A cabbie gave me a good dissertation on this.
The company wants to revoke its deal with the
state, whereby it accepted a 42% income tax.
In return it got a monopoly on being the only
land-based casino in the city. (There are
casinos on riverboats.) Now we have the
familiar pattern of the company threatening
to shut down unless it gets tax relief.
The Republican governor claims not to give
a shit. The Democratic mayor, whose relatives
have various vendor businesses related to the
casino, does. If Harrah's leaves the state
can lease the facility to some other company,
and evidently there is no lack of applicants.
The cabbie said the odds in Harrah's stink,
compared to other casinos. He noted there
were alternatives nearby, over in Mississippi's
share of the Gulf Coast.
The cabbie asked me my policy recommendation.
I said the state should bargain w/Harrah's
and accept a lower tax rate. 42 seems a
little high. A creative Gov would make
a package deal that included wage increases
for the workers.
mbs
the headline story on the TIMES-PICAYUNE one day indicated that Harrah's
was seeking the protection of chapter 11 (i.e., bankruptcy) for the second
time. Why? because the tax rate is so high?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
