Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
soupBDC

In 2008, "indian reservation" just means "tax haven."

Recommended Posts

Fuck that motherfucking Ahnold. This dude is willing to let some rich people on reservations build the nations largest casinos in California, let them audit themselves (WTF?), and all so whatever they decide to claim (because it would be ILLEGAL for us to check their auditing) California can get a little more income. I mean this doesnt just fuck over neighboring reservations, this fucks over any concept of equality and fairness you thought you had in this state. Voting yes on 94, 95, 96, and 97 would mean a couple of the wealthiest people in the state wouldnt be audited, while you, your family, your family's small business remain audited and taxed thoroughly while they become even richer. Its a far stretch to say that this kind of business is at all helping the native americans. Reservat

 

Here's the kicker, as you'll learn if you read on. Arnold tried to pass this without letting californians vote on it.

 

You can read more here: http://www.menifee247.com/2007/12/california-proposition-94-95-96-97.htm dont stop before reading the comments.

 

 

Propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97 are voter initiatives that will allow four indian casinos in Southern California to build "super casinos" larger than those found on the Las Vegas strip. These will be on the Feb 5, 2008 ballot...

 

Prop 94 - affects Pechanga Casino

 

Prop 95 - affects Morongo Casino

 

Prop 96 - affects Sycuan Casino

 

Prop 97 - affects Agua Caliente Casino

 

Texts of these four referendums are essentially the same, the only differences being the number of additional slot machines they are allowed to add, and the amount of money they'll be paying to the State.

 

The Breakdown

 

What the Casinos get...

 

Casinos get to triple or nearly quadruple their number of slot machines (Pechanga goes from 2,000 to 7,500)

 

 

Casinos are no longer subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Any expansion must be backed up by an environmental report that the Indian tribes can conduct themselves.

 

 

Casinos no longer have to have an impartial auditor count the slot machine revenues; they'll be able to audit them on their own.

 

 

Casinos will receive a "fail safe" guarantee that punishes the State for permitting non-tribal gambling operations. That is, if an organization other than an indian tribe receives a clearance to build a gambling establishment, the indian casino will be allowed to reduce its taxes to the State, or eliminate them altogether.

 

What the State gets...

 

Casinos will now pay taxes to the State General Fund. Previously, casino taxes were paid to two tribal funds (RSTF and SDF) that the State distributed to smaller tribes, and tribal administrative bodies. The General Fund is spent on all Californians.

 

 

Casinos will now pay more money than before, almost double than under the current compact agreements. But as mentioned above, the Indian tribes will now get to audit their own revenues for the purpose of deciding how much money goes to the State. Under the current arrangement, an impartial auditor is used. So, it's not exactly clear how much more money California will receive.

 

History

 

The provisions spelled out above were actually passed by the State Legislature, and signed into law by the Governor, in June 2007. It was supposed to go into effect January 1, 2008.

 

But other indian tribes within the State, particularly the Pala Tribe, as well as some racing tracks, the California Federation of Teachers, and the California Tax Reform Association, managed to gather enough signatures to put Props 94, 95, 96, and 97 on the ballot as a last ditch effort to override the Governor's signature.

 

The Pala Tribe is concerned that their casino will lose business if Pechanga is allowed to greatly expand its casino.

 

A "no" vote means the existing 1999 agreements will remain in effect. A "yes" vote allows these new provisions to go into effect.

 

More History

 

Pechanga is in the midst of an FBI investigation for massive embezzlement. Casino managers not only defrauded the casino itself, but the dealers as well by forcing them to pool their tips and then stealing those pooled tokes.

 

One high ranking tribal member/table games manager has been quietly kicked out of the casino (although he'll still get his monthly stipend for life), while others in management have been taken out in handcuffs.

 

CORRUPTION RUNS RAMPANT in Indian Gaming and not one single news organization will touch it. Makes you wonder why. Too much tax revenue at stake?

 

Lets not fool anyone, the Governor of California HAS to be in the know re: the FBI investigations. Is he going to be part of the problem by turning a blind eye or part of the solution by demanding accountability? My guess? Follow the money. All sins are forgiven if the price is right. Meanwhile, over 6000 employees are affected, but who cares about them? They're simple plebians - afraid to speak out for fear of backlash - easy marks for greed mongers.

 

Floor managers and Pits shaking down dealers for a share of their income. Trainers SELLING dealing jobs at $3,000 per head, or for sex -regardless of ability. For those who gained their jobs honestly and perform their duties with integrity, this goes beyond a slap in the face.

 

This smacks of early Vegas.

 

Upper management receiving kick backs for everything from casino software to the building of the new high limit rooms. Hiring known managers of, to say the least, dubious character and giving them free reign. How much was stolen? ... MILLIONS ???

 

Wake up people. you are being hoodwinked. If the taxpayers of California give them the freedom to self audit, then they get what they deserve and those millionaire tribal members most asuredly will laugh all the way to the bank. Why would they care, so long as they get their $15,000+ a month?

 

Oh and lets not forget San Manuel. Tribal members laundering money, selling drugs and guns to the Mexican drug cartels - all swept under the rug. The general public oblivious to it all. Now that's a sweet deal.

 

ALL INDIAN CASINOS should be scrutinized. They don't need less oversight - they need more. Alot more.

 

Meanwhile, I surely wish someone in the press had the courage to ask the Governor CALIFORNIANS VOTED FOR for an explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah how dare they be allowed to manage themselves in the country they inhabited thousands of years before any white man came over!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot there that casinos are a thousand year-old native american tradition. How dare I wish to keep the tradition original and authentic with the ceremony of federal auditing still in tact.

 

I made this thread because it's necessary for people to vote NO on these props on febuary 5.

 

And I don't hate the playa, because the "game" is called "assimilation." Every one of these guys are born and raised in the united states, not Native America. Im not slamming all the indian reservations but at this point most of them are just making up who's a native american and who's not; who is entitled to the land and who needs to move on. The rich few are stealing from their own people now, and for what? For the American way. These propositions just make the rich few have fatter pockets while the impoverished stay in poverty. We're talking corruption that'd make early vegas look pussy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this on the web also. Now that I know, I'll be voting no for sure:

Props 94 through 97 would allow four southern California Indian tribes to expand their casinos so they would be among the largest in the world. In exchange the tribes would pay billions of dollars into the state’s General Fund. Sounds like a painless solution California’s budget crisis, right? That’s certainly what the legislature and governor thought when they approved these compacts last June. But this isn’t a good way to balance the budget, and the agreements are tilted too heavily in the tribes’ favor anyway. We can do better—much better. Vote down the compacts to encourage a better solution to our budget crisis, or at least send the parties back to the bargaining table.

 

The tribes in question—Pechanga, Morongo, Sycuan and Agua Caliente—currently operate five casinos in Riverside and San Diego counties. Their existing compacts with the state allow each of them 2,000 slot machines. Props 94-97 will increase this to 5,000 for Sycuan and Agua Caliente and 7,500 for Pechanga and Morongo. This would place the latter two on par with the Foxwoods casino in Connecticut, currently the world leader in slots with over 7,400. For comparison, the enormous MGM Grand in Las Vegas has only half that number at 3,700.

 

Calculating from one of the compacts, each slot machine brings in approximately $130,000 a year in net profit (after payouts), so the four tribes’ 8,000 machines currently bring in $1.04 billion profit a year. Under the existing compacts the tribes pay nothing to the state’s General Fund. Instead, they pay roughly $74 million into special funds for local governments, poorer tribes, and other purposes. That’s an effective tax rate of 7%. Pretty sweet for the tribes.

 

Props 94-97 will impose a new payment to the General Fund. It will start with a base of $123 million (11.8% of the profit on the existing 8,000 machines), and add 15% of the net profit from the first 20,000 new slot machines, plus an additional 10% of the net profit on the final 5,000 machines at Pechanga and Morongo. If the $130,000 per machine figure holds for all new slots, this would mean $675 million in new income for the General Fund once all 25,000 new slot machines are operational. Pretty sweet for the state.

 

Or is it?

 

The profits from all 33,000 machines will be about $4.3 billion, yielding an effective tax rate of 15%. This might be high for a regular business, but we’re talking about gambling. Compare it to the Lottery, which is “taxed” at a whopping 83%—that is, of income not used for prizes or operational costs, 83% goes to public education, with the rest used for retailer commissions and bonuses. Props 94-97 will turn that equation around for Indian casinos: 85% of profit will go to the tribes, the rest to the state. Obviously we should negotiate a better deal. If these propositions fail, that’s what will happen.

 

Why did Arnold and the Legislature make such bad deals? Two reasons: campaign contributions and the budget gap. The four tribes regularly make lavish contributions to both political parties and elected officials, so everyone in Sacramento is, shall we say, predisposed to be nice to them. And the impending huge budget shortfall has made lawmakers even more desperate for a solution, so they’re willing to settle for any agreement they can get.

 

But the competitive climate is right to renegotiate. The tribes on this ballot are only four of more than 50 tribes operating casinos in California today. If these measures fail, the pressure will be on Pechanga et al. If they don’t agree to give more than 15% to the General Fund, competing tribes surely will. I’d like to see the state go for 50% or more. That would still leave billions in profits for the tribes, yet pale in comparison to the Lottery.

 

There are other provisions of the proposed compacts that make them bad deals for the state. Under the existing compacts, the state has the right to inspect casino records to verify payment levels. Props 94-97 allow the tribes to audit themselves instead. The temptation to shortchange the state may be too great to resist. Moreover, the propositions effectively grant the tribes exclusive franchises on card and slot machine gambling in their local areas. I can’t see any justification for this give-away.

 

The propositions also fail to address two important problems with the existing compacts: casinos’ immunity from the California Environmental Quality Act and the lack of labor union protections for casino employees.

 

But putting aside quibbles over the terms of the compacts, there are deeper reasons to oppose Props 94-97. See if any of these resonate with you.

 

“Sin taxes” have been around forever, and it’s hard to argue against them. It makes sense to tax, and thereby discourage, nonessential activities such as gambling, smoking and drinking, that have no societal merit. But I’m queasy about closing a budget deficit by creating more sins to tax. Props 94-97 hope to balance our state’s budget not by discouraging, but by expanding slot-machine gambling, which is an addictive, self-destructive behavior on par with smoking and drinking. This strategy seems to contradict the entire rationale for sin taxes.

 

Let’s take the strategy a step further. If it’s fine to close the budget gap partially by legalizing, franchising, and taxing one “victimless” activity, wouldn’t it be better to close it completely with more? We could legalize prostitution, grant a franchise to the Police Athletic League, and direct 35% of the profits into the General Fund. It would be worth billions! Why stop there? Let’s legalize marijuana, let the Salvation Army sell it, and collect 40%. Budget surpluses as far as the eye can see! Crystal meth, sold by the Girl Scouts? The state income tax becomes unnecessary! Heroin from the Church of Christ? No more sales tax!

 

Is this really how we want to structure our state budget? Should government income depend on the public level of avarice? Should schoolchildren suffer when there isn’t enough lust, greed and gluttony to pay for their textbooks? Of course not. I am not arguing that we should outlaw gambling, but rather that the state has no business depending so heavily on slot machines. Props 94-97 are emblematic of a legislature that cannot control spending, will not raise taxes, and is turning to desperate, stop-gap measures that will ultimately cause a much bigger problem than they solve.

 

The problem I refer to is gambling addiction. “Gambling can be as serious as a drug addiction, yet it is a government-subsidised form of addiction,” says addiction specialist Eric Nestler of the University of Texas. “We need to be made more aware of the potential risks, and we need … [to] remove subsidies for addictive behaviors: tobacco, gambling, state lotteries—it’s absurd.” According to New Scientist magazine, “Some researchers predict as many as 10 per cent of the US population will soon have a gambling problem.”

 

The $9 billion that proponents claim will flow into the General Fund over the lifetime of the compacts will have to come from someone. That “someone” is ordinary Californians, who must lose $60 billion to the slot machines authorized by these propositions if the promised government funding is to materialize.

 

That much money—the equivalent of $2,400 in gambling losses by every adult in the state—cannot possibly come just from casual gamblers having a wholesome night at the casino. Instead, most of that $60 billion will come from addicts: people who have lost control over their actions. One study reportedly suggests 60% of slot machine revenues come from gambling addicts. That lost money could be funding retirements, or paying off credit card debts, or buying goods and services in the local community. Instead it will drain into slot machines, leaving the losers poorer and ever more vulnerable. Will that be good for our economy or society? Think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×