Campaigners call for scrutiny of ‘gold rush’ after economists estimate gambling tax surge may be ‘roughly equal’ to social costs
  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    82·
    6 months ago

    Had the same amount of money been spent on another activity, like shopping or dining, NERA Economic Consulting estimated that significantly more would have been paid out in wages, which employees would have then spent on other parts of the economy.

    That seems like a flawed premise to me. They seem to have the expectation that 100% of money spent on gambling would otherwise be spent on non-gambling goods and services in the state. Certainly some would go to buy goods and services in New Jersy, but they don’t seem to count on part of that money being spent on non-licensed gambling in the state which the state gets zero tax revenue from, or from licensed gambling that happens outside the state when residents would travel outside the state to access legal gambling, also which the state of New Jersey gets zero tax revenue from.

    What the percentage split between the three categories would be I don’t know, but the article doesn’t mention anything about the other two.

    • yo_scottie_oh@lemmy.mlEnglish
      2·
      6 months ago

      Good point. In business there’s a concept of when introducing some new good or service or opening a new location brings in new sales that would not have happened otherwise, in which case we would say the business benefits from it, versus when it cannibalizes existing sales, in which case it does not add value for the business.

      I agree with you, it seems unreasonable to assume gambling revenues cannibalize spending on other goods and services at a rate of 100%. Hardly anything is ever 100%.