{"id":25854,"date":"2020-01-17T09:57:41","date_gmt":"2020-01-17T17:57:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lasvegasadvisor.com\/stiffs-and-georges\/?p=25854"},"modified":"2020-01-20T16:07:27","modified_gmt":"2020-01-21T00:07:27","slug":"casinos-seen-as-gold-mine-get-the-shaft-oscar-odds-out","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lasvegasadvisor.com\/stiffs-and-georges\/casinos-seen-as-gold-mine-get-the-shaft-oscar-odds-out\/","title":{"rendered":"Casinos seen as gold mine, get the shaft; Oscar odds out"},"content":{"rendered":"

Whenever it’s time to consider a tax increase in Nevada<\/strong>, non-gaming businesses can look forward to continued freeloading. Case in point, the PAC calling itself Nevadans for Fair Gaming Taxes<\/strong> (and what’s unfair about Nevada’s casino tax?) are mounting a petition drive to stick it to Big \"\"Gaming once more. The goal is to raise an additional $135 million in revenue and the Clark County Education Association<\/strong> is behind this<\/a>. Now the Silver State could add a few increments to its 6.75% gaming tax and still have the lowest in the nation. But why should it? Why is it that gaming always gets the shaft when taxes must be upped. With gambling representing an ever-smaller chunk of overall casino revenues, the teachers may be putting their money on the wrong horse. Besides, then-Gov. Robert List<\/strong>‘s infamous “tax shift” that placed the state’s economic stability on gaming and sales taxes is, in the words of columnist Steve Sebelius<\/strong>, a model “designed to fail in hard times.”<\/p>\n

The casinos take this stoically but if you even whisper a rumor of a hint of a possibility of taxing non-gaming businesses, you can hear the howls of high dudgeon clear across the continent. The teacher’s union would up Nevada’s casino-tax rate to 9.75%, leapfrogging New Jersey<\/strong>‘s 9.25% (more good news<\/a> for Atlantic City<\/strong>) and closing in on Mississippi<\/strong>‘s 7%-12% sliding-scale formula\u2014it’s complicated. Only Nevada casinos grossing less than $3 million a year would be exempt from the spanking. The hike couldn’t take effect until 2023, assuming it passes in both the 2020 and 2022 elections. That gives the industry plenty of time to gear up for a fight.<\/p>\n

* While on the subject of taxes, Native American tribes in Maine<\/strong> may soon have more control over levies collected on-reservation. They also would be universally approved for tribal casinos. These were the unanimous recommendations of a blue-ribbon panel. Pushback from the Lege is \"\"expected. The 299-page accord<\/a> is an attempt to resolve decades of litigation over a 1980 congressional act that gave four tribes $81.5 million if they’d cede future land claims against Maine. Matters got so contentious that tribal representatives to the Lege walked out permanently. The study is an attempt by Gov. Janet Mills<\/strong> (D) to get the tribes back to the table. Casinos are likely to be the thorniest issue. At least state Rep. John DeVeau<\/strong> (R) extended an olive branch when he said, \u201cIt\u2019s only fair for us to look at this and do what\u2019s right for them and not for our community necessarily. We have to weigh the balance. And we have to look at this openly and not just focus on a casino.\u201d Amen.<\/p>\n

* It looks more and more like the Pamunkey Tribe<\/strong> is settling on Norfolk<\/strong>, not Richmond<\/strong>, for its desired commercial casino. It’s paying $10 million for 13.5 acres in Harbor Park<\/strong>. Going commercial means agreeing to pay a wide slew of taxes but it’s far easier than trying to get a land-in-trust pact \"\"through the Trump administration. The Pamunkey are backed by Video Gaming Technologies<\/strong> founder Jon Yarbrough<\/strong>, who says, “I’ve worked with countless [approximately 35] tribes and I know what it takes for a project like this to be successful. Yarbrough and the Pamunkey are still a long way from the finish line. The Lege has to approve casinos, as would voters in Norfolk. According to Casino.org<\/em>, the Pamunkey would be “will be on the hook to cover all costs associated with transportation infrastructure, as well as flood mitigation, offsite utility improvements,” and any direct infrastructure upgrades. Potential tax rates are still unresolved.<\/p>\n

* Negotiations over tribal compacts in Oklahoma<\/strong> continue to be conducted through the media. Appropriating Gov. Kevin Stitt<\/strong>‘s favored megaphone, the Tulsa World<\/em>,\u00a0Quapaw Tribe<\/strong> Chief John Berrey<\/strong> said the governor was “comparing apples to bananas<\/a>” when using his favorite talking point, the one that equates the taxes tribes (like the Quapaw) pay \"\"on their commercial casinos in Arkansas<\/strong> with the lower, compacted rates they fork over in the Sooner State. It’s not exactly a bonanza for Arkansas, which expects to collect only $31 million from casinos this year. Unlike Arkansas casinos, Oklahoma ones pay for emergency services, clinics and school lunches. Arkansas ones “take their money and give it to their shareholders,\u201d sayeth Berrey. One (very large) nation, the Cheroke<\/strong>e, are constitutionally mandated to reinvest 35% of casino profits in tribal services. Stitt does have at least some tribes in a sticky wicket, given that they went into Arkansas knowing they’d pay a lot more than they do in Oklahoma.<\/p>\n

Berrey reiterated that tribes would be willing to pay higher fees\u00a0in their home state, but only if Stitt cedes his insistence that their compacts have expired. \u201cAll he has to do is admit the compacts renewed,\u201d he added. They’ve also said they want “something of value” in return, which is \"\"a euphemism for\u00a0“sports betting.” Tribal leaders also note that casino competition in Arkansas is strictly capped (theoretically at four casinos, although only three are likely to be built), unlike Oklahoma.\u00a0\u201cWhile it seems easy for the Governor to draw comparisons between CNE\u2019s existing properties in Oklahoma and our proposed business venture in Arkansas, the gaming landscapes are very different in each state,\u201d wrote\u00a0Cherokee Nation Business<\/strong> spokesman Brandon Scott<\/strong>. Given Stitt’s stiff-backed negotiating posture, getting him to climb down from his hardline stance on compact renewal is going to take a miracle of biblical proportions.<\/p>\n

* Academy Awards<\/strong> odds are beginning to trickle in<\/a> and, surprise of surprises, Quentin Tarantino<\/strong>‘s Once Upon a Time in … Hollywood<\/em> is the favorite to win Best Picture, with one site putting at 8\/1. As much as I want to see Tarantino get his overdue due, I’ll believe it when it happens. 1917<\/em> is the starchy ‘prestige’ stuff (think The King’s Speech<\/em>) that the Academy loves and Once Upon a Time<\/em>\u00a0just might be too fun, too irreverent, too … Tarantino to land the grand prize.<\/p>\n

Holocaust comedy Jojo Rabbit<\/em> actually enjoys better odds than extreme long shots Little Women<\/em> and Ford v Ferrari<\/em>, and it’s twice as un<\/em>likely that The Irishman<\/em> will best Joker<\/em> for Best Picture. (It’s that Netflix<\/strong> hex.) If Once Upon a Time<\/em> wins,\u00a0Sam Mendes<\/strong> may take home a hefty consolation prize for 1917<\/em> in the form of the Best Director award, although Parasite<\/em>‘s Bong Joon Ho<\/strong> (+175) is positioned to pull a mighty upset. Thanks for playing, Todd Phillips<\/strong> (Joker<\/em>). You’re a +2,200 Hail Mary pass.<\/p>\n