![]() |
![]() |
|
|||
Tax & Budget In the NewsBerkshire Eagle - 2007-11-05
Why gamble when state has sure bet? (new window)Compared to casinos, a proposition with associated downsides, closing tax loopholes is win-win
Whatever you think about gambling, there's little
disagreement that current proposals for casinos are driven by the desire for
more state revenue. If new sources of revenue are necessary, then earlier
proposals for closing corporate tax loopholes are a surer bet than the $450
million a year the Governor hopes can be generated from a new gambling
industry. Compared to casinos, a proposition with associated downsides that
proponents have described, closing tax loopholes is win-win — we generate more revenue,
and level the playing field for in-state business at the same time. The Patrick administration suggests that its plan for three casinos would
generate $2 billion in annual economic activity, 20,000 jobs, and yearly state
revenues of $400-450 million through licensing fees and revenue-sharing. The
governor's revenue estimates come from a one-time payment of $600-900 million
he expects for selling three 10-year licenses at an auction, plus the greater
of $100 million or 27 percent of annual revenue from each of the three casinos,
plus extra income he expects will be generated as a result of additional
economic activity. The sure bet, based on the governor's plans, amounts to $60
million a year spread across 10 years plus $300 million in annual revenue
sharing — or $360 million a year. · As far as revenue from additional economic
activity and jobs, that is a long shot at best. Other communities that have
introduced casinos around the country have not seen such economic development
booms. A Harvard study done in conjunction with Professor Bruce Sacerdote at
Dartmouth in 2005 found that communities introducing casinos saw increased
population, but not an increased employment rate nor increased public revenues.
On a per-capita basis, local governments near casinos actually saw slower
revenue growth than comparable localities. In sum, if · Gov. Patrick was swept into office on a
campaign of hope that was about what we could all accomplish together. While
polls differ, few Bay Staters seem downright enthusiastic about casinos. Many
citizens, however, are willing to support casinos in order to raise revenue for
schools, roads, bridges, parks, public safety, and other necessities. Earlier
this year, Gov. Patrick filed a bill to accomplish just that by closing eight
corporate tax loopholes that would raise $500 million a year. It's time to look
seriously at that idea. Closing corporate tax loopholes will have other benefits beside revenue. Another loophole unfairly disadvantages hotels who sell rooms in person or
over the phone — and therefore can't exploit a loophole allowing Internet
vendors to charge customers full price but pay taxes based on much lower
prices. Whatever your perspective about the level of taxes, our taxes should be
fair. Some taxpayers should not be required to pay more while others pay less
through unintended, outdated or unreasonable tax breaks. · Fixing these quirks of the tax code makes
sense for a modern economy. "Combined reporting," which would close
out-of-state tax dodges, has been approved in other states representing 51
percent of the nation's commerce. Closing the "check the box"
loophole would similarly bring Policy-makers are grappling with difficult issues over how the negative
effects of casinos could be minimized. It's good that legislators confront
questions about traffic in nearby communities, increased bankruptcies and
gambling addiction, opening the door to additional tribal casinos, and the
like. But it's also worth remembering that there are other options. The Legislature
should not be like a gambler anguishing over which Keno numbers are best to
play while there is an alternative which doesn't rely on luck. Regardless of
whether you support or oppose casinos as a way to boost state revenues, we
should close loopholes before even beginning that conversation. Deirdre Cummings is the budget and legislative director for MASSPIRG, a
non-profit, non-partisan public interest watchdog group with members across the
state.
|
SEARCH THIS SITE |