Casino Levy to be raised after Elections?

[silverfox@]

Even according to your maths, it should be per day, not per visit. It's quite a reasonable pro rata way of refunding regardless of how many visits.

Anyway, in this I even disagree with GMS. I support a total abolition of all levies, per entry and per year. Your suggestion of a casino card system, pre-qualified with income and credit rating requirement sounds not bad.

I am not sure whether you have been to the IR, but the levy must stay. Those foreign workers go into the casino FOC, standing behind your back, breathing down your neck looking at how you are playing. Some go in bet $5, stack on your chips. If there is no levy, more people will go in and look see look see. Even more fun punters will go in and throw their money. Casino card system let's say base on your income, you earn $1600/mth, 10% to bet only, so this guy can only bet $160 per month, can only afford to lose $160 and then casino must tell him, Sir sorry, you cannot place a bet anymore.

Leave the casino to those who really want to gamble, the $100 can deter those with 50/50 thinking.

The credit rating will never work. There are many people who have credit card debts and their credit rating is based on their income but why do they still have debt and some even bankrupt. And the funniest thing is these people are not even GAMBLING.

 

[aurvandil]

Anyway, in this I even disagree with GMS. I support a total abolition of all levies, per entry and per year. Your suggestion of a casino card system, pre-qualified with income and credit rating requirement sounds not bad.

Earlier in the thread, GMS wrote that he supported the casino card system but had some concerns about privacy. He is a smart politican and knows this is the best option polticially.

I suppose we can always hope that this issue gets mired in the internal poltics of the PAP and they end up doing nothing about it aka housing, public transport etc. It will then be a potent issue for the all important 2017 elections.

If the PAP do something about it right now or just after the elections, gains will be limited as we have not reached the stage where there are a large number of bodies. Hence quite easy for the msm to bury the issue with their usual propaganda.

 

[Ramseth]

Hawkers last time like to punt on horse betting. Some even lost their stalls. So why didn't anyone suggested then to ban horse betting? And if these people are spending their hard earned money, who are we to tell them not to do that?

Try doing that and they will tell you, Sg zhenghu, CPF want to control, now own money must control?

I also have businesses to run, jobs to do. I go casino when my time allows. try telling the govt to control too much of our lives will only increase my displeasure with them. And if the opposition wants to use this subject to raise the issue, are they really fighting for the people.

No, they are selfish. They are just making use of this issue for their selfish reason of opposing the govt. It gives them self justification that they are doing it for the people when in actual fact, they are doing it to win the election.

Well said, but on the other hand, there're valid social concerns. Note that in a society, we not only have responsibility to ourselves as individuals but also have responsibility to others in the society.

How does it feel like when you go home every night walking pass the parks and void decks lined with homeless people? How does it feel like when you come out of your home every morning to see your lift lobby wall scrawled with O$P$ and your neigbour's address? They spent all their hard earned money, true. They're responsible for their own debts, true. However, they affected the whole environment and society, didn't they?

 

[silverfox@]

Well said, but on the other hand, there're valid social concerns. Note that in a society, we not only have responsibility to ourselves as individuals but also have responsibility to others in the society.

How does it feel like when you go home every night walking pass the parks and void decks lined with homeless people? How does it feel like when you come out of your home every morning to see your lift lobby wall scrawled with O$P$ and your neigbour's address? They spent all their hard earned money, true. They're responsible for their own debts, true. However, they affected the whole environment and society, didn't they?

There was this video recently where there are homeless sleeping in the beach. I had an old neighbour, a malay. He sold his 5 room flat cashed it out trying to profit on the high resale market. He used the money to buy a house in Malaysia and with not enough cash, he decided to put up his family in beach tents at the beach. When I saw him, he still can laugh and tell me his new house has a sea view. I was telling yea right (wait till the weather turns cold)

Everyone must be responsible for their actions. We are not kids anymore. Rather than pity those who gamble their money away, we should help those really in need.

 

[aurvandil]

I am not sure whether you have been to the IR, but the levy must stay. Those foreign workers go into the casino FOC, standing behind your back, breathing down your neck looking at how you are playing. Some go in bet $5, stack on your chips. If there is no levy, more people will go in and look see look see. Even more fun punters will go in and throw their money. Casino card system let's say base on your income, you earn $1600/mth, 10% to bet only, so this guy can only bet $160 per month, can only afford to lose $160 and then casino must tell him, Sir sorry, you cannot place a bet anymore.

You seem to be opposing any change to the system because of a strange sense of eltism.

If that is the case, it is quite simple to have different sections of the casino for people earning different incomes. High income folks like you for example can have a casino card for you to play in a high income area. Poor people like the person who earns only $1600 per month can be given a different card which restricts them to an area for poor people to play.

And in the poor income area, the bets can be low (e.g. min $5) so that poor people can enjoy themsevles without losing large sums of money.

 

[Ramseth]

Silverfox, the case you cited has nothing to do with irresponsible gambling or owing debt that one can't afford to repay. It's just a personal choice with whatever he can afford.

 

[silverfox@]

Silverfox, the case you cited has nothing to do with irresponsible gambling or owing debt that one can't afford to repay. It's just a personal choice with whatever he can afford.

What I am trying to say is personal choice. People want to sleep beach, that's their problem. But a person holding a video camera will think why are there so many homeless sleeping in beaches. Are there no houses for them?

Same thing, people who want to gamble, that's their problem. But a person who stands outside the casino ticking how many people walk in and out will think why are there so many singaporeans going in casino. They have so much money to spend?

 

[silverfox@]

You seem to be opposing any change to the system because of a strange sense of eltism.

If that is the case, it is quite simple to have different sections of the casino for people earning different incomes. High income folks like you for example can have a casino card for you to play in a high income area. Poor people like the person who earns only $1600 per month can be given a different card which restricts them to an area for poor people to play.

And in the poor income area, the bets can be low (e.g. min $5) so that poor people can enjoy themsevles without losing large sums of money.

I thought people are already suggesting that to have min of $100 per bet or like what you said have a casino card based on income?

Isn't that what you people want? Only those who can afford should play. And now we are saying sense of elitism?

Poor people should not even be gambling in the 1st place and yet going to start an area for poor people to play. What a joke.

 

[scroobal]

Agree with you. I too was surprised that he raised it this early.

Until the Minister made his announcement, the size and extent of the problem was largely unknown beyond a small circle that tracks this issue very closely.

.

 

[scroobal]

Nobody is talking about banning Singaporeans. I don't think anyone ever suggested banning in this or any other forum. The die has already been cast. There will be casinos and there will Singaporeans that will be admitted. I already told you that your logic is flawed and now you jump to the extreme end. Tell me who suggested that Singaporeans will be banned.

Every country will try to regulate entry to casinos for its residents to avoid it becoming a social issues. Genting is on hill and not in the middle of KL for a reason. If I was a Casino owner, I would prefer to have it in the middle of KL where the pedestrian trraffic is heavy and its convenient to have locals walk in.

You should not attempt top use the word naive, logic etc if you have no idea how to apply it.

You seem to handle your gambling but many others can't. Thus the need to have some sort of controls. Nothing to do with freedom to go to the beach, speech or right as a citizen to do anything that you want. Going to the beach everyday is not going to make you addictive or bankrupt.

Scroobal, don't be naive. You seriously think Sands and Genting will want to invest in building a casino in Singapore if Singaporeans are banned from going into the casinos?

 

[Ramseth]

Poor people should not even be gambling in the 1st place and yet going to start an area for poor people to play. What a joke.

It's an even sadder joke that poor people should be allowed gamble in casinos.

No, not looking down on poor people. Just looking at reality and practically, socially.

 

[aurvandil]

It's an even sadder joke that poor people should be allowed gamble in casinos.

No, not looking down on poor people. Just looking at reality and practically, socially.

Under the current system, some of the poorest members of our society are allowed to enter free. There are no restrictions if they want to gamble away all their money.

The only entry requirement: they must not be Singaporean.

We are supposed to be cold hearted and say it is OK for such people to lose ALL their money.

Poor people have their needs to relax and be entertained.

If you want to be sophisiticated about it, we can applya progressive structure to the gambling limits on the casino card so that you can wager a largely % of your income as your income increases.

It is however way too early to talk about such sophistication since no one is even talking about such a system outside of this forum.

 

[Ramseth]

Under the current system, some of the poorest members of our society are allowed to enter free. There are no restrictions if they want to gamble away all their money.

The only entry requirement: they must not be Singaporean.

We are supposed to be cold hearted and say it is OK for such people to lose ALL their money.

Poor people have their needs to relax and be entertained.

If you want to be sophisiticated about it, we can applya progressive structure to the gambling limits on the casino card so that you can wager a largely % of your income as your income increases.

It is however way too early to talk about such sophistication since no one is even talking about such a system outside of this forum.

Hope you got over your sake and watched Manchester United 3 Liverpool 2. Almost heart attack for me.

Anyway, I don't see any difficulty in implementing a casino card system. Just follow the bank credit card system. Fill up a form and attach your income tax return. Casinos are bankers too.

 

[aurvandil]

Hope you got over your sake and watched Manchester United 3 Liverpool 2. Almost heart attack for me.

Anyway, I don't see any difficulty in implementing a casino card system. Just follow the bank credit card system. Fill up a form and attach your income tax return. Casinos are bankers too.

Yupe. Today sober and serious. It was a nice match wasn't it? Not so one sided as many had expected.

Not many people know this but during the "dating" phaase went the casino operators were going all out to get their license, there were actually promises of a low limit section (e.g. min bet $5). The idea was so that poorer people could go in and have fun without wagering large sums of money. To avoid offending people, it was to be called a "beginer" or "amateur" section.

After the casinos opened, they of course act blur and forgot all about it.

 

[Ramseth]

Nevada casinos got dime (US10c) jackpots and poker machines etc. for poorer folks to enjoy without going broke. No need levy or income tax returns.

 

[aurvandil]

Nevada casinos got dime (US10c) jackpots and poker machines etc. for poorer folks to enjoy without going broke. No need levy or income tax returns.

I think that was probably the intent when they got NTUC to open those "mini-casinos" in the heartlands. Unfortunately the people at NTUC seem to have intentionally misunderstood their mission. Instead of providing low stakes gambling, they have set the stakes and pay outs in their jackpot rooms to be similar to that of the casinos.

If you want to be enlightened about it, there is nothing inherently wrong or evil about jackpot machines. If you have machines with very low stakes (e.g. 0.1 cent to 0.2 cent per line subject to a max of 2 cent to 4 cent per roll) and high payouts (e.g. 95% or better) we can safely have a large number of machines scattered all over Singapore. This is because with a configuration like this, we can control the expected loss per hour to between $3 to $5, an affordable amount for most people in Singapore.

The sweet spot configuration would be to have a configuration which is quite similar to how much a person can reasonably spend at an arcade playing computer games in 1 hour. If you do this, you convert the "evil" jackpot machine to no more than a popular arcade game.

The problem with most jackpot machines today is that they require high stakes (20/50 cents per line are the most common at the NTUC jackpot rooms). The payout is also very low (usually about 90%), causing the unsuspecting who play it to lose large sums of money.

 

[shOUTloud]

I think we all agree that out of control gambling is a social hazard but it is similar to eating too much food, drinking too much alcohol and smoking too many cigarettes. The issue is how to control it.

Bro Silverfox is of the opinion that the current system is all right. I personally think that the $100 daily levy is quite a deterrent. I am not interested to go even though I spend easily more than $100 on drinks each time I go out. Most of my friends do not go there.

While the $2000 annual levy is too low. Perhaps the $2000 annual levy should be raised to 5k or even 10k or even be done away with.

The CRA has to do some mathematical modelling in comparison with the costs of trips to Genting and Macau to see the amount of levy will satisfy them in terms of the number of Singaporeans who will turn up at MBS/RWS.

However, I am against casino card checking my income. This is nonsensical. Can you imagine amongst friends and relatives, very quickly, everyone will know who earns how much. There is not enough privacy in Singapore at the moment.

 

[aurvandil]

However, I am against casino card checking my income. This is nonsensical. Can you imagine amongst friends and relatives, very quickly, everyone will know who earns how much. There is not enough privacy in Singapore at the moment.

Don't quite understand. Do you own a credit card?

To get a credit card, you have to provide the same information to the bank. The bank will then give you a card based on your income. They will also set you a credit limit based on your income.

Most people who have credit cards don't have privacy problems with this.

When then is it an issue to provide such info to the casino?

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Silver and Arunvadil

The US Gov has stated as has the Aus gov that the opening of a casino will double the no of gambling addicts within twenty miles of the said Casino. We are just starting to see the tip of the iceberg.

I suggest you google " gambling addiction" to understand its terrible nature. Studies after Studies have shown that its nature is somewhat akin to a chemical high or a chemical addiction acting on the pleasure centers of the brain on the result of each individual bet on each game

Horses do not run 24/7, Toto do not run 24/7, Bets in a casino whether on the roulette , or black jack or machines are 24/7 with up to 30 bets a minute. That is why qualitatively and quantitively the nature is so different.



Locke

 

[Equalisation]

Dear Silver and Arunvadil

The US Gov has stated as has the Aus gov that the opening of a casino will double the no of gambling addicts within twenty miles of the said Casino. We are just starting to see the tip of the iceberg.

I suggest you google " gambling addiction" to understand its terrible nature. Studies after Studies have shown that its nature is somewhat akin to a chemical high or a chemical addiction acting on the pleasure centers of the brain on the result of each individual bet on each game

Horses do not run 24/7, Toto do not run 24/7, Bets in a casino whether on the roulette , or black jack or machines are 24/7 with up to 30 bets a minute. That is why qualitatively and quantitively the nature is so different.



Locke

Absolutely agree.

Horse-racing betting of one bet per racing day is the best !!! All the Way !!!