^Is that true?  That can't be true.  How do they keep track of each individual bet at table games?

I would assume this would be based on how many chips she buys, or how much he charges his electronic card, or whatever. It would only be difficult to track if people were betting in actual cash, which I highly doubt will be the case.

 

OK, so I get $100 in chips.  I'm betting $10 a hand on a blackjack table.  I win every now and then.  By the time I run out of money I've actually put 20 bets on the table, or $200.  How is the casino going to know that I actually played $100 more than I bought in chips?

 

They would need to track and record each individual bet in order to tax all wagers instead of revenue after payouts.  Frankly, I think that's ludicrous and would make table games unprofitable and therefore nonexistent.  That wouldn't be good for the health of the casino, IMO.

Ohio's deal bases the taxes on casino REVENUE, other states base the taxes on total WAGERING.  HUGE difference

 

That's completely false.

 

Actually, Ohio would be one of the only states to charge anything on total wagering (the Corporate Activity Tax) if Kasich gets his way.  Granted, the CAT is only 0.26%, so the big boys are fighting over a very small change in the effective tax rate here.  I think this may be more of a p!ssing match based on "the principle of the thing" more than anything else.

^Is that true?  That can't be true.  How do they keep track of each individual bet at table games?

I would assume this would be based on how many chips she buys, or how much he charges his electronic card, or whatever. It would only be difficult to track if people were betting in actual cash, which I highly doubt will be the case.

 

OK, so I get $100 in chips.  I'm betting $10 a hand on a blackjack table.  I win every now and then.  By the time I run out of money I've actually put 20 bets on the table, or $200.  How is the casino going to know that I actually played $100 more than I bought in chips?

 

They would need to track and record each individual bet in order to tax all wagers instead of revenue after payouts.  Frankly, I think that's ludicrous and would make table games unprofitable and therefore nonexistent.  That wouldn't be good for the health of the casino, IMO.

Is that really what they're considering? That seems absurd, since it's taxing something that isn't really a cash transaction. Is that even legal?

Is that really what they're considering? That seems absurd, since it's taxing something that isn't really a cash transaction. Is that even legal?

 

Kasich wants the CAT (0.26%) to apply to all wagers.  The 33% tax applies only to revenue (wagers - payouts) even under Kasich's proposal I believe.

^^We'll soon find out if it's legal...

 

^That's how I understand it too.

Why not call this what it is?.... A blatant attempt by Kasich to subvert the will of the people to appease a distinct, but politically faithful (to him) minority.  It has consistently been his M.O. since being elected.  Kill the 3C, SB5, eliminate the estate tax, etc., etc.

That's precisely what's going on.

About 90% of people taking the poll think Kasich is wrong on the Casino tax issue.

 

Should the state tax casinos on every bet placed? Take a poll

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Ohio voters passed a 2009 constitutional amendment that allowed for four casinos to be built. The amendment set one-time licensing fees at $50 million per project with an ongoing 33 percent tax on revenue, one of the highest in the nation.

 

Gov. John Kasich has said often in the last several weeks that those fees are not enough and the operations should do more to help the financially struggling state. One of the mechanisms the state can use to accomplish that is the commercial activities tax -- which amounts to 26 cents on every $100 for the right of doing business in Ohio.

 

The state budget recently passed by the Ohio House requires casinos to pay the tax on all bets placed.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/05/should_the_state_tax_casinos_o.html

Why not call this what it is?.... A blatant attempt by Kasich to subvert the will of the people to appease a distinct, but politically faithful (to him) minority.  It has consistently been his M.O. since being elected.  Kill the 3C, SB5, eliminate the estate tax, etc., etc.

 

Streetcar.

 

People outside Cincinnati aren't paying enough attention to what Kasich's pulled with the streetcar. It has implications well beyond SWO.

Is that really what they're considering? That seems absurd, since it's taxing something that isn't really a cash transaction. Is that even legal?

 

Kasich wants the CAT (0.26%) to apply to all wagers.  The 33% tax applies only to revenue (wagers - payouts) even under Kasich's proposal I believe.

Seems to me there's a slightly more sensible middle ground where the buy-in for chips/credits is taxed, regardless of payout, but the wagers are not. (Not saying I would agree with making this change after the amendment was passed.)

 

I agree with Hoot that it is nigh impossible to track all wagers efficiently. That sounds like a way to neuter the type of gambling voters approved, in the sense that table games become unprofitable (if only due to logistics!).

 

It becomes an assault on, not only the voter-approved tax structure (which is bad enough!), but also voter-approved gaming. It also makes this concretely not about capturing more revenue, but scaling down the casinos' operations.

Why not call this what it is?.... A blatant attempt by Kasich to subvert the will of the people to appease a distinct, but politically faithful (to him) minority.  It has consistently been his M.O. since being elected.  Kill the 3C, SB5, eliminate the estate tax, etc., etc.

 

Streetcar.

 

People outside Cincinnati aren't paying enough attention to what Kasich's pulled with the streetcar. It has implications well beyond SWO.

 

I'm only speaking for myself here, but although I sometimes read a post in a Cincinnati thread here or there, the streetcar thread is the only one beginning with "Cincinnati: " that I make sure to read every single post.

So the casino are thinking the same thing we were wondering...

 

The last line of the article linked above reads:

 

"They add that they don't know how they could keep track of every bet placed at gaming tables."

I agree with Hoot that it is nigh impossible to track all wagers efficiently. That sounds like a way to neuter the type of gambling voters approved, in the sense that table games become unprofitable (if only due to logistics!).

 

It becomes an assault on, not only the voter-approved tax structure (which is bad enough!), but also voter-approved gaming. It also makes this concretely not about capturing more revenue, but scaling down the casinos' operations.

 

So it seems that the main reason the construction stopped in Cincinnati was because the casino didn't want to commit to a large order for structural steel if they weren't sure how much space in the final design to set aside for table games.  So the operators are waiting it out to see if the state is going to make the table games unprofitable for them. 

 

Is that right or did I miss something? 

That sounds about right.

About 90% of people taking the poll think Kasich is wrong on the Casino tax issue.

 

Should the state tax casinos on every bet placed? Take a poll

 

How many of the 90% even have a clue what is being taxed?  How many of the 90% who responded even bothered to vote?  Posting polls around here is completely worthless

That sounds about right.

Ok, just making sure.  It feels like Kasich is from Bizarro World sometimes. 

How many of the 90% even have a clue what is being taxed?  How many of the 90% who responded even bothered to vote?  Posting polls around here is completely worthless

 

I'd be careful about throwing accusatory stones from that glass house of yours. It's ironic to read your accusations about clueless voters when you've posted false or incomplete information about how other states tax casinos.

It's OK, he didn't take the poll.

About 90% of people taking the poll think Kasich is wrong on the Casino tax issue.

 

Should the state tax casinos on every bet placed? Take a poll

 

How many of the 90% even have a clue what is being taxed?  How many of the 90% who responded even bothered to vote?  Posting polls around here is completely worthless

 

Do you have a better strategy for calculating support for his decision?  And what does it matter whether or not they voted?  You can go decades without participating in the electoral process and still be an Ohio "elector" who has every right to be heard on any issue you choose to weigh in on.

^No matter what the topic or issues, polls such as these and those presented by television stations are so unscientific that they make real pollsters gag.

^You don't mean that those Fox News polls which show 95% disapproval of any given Obama decision are somehow not 'scientific', do you?

This is not about the tax rate it's about changing a deal(amendment) AFTER going forward with purchasing of property, advertising, etc. Every business would fight it, if it happened to them. I heard the developer already spent 200 million. If i were them i would sue the state of Ohio to recoup the month they spend after the deal was made.

 

Did they pay the 50 millon license fee already?

i was reading that his approval rating in march was hovering around thirty percent, the lowest of any first-term governor in ohio's history.  How big of a dip do you think this casino business will cause?  Also, with such a poor approval rating and it being his first year in office, I think he is one of the few people that actually has a real chance at a recall.

^ There are no recall elections in Ohio.

 

Looks like Kasich wants to allow a third party to get money from the casinos.

 

Gaming expert gets take of higher casino tax

COLUMBUS, Ohio — One of Gov. John Kasich's two new gambling consultants struck a deal with the state to receive a percentage of every dollar in new casino revenue it helps generate for the state.

 

Amid the negotiations, Los Angeles-based Moelis & Company advised the governor he could raise taxes and fees on the casinos, according to state documents obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110512/NEWS0108/305130044/Gaming-expert-gets-take-higher-casino-tax?odyssey=tab

 

 

Even if this third party could get the casino operators to pony up more tax money, wouldn't the constitution have to be changed because it reflects the tax rate? Also, it looks like they would have to agree to more than a 37% tax rate to make more money because the third parties cut would be more than 3%. Furthermore, if this was pulled off somehow, who would get the increase in revenues? Would it all go to the state? Or would it be split between the state, counties, and host cities like the current deal?

 

Either way I can't say I am thrilled about the possibility of a third party receiving any amount of yearly tax revenue from the casinos. A one time payment seems more appropriate. Kasich is going to upset even more people with this proposal.

 

Wow, I can't add anything to this discussion, that isn't profanity laced tirade. This guy is ironically enough off the tracks...

If Kasich has lost the Enquirer on this, I think it's safe to say he's lost nearly everyone.

 

What's with that ridiculous video at the top of the article? Sound must be on to get the full effect. It's sensationalist political commentary that serves no informational purpose. Why not just have half the photos as a photo set? (You know, the ones that are actually of the building site.) It's like a commercial you'd expect the Dems to put out during the next campaign.

It's worth noting the fee Moelis can collect is capped at 13 million.

 

Basically, the agreement is for $13mil + $200k per month of Moelis's service, the $13mil being contingent on a successful increase of the casino taxes/fees.

 

It's not like they would get money in perpetuity, as the article suggests at first glance.

So do I get a cut of the proceeds if I advise him that he'll bring in more revenue if he taxes rich people more?

So do I get a cut of the proceeds if I advise him that he'll bring in more revenue if he taxes rich people more?

 

HA!  That's exactly why this is a sham.  Gee, let's see if the "consultants" I hire will advise me to increase taxes on the casinos if I tell them they'll get a cut of any tax increase.  Talk about a forgone conclusion. 

 

This guy is bitching about a huge budget deficit while spending a significant amount of money to have a group of people tell him that the state will receive more money if they increase taxes on the casinos.  All the while he doesn't even think about it's constitutionality.  Hypocrite... top to bottom.

So...we couldn't spend $7 million a year to have a train connecting our largest cities, but we can pay at least $2.4 million a year so someone can tell us that higher taxes bring in more revenue?

 

This guy's an absolute joke.

Kasich is a nightmare.  I'm not one for recalls, but I say bring it on!

So Mike Trivisommo, in his never ending 'Kasich is the best thing since sliced bread' meme, was ragging big time on Dan Gilbert yesterday.  Apparently, the Toledo casino is not halting construction and he thinks that is definitive proof that Gilbert is a 'nincompoop'.  I wish you didn't have to wait 3 hours just to hung up on after getting two words in or else I would have gave that a-hole a piece of my mind.  How can you possibly compare a project the size of Toledo's with Gilbert's.  Our 'temporary' casino is going to cost more than their permanent casino.  Put together, phase I and phase II, plus a few side developments, will easily exceed $1 billion.  Isn't Toledo spending a quarter of that, at most?  Regardless, if Kasich doesn't come to his senses, a Toledo like casino is probably exactly what we will end up with.  And the Toledo developers aren't stopping because they can just sit back and let Gilbert fight this fight for them.

The PD editorial board has put in their two cents:

 

The people have spoken on Ohio casinos: editorial

 

Renovations on the former Higbee Building have ceased, idling some 200 skilled workers. Many more who were about to start doing electrical and mechanical work also won't be on the job because contracts for the new Horseshoe Cleveland casino are on hold.

 

Down in Cincinnati, work on a casino being built from scratch also has been suspended.

 

That means that projects with a combined budget of $1 billion are in limbo in this jobs-hungry state because a governor who says he is devoted to economic development and a legislature controlled by his supposedly pro-business Republican Party have created so much uncertainty that developers reasonably say they must reassess their investment.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/05/the_people_have_spoken_on_ohio.html

I'm starting to think that Kasich is acting as a fall guy. He may not be concerned about his future political appeal since he can always find work in the corporate world or as an appointee.

I'm not one for conspiracies, but you may be onto something. Obviously Kasich knows he can do a lot better financially in the private sector than public, and he's making a lot of wealthy Ohioans very happy, many of whom truly do not have Ohio's best interests in mind - but rather their own. Think the religious right. Think the oil guys. Think his Wall Street contacts. Think the tea baggers and other fake patriots.

Well, yeah, definitely not a conspiracy. It's more of a matter of making his party, buddies and campaign donors happy.

So...we couldn't spend $7 million a year to have a train connecting our largest cities, but we can pay at least $2.4 million a year so someone can tell us that higher taxes bring in more revenue?

 

This guy's an absolute joke.

 

$17 million was forecast for the 3C trains, but $12 million is closer to the per train-mile rate common in other states. Yet the value-capture revenues from the station-area development at the Riverside station near Dayton was forecast to cover even the $17 million figure.

Think the tea baggers and other fake patriots.

"Tea bagger" is a pejorative: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tea+bagger

Well, so is tossed salad but it's still on restaurant menus.

Governor KKKasich (sorry, couldn't resist) was on Triv yesterday, of which I only caught the tail-end. He repeated how Ohio has lost more jobs than any other population except for Michigan and California at least 3 or 4 times; I guess that's his 'thing' now. Kasich also talked about the casinos, that next week they'll send a - sigh - offer to the casino groups for...whatever the hell they want. And then the door will be in the Gilbert's court, according to our moron. And all he wants to do is bring jobs. And yeah, in case you forgot his saying this 30 seconds ago, Ohio lost more jobs than anyone else other than Mich and Cali.

 

Triv was being a huge pu$$y with Kasich, softballing him with kindergarden questions and comments. The governor then left the show and Triv began a rant about some Gilbert-conspiracy with Thistledown, which was boring as hell and and I turned it off. The guy is awfully obnoxious and angry.

 

I will give Kasich credit for one thing: he doesn't bull$hit, and at least that's refreshing. He says what's on his mind, regardless of what popular opinion, or sanity, have to say about it. If only he wanted what's best for Ohio...sigh.

I didn't hear the interview, but I heard Triv's rant afterwards.  He went on this holier than thou rant about how partisan politics are killing this country and that people need to give Kasich a chance.  Funny thing is that Triv and his sidekick are as partisan as they come, even though they won't admit it.  They try to gloss over everything that Kasich does and put Obama through the ringer on everything he does.  It was the most unforgivable case of the pot calling the kettle black I have heard in a while.

Most of the people left supporting Kasich are the most partisan. It's silly to infer that people who have given up on Kasich are just being overly partisan when it is probably the most agreed upon, bipartisan issue in Ohio right now to feel electing him was a mistake.

Down to 33% approval - http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/05/another_poll_shows_low_approva.html

 

Ties him for lowest approval ratings in the country.  I'm pretty sure he doesn't care.

Hey, Taft's were even worse at their nadir.

 

But fear not!  Kasich has a good while yet to pursue that record.

Maybe he should hire some consultants to study how to get to Taft's level?  How about $1million for each percentage point gained towards that goal?

^ Kasich should give you 1 mill of each state tax dollar just for the suggestion.

Doubt it.  I'm not from California.

Kasich and Scott from Florida tied for worst governor ratings...Scott Walker not far behind.  Factor in Sarah Palin probably running and being a frontrunner.  Add in Cain/Bachmann and the rest - It's almost like the GOP is trying to give Obama the election in 2012

Kasich and Scott from Florida tied for worst governor ratings...Scott Walker not far behind.  Factor in Sarah Palin probably running and being a frontrunner.  Add in Cain/Bachmann and the rest - It's almost like the GOP is trying to give Obama the election in 2012

 

Is it really?  Is it just that plain & simple to you?  The longer the economy stays in the gutter, the longer our foreign policies get muddled, the longer the Democrats refuse to take action on the debt crisis, the more beatable Obama is, regardless of whom the GOP candidate is.  Palin will never be a front runner - the news media just loves to report on her because she's so polarizing and she frequently makes an ass of herself, makes her much more interesting to put on the air than some ho-hum guy like Rick Santorum....

 

And I don't think Kasich ever thought for a minute that he was going to be a popular guy with his slash & burn approach, so quoting some ratings from a popularity poll among governors doesn't  prove a thing.  Besides, I could probably craft a poll showing he was extremely popular if I chose to only poll older wealthy white folks in rural areas...

quoting some ratings from a popularity poll among governors doesn't  prove a thing. 

 

Sure it does.  It proves he is very unpopular with his constituents who he was elected to 'represent'

 

Besides, I could probably craft a poll showing he was extremely popular if I chose to only poll older wealthy white folks in rural areas...

 

Agreed!