Pens Respond To Fast Eddie's Cronies

[imau2fan]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06046/655402.stm

[NIN]

This section is some grade A Forrest City BULLCRAP!!

In his letter, Mr. Ratner said he was confident Forest City could meet the projections for a number of reasons.

For one, he said, Forest City plans to invest more than $150 million more in its casino than competitors. For another, Harrah's is the "premiere name in gaming" with a database of more than 40 million customers.

That, plus a customer loyalty program, allows Harrah's to generate about 33 percent of its business in cross market play -- people who play at a Harrah's casino outside of their home market.

"This is a marketing tool and patron base that none of our competitors can match. We will draw visitors to Pittsburgh from all of the Harrah's properties in America. These factors will enable Harrah's Station Square casino to be a regional gaming destination for America and generate the most revenue for the taxpayers of Pennsylvania," he said.

HAHAHA RIiiiiiight! Like they are gonna lure poeple from Atlantic city to come to Station Square?

Here is another crooked victory for the Forrest City of Suckersbrugh economy rappers:

"The bottom line is there's no urgency to rush and support any proposal at this time. We have to do our due diligence and, hopefully, the consensus will be to pick the best one for the city of Pittsburgh," he said.

His words make my moniter smell bad! "NO URGENCY". Folks all of this hype and all of the number digging is grinding it down and all of the idiots around here will see inflated numbers and wonder why the other 2 applicants are even making a fuss. It's brilliant in it's simplicity.

Won't we all be surprised when their so-called "property-tax releif" is once again DENIED by our local schools and all that "promised" releif gets rederected into "other" areas of his inflated budget. Dear God, why am I still living here?

[Pitts]

I think the Pens and, especially, Don Barden covered that PR move by the Ratners well. Barden is dead on when he says this is a drive-in destination and not a high-income area for a casino. Sure, people will be playing them here, but I don't see this area a a "hopping" slots town. I see the casino as a spot for tourists and people in town on business or conventions. If people want a "getaway" casino, they'll still hit WV and Toronto, even from Pittsburgh.

Forrest City is clearly punching up the numbers to fight the "free area" deal.

[Tocchet]

If Ratface wants to talk about *other* costs behind a proposal, why doesn't he explain how the South Side will be able to handle all of the traffic that would result in his grandiose revenue projections? Unless Ratface and Forest City is going to pay for all of the infrastructure that will undoubtedly be necessary to support their plan, Ratface is, again, telling bald-face lies to skew public opinion.

[pfim]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06046/655402.stm

Ratner makes a point about the "free" arena, however he neglects other taxes the arena would bring in, and his reasons for Harrah's and Forest City acheiving the proposed $600 million are cheesy at best.

[dboss]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06046/655402.stm

Ratner makes a point about the "free" arena, however he neglects other taxes the arena would bring in, and his reasons for Harrah's and Forest City acheiving the proposed $600 million are cheesy at best.

I think this is the most interesting quote from that article:

"Furthermore, Harrah's has a history of exaggerating numbers in order to win a license, particularly in New Orleans, another place where Harrah's promised to bring in $600 million per year and didn't, and they are currently operating at $339 million per year," Mr. Morehouse said in a statement.

[ExPatriatePen]

Financing your government on vice is sleazy. What will they do when this does not work? Legalize drugs and prostitution for tax purposes?

I respect your opinion.

I just want to put something out there for everyone to consider.

Taxes discourage activity.

Would you rather tax income, and property (positive economic indicators) or consumption particularly of Tobacco, alcohol, etc...

Obviously you have to draw a line somewhere and say that activities are not only to be discouraged but are totally unacceptable and should be made illeagal.

But taxing income discourages production. (I've turned down offers for sidework because my after-tax income made the retunr not worth the effort.)

Taxing alocohol, tobacco, consumption of petroleum, etc... discourages their use and increases revenue.

Personally I'm for the Leagalization of marijuana (No, I haven't used it in 17 years), but against the legalization of other drugs etc...

I sort of sit on the fence when it comes to gambling, I want to be able to have it as an option for recreational purposes, but NIMBY. (I know, I know)... I won't even tell you my views on prostitution (But I will say that the Mustang ranch seems to be doing quite well in Nevada and there haven't been any health issues. - more than I can say for the illeagal trade down on Liberty avenue.)

I do share your sentiment that I don't think slots are the answer in PA, and I think the estimates are all inflated. Once it comes in, it will never leave, even if it's a complete bust.

I'm happy that Pittsburgh was only granted one license. I hope it stays that way.

[HomerPenguin]

Taxing alocohol, tobacco, consumption of petroleum, etc... discourages their use and increases revenue.

This paradox, I think, is the problem most opponents have with this. The tax can be imposed with the stated goal of discouraging use while also bringing in revenue, but these goals are at cross purposes. If magically everybody stops smoking, then your cigarette tax on which you'd planned to bring in X% of your revenue suddently dries up. Same thing with gaming. It puts the government in a position of having to hope that people keep engaging in that "harmful" activity because the government needs the cash.

That said, I just don't find gaming that serious a concern. Particularly with no sports book. I find an all-slots casino to be incredibly silly and of no particular appeal to me, but that's another story.

[ExPatriatePen]

Taxing alocohol, tobacco, consumption of petroleum, etc... discourages their use and increases revenue.

This paradox, I think, is the problem most opponents have with this. The tax can be imposed with the stated goal of discouraging use while also bringing in revenue, but these goals are at cross purposes.

You're absolutely right. The tax on Tobacco is a perfect example. It's more than the cost of the raw materials and shipping combined. It's certainly caused some people to quit smoking completely. But it'll never stop everyone. There are people who would spend $10 for a pack of 'smokes'.
(hey, I routinely spend $20 for a good cigar).

So while they are at cross purposes, their is a point of intersection.

Let's take Pot for example. Cheaper to grow than tobacco. If it were legalized, more people would use it. (The threat of being arrested is probably the greatest inhibitor) yet you could tax a pack of 20 joints for $100 and still be below the current street price for the same thing.

There's always that point of intersection where you don't discourage the activity and still collect maximal revenue.

But how did this thread become an economics debate?

NEVERMIND!