As we move forward in the transition of power from President Obama to Donald Trump, many Americans are looking at political issues surrounding our nation and our cities. In that, the economy is a huge concern to a large percentage of Americans. In many cities, the prospect of gambling and casinos has come to the attention of government officials, and for good reason. The potential of gaining revenue for the government is the driving factor for this consideration, though many have reservations of its effectiveness based on morals and a list of historic cons. There are points to both sides, but the question is whether or not legal casinos are better or worse overall for the communities that they reside in. Gambling, or playing games for money
…show more content…
Kindt continues by saying, “Accordingly, several state legislators (e.g., in South Dakota) have called for at least partially internalizing these external costs by taxing all legalized gambling activities at a straight 50 percent tax rate,” which is the opposite of the intention of casinos. While consumers are spending money on casinos, many said that if the casino didn’t exist, ‘"more than 10% of the locals would spend more on groceries if it were not for the casino, while nearly one-fourth would spend more on clothes. Thirty-seven percent said that their savings had been reduced since the casino had opened ..." because of spending their money on the games. Kindt presented his argument as if everyone follows this way of life, and also assumes that the people doing the spending are mostly natives to the community, which may not be entirely false for the places that he has mentioned, which are Illinois and parts of the midwest. The midwest isn’t the most tourist-heavy territory, so casinos may not be the best option for that area. If the people are losing more money and it’s decreasing the quality of life of the residents, then a casino is not a good thing to have in the community. Pittsburgh specifically, …show more content…
Due to the psychological impacts of gambling, the revenue that the casino would generate that would go to programs that improve quality of life in the community could actually be worse for the community members. In Kindt’s article, he writes that “Adherence to a philosophy of making a living via gambling activities not only abrogates the perceived need for an education, but also reinforces economically unproductive activities (and is statistically impossible since the "house" always wins eventually). In states with legalized gambling activities which were initiated allegedly to bolster tax revenues to "education," the funding in "real dollars" has almost uniformly decreased,” (Kindt). He was saying that the gambling negatively affects the people mentally by giving the hope of earning money from the casinos, though it is impossible, and that the programs meant to benefit from this are actually not benefitting at all. Kindt also argued that because of this, the quality of life of gamblers has decreased. Gambling, unlike traditional business, “caters to a market consisting of addicted and potentially addicted consumers,” so traditional businesses will find it hard to compete for the money that is “transformed into "gambling dollars”’ (Kindt). Kindt doesn’t mention the fact that there are normal people who don’t turn all of their real dollars into “gambling dollars.” Some
Kindt continues by saying, “Accordingly, several state legislators (e.g., in South Dakota) have called for at least partially internalizing these external costs by taxing all legalized gambling activities at a straight 50 percent tax rate,” which is the opposite of the intention of casinos. While consumers are spending money on casinos, many said that if the casino didn’t exist, ‘"more than 10% of the locals would spend more on groceries if it were not for the casino, while nearly one-fourth would spend more on clothes. Thirty-seven percent said that their savings had been reduced since the casino had opened ..." because of spending their money on the games. Kindt presented his argument as if everyone follows this way of life, and also assumes that the people doing the spending are mostly natives to the community, which may not be entirely false for the places that he has mentioned, which are Illinois and parts of the midwest. The midwest isn’t the most tourist-heavy territory, so casinos may not be the best option for that area. If the people are losing more money and it’s decreasing the quality of life of the residents, then a casino is not a good thing to have in the community. Pittsburgh specifically, …show more content…
Due to the psychological impacts of gambling, the revenue that the casino would generate that would go to programs that improve quality of life in the community could actually be worse for the community members. In Kindt’s article, he writes that “Adherence to a philosophy of making a living via gambling activities not only abrogates the perceived need for an education, but also reinforces economically unproductive activities (and is statistically impossible since the "house" always wins eventually). In states with legalized gambling activities which were initiated allegedly to bolster tax revenues to "education," the funding in "real dollars" has almost uniformly decreased,” (Kindt). He was saying that the gambling negatively affects the people mentally by giving the hope of earning money from the casinos, though it is impossible, and that the programs meant to benefit from this are actually not benefitting at all. Kindt also argued that because of this, the quality of life of gamblers has decreased. Gambling, unlike traditional business, “caters to a market consisting of addicted and potentially addicted consumers,” so traditional businesses will find it hard to compete for the money that is “transformed into "gambling dollars”’ (Kindt). Kindt doesn’t mention the fact that there are normal people who don’t turn all of their real dollars into “gambling dollars.” Some