A New Low (State Government Edition)

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by dino

Someone needs to pay for this welfare system so why not lowlife gamblers.

Before someone elects you the new head of the NTRA or some editor gives you a column at Bloodhorse -- two things:

#1: This doesn't have anything to do with national politics.

#2: The welfare system, as you call it, would generate much more revenue by taxing gamblers at a lower rate, which allows them to bet more money. This law not only badly hurts horse racing, but it also hurts what you call 'the welfare system'

[ironprospect]

WROTB in NYS still does have there ridiculous surcharge.

as an example the 12.80 Orb paid in the Derby was 12.00 even at WROTB

[GenuineRisk]

According to the article, it applies to all gambling winnings in excess of $600, including slots and table games, so the belief is that it's intended to limit the expansion of gambling in the state. So, if it reduces wagering, the people who pushed for the tax will see that as a feature, not a bug.

Ah, Massachusetts. It tries so hard, but somehow never quite seems to escape its Puritan roots.

[jjkchb]

This is Massachusetts people....look for the legislator with a hand in the software vendor's pocket (gotta track that tax liability somehow)...and a niece in the tax office that chases the tax (every family needs a state pension for the kids)...it'll be solved when his brother in law gets guaranteed a $100K security job (full free health benefits) at Caesar's Eastie Casino, Slot Parlor and Maybe Racetrack.

[dino]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

Before someone elects you the new head of the NTRA or some editor gives you a column at Bloodhorse -- two things:

#1: This doesn't have anything to do with national politics.

#2: The welfare system, as you call it, would generate much more revenue by taxing gamblers at a lower rate, which allows them to bet more money. This law not only badly hurts horse racing, but it also hurts what you call 'the welfare system'

As usual my reply got removed because it disagreed with the Liberal censors. Funny how my reply somehow lost the "us" before the lowlife gamblers. Does make it sound more shocking.
This has everything to do with national politics because it's just step one of the government getting in gamblers pockets so they can fund more social programs.