Alabama Governor Bob Riley has become a paradigm of state interventionism and tax-and-spend policies. Historically, Governor Riley has carried out his big-government policies with the help of his attorney general, Troy King. Together they helped to expand the government’s control towards a police state. Recent events have disrupted the rather unfortunate status quo. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/9271/saving-alabama-from-bingo/
Saving Alabama from Bingo
Previous post: International Monetary Reform and the Initial Bailout of Private Banks
Next post: Bush’s Parting Shot at the French
{ 13 comments }
Every time I hear of a crusading politician trying to “eliminate gambling” I think of the scene from the movie Trading Places where the Duke brothers explain to Eddie Murphy what a commodities broker does, and he responds “I get it. Y’all are a couple of bookies.”
In other words, I wonder what moral or logical basis they have for going after such gambling activities as bingo but leaving other gambling activities alone. I suspect they have no such basis, but I’m willing to hear their arguments otherwise.
“In other words, I wonder what moral or logical basis they have for going after such gambling activities as bingo but leaving other gambling activities alone. I suspect they have no such basis, but I’m willing to hear their arguments otherwise.”
Remember how Ned Flanders refused to buy insurance because he considered it a form of gambling?
Whenever I have these thoughts, I generally keep them to myself. Better not to give them any ideas.
When did this site start to promote socialism. Did I misinterpret the text or was a writer on this site actually promoting progressive taxation. That’s the most socialist and economically harmful policy that I can think of. It’s sole purpose is to make everyone earn the same amount of money and thus destroying all incentives for profit making.
Lowering taxation is seldom a bad policy, but if you take them away from only the poor, in a democracy, they will vote to raise the taxes for the rich who still have to pay them and you’re on a vicious circle towards socialism
Another brilliant article Mr. Armstrong.
I noticed that Governor King appears to be more “kingly” given his personnel and dispassionate agenda against All Things He Considers Evil, more so than his rebellious minion, Troy *King*.
Prohibition never works.
We had a similar politico-gambling exchange in Massachusetts where the Speaker of the House, Sal DiMasi, aligned policy with his personal morality as evidenced in his staunch, outspoken opposition to a casino plan (usurping Governor Deval Patrick’s proposal and public support).
< [quote>
DiMasi: “Do we want to usher in a casino culture — with rampant bankruptcies, crime and social ills — or do we want to create a better Massachusetts for all sectors of the society?”
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvatore_DiMasi
DiMasi (via Michael): “Do we want to usher in a casino culture — with rampant bankruptcies, crime and social ills — or do we want to create a better Massachusetts for all sectors of the society?”
I was willing to give DiMasi the benefit of the doubt. At first it sounded like a criticism of central banking.
I wonder about the State of Alabama’s “regressive” taxation policies. In order for it to be regressive, it would need to tax the poor at a higher rate than the rich. I.e., the poor would pay 15% of their income to the state, while the rich would pay 5%.
While the author cites an example of a very low-income family paying some taxes, we aren’t given either the rate of taxation or the rate for the rich. Considering Mr. Armstrong’s credentials, I doubt that he would support a socialistic progressive tax policy–or any other income tax policy, I assume! However, even a “more fair” flat tax policy would tax the very poor and the very rich alike (that is, at the same percentage).
Aside from that oversight, I would have also liked to know what law the new Task Force is trying to “interpret” to banish bingo.
Good article. It seems that Alabamans support legalized gambling if it supports education (http://www.clantonadvertiser.com/news/2009/jan/19/poll-finds-broad-support-gambling-alabama/). ‘Moral’ considerations aside, this is how the citizenry vs government have framed the debate: (1) stop its expansion (ban) or (2) if aids a social concern then legalize and tax it. Isn’t this see-saw method the kind of pseudo-intellectual mind trick we observe at the local, state, and federal levels? It seems that the only justification for gambling (or name-your-vice) is if it is for “education”. We’d hope it’s for “educating” the children and NOT (as some states have done) used to warn of the perils of gambling addition. Like tobacco and alcohol, it seems the question of morality has been eroded from a discussion of liberty (is it right to outlaw it) to one of social utility (if we tax it who will benefit).
Joshua, You are correct that ‘regressive’ was a poor choice of words since the tax rate does increase as income increases. I was merely trying to make the point that if Riley was truly as concerned about the poor as he claims to be he would reduce their tax burden.
In theory I am opposed to all income taxes, however, I think that the chances of abolishing income taxes are unbelievably low. So from a practical basis I advocate a flat tax simply because it seems more attainable given the current political environment.
With regard to your inquiry about the laws that the Governor is interpreting, I am attaching a link. This is his press release but at the bottom of this page there is a link to the “gambling task force fact sheet.” The pdf of the fact sheet contains the laws the Governor is using to justify his actions.
Press Release
If only we had a regressive tax rate rather than a progressive tax rate. Would certainly provide some incentive for people to get off their arse, get to work, and earn more so one could keep more. ie it would reward good behavior.
Could it be that Gov. Riley’s ire with private gambling is really due to the lack of a state monopoly on gambling, i.e., the “lottery,” in Alabama, as so many other states have? All the discussion about taxes on private bingo benefiting education and Medicare leads one to think that there is another motive behind the push to shut down private gambling. The state simply wants to extend its monopoly power over another aspect of private life and justify the extension with “good things” for the citizenry. And it begs the deeper question, which is why does the state have a monopoly over things like education and health care in the first place? Perhaps the “recession” will push Alabama into “legalizing” and monopolizing gambling and putting through a state lottery or granting (more) franchise rights to casinos, as it may do for other states (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=369725)
“If only we had a regressive tax rate rather than a progressive tax rate. Would certainly provide some incentive for people to get off their arse, get to work, and earn more so one could keep more. ie it would reward good behavior. ”
Or we could just, you know, beat up poor people.
Flat tax would be fine, except that most flat tax proposals require raising taxes on the poor, which libertarians should naturally oppose. Lower all taxes to the lowest marginal rate, then we’ll talk.
Mike wrote…
“Or we could just, you know, beat up poor people.”
No need to beat them all up. Just the ones who are to lazy to go out and provide for themselves and who think I should foot the bill for it.
Original post was actually more a tongue in cheek remark. Progressive or regressive, it is still theft at the point of a gun. However since we are stuck with the current tax system (barring a revolt of some sort), regressive would fit better with their STATED goals of toying with the tax code to promote specific agendas/behaviors. It would promote good behavior. ie, they provide tax breaks for home owners because they want to promote home ownership. They could use regressive tax rates to promote earning one’s own way rather than being a parasite.
Kudos to the author for his clear thinking and writing in an environment that must be hostile to his ideas.
I imagine that libertarianism is a far more dangerous foe to the entrenched liberal thinking in our universities than that of the young republican/conservative clubs of my days in school. Libertarians argue against the State’s right to coercively extract funds or to pass legislation that suports academia’s often foolish utopian ideas – as oppossed to just arguing about which ones should have priority.
Wrt the tax comments, a fair system would simply ask everyone to pay an equal amount for the minimum government that is needed. I wouldn’t mind chipping in for people who cannot pay so long as it isn’t presented as my duty and their right. Talk about utopia.
Comments on this entry are closed.