Gambling Study Says Not Big Money For State

by Steve MacDonald

Maggie Hassan Rolls the Dice on Imaginary Gambling Revenu

Maggie Hassan Rolls the Dice on Imaginary Gambling Revenue

The Union Leader is reporting on a much anticipated study about the future of gambling Revenue for New Hampshire.

The news is not good for proponents.

According to the study done by the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies (NHCPPS), because of the social costs of gambling, the state would not receive a net benefit if the gambling income is taxed at 30 percent or less. 

Taxed at 40%, it’s supporters claimed we could see $152 million per year but,  NHCPPS says that number is less than 50 million per year for the $425 million dollar casino in the plan.   Off by 100 million.  Sounds about right.

Even the $45 million assumes a great many things, like the casino will want to operate here with such a high degree of taxation, that it actually draws the kind of consistent bushiness that would result in those kinds of numbers year after year, or that the estimated social costs would not increase.

Another problem is economics.  Gambling is just one of many taxes some people think we can rely on but that fall apart the moment the economy slows.  A time when the same people want to the state to be able to do more.  And you know every estimated dime will already be spent.

For the record, I don’t care if you want to gamble, but it’s never the win-win people think, it only increases the size of government, it never results in lower taxes, it invites more lobbyists in to buy up your legislature, and it comes with real social costs that affect the cost of state and local government.

I hope this news convinces a few more fence sitters that it is just not right for New Hampshire.


Leave a Comment


    This one has me scratchin’ my head . . . I thought for sure you guys were pro-gambling.

    • Dan, we’re opposed to the crooked accounting, and the way Maggie gambles with the state budget. I don’t dig gambling, but I wouldn’t try to ban it, and I think most of the gang here thinks similarly.

      • IWKAGGP

        Thanks for the clarification Groksters – guess you won’t be scheduling a Grok get-together in Atlantic City or Vegas anytime soon!

    • I do note that Steve believes, and most likely can prove, that gambling’s costs exceed its benefits, but even then I suspect that costs and benefits could be brought into balance if the gambler in chief wasn’t already trying to spending the tax revenues three times over!

    • granitegrok

      I am against gambling. I have no problem with someone throwing away all their money; I DO have a problem when I have to pay, via taxes, the social costs of that act. And yes, you can bet your last dollar that there would be a swarm of govt social workers to socialize the consequence of that privately decided bad decision. And having to support his or her family. And pay for the social workers to start with that are assigned for these folks.

      • C. dog e. doG

        Nice point, Skip. That should be a precondition of gambling freedom legislation: those who do live with the consequences; no sharing.
        – C. dog

    • C. dog e. doG

      I think it’s an activity for mathematical retards, but encourage as many people as possible to wile away the day or night gambling in their own house to improve the odds, and eliminate the Grate State Take.
      – C. dog remaining morally consistent to a tea

  • Married to a Muslim but out of the house, driving her own car, not covered head to toe, gambling (with state money), taking out loans (for the state) and paying usurious interest.
    To whom should the fatwa be directed? Mrs Hassan for being so far outside of Shariah law, or Mr Hassan for permitting it?
    (Not that I’m any fan of Shariah, but anything that smacks of hypocrisy is fair game.)

    • Politically Incorrect? Hell Yes!
      I hear we’re getting flak – must be over the target……. And the thing with Democrats, is that their hypocrisy and economic illiteracy provide us with a target-rich environment 🙂

      • C. dog e. doG

        Let’s see. In my Liberatti rulebook on politicks, it says you can make fun of Christians – in fact, it exhorts good citizens of the state to ridicule Christians, especially those running for office (e.g. Mittens the Mormon), but funny, they remain silent on Muslims. Mums the word! In fact, if I made any mention of those belonging to that religion at Concord Moronitor or Tree Huggies, they removed the post and said I was racist, or religiously intolerant, or somefin’. Personally, I think they were berry, berry scared of becoming the target of a Fatwad.
        – C. dog daring to unleash

  • Rick_GraniteGrok

    I, once upon a time was pro-gambling. But that ship sailed 20 years ago…Then, gambling was a viable revenue stream because the only act in the region was CT casinos. That market is now saturated with the wheeled Raisin Boxes that make the weekly pilgrimage to ME or CT. The market is saturated…that is especially why all of Steve’s arguments are valid.

  • Pingback: Blog Round up for February 25th to March 3rd, 2013 | Live Free or Die()

Previous post:

Next post: