How much revenue will this generate for the Capital Bill. Have they produced their estimate?
47th Ward
· 7 months ago
Yes, I support it. It's already occurring in many places and why shouldn't we get some important public works out of existing behavior/transactions? Cut in the locals too, nice touch!
Why the capped pay-out of $500? I understand capping the maximum bet, but why on earth cap the pay back? Isn't that part of the allure of gambling, receiving odds for the longshot bet? I don't think that needs to be mandated, and I believe it may be counter productive in the end.
Thanks for taking my call you
· 7 months ago
I think it is a great idea since many of these taverns already have machines. Gaming is a reality in Illinois. They should also allow these machines at the race tracks.
Wumpus
· 7 months ago
No, don't limit it. I want my corner domino game legalized too! I support gambling expansion, but not this half attempt.
casual observer
· 7 months ago
Isn't gambling an "unwholesome activity"? If so, then who profits from this? IMO connecting bars, clubs, etc. to the DOR network for monitoring and administering "video gaming" is putting the camel's nose under the tent.
Ignatz
· 7 months ago
The machines are already out there and someone is making big tax-free bucks off them. It's time the state wised up and admitted that people gamble and take advantage of the fact that fun shouldn't be illegal.
jlp309
· 7 months ago
No, I do not support this approach to capital funding. My main objection is that the proposal tries to justify a bad thing (gambling and taxation) by using some of it's revenue for a good thing (schools). If the schools are in such poor shape, the local district should work to improve them (taxes, cost cutting, moving to other buildings, district consolidation, etc). This is not grounds for state wide taxation. And lets remember that this is the very same justification used to introduce casinos here in the first place - just look how well that has worked out for school funding (sarc off). This is just another ploy for separating the people from their money via taxes.
Six Degrees of Separation
· 7 months ago
I suppose it'll raise a small amount of money, and it won't expand gambling but legitimize the illegal gambling that is already going on. I'm ambivalently OK with it, but doubtful it will provide a meaningful revenue stream compared with the needs.
Concerned Observer
· 7 months ago
Well, yes, in general.
But not until they beef up the Gaming Control Inspector force to patrol these machines. And I'd much rather see the federal government legalize online poker, but that's a whole other ball of wax.
Rob_N
· 7 months ago
....21 - The minimum age to play.
The key number there is "21 - The minimum age to play"...
5% may go to "local governments" but the number of violations police officers will produce when they send an 18 or 19 year old in for a sting will be pretty dang high in and of itself.
Can't the lege grow a pair and find another funding source (...or cut some of their own bennies) besides gambling?!
Or is every VFW and Legion hall in the state going to have to put up a sign with "Gambling problem? Call Rep. Frank Mautino."
---
jlp309 says, "This is just another ploy for separating the people from their money via taxes."
You can choose to lose your money while gambling or you can choose to keep your money in your pocket.
Up to you. (Just like speeding tickets, cigarette taxes, etc.)
wordslinger
· 7 months ago
From what I read on this blog, there are plenty of these machines operating out there illegally already (I must be hanging out in the wrong places). The Outfit has been running video poker machines for years -- I'm all in favor of taking some of their money.
As an aside, one of my local watering holes has a new amusement device I'd never seen before. It's a Lobster Catch game, similar to the claw games kids play to get stuffed toys.
Put two bucks in, and you get a chance to manipulate a claw to catch a live lobster in a tank contained in the machine. If you do, the bar will boil it up for you for free!
Six Degrees of Separation
· 7 months ago
Word-
I'm anxiously awaiting the PETA protest outside this wonderful establishment.
Anonymous Coward
· 7 months ago
Word-
Where??
Just a Citizen
· 7 months ago
Absolutely not!!! Agree completely with what jlp309 says, "My main objection is that the proposal tries to justify a bad thing (gambling and taxation) by using some of it’s revenue for a good thing (schools). If the schools are in such poor shape, the local district should work to improve them (taxes, cost cutting, moving to other buildings, district consolidation, etc). And lets remember that this is the very same justification used to introduce casinos here in the first place - just look how well that has worked out for school funding. "
Don't these law makers have any new ideas on balancing the budget or funding the building of new schools?
Anonymous
· 7 months ago
Absolutely support this. Already in half the bars and restaurants illegally and the State is missing a great revenue source. $200,000,000 a year is a reasonable estimate. Just look at Montana.
Plutocrat03
· 7 months ago
More smoke and mirrors. Just like the three new casinos scary Terry Link proposes for the state. It will shuffle around the existing gambling revenue, hook a few more residents and the special interests keep feeding at the trough.
Do you think that any establishment that currently has illegal machines will convert to legal ones? if the "Outfit" does control the existing machines, who thinks they will walk away with nothing?
The size of the revenue stream is unreliable so the bondholders will want a backup.
Nonsense
Randolph
· 7 months ago
Of all the gaming proposals, this is by far the best one. Thousands of those machines are out there operating illegally already, so it really isn't an expansion. Regulating it will take out the unsavory characters involved and the state collects a shiny new dime.
Speaking at Will
· 7 months ago
"Catching Lobsters With Wordslinger!"
The next Reality TV Sensation...
...Starrring Rod Blagojevich as the Zany Bar Room Chef! "Lemme Boil that Lobbyster Four ya!"
...Emil Jones as the Doorman!
...and Rich Miller as the Friday night Karaoke DJ!
Vote Quimby!
· 7 months ago
My dad went to prison over poker machines, and I see them in most every bar, VFW and American Legion hall I've been in. They may be the most vocal against this bill: it is gravy for them. But I agree it is time to legitimize activity already occurring and make money from it.
wordslinger
· 7 months ago
Pluto, bootleggers, including The Outfit, had to walk away from that business when the Volstead Act was repealed. And The Outfit lost a huge revenue source in the Policy Wheel numbers game when the state lottery was instituted.
Regarding the Lobster Catch game, the machine is obviously made by a professional amusement device manufacturer -- it's not a homemade job by any means, so I'm sure there are a number out there.
The one I'm referring to can be found at one of the many fine neighborhood, family-friendly restaurants and bars and grills on Madison Street in Forest Park -- happy hunting, if you're so inclined.
Pot calling kettle
· 7 months ago
Yes. Seems like common sense.
In terms of overall revenue, keeping the money dedicated toward school construction, is OK, but these dedicated funds are always part of a larger shell game.
Plutocrat03
· 7 months ago
I hate to tell you, but there are elements of the outfit who are still involved in the distribution of liquor, tobacco and the numbers games.
Their ability to use 'persuasion' as well as better taxfree payouts better than the state will allow them to continue to make a lot of money.
Come to think about it, the state is starting to behave like organized crime. Think about it
wordslinger
· 7 months ago
Pluto, there is still bootlegging in the form of avoiding tax stamps on booze, but the revenues for organized crime are nothing compared to those made during Prohibition. Same with numbers.
Ghost
· 7 months ago
No, I am opposed. Gambling tends to draw in more low income people, and thus we are creatign revenue streams built upon a smaller group of people, and often the ones leats able to carry the burden. it also makes for uneven revenue streams. We are far betetr off to use revenue from income or sales tax increases.
===== It’s already occurring in many places and why shouldn’t we get some important public works out of existing behavior/transactions? ====
First, why not just increase the income tax on video machines without legalizing gambling on them. We get the money from the current conduct, plus retain the right to seize the illgotten gains if we find illegal payouts.
=== someone is making big tax-free bucks off them. ==== technically they are supposed to pay taxes on the earnings. if they are fudging earnings, nothing here stops this. The payout is limited to 500. So they in theory would get reports of people earning the cash payouts that could no be taxed, assuming this information is not falsified or misreported as well. I would suggest that the illgeal activity wil remain components that are sitll illegal to minimize the collection of taxes.
We need less sin taxes and more fair taxes.
JLP
· 7 months ago
From reading the positive comments, it looks like they can best be summed up by Quimby's comment: "it is time to legitimize activity already occurring and make money from it". Let's take that a few steps further, shall we? Since prostitution is already occurring, should we legalize that? Nevada already does to some extent. Since pot/crack/heroin/meth/etc usage is already occurring, should we legalize that? Since rape is already occurring, should we legalize that? Since murder is already occurring, should we legalize that? Yes, I understand that I'm being absurd. But the point is that society does not gain from legalizing actions that are bad for it, even if it makes a few bucks in the process. And to mask this moral dishonesty by saying that we will build a few new gymnasiums for Johnny and Suzy as compensation is just plain wrong.
taken care of business
· 7 months ago
I have known many of the people first hand that own these amusement companies and I can tell you they are not part of the "outfit". They are hard working business people. From my understanding, the owners of the amusement companies insisted, in the legalized gaming bill, that for anyone to be licensed to do business under the new law they have to pass a background check confirming they have never been convicted of any felony. They want to be legit just like any other business. Also, based on South Dakota Statistics, the income for the state could be around $750,000,000 per year.
Six Degrees of Separation
· 7 months ago
Let’s take that a few steps further, shall we? Since prostitution is already occurring, should we legalize that? Nevada already does to some extent.,
No, because it contributes to Nevada's status as one of the unhealthiest states in the US.
Since pot/crack/heroin/meth/etc usage is already occurring, should we legalize that?
I see federal and state movement to legalize and regulate pot, but not the others.
Since rape is already occurring, should we legalize that?
Not a source of potential tax revenue.
Since murder is already occurring, should we legalize that?
Same answer as above.
Fact is, we have always drawn 9and re-drawn) a line on which vices are allowed and which ones aren't, based on a variety of factors.
Downstate GOP Faithless
· 7 months ago
I simply do not understand why this is going to happen, but ensuring the future of the horse racing industry is such a hot-button issue
Capitol View
· 7 months ago
is the state share of these profits the same as at casinos? that averages about 70% of profits, I believe.
There is no way the bars and clubs will turn over 70% of their profits on their machines. They'll keep them in the back rooms.
Ratchet down your tax revenues expectations, people.
Poker Fan
· 7 months ago
There are two bars in my town. Both pay out on gaming machines now. The owners say they would gladly pay the tax on legal machines so they can sleep better knowing they will not get busted for gambling.
downstate dem
· 7 months ago
Yes I support the idea and I am in a line of work where I know a little about it... 1. This activity is occuring across the state, most notably in veterans clubs (some have over 100 machines in back rooms). 2. The bill will likely DECREASE the # of video poker machines in use in the State because it imposes limits (for example the vets clubs would be limited to 5). 3. The bill will guarantee the "fairness" of the machines (right now they can be manipulated by their owners - the bill will set them up for state inspections and standards). The max payout is set at $500 b/c poker should not be seen as a potentially life-altering game. You're not going to get rich playing video poker. People will drop $20 weekly on lottery tickets b/c they think they might become millionaires... Whereas the low-dollar maximum payout on this game demonstrates that it is just that - a game. The state needs money. This is an activity that is already going on, that is no more "unwholesome" than any other forms of already legal gambling, and this is an industry that is literally saying "Tax me!" It almost seems silly not to.
Anon
· 7 months ago
I'm all for it! There are thousands of these being operated in our state, and there are many bars and small businesses who depend on these machines to stay afloat since the smoking ban. The people who play these now, are not going to stop playing if the bill doesn't pass. Why not try to do some good with it.
Rich Miller
· 7 months ago
JLP, unlike prostitution, heroin, crack, meth, rape and everything else you mentioned, gambling is already legal in Illinois via riverboats, racetracks, bingo and the Lottery.
Your argument makes absolutely no sense in its proper context. Completely illogical, wildly over the top comments like that one aren't welcome here. Please don't do that again.
47th Ward
· 7 months ago
downstate dem, we agree but I still don't understand this logic:
===The max payout is set at $500 b/c poker should not be seen as a potentially life-altering game. You’re not going to get rich playing video poker.===
That would explain the maximum wager limit, not the maximum pay out limit contained in the bill. I'm not John Grachowski, but it seems to me if drawing a straight flush is 1000-1 odds, a $2 bet should pay the winner $2,000. Capping the payout doesn't make sense, and likely will restrain whatver profits the state hopes to tax.
Cap the maximum bet, OK fine. But you really make it more of a sucker's game by arbitrarily reducing the pay out odds. Most casinos don't pay true odds to begin with, but no way I'm putting my hard earned $2 at risk for 250-1 payout on a 1000-1 chance. It doesn't make sense.
Would the bill's authors enforce this just on non-casino video poker or make the casinos change their machines too? Then you have unequal protection and a host of other issues.
JLP
· 7 months ago
Rich, My apologies for going wild. I appreciate your comments. I'm passionate about this topic because I've seen several people's lives destroyed because of gambling - most of it legalized. Where do we draw the line on gambling? How much is too much?
Rich Miller
· 7 months ago
Thanks.
VanillaMan
· 7 months ago
Whenever I pay taxes, I recognize how much I lose in that gamble.
wordslinger
· 7 months ago
-- (some have over 100 machines in back rooms).--
Whoa, I don't think those are back rooms any longer -- those are casinos!
The more I hear about this underground industry out there, the bigger it sounds.
Poker Math Guy
· 7 months ago
47th Ward makes a very good point. On a max bet quarter machine, the bet is $1.25 and the payback from a Royal Flush is $1000 on a standard poker machine. This is generally true no matter what the hold on the machine is set to. To artificially limit the machine to $500 on a $2.00 bet is not giving the player a fair chance.
On the regulation side, I would believe that the State Gaming Board will have to be expanded tremendously to handle all of the licensing applications. Especially since the bill requires that an application be processed in 90 days or it gets an automatic approval. I think a lot of approvals would be given a pass without the appropriate scrutiny.
Louis G. Atsaves
· 7 months ago
Are these video poker machines the type that accept credit or debit cards?
If folks insist on gambling and the state wants to tax it, fine. But those with addiction/behavioral problems need some protection. What bar will turn someone away from a machine by saying "you've lost too much money today I have to cut you off" similar to "you've have too much to drink I have to cut you off"?
At least casinos have some form of legal blacklisting arrangements to try to keep out those with true gambling problems. How will this work in say 750 bars and taverns scattered throughout the state? Or 2,000 bars?
Machines don't talk back or measure a person. I'm generally not opposed to gambling but enforcement limits? I don't see how that will be possible.
neato!
· 7 months ago
"Licensed fraternal establishment" means the location where a qualified fraternal organization that derives its charter from a national fraternal organization regularly meets."
HAHA thats great. the first thought that went through my head...we do not allow kids to smoke in fraternity houses, but they can get poker machines in them now?
Im going to head to Champaign right now and lock them in!
47th Ward
· 7 months ago
Neato, think Elks Lodge, not Sigma Chi house...at least I hope the law makes that distinction.
Justice
· 7 months ago
I am for this because the establishments I know are racking in about 9Gs a month on these machines and it is pure profit. As for the policing of it, most mayors I know frequently play and the police are told not to bother the establishments that pay out. One establishment down south even has a machine visible in plan site that tells you how much you won and then you collect it the next day. Sadly many seniors are addicted to this type of gaming. Gamblers will always find a way to gamble, so let the state take its share. New Jersey already does I believe. It is long over due.
Equal Rights
· 7 months ago
As a matter of fairness, all laws should be applied equally to all people. If gambling is permissible for casinos (most of which are owned by ridiculously wealthy businessmen who do not even reside in Illinois), then how can it be prohibited for small businessmen to participate in the very same activity? Gambling should either be legal for everyone or illegal for everyone.
Some have stated this bill should not pass because it "masks a moral dishonesty" and "it tries to justify a bad thing." Obviously, these statements were made by principled people with high moral fiber. However, what place does one person's morality have when determining legislation for the entire populace? I suggest that your moral opposition to gambling is not a legitimate reason to prohibit gambling for the rest of us.
steve schnorf
· 7 months ago
It already exists, so regulating and taxing it does not "expand" gambling, it simply regulates and taxes this form of gambling, as we do with many other forms. Many of the fraternal organizations I know of would go out of business (or have to raise drink prices big time) if they were limited to 5 poker machines, and had to have part of the revenues taxed.
Zoe
· 7 months ago
Taverns pay Illinois State income tax on all revenues from games. Any tavern that is not claiming all their income from games is foolish. It is only 3%. No reason to hide money from the State. This bill would be the largest expansion of gambling in many years. Riverboats have around 1500+ slots. This bill will put 65,000 games in every restaurant and tavern. Yes clubs have them. But do you want them in every place you go? Let's got to the Olive Garden and gamble.
neato!
· 7 months ago
- 47th Ward
I read the law...they MAY be claiming that there is no license to SERVE booze, hence making them ineligible, however, I know at my school, we were allowed to serve beer and wine to people over the age of 21...Equal Protection is a wonderful clause.
Bar Patron
· 7 months ago
I think it's great that the state is doing something good for the bars and clubs in the state who are hurting more than the casinos from the smoking ban, while at the same time, raising some much needed revenue.
steve schnorf
· 7 months ago
Zoe, but you wouldn't want the numbers on your state and federal returns to not match up, would you?
Anonymous
· 7 months ago
What's the point of raising more money for schools when they can't even bother to hire development directors to raise funds from alumni and local citizens?
Every private school, including non-wealthy non-profits, finds myriad ways to fund everything.
Yet, our near monopoly of public education, which has failed to improve test scores for decades despite huge increases in funding, can't lift a finger to raise any money themselves?
Are our public schools really so incompetent or badly run that nobody would ever donate to them?
Most people think education is a great investment worth supporting, so why not ask our rich neighbors to make a donation, rather than forcing higher taxes on our poor and middle class neighbors?
Wouldn't schools perform and communicate with the public much better if they had to convince locals and alumni to make donations that would be matched proportionately by the state (with higher matches for poorer districts)?
When are we going to teach schools how to fish instead of giving them more fish?
Ann N. E. Mouse
· 7 months ago
The reason people wouldn't donate to public schools is because they are already funding those schools with their tax dollars. Why pay for something twice? There's a whole host of problems with the current public school system, and as someone who knows people working in school districts, I can tell you that the largest problem they have is with funding. People working in public schools shouldn't be worrying about raising money; they should be worrying about teaching your children. But many of them can't afford to hire the number of qualified teachers and assistants that they need to be able to help children learn and raise those test scores.
Huge increases in funding? They have seen funding cut year after year, while expenses continue to skyrocket. They are being asked to do more with less and less.
The issue at hand, however, is gambling and the fact of the matter is that it is legal in casinos and in every gas station/convenience store that sells lottery tickets and scratch-offs. I find it incredibly hypocritical that most of the people I know who are opposed to gambling in the forms of poker in any form are also people who make sure to hit the convenience store every week for their chance at the million dollar jackpots or buy in to their office's NCAA pool every year.
The way I see it is this - either gambling is legal or it's not, but you don't get to pick and choose who gets to reap the profits from it based on which forms of gambling you think are more moral. These machines are out there, they are being played, and they are earning lots of money. Why not tax that if we are going to allow casinos and state lottery?
Did anybody not hear about the raids that happened under Blago? He sent people in to small taverns all over the southern half of the state and arrested bartenders making less than minimum wage for "supporting" video poker because they worked in places that had them, all the while wanting to increase gambling in riverboat casinos. The people who work in bars and taverns across this state are in more need of the money made from gambling than any businessman who owns a casino.
I choose to smoke. I know it is bad for me, but I don't care. For that, I know that I am going to pay more in taxes for every cigarette that I buy, and I think that's fair. If you choose to gamble, then I think it's fair that there are taxes collected on that. What I don't think is fair are the calls to raise the income tax or the sales tax. We already have a high poverty rate in this state, and raising taxes on things people HAVE to buy, like sales tax on bread and milk, is just going to increase that problem.
The state is going to have to increase taxes somewhere and make budget cuts elsewhere, or this state is going to go even further down the toilet of debt. I say legalize video poker and take a share for the state to pay for our roads and our schools, and those people who are against gambling can just choose not to gamble.
wordslinger
· 7 months ago
Anon and Ann, plenty of people give boatloads of money to public schools above and beyond their property tax bills.
The Illinois constitution guarantees a free state education, but....
I have three kids in public schools and by a quick estimate, kick in about $900 bucks in various fees -- beyond property taxes -- over the course of the year. Then comes the PTO fundraisers, the band fundraiser, the sports teams fundraisers, the end-of-year trip fundraiser, et. al. ad infinitum. Then there's the volunteer time as well.
All Comments
Anyway...
How much revenue will this generate for the Capital Bill. Have they produced their estimate?
Why the capped pay-out of $500? I understand capping the maximum bet, but why on earth cap the pay back? Isn't that part of the allure of gambling, receiving odds for the longshot bet? I don't think that needs to be mandated, and I believe it may be counter productive in the end.
And lets remember that this is the very same justification used to introduce casinos here in the first place - just look how well that has worked out for school funding (sarc off).
This is just another ploy for separating the people from their money via taxes.
But not until they beef up the Gaming Control Inspector force to patrol these machines. And I'd much rather see the federal government legalize online poker, but that's a whole other ball of wax.
The key number there is "21 - The minimum age to play"...
5% may go to "local governments" but the number of violations police officers will produce when they send an 18 or 19 year old in for a sting will be pretty dang high in and of itself.
Can't the lege grow a pair and find another funding source (...or cut some of their own bennies) besides gambling?!
Or is every VFW and Legion hall in the state going to have to put up a sign with "Gambling problem? Call Rep. Frank Mautino."
---
jlp309 says, "This is just another ploy for separating the people from their money via taxes."
You can choose to lose your money while gambling or you can choose to keep your money in your pocket.
Up to you. (Just like speeding tickets, cigarette taxes, etc.)
As an aside, one of my local watering holes has a new amusement device I'd never seen before. It's a Lobster Catch game, similar to the claw games kids play to get stuffed toys.
Put two bucks in, and you get a chance to manipulate a claw to catch a live lobster in a tank contained in the machine. If you do, the bar will boil it up for you for free!
I'm anxiously awaiting the PETA protest outside this wonderful establishment.
Where??
Don't these law makers have any new ideas on balancing the budget or funding the building of new schools?
Do you think that any establishment that currently has illegal machines will convert to legal ones? if the "Outfit" does control the existing machines, who thinks they will walk away with nothing?
The size of the revenue stream is unreliable so the bondholders will want a backup.
Nonsense
The next Reality TV Sensation...
...Starrring Rod Blagojevich as the Zany Bar Room Chef! "Lemme Boil that Lobbyster Four ya!"
...Emil Jones as the Doorman!
...and Rich Miller as the Friday night Karaoke DJ!
But I agree it is time to legitimize activity already occurring and make money from it.
Regarding the Lobster Catch game, the machine is obviously made by a professional amusement device manufacturer -- it's not a homemade job by any means, so I'm sure there are a number out there.
The one I'm referring to can be found at one of the many fine neighborhood, family-friendly restaurants and bars and grills on Madison Street in Forest Park -- happy hunting, if you're so inclined.
In terms of overall revenue, keeping the money dedicated toward school construction, is OK, but these dedicated funds are always part of a larger shell game.
Their ability to use 'persuasion' as well as better taxfree payouts better than the state will allow them to continue to make a lot of money.
Come to think about it, the state is starting to behave like organized crime. Think about it
===== It’s already occurring in many places and why shouldn’t we get some important public works out of existing behavior/transactions? ====
First, why not just increase the income tax on video machines without legalizing gambling on them. We get the money from the current conduct, plus retain the right to seize the illgotten gains if we find illegal payouts.
=== someone is making big tax-free bucks off them. ==== technically they are supposed to pay taxes on the earnings. if they are fudging earnings, nothing here stops this. The payout is limited to 500. So they in theory would get reports of people earning the cash payouts that could no be taxed, assuming this information is not falsified or misreported as well. I would suggest that the illgeal activity wil remain components that are sitll illegal to minimize the collection of taxes.
We need less sin taxes and more fair taxes.
Let's take that a few steps further, shall we? Since prostitution is already occurring, should we legalize that? Nevada already does to some extent.
Since pot/crack/heroin/meth/etc usage is already occurring, should we legalize that?
Since rape is already occurring, should we legalize that?
Since murder is already occurring, should we legalize that?
Yes, I understand that I'm being absurd. But the point is that society does not gain from legalizing actions that are bad for it, even if it makes a few bucks in the process. And to mask this moral dishonesty by saying that we will build a few new gymnasiums for Johnny and Suzy as compensation is just plain wrong.
Also, based on South Dakota Statistics, the income for the state could be around $750,000,000 per year.
No, because it contributes to Nevada's status as one of the unhealthiest states in the US.
Since pot/crack/heroin/meth/etc usage is already occurring, should we legalize that?
I see federal and state movement to legalize and regulate pot, but not the others.
Since rape is already occurring, should we legalize that?
Not a source of potential tax revenue.
Since murder is already occurring, should we legalize that?
Same answer as above.
Fact is, we have always drawn 9and re-drawn) a line on which vices are allowed and which ones aren't, based on a variety of factors.
There is no way the bars and clubs will turn over 70% of their profits on their machines. They'll keep them in the back rooms.
Ratchet down your tax revenues expectations, people.
The owners say they would gladly pay the tax on legal machines so they can sleep better knowing they will not get busted for gambling.
1. This activity is occuring across the state, most notably in veterans clubs (some have over 100 machines in back rooms).
2. The bill will likely DECREASE the # of video poker machines in use in the State because it imposes limits (for example the vets clubs would be limited to 5).
3. The bill will guarantee the "fairness" of the machines (right now they can be manipulated by their owners - the bill will set them up for state inspections and standards).
The max payout is set at $500 b/c poker should not be seen as a potentially life-altering game. You're not going to get rich playing video poker. People will drop $20 weekly on lottery tickets b/c they think they might become millionaires... Whereas the low-dollar maximum payout on this game demonstrates that it is just that - a game.
The state needs money.
This is an activity that is already going on, that is no more "unwholesome" than any other forms of already legal gambling, and this is an industry that is literally saying "Tax me!"
It almost seems silly not to.
Your argument makes absolutely no sense in its proper context. Completely illogical, wildly over the top comments like that one aren't welcome here. Please don't do that again.
===The max payout is set at $500 b/c poker should not be seen as a potentially life-altering game. You’re not going to get rich playing video poker.===
That would explain the maximum wager limit, not the maximum pay out limit contained in the bill. I'm not John Grachowski, but it seems to me if drawing a straight flush is 1000-1 odds, a $2 bet should pay the winner $2,000. Capping the payout doesn't make sense, and likely will restrain whatver profits the state hopes to tax.
Cap the maximum bet, OK fine. But you really make it more of a sucker's game by arbitrarily reducing the pay out odds. Most casinos don't pay true odds to begin with, but no way I'm putting my hard earned $2 at risk for 250-1 payout on a 1000-1 chance. It doesn't make sense.
Would the bill's authors enforce this just on non-casino video poker or make the casinos change their machines too? Then you have unequal protection and a host of other issues.
My apologies for going wild. I appreciate your comments.
I'm passionate about this topic because I've seen several people's lives destroyed because of gambling - most of it legalized. Where do we draw the line on gambling? How much is too much?
Whoa, I don't think those are back rooms any longer -- those are casinos!
The more I hear about this underground industry out there, the bigger it sounds.
On the regulation side, I would believe that the State Gaming Board will have to be expanded tremendously to handle all of the licensing applications. Especially since the bill requires that an application be processed in 90 days or it gets an automatic approval. I think a lot of approvals would be given a pass without the appropriate scrutiny.
If folks insist on gambling and the state wants to tax it, fine. But those with addiction/behavioral problems need some protection. What bar will turn someone away from a machine by saying "you've lost too much money today I have to cut you off" similar to "you've have too much to drink I have to cut you off"?
At least casinos have some form of legal blacklisting arrangements to try to keep out those with true gambling problems. How will this work in say 750 bars and taverns scattered throughout the state? Or 2,000 bars?
Machines don't talk back or measure a person. I'm generally not opposed to gambling but enforcement limits? I don't see how that will be possible.
HAHA thats great. the first thought that went through my head...we do not allow kids to smoke in fraternity houses, but they can get poker machines in them now?
Im going to head to Champaign right now and lock them in!
Some have stated this bill should not pass because it "masks a moral dishonesty" and "it tries to justify a bad thing." Obviously, these statements were made by principled people with high moral fiber. However, what place does one person's morality have when determining legislation for the entire populace? I suggest that your moral opposition to gambling is not a legitimate reason to prohibit gambling for the rest of us.
I read the law...they MAY be claiming that there is no license to SERVE booze, hence making them ineligible, however, I know at my school, we were allowed to serve beer and wine to people over the age of 21...Equal Protection is a wonderful clause.
Every private school, including non-wealthy non-profits, finds myriad ways to fund everything.
Yet, our near monopoly of public education, which has failed to improve test scores for decades despite huge increases in funding, can't lift a finger to raise any money themselves?
Are our public schools really so incompetent or badly run that nobody would ever donate to them?
Most people think education is a great investment worth supporting, so why not ask our rich neighbors to make a donation, rather than forcing higher taxes on our poor and middle class neighbors?
Wouldn't schools perform and communicate with the public much better if they had to convince locals and alumni to make donations that would be matched proportionately by the state (with higher matches for poorer districts)?
When are we going to teach schools how to fish instead of giving them more fish?
Huge increases in funding? They have seen funding cut year after year, while expenses continue to skyrocket. They are being asked to do more with less and less.
The issue at hand, however, is gambling and the fact of the matter is that it is legal in casinos and in every gas station/convenience store that sells lottery tickets and scratch-offs. I find it incredibly hypocritical that most of the people I know who are opposed to gambling in the forms of poker in any form are also people who make sure to hit the convenience store every week for their chance at the million dollar jackpots or buy in to their office's NCAA pool every year.
The way I see it is this - either gambling is legal or it's not, but you don't get to pick and choose who gets to reap the profits from it based on which forms of gambling you think are more moral. These machines are out there, they are being played, and they are earning lots of money. Why not tax that if we are going to allow casinos and state lottery?
Did anybody not hear about the raids that happened under Blago? He sent people in to small taverns all over the southern half of the state and arrested bartenders making less than minimum wage for "supporting" video poker because they worked in places that had them, all the while wanting to increase gambling in riverboat casinos. The people who work in bars and taverns across this state are in more need of the money made from gambling than any businessman who owns a casino.
I choose to smoke. I know it is bad for me, but I don't care. For that, I know that I am going to pay more in taxes for every cigarette that I buy, and I think that's fair. If you choose to gamble, then I think it's fair that there are taxes collected on that. What I don't think is fair are the calls to raise the income tax or the sales tax. We already have a high poverty rate in this state, and raising taxes on things people HAVE to buy, like sales tax on bread and milk, is just going to increase that problem.
The state is going to have to increase taxes somewhere and make budget cuts elsewhere, or this state is going to go even further down the toilet of debt. I say legalize video poker and take a share for the state to pay for our roads and our schools, and those people who are against gambling can just choose not to gamble.
The Illinois constitution guarantees a free state education, but....
I have three kids in public schools and by a quick estimate, kick in about $900 bucks in various fees -- beyond property taxes -- over the course of the year. Then comes the PTO fundraisers, the band fundraiser, the sports teams fundraisers, the end-of-year trip fundraiser, et. al. ad infinitum. Then there's the volunteer time as well.
Nothing of value comes easy or cheap.