What if Ontarians put 68 billion (extrapolated to an annual spend) into their respective local economies to support wages and services. Simply put, gambling is nothing more than bottom-feeding economics.
On-line gambling is a curse. Lately several of the senior gals of my acquaintance have had to bail out adult kids or their spouses who got into real financial trouble as a result of on-line gambling. This will not go down in history as one of Doug Ford’s finest achievements.
I'm comfortable conceding that gambling, including on sports, is an unstoppable force of human nature, and since it must exist I prefer it to be operated by crown corps or heavily regulated, heavily taxed private entities instead of organized crime (which is to be clear the inevitable alternative).
I'm not sure that concession requires allowing advertising, celebrity spokespeople, or app-based gambling. "If you want to bet on the game, you have to physically attend at a bookie's to place your bet, you can't do it from your phone after watching an all-star hockey player plug OverUnder.com during a mid-game interview" is absolutely the sort of favour we can do for problem gamblers in an environment where gambling is legalized and regulated...if we care enough about them to do so.
Sad commentary on our values when gambling is encouraged as a way to support government revenues. Have we lost all sense of perspective regarding hard work, thrift and responsibility? Just to add to the irony the very same government that encourages people to gamble also runs ads promoting gambling responsibly (an oxymoron if there ever was one) while also counselling those addicted to gambling to seek help.
For 90+% of buyers, it would seem to be a tax on hope and dreams. As for me, I buy a ticket every time I have a $20 bill that I am otherwise going to throw into the recycle bin.
About the only valid reason I can see for the government to get involved in gambling is the argument that it diverts illegal gambling into a regulated space. However, it's a nauseating activity to be involved in: gamblers tend to have addiction problems and/or represent lower income groups. The government allows them to piss away money, siphons off their portion, and then allows politicians to make a show of their "generosity" and "beneficence" handing out cheques around their ridings that help subsidize the recreational activities of well-off middle class kids.
My father, an otherwise rational and scientific mind, as well longtime fervent libertarian just shrugs when I point out the incongruity of paying a voluntary tax by buying lottery tickets.
It seems like when the addiction gets you, nothing gets in the way. Even for someone who bitched his entire life that French taxation levels were stifling productivity and innovation.
Go figure. Some people would rather make a bet than put food on the table.
As far as making bets, buying bitcoin is far less risky. Hell maybe even Dogecoin is a better one. Not investment advice.
So everyone is complaining about not having enough money for anything, while gambling numbers are soaring. And abased on the number of ads they're all putting out, it's clear that wagering is a huge revenue generator ....for the house. A fool and his money are soon parted......
My thoughts about this article coincides with my recent viewing of Croupier, the Clive Owen film that cynically explores the vulture like tendencies of the gaming industry and how it separates gamers from their money.
The real time problems of on line gambling seems different now that professional sports leagues have allowed their games to be exploited by the gambling industry. Who might have guessed that pregame or halftime programs would be littered with segments dedicated to point spreads, odds etc. Combine this live broadcast activity with smartphones to place bets on the spot and lookout. Mr. Stinsons humour about bank accounts depleted and angry spouses is sure to happen.
I also find it disgusting that current professional athletes who are raking in millions of dollars playing these sports are endorsing the gambling and cheerleading the gamblers on. Who could have seen that coming?
It is good that Ontario is able to keep all that lost gambling money local because they have a responsibility to mop up the ruined lives that are left behind.
"Other provinces haven’t experienced the blizzard of ad spending that has taken place in the highly competitive Ontario marketplace"
Ha! Yeah, if only the world worked that way.
Trust me, anyone in Canada who watches hockey (or anything else on the Toronto Sports Network, or the equally Toronto-centric SportsNet) is WELL acquainted with the ad blitzes by Ontario's betting purveyors.
Why do we have public sector bookies competing against private sector bookies?
I am fine with legalized sports books but not for one to be owned and operated by the government.
The line about "100% of the profits remain in Ontario" can be used on to take over any company or industry. We don't have government to run for profit companies.
Opinions will differ on whether Ontario’s jumping-in-with-both-feet approach to the private-sector pool has been a net benefit to the province because of the downstream effects of increasing gambling, but from a pure revenue sense it has absolutely been a boon.
END QUOTE
Clearly the revenues speak for themselves. However, there can be no question as to what "the downstream effects of increased gambling" are: bankrupt individuals, broken families, addictions leading to death and communities under stress.
What the Ontario governments is doing by "taking the grey-to-black market" gambling industry into "the mainstream" (and presiding over the exploitation of the weak-minded) is lamentable.
Yes, one cannot legislate against bad decision-making, but one can certainly clamp down on those who exploit people who indulge in it.
But can that happen when our democratically elected governments are the ones doing the exploiting?
What if Ontarians put 68 billion (extrapolated to an annual spend) into their respective local economies to support wages and services. Simply put, gambling is nothing more than bottom-feeding economics.
On-line gambling is a curse. Lately several of the senior gals of my acquaintance have had to bail out adult kids or their spouses who got into real financial trouble as a result of on-line gambling. This will not go down in history as one of Doug Ford’s finest achievements.
I'm comfortable conceding that gambling, including on sports, is an unstoppable force of human nature, and since it must exist I prefer it to be operated by crown corps or heavily regulated, heavily taxed private entities instead of organized crime (which is to be clear the inevitable alternative).
I'm not sure that concession requires allowing advertising, celebrity spokespeople, or app-based gambling. "If you want to bet on the game, you have to physically attend at a bookie's to place your bet, you can't do it from your phone after watching an all-star hockey player plug OverUnder.com during a mid-game interview" is absolutely the sort of favour we can do for problem gamblers in an environment where gambling is legalized and regulated...if we care enough about them to do so.
Sad commentary on our values when gambling is encouraged as a way to support government revenues. Have we lost all sense of perspective regarding hard work, thrift and responsibility? Just to add to the irony the very same government that encourages people to gamble also runs ads promoting gambling responsibly (an oxymoron if there ever was one) while also counselling those addicted to gambling to seek help.
For 90+% of buyers, it would seem to be a tax on hope and dreams. As for me, I buy a ticket every time I have a $20 bill that I am otherwise going to throw into the recycle bin.
About the only valid reason I can see for the government to get involved in gambling is the argument that it diverts illegal gambling into a regulated space. However, it's a nauseating activity to be involved in: gamblers tend to have addiction problems and/or represent lower income groups. The government allows them to piss away money, siphons off their portion, and then allows politicians to make a show of their "generosity" and "beneficence" handing out cheques around their ridings that help subsidize the recreational activities of well-off middle class kids.
My father, an otherwise rational and scientific mind, as well longtime fervent libertarian just shrugs when I point out the incongruity of paying a voluntary tax by buying lottery tickets.
It seems like when the addiction gets you, nothing gets in the way. Even for someone who bitched his entire life that French taxation levels were stifling productivity and innovation.
Go figure. Some people would rather make a bet than put food on the table.
As far as making bets, buying bitcoin is far less risky. Hell maybe even Dogecoin is a better one. Not investment advice.
So everyone is complaining about not having enough money for anything, while gambling numbers are soaring. And abased on the number of ads they're all putting out, it's clear that wagering is a huge revenue generator ....for the house. A fool and his money are soon parted......
A telling data point that is kept but never made public is the number of suicide victims found each month in casino parking lots.
That yields insight into one of the social costs which result from the government’s addiction to gambling revenues.
It’s “the dopey tax” for anyone dopey enough to pay it.
My thoughts about this article coincides with my recent viewing of Croupier, the Clive Owen film that cynically explores the vulture like tendencies of the gaming industry and how it separates gamers from their money.
The real time problems of on line gambling seems different now that professional sports leagues have allowed their games to be exploited by the gambling industry. Who might have guessed that pregame or halftime programs would be littered with segments dedicated to point spreads, odds etc. Combine this live broadcast activity with smartphones to place bets on the spot and lookout. Mr. Stinsons humour about bank accounts depleted and angry spouses is sure to happen.
I also find it disgusting that current professional athletes who are raking in millions of dollars playing these sports are endorsing the gambling and cheerleading the gamblers on. Who could have seen that coming?
It is good that Ontario is able to keep all that lost gambling money local because they have a responsibility to mop up the ruined lives that are left behind.
"Other provinces haven’t experienced the blizzard of ad spending that has taken place in the highly competitive Ontario marketplace"
Ha! Yeah, if only the world worked that way.
Trust me, anyone in Canada who watches hockey (or anything else on the Toronto Sports Network, or the equally Toronto-centric SportsNet) is WELL acquainted with the ad blitzes by Ontario's betting purveyors.
Why do we have public sector bookies competing against private sector bookies?
I am fine with legalized sports books but not for one to be owned and operated by the government.
The line about "100% of the profits remain in Ontario" can be used on to take over any company or industry. We don't have government to run for profit companies.
Guaranteed the Leaf's will win the cup this year. Not going to put money on it but they are still going to win the cup!
I am in the “keep the money in Ontario “ camp. You have a much better idea of where, and for what purpose, it is spent.
QUOTE
Opinions will differ on whether Ontario’s jumping-in-with-both-feet approach to the private-sector pool has been a net benefit to the province because of the downstream effects of increasing gambling, but from a pure revenue sense it has absolutely been a boon.
END QUOTE
Clearly the revenues speak for themselves. However, there can be no question as to what "the downstream effects of increased gambling" are: bankrupt individuals, broken families, addictions leading to death and communities under stress.
What the Ontario governments is doing by "taking the grey-to-black market" gambling industry into "the mainstream" (and presiding over the exploitation of the weak-minded) is lamentable.
Yes, one cannot legislate against bad decision-making, but one can certainly clamp down on those who exploit people who indulge in it.
But can that happen when our democratically elected governments are the ones doing the exploiting?