The smartest policy I have seen for gambling was in Singapore. I think it’s S$150 per entry into the casino (or S$3000 annually) for Singaporeans to gamble. Foreign tourists don’t pay this levy. It keeps the locals out who don’t have the disposable income to gamble while bringing in money from foreigners.
I’ve seen more people from lower income trying out gambling to get out of poverty (or in hopes to have something to eat for the week). So it kinda makes sense in this situation, maybe?
Probably but it also restricts opportunities for lower class people like let’s say you’re building a business contact and want to take them to a casino. Now obviously you’re being restricted just because of your current economic position. If anything lower classes should have fewer restrictions not more.
I don’t think we need to babysit “the poor” but instead support people with social nets and provide opportunities for growth. The Singapore style of governing is oppression disguised as progress.
Taxes on addictions always disproportionately affect the poor. I suppose addictions and most other societal issues also disproportionately affect the poor.
The smartest policy I have seen for gambling was in Singapore. I think it’s S$150 per entry into the casino (or S$3000 annually) for Singaporeans to gamble. Foreign tourists don’t pay this levy. It keeps the locals out who don’t have the disposable income to gamble while bringing in money from foreigners.
Ah yes the class separation - the usual approach to every problem in Singapore
I’ve seen more people from lower income trying out gambling to get out of poverty (or in hopes to have something to eat for the week). So it kinda makes sense in this situation, maybe?
Probably but it also restricts opportunities for lower class people like let’s say you’re building a business contact and want to take them to a casino. Now obviously you’re being restricted just because of your current economic position. If anything lower classes should have fewer restrictions not more.
I don’t think we need to babysit “the poor” but instead support people with social nets and provide opportunities for growth. The Singapore style of governing is oppression disguised as progress.
I guess this one makes sense though, if you don’t have the money to pay the entry fee, you should not be gambling anything at all.
Taxes on addictions always disproportionately affect the poor. I suppose addictions and most other societal issues also disproportionately affect the poor.
and can cause dependency on a state level on a problematic sector which can further entrech legal status