Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Casino bring money? Did Grand Detroit Casino save Detroit?


Recommended Posts


Rob Ford issues written defence of casino:

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/04/08/rob_ford_issues_written_defence_of_casino.html

The 11-paragraph letter, which begins “Dear Friends”, states Ford has always said he would support a casino if it “produces thousands of good quality jobs and generate millions of dollars for important city services.

And it will bring crime, so the money will be spent in jails, cop salary, judge, social workers, insurance.

Gambling does not create new value, it just collect money and re-dispatch value that hard working people created, and in the same time, take a large part of the wealth by the bosses of casino, and tax suckers, and some interest groups.

It make tax payer suffer more. and at last, more and more people who actually create value will move away, if that becomes true, Toronto can be another Detroit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And it will bring crime, so the money will be spent in jails, cop salary, judge, social workers, insurance.

Gambling does not create new value, it just collect money and re-dispatch value that hard working people created, and in the same time, take a large part of the wealth by the bosses of casino, and tax suckers, and some interest groups.

It make tax payer suffer more. and at last, more and more people who actually create value will move away, if that becomes true, Toronto can be another Detroit.

On the other hand the people who will throw their money away will just do it at other casinos or online. Might as well get them to throw it away towards government coffers. I don't see crime playing a big role, as this is no longer the 1970's and this thing would be loaded up and down with government oversight and regulations.

Edited by hitops
Link to post
Share on other sites

And it will bring crime, so the money will be spent in jails, cop salary, judge, social workers, insurance.

Keep in mind that the argument that casinos "cause" crime is not exactly a black and white issue.

Yes, many police organizations (and some statistical studies) claim that the crime rate goes up when there are casinos around. However, casinos also attract a lot of tourists (who are not counted as "residents" of the city.) This can cause the crime rate to artificially go up.

http://econjwatch.org/articles/do-casinos-really-cause-crime

Gambling does not create new value, it just collect money and re-dispatch value that hard working people created...

While it is true that casinos can sometimes just "redistribute" wealth, you seem to be ignoring the importance of tourism. Yes, its not going to help much if a local resident goes to gamble (as you pointed out, its just redistributing money that would probably have been spent in the community anyways.) The value is when individuals from outside the community come to gamble. They would be bringing in revenue that would otherwise have been spent in other cities.

At the very least, having a local gambling establishment might prevent a few Toronto residents from traveling to (for example) Vegas, thus keeping their money in the community instead of having it spent thousands of miles away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. All new entertainment venues simply cannibalize spending on other established options, unless they either attract or prevent tourism. This is the reason it generally doesn't make sense for governments to subsidize pro sports teams. Unless of course it is a municipal government planning on stealing entertainment dollars from surrounding areas or if the subsidy secures use of a facility that exceeds the dollar value of the subsidy.

The Detroit casino and US border passport requirements combined to limit the number of Detroit residents who crossed the border to spend their money in Windsor. As sad as Detroit may appear, the Casino is not the cause of their economic problems and they are likely better off with it than without.

The Toronto casino will steal revenue from other local restaurants and entertainment options but it will also bring in revenue that would have been lost to places like Niagara. Ford is probably right, this is a net win for TO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. All new entertainment venues simply cannibalize spending on other established options, unless they either attract or prevent tourism. This is the reason it generally doesn't make sense for governments to subsidize pro sports teams. Unless of course it is a municipal government planning on stealing entertainment dollars from surrounding areas or if the subsidy secures use of a facility that exceeds the dollar value of the subsidy.

The Detroit casino and US border passport requirements combined to limit the number of Detroit residents who crossed the border to spend their money in Windsor. As sad as Detroit may appear, the Casino is not the cause of their economic problems and they are likely better off with it than without.

The Toronto casino will steal revenue from other local restaurants and entertainment options but it will also bring in revenue that would have been lost to places like Niagara. Ford is probably right, this is a net win for TO.

Don't forget cannibalizing income from Vegas and online sources. That's all gain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that the argument that casinos "cause" crime is not exactly a black and white issue.

Yes, many police organizations (and some statistical studies) claim that the crime rate goes up when there are casinos around. However, casinos also attract a lot of tourists (who are not counted as "residents" of the city.) This can cause the crime rate to artificially go up.

http://econjwatch.org/articles/do-casinos-really-cause-crime

The author want "to isolate the crime effect caused by casinos". But to ordinary people and tourists, who cares if the crime is causes directly by casino or not, they care about if the trip or their community is safe, whether it will increase their cost, and life risk. The statistics did show the crime rate is higher in cities that have casinos.

While it is true that casinos can sometimes just "redistribute" wealth, you seem to be ignoring the importance of tourism. Yes, its not going to help much if a local resident goes to gamble (as you pointed out, its just redistributing money that would probably have been spent in the community anyways.) The value is when individuals from outside the community come to gamble. They would be bringing in revenue that would otherwise have been spent in other cities.

At the very least, having a local gambling establishment might prevent a few Toronto residents from traveling to (for example) Vegas, thus keeping their money in the community instead of having it spent thousands of miles away.

I will still go to Niagara not because casino, but because the falls, and dolphins for kids.

Just a google search find 6202 casinos and others include 159 in Canada, at http://www.casinocity.com/casinos/

How many of them have attracted many tourists? How many of them become Las Vegas? Actually LAs Vegas has its own problem:

Fitch changes Las Vegas debt rating outlook to ‘negative,’ but city officials say don’t panic

By Steve Green, Dave Toplikar (contact) Dave Toplikar

Monday, April 9, 2012 | 7:19 p.m.

Moody’s analysts: ‘The Las Vegas recovery is under way’ (03-19-2012)

One of the three big Wall Street debt-rating agencies is warning about continued budget shortfalls at the city of Las Vegas tied to economic problems and high costs for police services.

Read more: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/apr/09/fitch-changes-las-vegas-debt-rating-outlook-negati/#ixzz2Pu4I8eGU

Bad economy affected Las Vegas has clearly proved that money is not bring by casino, money is only spent in casino.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that the argument that casinos "cause" crime is not exactly a black and white issue.

Yes, many police organizations (and some statistical studies) claim that the crime rate goes up when there are casinos around. However, casinos also attract a lot of tourists (who are not counted as "residents" of the city.) This can cause the crime rate to artificially go up.

The author want "to isolate the crime effect caused by casinos". But to ordinary people and tourists, who cares if the crime is causes directly by casino or not, they care about if the trip or their community is safe, whether it will increase their cost, and life risk. The statistics did show the crime rate is higher in cities that have casinos.

You seem to have missed one of the major points... The crime rate in cities with casinos may not be higher. The presence of the tourism may just make it seem that way.

Here's an example... a city of 1 million as a crime rate of (lets say) 100 crimes per 1000 people. The city builds a casino. Their crime rate goes up to (lets say) 105 crimes per 1000 people. Yet the casino is serving 100,000 tourists a year. Those tourists are not considered residents, the the city's population stays at 1 million. But they are factored into the total number of crimes.

I will still go to Niagara not because casino, but because the falls, and dolphins for kids.

Good for you. Nothing is forcing you to go to a casino. I don't have much interest in gambling either. But the fact that I don't gamble doesn't necessarily mean that others don't want to.

There IS a casino in Niagra Falls. Some people who live in Toronto who want to gamble will go to it. If there is a casino in Toronto at least some residents (those without children, or those who don't have an interest in dolphins or the falls) will decide to stay in their own city to spend their money.

Just a google search find 6202 casinos and others include 159 in Canada, at http://www.casinocity.com/casinos/

How many of them have attracted many tourists?

Yes, there are a lot of Casinos in Canada. Yes, it does reduce the chance that a tourist interested in gambling will go to one person's down (as opposed to another). That doesn't mean the benefits of having a casino are eliminated, just reduced.

It does lead to an issue of diminishing returns, as the more casinos there are the less traffic they'll get due to their "uniqueness". But if you're neighboring town has a casino you're still better off to build one yourself rather than see your townsfolk drive out of the city to do their gambling.

How many of them become Las Vegas? Actually LAs Vegas has its own problem:

Bad economy affected Las Vegas has clearly proved that money is not bring by casino, money is only spent in casino.

Uhhh... no, that doesn't prove anything of the sort.

Yes, the economy of Las Vegas is suffering. That doesn't mean gambling is the cause of their problems. The economy is suffering in a lot of different cities as a result of the general economic downturn.

Just out of curiosity, how exactly do you think the casino workers (the waitresses, blackjack dealers, and the like) get paid? And where do you think they spend their earnings?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Casinos redistribute wealth from the stupid to the less stupid. Stupid people are not good at hanging on to their money, so I don't really see how things will change.

Ummm... as has been pointed out in the thread... some "stupid" people are willing to travel to engage in their stupidity. As such, you're city is better off to be the destination for those people rather than the source. Let them come and loose their money in your town... the people who work in that casino can use their paychecks to support your local economy.

Secondly, automatically labeling everyone who uses a casino as "stupid" is a rather broad (and unfair) brush. Some will go overboard, but there are many people who are quite reasonable with their gambling... they see going to spend $20 at a casino as an interesting way to pass some time, not because they expect to strike it big but because it produces a relatively small thrill.

I've been at a casino perhaps a dozen times in my life. I typically start with $20, and I never dip into my "winnings". After an hour or 2 I come out with between $10 and $30.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been at a casino perhaps a dozen times in my life. I typically start with $20, and I never dip into my "winnings". After an hour or 2 I come out with between $10 and $30.

Sounds thrilling... :lol:

I've been to casinos, won some money, lost some money. It's entertainment. I don't think casinos bring any more crime and debauchery to a city than clubs and bars do. With drinks going for $5+ each these days, going to a bar is just "redistributing" wealth too. The arguments against casinos are laughable at best. Let people live their lives and make mistakes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion belongs in local politics it is not a federal issue.

the casino will bring in pseudo-service- tax revenue because 50% is larger than 7%. In additional to 50% it may draw in some income from tourism or nearby non GTA localities. So it will bring in revenue for the city. Of course there will be losers, losers and the odd winner, the city will win big regardless of who wins unless it operates at a loss. What are the odds of that? This isn't Toronto or any other government in Canada, it is a private company.

Edited by shortlived
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm... as has been pointed out in the thread... some "stupid" people are willing to travel to engage in their stupidity. As such, you're city is better off to be the destination for those people rather than the source. Let them come and loose their money in your town... the people who work in that casino can use their paychecks to support your local economy.After an hour or 2 I come out with between $10 and $30.

You misunderstand. I have nothing against the casino really. Stupid people will find ways to part with their money regardless, so it might as well go to something that's going to generate taxes.

Secondly, automatically labeling everyone who uses a casino as "stupid" is a rather broad (and unfair) brush.

I didn't do that. I merely said that casinos are stupid traps. That doesn't mean that smart and reasonable people don't go there, just that a lot of stupid people do, and they're the ones who get themselves in trouble.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gambling would be more ethical if it was only available who were not in debt and made more than the poverty line, as well as a cap on percent over poverty line income of 1-5% per year.

example someone earning $40,000 per year could gamble and loose no more than $500-1000/year Someone making $30,000 about $250-500 someone making $25,000, $50-250

to remove the gambling addiction issue and negative impact on low income earners who can't afford to gamble.

Edited by shortlived
Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree...the poor should only be permitted to win while gambling.

In addition, Chocolate should only be available to men with less than 15% body fat and women with less than 20%. The poor should be limited to hotels with less than a three star rating, no name food products and generic medicines.

The number of children people can produce should be dependent on their tax bracket. Women should be fitted with mandatory IUDs when they've produced their current max and men should have a clamp placed on the excretory ducts of their seminal vesicles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chocolate should only be available to men with less than 15% body fat and women with less than 20%.

Hmm, I think access to a health nutritionist is something if they are getting free health insurance.

The poor should be limited to hotels with less than a three star rating, no name food products and generic medicines.

Can't agree with this one, people should be able to spend their money on what they want.

The number of children people can produce should be dependent on their tax bracket. Women should be fitted with mandatory IUDs when they've produced their current max and men should have a clamp placed on the excretory ducts of their seminal vesicles.

Can't say I agree with reproductive limitation, there are already health and welfare systems. If people cannot care for their children they become wards of the state, but state boarding schools should exist for orphans and people unable or unwilling to raise their kids. Since in general people already pay enough to the education system to put their kids in private boardings schools.

Patient Agreement with informed Consent to medical treatment should be an absolute right of everyone. The state should not be able to force medical treatment on people, unless there is a lethal and immediate danger to public safety, such as a Ebola or other virus which is contagious and terminal.

Edited by shortlived
Link to post
Share on other sites
The poor should be limited to hotels with less than a three star rating, no name food products and generic medicines

Can't agree with this one, people should be able to spend their money on what they want.

Wow... do you really not understand the concept of "sarcasm"?

I believe what the previous poster was doing was illustrating the silliness of your "gambling allowed only for those above the poverty line" by extending that concept to all sorts of other hypothetical situations.

After all, many of those people "in debt" are having financial problems because they can't control their spending habits... they buy unnecessary products, purchase more expensive versions than they need to, etc. If you are going to argue that poor people shouldn't be allowed to gamble, you can't turn around and state that "people can spend money on what they want" without sounding hypocritical.

(Unless of course your original post was an attempt at satire, but I don't think you have the ability to pull that off.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gambling would be more ethical if it was only available who were not in debt and made more than the poverty line, as well as a cap on percent over poverty line income of 1-5% per year.

You post the above, and then 2 posts later say.....

Can't agree with this one, people should be able to spend their money on what they want.

Which is it?

I am guessing you dont like rights, unless you are protesting or trespassing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow... do you really not understand the concept of "sarcasm"?

I believe what the previous poster was doing was illustrating the silliness of your "gambling allowed only for those above the poverty line" by extending that concept to all sorts of other hypothetical situations.

Well maybe they should have added a smiley at the end. You are trying to say no that is impossible, well sorry it is possible so don't joke about it, it happened for alchohol and pot and cigarettes it can happen to fat foods too. There are food liminations for things like thugone, MSG etc.. it is damn well possible for fatty foods and if insurance companies were private it would be live healthy or pay more.

Sarcasm belongs in places where aburdity exists not common sense. There are socialists you know.

After all, many of those people "in debt" are having financial problems because they can't control their spending habits... they buy unnecessary products, purchase more expensive versions than they need to, etc. If you are going to argue that poor people shouldn't be allowed to gamble, you can't turn around and state that "people can spend money on what they want" without sounding hypocritical.

I make it a point not to argue. I share my opinion, and I'm quite frank with it. Poor people should not be allowed to gamble beyond a reasonable limit of their assets which exist above the poverty line, and that should be offset against any government grants due to poverty such as social assistance. That is to say people receiving social assistance should not be able to gamble, so too people receiving EI, or CPP/CPP disability and OAS. Only assets beyond the poverty line should be able to be used for gambling and only at a level which is not self destructive such as a 1-5% margin - since the government is paying for it anyway with capital losses. So that is tax dollars going away.

(Unless of course your original post was an attempt at satire, but I don't think you have the ability to pull that off.)

No. I mean what I say. It is not about what I think is good for me, it is what I think is good for society, the two are mutually exclusive of one another, and in policy I'm all about society, not advantaging myself.

Edited by shortlived
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't a rule like "those who gamble shouldn't receive social assistance" make far more sense than "those who receive social assistance shouldn't gamble"?

Of course, politics is not about making sense. Just imagine how people would scream if they were denied social services because they made a concious choice to gamble. And before somebody starts, I know it's a disease for some people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't a rule like "those who gamble shouldn't receive social assistance" make far more sense than "those who receive social assistance shouldn't gamble"?

They can create exclusion lists barring people from gambling, such as problem gamblers. It seems like it would cause less problems barring them from gambling than allowing them to gamble.
Link to post
Share on other sites

They can create exclusion lists barring people from gambling, such as problem gamblers. It seems like it would cause less problems barring them from gambling than allowing them to gamble.

That is assuming that the state knows better than the individual. A very dangerous assumption. Unfortunately, the assumption has to be made after the state has already taken responsibility away from the individual. Liberty and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. Losing one usually means losing the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...