CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

wordslinger — Sun, 17 May 2009 15:58:01 -0000

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.

Nothing of value comes easy or cheap.

Re: Question of the day

Ann N. E. Mouse — Sat, 16 May 2009 14:16:34 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Anonymous — Thu, 14 May 2009 11:08:27 -0000

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?

Re: Question of the day

steve schnorf — Wed, 13 May 2009 23:32:41 -0000

Zoe, but you wouldn't want the numbers on your state and federal returns to not match up, would you?

Re: Question of the day

Bar Patron — Wed, 13 May 2009 22:46:27 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

neato! — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:48:26 -0000

- 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.

Re: Question of the day

Zoe — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:41:04 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

steve schnorf — Wed, 13 May 2009 20:28:40 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Equal Rights — Wed, 13 May 2009 17:47:43 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Justice — Wed, 13 May 2009 17:31:58 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

47th Ward — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:27:12 -0000

Neato, think Elks Lodge, not Sigma Chi house...at least I hope the law makes that distinction.

Re: Question of the day

neato! — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:22:07 -0000

"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!

Re: Question of the day

Louis G. Atsaves — Wed, 13 May 2009 15:59:02 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Poker Math Guy — Wed, 13 May 2009 15:53:19 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

wordslinger — Wed, 13 May 2009 15:52:21 -0000

-- (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.

Re: Question of the day

VanillaMan — Wed, 13 May 2009 15:44:54 -0000

Whenever I pay taxes, I recognize how much I lose in that gamble.

Re: Question of the day

Rich Miller — Wed, 13 May 2009 15:15:45 -0000

Thanks.

Re: Question of the day

JLP — Wed, 13 May 2009 15:12:31 -0000

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?

Re: Question of the day

47th Ward — Wed, 13 May 2009 15:11:12 -0000

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. Youâ€™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.

Re: Question of the day

Rich Miller — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:44:42 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Anon — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:43:35 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

downstate dem — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:30:40 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Poker Fan — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:30:10 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Capitol View — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:25:25 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Downstate GOP Faithless — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:21:09 -0000

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