see as educational issues,†said Krista Meyer, political action manager for the Missouri State Teachers Association . “We view this more as a casino issue than an education issue.†(from the Columbia Tribune).
Who supports the measure? well- there are alot of them and they are definitely easy to find, but for me its a david and goliath measure and when casinos put 90% of the funding behind it I am inclined to vote the other way, especially when someone blows smoke up my ass and tries to tell me “its for the schools”. its never been about the schools otherwise it wouldn’t have been written by the casinos themselves. The initiative wording was filed by Troy Stremming, vice-president of governmental affairs for Ameristar Casinos Inc., and president of the Missouri Riverboat Gaming Association; http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Missouri_Proposition_A_(2008).
I know this one will pass, but it doesn’t keep me from feeling good about myself for voting against it.
I don’t want to turn this into a math class but Jason seems to be falling short on understanding the tax increase.
.
If a casino has revenue of $100,000 for a day it currently pays 20% or $20,000 in tax on that revenue.
.
If the rate goes to 21%, the casino would pay $21,000 on that revenue. $1,000 on $20,000 is a 5% increase. The amount paid would not be $20,200.
.
In addition, the casinos pay $2/admission. Each time a patron enters a casino or stays in the casino from one 2-hour session to another the casino pays $2 for that person. From the Missouri Gaming Commission’s website, the effective rate of the admission tax has been 6.3% over the during the last quarter. This makes the overall tax rate 26.3% of revenues.
.
In the St. Louis market, Lumiere will probably be the most affected by the loss limit removal, but it is short sighted to discount the KC market. In September, the KC market had $58 million in revenue and the St. Louis market had $60 million. Kansas is bringing casinos online in Kansas within the next year to take more money from Missouri.
.
Jason – I hope this helps you with your math. One more question: Why do you feel government should exert this kind of control over an individual’s choice on how to spend their entertainment dollars?
If you’re against casinos, I understand your NO vote.
Gambling is legal. The loss limit is goofy.
I say si si.
and no on 1…
So- what you are saying is that its a difference in revenue not a difference in the total. I will concede that your increase is 5% for revenue generated, but not for overall percent of taxation. I personally cannot support something that limits competition for casinos in Missouri (granted new casinos could still be built just on the other side of the border and take patrons away from the state), makes it harder for people to self report their gambling addiction (the new rule is they will check ID’s when you win, but it does nothing for when you lose), and ultimately make schools more dependant on gambling as a source of revenue whether its 1% or 5%.
Interested in seeing if your school is getting any additional funding? Here is the link…
http://www.dese.mo.gov/divadm/finance/documents/Prop_A_Comparison.pdf
A short list of local schools not getting an increase: St. Louis City, Webster Groves, Valley Park, U. City, Normandy, Maplewood-Richmond Heights, Ladue, Clayton, Jennings, Brenwood, Parkway, Lindbergh, Pattonville, and St. Charles. Maybe they should rename the proposition to “Other People’s Schools First Initiative” Final thanks to the major (and only) financial supporters of Prop A- Pinnacle and Ameristar. Note: the missouri Gaming Commission shows about $13k of in-kind donations.
I will concede that your increase is 5% for revenue generated, but not for overall percent of taxation. I also agree that the loss limit is goofy, but I personally cannot support something that limits competition for casinos in Missouri (granted new casinos could still be built just on the other side of the border and take patrons away from the state), makes it harder for people to self report their gambling addiction (the new rule is they will check ID’s when you win, but it does nothing for when you lose), and ultimately make schools more dependant on gambling as a source of revenue whether its 1% or 5%.
Interested in seeing if your school is getting any additional funding? Here is the link…
http://www.dese.mo.gov/divadm/finance/documents/Prop_A_Comparison.pdf
A short list of local schools not getting an increase: St. Louis City, Webster Groves, Valley Park, U. City, Normandy, Maplewood-Richmond Heights, Ladue, Clayton, Jennings, Brenwood, Parkway, Lindbergh, Pattonville, and St. Charles. Maybe they should rename the proposition to “Other People’s Schools First Initiative” Final thanks to the major (and only) financial supporters of Prop A- Pinnacle and Ameristar. Note: the missouri Gaming Commission shows about $13k of in-kind donations. Seems like a conflict of interest if they are giving in-kind donations to future legislation they are supposed to audit.
I think it would be worthwhile topic on whether dedicating state tax revenues such as these is good or bad. I believe that taxes generated by gambling, like the state income tax, should go to the general fund. This referendum should be about regulating gambling. Instead, its politically tied to education funding. Which in my mind does a great disservice to discussing on how to fund education on the state and local level. Nothing like having to understand why some school district will gain while others don’t with gambling tax dollars.
I was listening to KWMU Tuesday night and a proponent and an opponent of Prop A were on. The Opponent of A indicated that St. Louis City Schools and 19 other School districts in St. Louis County and St. Charles County would receive no money (ZERO) from this proposition. The Proponent of A did not refute this at all.
Decision Made- No on A.
I would support A if the clause limiting the number of licenses was not included. With that clause, the proposition creates a windfall for current operators. I am all for lifting loss limits, and all for free competition among casinos. I am not in favor of state-backed favoritism toward current operators.
SO- since we helped you decide, what was the final verdict? I would be interested to hear the how and why.
I voted no. But the prop passed anyway
Well here we go again…another casino. They will keep pushing until they get what they think they want. I live no more than 30 minutes away from 6 casinos right now and they want to build another in a flooded area-Riverview and 270. Are we going to have to pay taxes for the roads? When do we get paid for that.?
We'r ed hardy outlet one of the most profession
of the coolest and latest ed hardy apparel, such as
ed hardy tee ,ed hardy bags,
ed hardy bathing suits, ed hardy shoes,
ed hardy board shorts ， don ed hardyt,ed hardy tank tops, ed hardy for women,
ed hardy swimwearand more,
ed hardy clothing. We offers a wide selection of fashion
cheap ed hardyproducts. Welcome to our shop or just enjoy browsing through our stunning collection available wholesale ed hardy in our shop.
our goal is to delight you with our distinctive collection of mindful ed hardy products while providing value and excellent service. Our goal is 100% customer satisfaction and we offer only 100% satisfacted service and ed hardy products. Please feel free to contact us at any time; we are committed to your 100% customer satisfaction. If you're looking for the best service and best selection, stay right where you are and continue shopping at here is your best online choice for the reasonable prices. So why not buy your ed hardy now, I am sure they we won’t let you down.
i got my property tax statement for 2010 and the school tax is crazy my car was shown as 900$ my scooter was 30$.all taxes looked normal until the school tax 67$ what about the casinos deal of them paying the majority of school taxes.but they keep going to us anyway.if you do the math what would the persons with 30k car or more have to pay or is it a flat rate.meanwhile the teachers have summers off holidays off make more than me and the board members make 160k to 250k and are kid are getting poor educations because teachers don't care.they even have a program that if they spend 2 years on job they can't be fired unless charged with criminal activity and after 10 years they can get a payout witch is a large amount. so tell me why i'm paying so much for them when the kids are treated crappy all around and the school it's self ask's for money weekly and some are not small amounts for someone on poverty level income.