Raise Delaware’s Slots Cut From 55% to 70%

Filed in National by on November 1, 2007

Delawareans are getting ripped off by Denis McGlynn and Dover Downs. We only get $55.00 out of every $100 that poor and stupid people contribute.

I say we peg our slots cut to the highest prevailing cut that nearby states are enjoying.

That’s a tax increase that even Republicans will love. Who is with me?

BTW – Denis McGlynn makes $433,000 per year so he needs to stop ripping off Delaware taxpayers with the miserly 55% cut he is giving us.

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (15)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. anon says:

    Jason you are thinking too small.

    Delaware has already prospered by legalizing usury and gambling. But people quickly become bored with their vices, so now we need to move on to some more sins we can legalize and tax.

    Let’s just go straight to legal prostitution. Or maybe Amsterdam-style drug cafes. Or maybe legalized “honor killings” which would create a tourism boom in Delaware for couples celebrating their tenth wedding anniversary.

    But not stem-cell research; that would be wrong.

  2. Disbelief says:

    I did some work with the accounting firm that handled the set-up for Dover Downs, and did projections for the State (the State was anxious to know how much money to expect). The original estimates were several millions in revenue. The first year turned out to be close to 100 million, blowing away the projections. Because of this windfall, the State has been kind of lazy about asking for an increase since more is being taxed than was originally thought.

  3. Disbelief says:

    Legalize prostitution? What are those guys in the stained, rumpled suits and cheap shoes that hang out at Leg Hall? Some call them lobbyists.

  4. jason330 says:

    Legal prostitution. Okay. I’d cap the states cut at 35% though because if you don’t think that is work, you’ve never tried to sell someone a blow job on a cold January night. Er..I mean…

    Amsterdam-style drug cafes. I don’t know about that. We’d have to come up with some way to make sure that the money is comming in from out of state.

  5. Chris says:

    “We only get $55.00 out of every $100 that poor and stupid people contribute.”

    Is this off of gross or net? If I stick a dollar in a slot (ok, I know, if a dollar is taken off from my card), does the state get 55 cents of that right off the bat?

    If that is so, than that is wrong. How would you personally feel if just the state government was taking over half of your paycheck each week. As it is now, add up all the governement taxes and it is getting close.

    Why am I asking you guys that question? You guys are such numb brains you would gladly hand the state your whole paycheck if it meant free healthcare.

  6. G Rex says:

    “You guys are such numb brains you would gladly hand the state your whole paycheck if it meant free healthcare.”

    Wrong, Chris, you and I hand over our entire paychecks, they get the free healthcare.

  7. G Rex says:

    Anyway, this sounds like Minner-nomics to me. Raise taxes on cigarettes, assuming that most smokers will keep smoking, because it’s an addiction. Why not raise taxes on gambling, too? I mean, whether you call it an addiction or a compulsion, you have to assume that gamblers will keep on pulling those levers or queuing up at the $2 window behind Mr. Fulcher.

  8. jason330 says:

    G-

    The increase from 55% to 70% will not impact gamblers at all. Denis McGlynn will make a little less money but he’ll be the first to tell you that he has enough.

  9. Chris says:

    “Denis McGlynn will make a little less money but he’ll be the first to tell you that he has enough.”

    As a shareholder (all of 8 shares), I beg to differ. If he has too much, let him dividend it out, not hand it over to the state.

  10. RickJ says:

    “The increase from 55% to 70% will not impact gamblers at all. Denis McGlynn will make a little less money but he’ll be the first to tell you that he has enough.”

    A little? His share is 45%, the suggestion is his company (and stockholders) get 30%. That’s a 33% drop in revenue, before the cost of running the business is factored in.

    The idea of increasing the state’s share is one that deserves exploring, but you shouldn’t understate the impact such a move would have on the operations of the racinos.

  11. jason330 says:

    You switched gears in mid-argument because you knew you were all wet.

    You moved from McGlyn’s profits to the impact on “operations.”

    The bottom line is everyone is making buckets of money. Slots is a money gusher.

    I think the taxpayers of Delaware should get a fair shake.

    Why do you guys hate taxpayers?

  12. G Rex says:

    What exactly did the state of Delaware contribute to the construction of Del Park? What does the state contribute to maintenance and wages of McGlynn’s employees? If it’s more than zero, please tell me. The state gets their cut only because they passed the legislation to allow gambling, and McGlynn and his shareholders are entitled to all the rest, full stop. Oh wait, in your socialist worker’s paradise, nobody is entitled to anything more than what the lowest amongst us receives for their labors, regardless of their talents.

    Personally, I consider gambling to be a huge social ill, regardless of what the state makes on it in net revenues, since they/we pay the substantial social costs. (It may be the one issue on which I agree with Fulcher.) I just get peevish when you want to dictate to people how much money they can make.

  13. Chris says:

    “I think the taxpayers of Delaware should get a fair shake.”

    55%. That would mean the state is the largest benefactor there…then they tax the winnings too right? Then they get their share of what the employees are paid right? They no doubt collect property taxes on the place right? And probably get a piece of whatever McGlynn makes off of it…and whatever the shareholders make off of it. The only way for the taxpayers of Delaware to get to “fair shake” is to reduce their take substantially. That would at least put it in the ballpark. God almighty you lefties are greedy!

  14. disbelief says:

    Chris, 8 shares of the racino is not going to buy you a picture op with the President, no matter how little its taxed.

  15. ANNON II says:

    From two of the above posts:

    “We only get $55.00 out of every $100 that poor and stupid people contribute.”

    Personally, I consider gambling to be a huge social ill, regardless of what the state makes on it in net revenues, since they/we pay the substantial social costs. (It may be the one issue on which I agree with Fulcher.) I just get peevish when you want to dictate to people how much money they can make.

    ‘NUFF SAID!!!!!