|
|
Post by Cool Papa Con on Nov 3, 2024 17:30:10 GMT -6
I will firmly admit that I’m firmly against Spirts Gambling, on a personal level. I only gambled a few times on sports, and I found myself unable to enjoy watching the games. I was on edge, easily annoyed, and intensely watching without much entertainment nor enjoyment. While I recognize that as my perspective, I wonder how that would change the in-stadium experience if gamblers are also attendees. Will the BFIB become the most critical? Will they lose their fandom in favor of “investment?” What of the other Pro Spirts teams, all of whom seem to support it? Amendment 2 draws mixed reaction I’m annoyed at the prospect education keeps getting used as a political pawn for gambling. They did it previously for River City Casino, and they’re doing it again with this vote. As the linked article states, either “ education is important or it’s not. To fund something as important as education off gambling, to me, is just bad policy. It distracts from the real issue, which is that Missouri doesn’t spend enough money to educate its children.” So, what is actually going on here? |
|
|
|
Post by captbudman on Nov 3, 2024 18:49:01 GMT -6
I will firmly admit that I’m firmly against Spirts Gambling, on a personal level. I only gambled a few times on sports, and I found myself unable to enjoy watching the games. I was on edge, easily annoyed, and intensely watching without much entertainment nor enjoyment. While I recognize that as my perspective, I wonder how that would change the in-stadium experience if gamblers are also attendees. Will the BFIB become the most critical? Will they lose their fandom in favor of “investment?” What of the other Pro Spirts teams, all of whom seem to support it? Amendment 2 draws mixed reaction I’m annoyed at the prospect education keeps getting used as a political pawn for gambling. They did it previously for River City Casino, and they’re doing it again with this vote. As the linked article states, either “ education is important or it’s not. To fund something as important as education off gambling, to me, is just bad policy. It distracts from the real issue, which is that Missouri doesn’t spend enough money to educate its children.” So, what is actually going on here? The lie that politicians always tell is when they earmark taxes from a proposition, the money raised isn't in addition to present spending. What happens is that the new tax revenue may be used for existing spending, but money previously earmarked for said project will be diverted. A simple example. Say government's budget is $1000, and 10% ($100) is used for education, and they propose a new gambling proposal that will raise and additional $80 per year (making total budget of $1080). The education budget won't increase to $180/year. Instead, it will stay at $100/year, with the $80 in new taxes dedicated to it being part of the spending. Politicians will than take the $80 "freed up" by new tax revenue and spend it on their favorite pork project, while school spending will stay the same. Of course, government spending is more than a $1K per year, but the numbers are just a reference of percent spending. |
|
|
|
Post by Cool Papa Con on Nov 4, 2024 4:49:51 GMT -6
I will firmly admit that I’m firmly against Spirts Gambling, on a personal level. I only gambled a few times on sports, and I found myself unable to enjoy watching the games. I was on edge, easily annoyed, and intensely watching without much entertainment nor enjoyment. While I recognize that as my perspective, I wonder how that would change the in-stadium experience if gamblers are also attendees. Will the BFIB become the most critical? Will they lose their fandom in favor of “investment?” What of the other Pro Spirts teams, all of whom seem to support it? Amendment 2 draws mixed reaction I’m annoyed at the prospect education keeps getting used as a political pawn for gambling. They did it previously for River City Casino, and they’re doing it again with this vote. As the linked article states, either “ education is important or it’s not. To fund something as important as education off gambling, to me, is just bad policy. It distracts from the real issue, which is that Missouri doesn’t spend enough money to educate its children.” So, what is actually going on here? The lie that politicians always tell is when they earmark taxes from a proposition, the money raised isn't in addition to present spending. What happens is that the new tax revenue may be used for existing spending, but money previously earmarked for said project will be diverted. A simple example. Say government's budget is $1000, and 10% ($100) is used for education, and they propose a new gambling proposal that will raise and additional $80 per year (making total budget of $1080). The education budget won't increase to $180/year. Instead, it will stay at $100/year, with the $80 in new taxes dedicated to it being part of the spending. Politicians will than take the $80 "freed up" by new tax revenue and spend it on their favorite pork project, while school spending will stay the same. Of course, government spending is more than a $1K per year, but the numbers are just a reference of percent spending. I agree with the example. I’ve heard the exact same thing happened w/River City Casino. What’s wild is this tax even claims the potential of $0 going to schools |
|
|
|
Post by Billy John Davy on Nov 4, 2024 6:54:36 GMT -6
The lie that politicians always tell is when they earmark taxes from a proposition, the money raised isn't in addition to present spending. What happens is that the new tax revenue may be used for existing spending, but money previously earmarked for said project will be diverted. A simple example. Say government's budget is $1000, and 10% ($100) is used for education, and they propose a new gambling proposal that will raise and additional $80 per year (making total budget of $1080). The education budget won't increase to $180/year. Instead, it will stay at $100/year, with the $80 in new taxes dedicated to it being part of the spending. Politicians will than take the $80 "freed up" by new tax revenue and spend it on their favorite pork project, while school spending will stay the same. Of course, government spending is more than a $1K per year, but the numbers are just a reference of percent spending. I agree with the example. I’ve heard the exact same thing happened w/River City Casino. What’s wild is this tax even claims the potential of $0 going to schools Potential? If I was a betting man, I'd bet the farm on the probability of it being zero. |
|
|
|
Post by Cool Papa Con on Nov 4, 2024 7:27:10 GMT -6
I agree with the example. I’ve heard the exact same thing happened w/River City Casino. What’s wild is this tax even claims the potential of $0 going to schools Potential? If I was a betting man, I'd bet the farm on the probability of it being zero. Yeah, hard to argue against that. I grow tired of those who want this pushing terrible plans. Somehow both the Post Dispatch & KC Star are endorsing this. What self-interested clowns. Journalism is dead |
|
