←back to thread

Addiction Markets

(www.thebignewsletter.com)
387 points toomuchtodo | 1 comments | 31 Oct 25 17:42 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
TimByte ◴[01 Nov 25 10:50 UTC] No.45780682[source]▶
A state is funding essential public services not through productive economic activity, but by extracting money from people losing bets
replies(2): >>45781056 #>>45781963 #
harha ◴[01 Nov 25 12:15 UTC] No.45781056[source]▶
Sounds like a win to me, you can leave more for productive activity to grow and attract more, there less incentive for illegal gambling, and no one is forced to do it.

If there’s a massive burden with addicts, you can still impose that the gambling industry pays more to offset.

replies(3): >>45781129 #>>45781455 #>>45783064 #
BeFlatXIII ◴[01 Nov 25 16:38 UTC] No.45783064[source]▶
> no one is forced to do it

Go tell that to joint bank accounts and family court.

replies(2): >>45783591 #>>45785483 #
shadowgovt ◴[01 Nov 25 17:39 UTC] No.45783591[source]▶
What does this comment mean?
replies(1): >>45783748 #
1. jwiz ◴[01 Nov 25 17:55 UTC] No.45783748[source]▶
If spouse-a has gambling addiction and spends all of the family money, then spouse-b was effectively forced to gamble.