Taking advantage of the most needy?
Thursday, July 19, 2007
I have no problems with profits, but should we draw the line somewhere?
Early this week economists started talking about the economic decline in one of the most important cities in the country: Toronto (or the GTA, as is now called). The reports read that Torontonians' standard of living are declining
, because of the high unemployment rate and the strong Canadian dollar.
So what's a city to do? Well, why not increase legal gambling?
I don't get it: by promoting a vice to the ones that are probably addicted to the glamour of cheap casinos, the city is planning to increase its revenues
. I have no doubt it will work, but what about thinking outside box and come up with a better solution? It's not easy, but there has to be a better way to increase revenues than peddling cheap thrills to gambling addicts
Think about it: who is the most likely to gamble more when there is more gambling available? The one who never gambles, or a gambling addict? I'm not a gambling man, but I'd bet it's the gambling addict--I'd give anyone 10 odds to 1.
Why not decrease taxes to corporations so they set up shop in the city? Why not develop the waterfront area? Why not retrained the unemployed with useful skills?
Why not open beer and liquor stores 24 hours of the day, 7 days a week? Why not decrease the prices of cigarettes? Oh, wait. These two suggestion have a tinge of similarity to the current solution, yet no one is likely to support them. What's the difference? All those kids wanting to be cool would be able to afford coolness in a $3 dollar package--imagine all that revenue been wasted because of social responsibilities.
"who is the most likely to gamble more when there is more gambling available? The one who never gambles, or a gambling addict? I'm not a gambling man, but I'd bet it's the gambling addict--I'd give anyone 10 odds to 1."
I'll gladly take that bet. Addicts will gamble even if they have to drive cross town to some scuzzy run-down casino. The ones who are most likely to increase their gambling are those who don't gamble much.
But that's a minor nit to pick(?). Governments love taxing the poor. The problem is that while the powers that be love "the poor", they totally disprove of all of their habits, like raising cigarette taxes through the roof. Who smokes? Yuppies? Or the working class?
Nit picking, indeed. I somehow generalize it in my mind, and think that the one who already gambles will gamble more. Although I agree with you, there are different levels of gambling "addicts," if they could be called that.
I always like that duality of "loving," don't you?
Smoking and gambling are a bad anyway, but it seems wrong to take advantage of people who can't count, or can't distinguish between something that will kill them and something that gives them instant cool.
BTW, I'm also with personal responsibility; so the ones who smoke or gamble, are on their own. I do find it unfortunate that my taxes pay for their choices. Of course, somehow, we all end up paying.