Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Do you think casinos should have the right to ban welfare recipients from gambling?

Gilda · 02-19-2006, 08:04 PM

The casinos have the right to ban anyone they like for just about any reason. They can legally ban card counters who are too good simply because they are too good, even though card counting isn't illegal. So, sure, it'd be possible. I can't see why they'd do this, though.

On the flip side, we have the question of how the government should regulate welfare payments. They do regulate it in certain ways, but using food stamps which can only buy food, and vouchers which render payment directly to housing providors, WIC vouchers which can only be used at designated stores for designated goods such as milk, formula, baby food, diapers, and other childcare items. It's also regulated through direct service, such as medicaid or the state equivilent, which also pays providors directly.

All that stuff is in place to different degrees. The real question is how to regulate cash payments. The answer is that there's really no practical way to do this. Direct cash payments are intended to be used at the recipient's discretion. Funds that are supposed to be earmarked can be done so through vouchers or claim cards.

We all have expenses that don't fit neatly into a designated need category, and the amounts to be spent, both in relative and in absolute terms, are different from person to person. Clothing costs or housing expenses, utilities, home maintenance, transportation, other basic living expenses differ from person to person. Cash payments are intended to be used in whatever way the recipient needs to meet those needs without an unreasonable intrusion into their private lives.

It functions the same as with any other government or government mandated cash payment, such as alimony, child support, foster care payments, court regulated settlements, lottery payouts, or even government salaries. Grace and I are both government employees, through the university we work for, which is part of the state university system. Does the fact that our salaries are paid in part by the public given the government the right to dictate to us how we spend that money? Of course not.

With direct cash payments, the best that can be done is in the general sense. Welfare recipients who gamble away their cash payments, or who sell their food stamps for a quarter on the dollar (this was the going rate at home when I was a kid) to get money for cigarettes and alcohol aren't really harming anyone but themselves. If there are children involved, the government certainly has the right and obligation to ensure tha the children being supported are well cared for, but direct supervision of how this is done is both impractical and a poor use or resources.

Back when paper food stamps were still being issued, the cost of regulating the system was double the cost of the food stamps themselves. It cost three dollars to deliver one dollar's worth of food to recipients, the majority of that spent on fraud protection. One study I read speculated that if fraud investigation and protection were cut back to 1/10 or what it was, fraud would go up, resulting in more food stamps being given to the unqualified, but the costs would go down significantly, because fraud was so rampant and difficult to catch anyway. They were spending $5 to catch $1 in fraud. Eliminate the investigation and base it on the honor system, and even if fraud tripled, you'd still be ahead money wise and you'd be hitting more of those who fell through the cracks. It was an interesting theory.

The card system used today is much more efficient financially.

To summarize: Casinos can ban whoever they like for any reason not prohibited by law. The government may have the right to regulate spending of their cash payements to prevent gambling or foolish spending, but doing so would be impractically expensive and likely ineffective.

Gilda

02-19-2006, 08:04 PM	#37 (permalink)
Gilda 32 flavors and then some Location: Out on a wire.	The casinos have the right to ban anyone they like for just about any reason. They can legally ban card counters who are too good simply because they are too good, even though card counting isn't illegal. So, sure, it'd be possible. I can't see why they'd do this, though. On the flip side, we have the question of how the government should regulate welfare payments. They do regulate it in certain ways, but using food stamps which can only buy food, and vouchers which render payment directly to housing providors, WIC vouchers which can only be used at designated stores for designated goods such as milk, formula, baby food, diapers, and other childcare items. It's also regulated through direct service, such as medicaid or the state equivilent, which also pays providors directly. All that stuff is in place to different degrees. The real question is how to regulate cash payments. The answer is that there's really no practical way to do this. Direct cash payments are intended to be used at the recipient's discretion. Funds that are supposed to be earmarked can be done so through vouchers or claim cards. We all have expenses that don't fit neatly into a designated need category, and the amounts to be spent, both in relative and in absolute terms, are different from person to person. Clothing costs or housing expenses, utilities, home maintenance, transportation, other basic living expenses differ from person to person. Cash payments are intended to be used in whatever way the recipient needs to meet those needs without an unreasonable intrusion into their private lives. It functions the same as with any other government or government mandated cash payment, such as alimony, child support, foster care payments, court regulated settlements, lottery payouts, or even government salaries. Grace and I are both government employees, through the university we work for, which is part of the state university system. Does the fact that our salaries are paid in part by the public given the government the right to dictate to us how we spend that money? Of course not. With direct cash payments, the best that can be done is in the general sense. Welfare recipients who gamble away their cash payments, or who sell their food stamps for a quarter on the dollar (this was the going rate at home when I was a kid) to get money for cigarettes and alcohol aren't really harming anyone but themselves. If there are children involved, the government certainly has the right and obligation to ensure tha the children being supported are well cared for, but direct supervision of how this is done is both impractical and a poor use or resources. Back when paper food stamps were still being issued, the cost of regulating the system was double the cost of the food stamps themselves. It cost three dollars to deliver one dollar's worth of food to recipients, the majority of that spent on fraud protection. One study I read speculated that if fraud investigation and protection were cut back to 1/10 or what it was, fraud would go up, resulting in more food stamps being given to the unqualified, but the costs would go down significantly, because fraud was so rampant and difficult to catch anyway. They were spending $5 to catch $1 in fraud. Eliminate the investigation and base it on the honor system, and even if fraud tripled, you'd still be ahead money wise and you'd be hitting more of those who fell through the cracks. It was an interesting theory. The card system used today is much more efficient financially. To summarize: Casinos can ban whoever they like for any reason not prohibited by law. The government may have the right to regulate spending of their cash payements to prevent gambling or foolish spending, but doing so would be impractically expensive and likely ineffective. Gilda __________________ I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that. ~Steven Colbert