←back to thread

Addiction Markets

(www.thebignewsletter.com)
383 points toomuchtodo | 2 comments | 31 Oct 25 17:42 UTC | HN request time: 0.478s | source
Show context
Humorist2290 ◴[31 Oct 25 23:50 UTC] No.45777973[source]▶

  But if you want to outlaw this harmful activity [licensed gambling], you have to find a way to replace 6.4% of Maryland’s budget, which is slightly less than the entire amount the state brings in from corporate taxes.
A fraction of the proceeds of losing bets from a fraction of Maryland's citizens contributes almost the same to state services -- EMS, education, road maintenance, etc -- than the total corporate taxes levied on all businesses.

Do I misunderstand, or is this just actually incredible?

replies(10): >>45777987 #>>45778718 #>>45779445 #>>45779912 #>>45780682 #>>45780719 #>>45781051 #>>45781127 #>>45782672 #>>45782961 #
mattmaroon ◴[01 Nov 25 05:25 UTC] No.45779445[source]▶
No to both. You probably understand it but it’s not that amazing. States don’t tax corporations much (it’s often fairly easy to move your company to the next state over if taxes are lower) the federal government does. They tax things like sales, homes, gambling and other vices, etc.
replies(2): >>45780899 #>>45781339 #
1. elif ◴[01 Nov 25 13:06 UTC] No.45781339[source]▶
Yes but states provide the roads, EMS, schools, etc the commenter was talking about, not the autocratic regime.. and the corporations benefit from those services way more than gamblers do.
replies(1): >>45781487 #
2. piker ◴[01 Nov 25 13:29 UTC] No.45781487[source]▶
U.S. DOT provides a ton of road funding to the states as well. If memory serves, it’s often over half their budget.

[Edit: fun fact: threatening to withhold this funding is how the U.S. DOT managed to essentially federalize drinking age of 21. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole)]