Do you think casinos should have the right to ban welfare recipients from gambling?
 

I'm thinking it's not right for someone to gamble away welfare from the taxpayers, but it's there choice. You can't tell people what to spend their money on. What do you guys think?

I don't see why a casino would want to keep people from giving them more money. :p

Is their bank full or something?

Only its not really 'their' money, at least it shouldn't be.

If you are on the public dole the public has every right to tell you what you can't spend it on.

Casinos on the other hand would only do so if they were afraid of the same public somehow taking away their licence :)

yeah the casinos won't mind a bit.

Its been an issue where i live, putting in a casino nearest some of the poorest neighborhoods, as in goodbye rent, food, or any kind of money for the month. The mayor did all he could to prevent it, he won for now, and i'm glad.

I mean its just false hope to a lot of people looking for any.

create some real jobs instead.

Casinos are private businesses - why would they not want to have more money, regardless of the source?

It's funny, because compulsive gamblers can voluntarily "ban" themselves from any casino. The problem is that the casinos never truly check who comes in, so what ends up happening is the people banned can enter and lose their money, but if they hit a big jackpot, the casino then checks on them and if they are banned they don't get the payout.

Just a small fact from someone in the know.

So in answer to your question, if they do ban welfare recipients that is all that would happen. The casino wouldn't check on who enters until a big jackpot or a large cash in is presented.

The only way this would ever work is if people had to show id's or slide their id's through a scanner. And to do that there would be a HUGE outcry of civil rights violations (rightly or wrongly) so that will never happen.

In a better world welfare would be set up differently. Instead of a flat check each month, give them vouchers. One for a place to live, food stamps that could only be used on food and personal hygiene products by the person they were issued to (no reselling to get money for cigs or alcohol), medical and prescription vouchers, vouchers for the utitlity companies, then give them a much smaller allowance of cash for incidentals, recreation, and "extras".

I see way too many people on welfare around here driving around in cars "pimped" out, stereos pounding, wearing all kinds of jewelry, fake nails, hair dyed, etc. It makes me sick that my last check was for about $1100 less than the gross amount, and a a huge chunk of that probably went to subsidize some welfare mom's hair weave, or some dude's "ice", or 24" spinners on some old beater. :o

If there was a way to stop people on welfare from gambling their money away, I'd be all for it. I think that's sadly only a tiny piece of the picture of what's wrong with our welfare system.

The sad fact about the cars and jewelry is that most of it is bought on credit and is usually sold by predatory stores. Folks put a little money down on spinners or a stereo and then basically pay more than the item is worth in interest over time. There have been cases where poor people have paid 3 or 4 times the value of an item. The same scam goes for furniture rental. Not all rent-to-buy companies are immoral like this, but a healthy number of them are. The victims tend to be ignorant about how financing really works. So the next time that you see something something like this, remember that you may be looking at someone who's credit is in nightmarish shape, but that's how they got the sweet ride.

To address the actual topic, if I'm a casino owner, I'll happily ban any indivudual who asks me to put them on a banned list. I'll put people there myself if they cause trouble or disrupt my business or cheat. But if the state tries to ban people for me, we have a big problem. Where do you draw the line on public assistance? What about people in wheelchairs that can't work and get SSI? How about a professor whose job researching why peanut butter sticks to the roof of your mouth instead of your tongue exists only because of a government grant?

I laughed out loud when I saw this thread. I honestly have no idea what my stance is on the subject. Sure, welfare recipients shouldn't be blowing their funds on gambling. But I don't know, it wouldn't be fair for Casinos either.

Actually, I don't see this as a slippery slope at all. If you can't afford to feed yourself and your family, you can't afford to gamble. Period. Wheelchair folks on SSI? Sorry, you need the help and that's acceptable, but you don't have the right to spend it on gambling. Grant funded? Entirely different. No comparison. This person has a job, and is working - the money we are paid at work comes from a myriad of sources, and that's fine - we're working, not being assisted with living day to day.

I think food/rent/etc vouchers aren't a bad idea, and neither is swiping your state ID (like a driver's license or something). They have to check your ID to make sure you're over 18 anyway, why not scan it like the clubs do and run it against a banned list? I see no reason not to regulate that. Obviously, the casinos won't do it unless we make them, but I think we should.

I don't gamble with my money, I see no reason why someone else should gamble with my money.

I think casinos can ban anyone they please.

How would they implement a ban, realistically? How does a casino recognize someone receiving assistance?

So I should feel sorry from some fool who wants to keep up with the Jones' instead of paying for the basics? I have no sympathy for people who bitch about not having money for the luxuries in life.

I am not in extreme financial hardship, but I still HEAVILY monitor my spending habits. I write down to the penny, how much I spend each month and make sure that
a)I can afford to spend this much
b)I'm not spending everything I earned.

In response to the OP. Casinos should have the right to ban anyone they please. It's their business, they don't have to let you in.

Realistically, it makes sense that they are doing what Pan said.

really? I have a friend in LA who frequented many casinos in Las Vegas as a whale and was banned from many many casinos. Was always approached the moment he stepped onto the casino floor and was usually told,"I'll be happy to get you comps to any show or dinner, but you're not allowed to game here."

and yes, this friend had a major gambling problem where they would fly him back to his home in LA to allow him to get to his safe and get more cash to play.

Now, if it's not right for a casino, many many people on welfare seem to play Lotto and scratchers all the time...

If people who are given money for food, clothing and shelter to survive and use it as such, that I don't mind. Blowing your welfare check in a casino, to bad. But the problem is a many.

I won't get into reasons why casinos should or shouldn't exist. That's what personal responsibility is for. Have a problem with responsibility? Seek help.

But for people on welfare, I think the government should make them work for it. Pick up garbage on the streets, plants flowers, do something. Show you have the interest, initiative, desire, dignity, pride etc to become a better person. Throwing money at people doesn't establish anything except a mindset where free means free and easy. Then when people get used to doing what everyone else is doing, working for a living, see if they would like to educate themselves, for a job that pays more money. If not,your free money isn't free and more, just that yuo'll be working for peanuts.

However, I support social insurance for layed off workers. People educate themselves, find employment and work hard, are productive members of society and because of a downturned economy or whatever loss their jobs. They have paid into the system, will return to the system as quickly as possible so the money handouts for this instance are warranted, for a time being. But if they chose to blow their money also in a casino, well that's not something I lose sleep over.

Food stamp recipients have rules about what they can and can't buy, why not welfare recipients? If you are taking public monies, you have to abide by their rules.

I think of it like an academic grant. The granting agency can tell you what you are allowed to spend the money on...why can't we, as taxpayers, set limits as to what people can spend their welfare money on?

This seems too easy...is it just me?

Oh, but these poor people! They can't help but play the lotto and gamble... it's just put right there in front of them tempting them with the promise of free, easy money...

/SARCASM

I've heard the argument from people that poor people can't help but gamble because sometimes it represents their only chance to make money. Reminds me of Jeff Foxworthy's joke- "Normal people invest their money, Rednecks... well, rednecks PLAY THE LOTTO!"

I think the whole welfare system is totally flawed. I took a Sociology class in college (an intro class) and one of the big things we looked at was the poor section of NYC. It was a real eye opener to me, to see how there were lots of people who just took the free and easy way out, but there were many others who genuinely wanted to get a job and get out of the "ghetto" but because of the way the system was set up couldn't afford to. Apparently once you reach a certain level of income your goverment assistance was cut off, but the level of income for the cut-off was far, far too low to be a living wage.

I have *no* sympathy for stupidity. I suppose I'm a bit like Ebaneezer Scrooge, wanting to "Decrease the surplus population" in that regard. Does that make me harsh? Yes, but that is how I feel. HOWEVER, if a person wants to succeed, wants to be a productive member of society but has problems with that because of finacial situation or demographics, more power to them- they can have all the tax money it takes them to get where they want to go.

John Stuart Mill, back in the 19th Century, outlined a concept that had already been adopted here in the US - the tyranny of the majority. Why should we be able to set limits on what other people can buy? After all it's our money? Wait, why can't we also require them to pick up garbage? And hey, let's put them all in the same place so we don't have to look at them. We can call those places workhouses, and work shall set them free.

I think that we should hope that people on welfare should spend the money wisely, but to look over their shoulder and tell them "no, no, that's not responsible"? That's a little to big-brotherish for my taste. I'd just as soon not have the government worry about what Mrs. McGillicudy down the street is buying and have them spend a little more time worrying about how to create more jobs in economically depressed areas. Where do you draw the line on what folks on welfare can and can't buy? Electronics? What if there's a smart kid in the house that needs a computer for school? A stereo? What if there's a muscial genius in the making? Cars? How do you expect them to get to work?

I completely agree that a lot of dollars are wasted by welfare reciepients, but then again a lot of dollars are wasted by all the non-welfare reciepients who buy sports memorabilia. People on the dole have just as much right to live their lives free from government interference as the rest of us.

I say sure, let them spend the money any way they see fit. That said, I think there should be a time limit for welfare, say three years. Spend those three years wasting money and time or preparing for the cutoff day, I don't care, just don't come whining for more when the times up and you wasted it.

That or they could get a job.

I am against Big Brother, too.
You cannot buy alcohol with food stamps, why should you be allowed to gamble with welfare money?
Same deal.

"People on the dole have just as much right to live their lives free from government interference as the rest of us."
I disagree. They are inviting the government into their checkbooks. Expect that the government will be concerned as to how the money is spent.

If the government can tell a scientist that, "We gave you this much money and you can only spent it on equipment." If that scientist wants to go to a conference that would benefit his or her research, they cannot use that same money. Why can't those restrictions, which already exist, be applied to this other segment of the population? NOT holding these people accountable for their spending when we hold other government money recipients accountable is discriminatory.

Whales are a tad diffrent Cyn, and I would expect that you would know that. Whales are whales because they are very well known, because of the amount of money they spend, the way the casinos usually went after them, and if he is banned for cheating or not paying his debts, that would explain why you are approached. I doubt he is a self banning, and by you calling himn a whale he is not a chump change player as those I described or the welfare recipients would be.

Except that I don't think that it is the same deal. Food stamps aren't money. They are redeemed by the retailer for money, and they aren't subject to taxes. Welfare money is designed to be used for a wide range of things - rent, food, water, electricity, phone and, yes, discretionary items. The problem that I have with what you're proposing is that there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Are we going to say that folks on welfare can only buy 3 light bulbs a month? More would be wasting the money. How about that a mother on welfare can't buy her 5 year old a Hot Wheels car? Or that a family on welfare can't buy birthday candles for a cake? Who gets to set the criteria? You? Me? Ustwo (god forbid)?

There's a big difference between telling a professional how to do their job and telling someone how to live their life. The government is basically paying a scientist to do science. With welfare receipients, the government is helping them survive. Most people on welfare don't want to be, and most of them aren't on it for very long (the average is around 18 months). I think that this is needless government intrusion.

Some of those grants are meant for living expenses too, but I digress.

[quote=The_Jazz}'With welfare receipients, the government is helping them survive. Most people on welfare don't want to be, and most of them aren't on it for very long (the average is around 18 months). I think that this is needless government intrusion.'[/QUOTE]

Gambling is not survival. Gambling is a luxury and welfare isn't intended for luxury items. If welfare is meant to be for assistance, it should be where assistance is needed. If somebody has enough of a cushion to gamble away public money, that money is better spent on somebody else who needs it more. Not to mention the insult to working, tax paying people who see their paychecks slashed, some of whom cannot afford to go and gamble money away.

If the grant is paying a salary, they are by their very nature paying for living expenses. I think that we can safely agree that grants to buy equipment are irrelevant to our argument. My point is that if the grant includes salary, the government could try to dictate how the scientist lives her life. For instance, they could tell her that she wasn't allowed to get an abortion even if she was raped. After all, it's my money and that's what I want (not really though).


I absolutely agree with everything you say here up to the point where it means that the government gets to dictate how welfare money is spent. If they want to make arrangement to pay power bills directly, fine. If they want to make arrangements to pay rent direct (which they already do, BTW), then fine. But if you're going to give people - adults - money, then you've got to trust them that they are spend it on what's important. You may not agree with them on what is or isn't important, but it's their right. Again, if you're going to ban gambling (which is a horrifically bad place to spend your welfare money), are you going to also ban children's toys? Lottery tickets? What about people that get social security? Are you going to ban it for them as well?

Again, I completely agree that people spending their welfare money in a casino is absolutely irresponsible and probably gives a pretty good insight as to why that individual is on welfare to begin with. However, how can you allow the government to regulate people this way if you're at all worried about them regulating your personal life?

Personally, I think it'd work by holding back payouts $500 and over to anyone without proper ID (and a quick check on a database hosted by the feds)... If they aren't in the assistance DB, they keep the cash. If they are, the gambler gets 10% of the payout, 80% of the cash goes back into the welfare system, the casino can keep the rest for their trouble.

- DB is semi-private and only has listings of people who currently qualify for assitance.
- The finances flow back into the system to be redistributed among the needy.
- The Casinos dont have to do a full payout so it motivates them to check the IDs.
- The financial incentive for lower-income people to gamble will be virtually removed.

I don't know much about the current welfare system but the government should probably stay out of controlling what the non-allocated money is spent on. Next could be controls on what can be put in church offerings, no color TV, no $100 sneakers, no makeup, candy, toys, etc...

That's an excellent point, fistf. :thumbsup: It's government money and individuals are using it for church tithes. It's tatamount to the church funding religion, which we all know is a huge no-no with the courts. If you're going to control anything, why don't we start with the folks on welfare who are funding the televangelists. I don't want my money going to those folks because their corrupt. Then we can stop them from contributing to the Klan or the Black Panthers or whatever other group is in the bullseye today.

You, me AND Ustwo get to set the criteria... because it's OUR money. This is in much the same way that we directly and indirectly decide what other tax dollars are spent on. That's part of a Democratic Republic. That's part of being able to vote. Having grown up with welfare assistance, I can say assuredly that it CAN be abused. I think the Bridge Cards for food stamps was a good step, since it prevents the sale of your food stamps outright. I think programs that do limit expenditures of welfare income would be greatly beneficial. In fact, I'm not really FOR welfare to begin with. Especially everlasting welfare. I like the 3 years limit.

As to the OP question... yes, as a private business they should be able to ban people by their own criteria.

I don't really see this as a statistically significant problem. I mean lets not let them spend their welfare on Guns or bullets either -(republicans gasp in unison).

Winner. My thoughts exactly. Would vouchers (over welfare checks) be the best way to accomplish this?

I agree witih ObieX but Casinos in fact do have the ability to ban anyone and any time. It happens all the time especially when the house believes the person is cheating. There is actually a book called the Griffin book that documents those that are banned.

Your point is valid. People on welfare have no business in a Casino but it's not going to be likely that the house will know that about them unless they try and cash their check there. In which case...see ObieX's point above.

that's called the right to refuse service to anyone :thumbsup:

I never cease to be amazed that the takers in society think those of us who work owe them something. And get enraged when we tell them they can't spend our hard-earned money on drugs, gambling, whatever.

I'm only surprised that no one has mentioned that the problem with food stamps and many other types of assistance is that the recipients gamble among themselves with them, sell them to get around the purchase limitations, etc.

there is a federal time clock for welfare (tanf) in the united states.
it is five years.
the set up of that five years is determined by the individual states.
some states let individuals use all sixty months at once.
my state allows you to be on the system for 24 months, then you must be off of it for 24 months before you can receive again.

in my state, welfare is called "work first." in order to receive a check you must do a whole slew of things which includes working or doing job training at least 35 hours per week. if you do not do it, you go into sanction and do not receive your check for that month.

that being said, most of the people that receive "welfare" in this area also receive SSI. people that receive SSI are considered unable to work, thus they can receive the SSI and the "welfare" check for their children without doing the work requirements.

non SSI recipients generally do not receive "welfare" for any length of time due to all the crap you have to go through to actually get a check.

also, the average "welfare" check in our state is $236 dollars per month.
you can't do much on $236 dollars per month.

I don't think it should be up to the casino whether to let them gamble or not - it's not their responsibility. But there should definitely be some hardcore repercussions for welfare recipients that gamble away OUR money, and it's the government that should enforce it. That money is not for them to spend frivolously and probably lose in a casino - it's for fun things like rent and food and clothes, etc. I personally believe that anybody gambling away their public assistance should automatically lose it.

i still think the decision to do so should be left to the welfare receivers.

if they make stupid decisions, the consequences are on them.

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 agree with Gilda; a private business should be able to do business with whoever they wish.

As for gambling, what wagers will be legal or illegal for welfare recipients? Roulette? Poker? Forex? Pork belly futures?

Life is chockfull of risk. In the past, I’ve been against gambling legalization – I’m conservative with my money and risk averse – but now, people should be free to choose and free to fail.

I say if you’re asking for gov't assistance then you should be expected to follow certain guidelines. I don't think people receive welfare should be able to gamble with it. Gambling is by no means necessary for your survival, and welfare is provided for your survival, not entertainment. Here's how I propose this can be implemented.

1. Put the welfare money received on a type of credit card that doesn't allow with drawls or X amount to be used on it in any one given transaction. This will help people from withdrawing money to gamble and getting cash back on there purchases strictly for the reasons of gambling.
2. Put people who receive (receive only) welfare in to a DB (as MH73 suggested).
3. Since casinos are supposed to be monitoring peoples ages when they gamble, then it should be no problem to swipe your DL to show your age and welfare status.
-If you are on welfare you obviously don't have much money to go gambling with so you can only use lets say 10 dollars to gamble for that week/two weeks/ month. Now your name is in the DB for having used your allotted amount of gambling money and you can't use any more for what ever period of time.

I specifically said a small number because if you are on welfare then you darn sure don't have enough money to be paying the five dollar min on any of the card/dice/or roulette games more then once or twice.

I think private businesses should be allowed to ban anyone as they see fit. I really couldn't care less who they ban.

I think the government shouldn't allow people on welfare to waste public money given to them so they can get on with their lives.