Gambling bills come with huge costs

Midlands Voices: Gambling bills come with huge costs

By Glen Andersen

The writer, of Blair, is a member of the organization Gambling With the Good Life.

Proposals before the Legislature would allow casino gambling in Nebraska. When considering any bill, the primary concern should be: “Is it best for the people of Nebraska?”

It seems that the sponsors and proponents of expanded gambling have not been willing to address the well-known problems that come with gambling.

Proponents say gambling would generate tax revenue. No doubt about that. Iowa casinos had adjusted gross casino revenue of $1.43 billion and generated $295.6 million in tax revenue in 2013.

We can estimate tax revenue in Nebraska by first reducing the Iowa tax revenue by about 14 percent (for Nebraskans gambling in Iowa), and then by comparing the population of Nebraska (1.89 million) to Iowa (3.09 million) and estimating casino tax revenue in Nebraska of $153.7 million.

The problem is that someone’s gain is usually someone else’s loss. Using the average Iowa tax rate of 20.7 percent, casino gross revenue (money lost by gamblers) would be $742 million. Estimating 1.38 million adults of gambling age in Nebraska, the average money lost at casinos would be $539 per adult per year.

A large portion of Nebraskans are not gamblers, and a very large portion would not gamble more than a few dollars per year. Therefore, a small portion of the population would carry the burden of losing the most money.

“Gaming machines,” slot machines, are a much larger challenge to problem gamblers than other forms of gambling. According to a University of Lethbridge study prepared for the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Center, 62 percent of “gaming machine” losses are by problem gamblers who make up 4.8 percent of the adult population.

In that case, 4.8 percent of Nebraska adults would be losing $460 million, and each of those 66,000 people would be losing an average of $6,900.

With proposed constitutional amendment LR 416CA, 50 percent of the tax revenue would be used for property tax relief. This may appeal to the non-gambler because he might get a small amount of property tax relief at the expense of a friend or neighbor who has an affinity for gambling.

But with a property tax reduction of $55.68 (average to each adult), someone — maybe his neighbor — would be losing $6,900 at casinos. A non-gambler can look at this as a way to reduce his taxes by fleecing his neighbor. Is this really the way the state should be taxing Nebraskans?

Proponents say, “We are already losing gambling money to Iowa!” Yes, we are. Along with many Nebraskans, I resent the fact that Iowa has these casinos right across the Missouri River. But resentment is not a good thing on which to base rational decisions.

Crossing the river for gambling is a psychological hurdle for many people. If the casinos were on our side of the river, there would be more Nebraskans gambling.

But if we were to allow casinos in Nebraska, they would not be placed next to our side of the river.

They would be in west Omaha, Lincoln, Grand Island or outstate. Easier access to gambling would increase the number of Nebraskans gambling. It would increase the amount of money lost by the elderly on Social Security. It would increase the gambling losses of a mother or father of children. It would increase crime resulting from gambling losses.

The legislative proposals include provisions that designate where the tax revenues would go. If the

Legislature is wise enough to determine the future of gambling in the state, why does this amendment have to specify that a certain portion must go to property tax relief, a portion to education and a portion to health care?

It appears that the purpose is to make gambling more palatable: “Look at the good things that would be done with the money generated by gambling!” Why must we make this proposal look pretty?

The minute we change our state constitution for even one slot machine, we open the state to Indian casinos. They are allowed to have anything that’s legal in a state, and they have already announced that they are ready to pounce on the opportunity.

How can we possibly consider allowing large casino corporations to come in and cause the financial distress and social problems that we know would happen? These are the very problems that good government is supposed to be alleviating.

How can good government promote something that would be really bad for many of Nebraska’s citizens?


http://www.omaha.com/article/20140221/NEWS08/140229838/1677