Anyone have an examples outside of Vegas and maybe the first two Connecticut casinos where bringing in legalize gambling actually derived on the promise of raising projected revenue benefiting the wider economy?
Though I'm personally against all types of gambling, I believe in individual rights and a person's right to waste their money as they see fit. However, I don't think governments should be so closely tied to it and I certainly don't think governments should be depending on it for funding of any sort. They should tax the companies involved in gambling, but they should be "in bed with them" so to speak. And I don't think state governments should be involved in lotteries either. Lotteries should be purely private and the government should tax it. I don't think a moral or sane government that truly cares about and represents their citizenry could be involved in lotteries or gambling.
This has certainly happened in Australia (especially NSW): two of the biggest political donors are the Australian Hotels Association (AHA) and ClubsNSW, which represent the principal beneficiaries from video gambling machines: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/machine-men-how-the-aha-...
Let me know when you find one, and I will donate a breeding pair of unicorns to its zoo.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/z/zero-sumgame.asp
In other words, someone wins and someone loses. Just because someone benefits doesn't mean it isn't a zero sum game. Stealing is also a zero sum game. It benefits the criminals who steal ( but no new value is created ). It's simply a transfer of wealth, not a creation of wealth. That's why it is zero sum.
-Society spends 2B gambling
-Govt receives .7B tax revenue and spends it poorly
-Game owners pocket 1.3B which disappears forever
-Cost of increased social safety net, suicides, etc.
VS
-Society spends 1.5B on goods and services rather than gambling
I don't think it's fair to count the venue, staff, etc., if the same money would otherwise be spent on other goods and services.