The rest of the story
The Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce's study on casino gambling attracted a lot of attention last week. And the odds are better than anything you will get in Vegas that Governor Slots and his partners in the gambling industry will trumpet loudly the study's findings supporting his revenue and jobs estimates at next week's State House hearing on his three-casinos-and-counting vision.
Readers of this column know well where I stand on casino gambling in Massachusetts: I am against it. The title page of this "objective third-party analysis" tells you just as clearly the bias of the chamber report: "Casino Gaming in Massachusetts." If it is the "gaming" industry, not the "gambling" industry, does that make those who play "gamers" and those who don't "nongamers"?
Still there is good information in this 130-page report done for the chamber by UHY Advisors. But you actually have to read it. Three points:
1. Governor Slots needs to turn Massachusetts into a gambling mecca to make his numbers work.
According to the report, Massachusetts ranks 23d in the country in "gross gaming revenues" - or, in English, gambling losses. That puts us right in the middle of the pack when it comes to gambling, a good place to be when it comes to any tax. The governor's plan, however, would vault Massachusetts to number six. Only Nevada, California, New Jersey, New York, and Louisiana would be bigger gambling states. Gambling losses would jump 150 percent to about $3.6 billion from $1.4 billion.
Governor Slots needs Massachusetts residents to lose twice as much at the casino to make his plan work. Massachusetts gamers now lose $800 million a year in Connecticut and Rhode Island casinos, the study says. The study estimates they will lose between $1.5 billion and $1.75 billion in Massachusetts casinos. Three-quarters of all the losses will come from Massachusetts residents, the report says. These "destination casinos" will be drawing the lion's share of their gamers from faraway places like Quincy and Revere.
Massachusetts needs to be more like Connecticut, the report says. Massachusetts residents now lose an average of $290 per adult a year; Connecticut residents lose twice that, or $576. The report estimates that casinos could add another $300 to $350 to the losses of each Massachusetts adult. Together we can!
We should be careful what we wish for. Massachusetts ranks 28th in total local and state tax burden, according to the Tax Foundation; Connecticut ranks eighth. Connecticut also has a higher unemployment rate.
2. The chamber study examines only one side of the ledger.
The study has no trouble quantifying the casinos' positive impact on jobs and state revenue. But on the costs, it is mostly silent or befuddled. How much will casinos draw from other local businesses? "The impact is hard to measure," the report says. What are the social costs of expanded gambling? "Difficult to measure," the report says. How many of the gamers can we bring back from Connecticut and Rhode Island? A lot, but how many we don't know.
3. Pity those poor over-taxed casino companies.
The report does make one thing perfectly clear: At 27 percent, Massachusetts will have one of the nation's highest tax rates. The report has no trouble quantifying that: "Massachusetts will have the fifth-highest effective tax rate." The result, the report warns, could mean slower growth and few jobs here as the industry makes choices where to allocate capital.
How long until Donald Trump is roaming the State House lobbying to cut those onerous taxes? And right beside him will be chamber president Paul Guzzi, a declared gambling proponent, pushing for a tax cut for the gambling companies, just as the chamber did for every other industry from financial services to defense.
Don't say they didn't tell us - it is right there (repeatedly) in the chamber's own report.
Steve Bailey is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at bailey@globe.com or at 617-929-2902.
