|
|
"Casinos create wealth"
For the most part, casinos do not create riches, they only transfer wealth.
An exception exists for some marginal activities, such as hotels, restaurants,
and theaters. Unlike gambling areas, those places have considerable intrinsic
value in that people would be willing to spend money there without the likelihood
of winning money. Gambling areas may be said to have a small intrinsic value,
inasmuch as people would be eager to spend a small amount of money for the "entertainment
value" of a game of cards,
for example, even if no money might be won.
The substantial piece of casino income which is wealth move from the patrons leaves them with less money to spend elsewhere in the economy and in harsh cases leads to bankruptcy and/or criminal performance such as theft and larceny. If the patrons are from the local area, these costs will be local, if the customers come from a wide area, the costs will be diluted over a wide area as well.
"Casinos create
tax revenue"
Governments often encourage casino structure since they can charge a higher
tax rate than on ordinary businesses, necessary by calling gambling a "sin"
and "discouraging" it by charging higher tax rates.
However, gambling dollars spent in one place decrease the amount spent in other places, so lotteries and other allowed gambling, such as horse racing, may suffer, as well as other non-gambling businesses. Consequently, the tax revenue from those behaviors will be reduced.
"Casinos are an investment in the future"
Compared with throwing the money away, governments expenditure money on casino
construction is an improvement, since some of the money spent by the government
will be returned as taxes. However, when the chance cost of spending on casinos
is compared to other ways of spending money, such as civilizing schools and
infrastructure, money spent on casinos has a small rate of return, particularly
when all of the hidden costs are accounted for.
"If we don't open a casino, an important person else will do so
and take our money"
The implied consequence to this argument is that "we" should take
money from other communities before "they" can take it from us. Such
rivalry inevitably leads to an oversupply of casinos as both communities are
eager to steal wealth from their neighbors. This saturate in turn leads the
casinos in both communities to be unprofitable. An example of this rivalry is
between Detroit, USA and Windsor, Canada; right crossways the river from each
other. Windsor opened casinos first, in an effort to attract gamblers from the
Detroit area. Detroit countered by gap its own casinos, and now there is a substantial
saturate in the Detroit/Windsor market.
"Legalized casino gambling reduces unlawful activities"
Of course, taking something previously illegal and legalizing it will unconsciously
"reduce illegal activity". The activity isn't really abridged, it
actually increases, but it is now measured legal. While some remaining forms
of illegal gambling may be
abridged by the legal competition, illegal gambling is never eliminated. Furthermore,
casinos can draw and cause other illegal activities, such as pickpockets. An
attentiveness of people with money to spend, and the poor desire control which
many gamblers have, leads to a wide range of unlawful behavior in the immediate
area, such as drug sales and prostitution. Of course, legalizing these is another
way to "decrease illegal activities" in the area.