Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - Tax break for bingo would be unfair

Tax break for bingo would be unfair

Jun 08, 2006 - 08:23:21 CDT

If a smoking ban has had the effect of cutting attendance at bingo halls operated by charitable organizations and they are forced to close down the gaming operations, it will be unfortunate.

The earnings from bingo contribute a great deal to the budgets of several organizations that fulfill many genuinely important roles in North Dakota.

It’s not that the Legislature singled out their charitable gaming operations when the smoking ban was ordered.

So the organizations shouldn’t claim a special privilege as if they’ve suffered special damages.

They shouldn’t get a tax break.

It may be a hard-nosed position to take, considering that the North Dakota Association for the Disabled, one of the organizations, has had to eliminate its medical equipment budget, among other cuts or freezes on spending. But when the association put itself into the situation of depending on gambling for 70 percent of its revenue, it accepted that there could be an associated risk, should any law affect gambling or the business angle of the enterprise.

Jobs have been lost in another organization, the Plains Art Museum. Budget items have been cut in the outfits that rely on bucks from bingo.

Again, it’s not as if there is malice aforethought or as an afterthought, in the effect of the smoking ban on one category of businesses. It was about smoking, not about bingo.

The suggestion that the state might alter its tax structure so that the organizations might pay one flat rate of 5 percent of their earnings from bingo could help out quite a bit — help the organizations, not the treasury belonging to all North Dakotans.

It’s a tricky prospect, the state foregoing about $1 million a year by allowing the tax to be capped at 5 percent rather than being graduated, reaching 20 percent on proceeds exceeding $600,000. The tricky part is that the state loses out on taxing the cream of the dollars, but if the organizations shut down their bingo operations entirely, there goes all the revenue the state receives from them.

The simple solution, some say, is to exempt bingo halls from the state public places smoking ban. That’s not going to happen. There would be howls of outrage from several other categories of businesses that used to carry on their operations with people smoking away in their buildings.

But the same howls would come from the same businesses if the bingo industry were singled out for a sweetheart tax deal.

The charitable organizations will have to learn how to live with the new reality and become even more inventive in their fundraising.

News > Opinion

Printer friendly version Tax break for bingo would be unfair

Comments

Jason K wrote on Jun 9, 2006 8:51 AM:

" No tax break for the no-profits. These businesses will have to try to find other ways to bring in the revenue. There business was so very good before and now things have changed – business has slowed. Things can’t be super all the time. There should have always been other plans in the making just in case of slow business times. Right now there is a boom on new construction of homes and businesses. Every contractor is rolling in the business and the money but someday things will slow and either they have some backup plans of they will not survive. What they have right now should be appreciated and not taken for granted. "

Devon Y wrote on Jun 9, 2006 8:41 AM:

" Can’t the bingo players go outside to smoke? Walking will be good for them. "

AFC wrote on Jun 9, 2006 8:35 AM:

" Smoke, smoke, and smoke all you want but please do it away from me. My health is important and I do not need 2nd hand smoke killing me. "

MML wrote on Jun 9, 2006 8:35 AM:

" I have worked in restaurants for years. If I had a chose, I would have selected a smoke free restaurant vs. a smoking restaurant for my health. I have breathing problems but I have never smoked a day in my life. It comes from all the second hand smoke from my customers. I like what I what do but long term my job will shorten my life along with the quality of life I will be living until then. "

Suzie W wrote on Jun 9, 2006 8:23 AM:

" I don’t mind if people smoke but just not near my family or me. You are not worth poor health or dying for. "

Zac R wrote on Jun 9, 2006 8:21 AM:

" People still can smoke - they just have to do it outside. Take a break during bingo for a couple a quick puffs. As an employee I am not dying to work at any place. No employer is worth my health. "

Audrey wrote on Jun 9, 2006 4:02 AM:

" In May 2005, a coalition of smokers' rights groups and hospitality groups announced a national boycott of the ACS, ALA and AHA over exactly this. It was covered by the Associated Press. Contrary to the opinion expressed in this article, there IS "aforethought" on the part of the smoking ban pushers. They know exactly what will happen to bingo operations that raise money for charity. And they don't care. They are essentially in the business of shutting down other charitable giving without an ounce of concern. The bars that hold fundraising events FOR the ACS are having those very funds turned on them --- used by the ACS to push for bans in their bars that will hurt their business! We did not say do not donate to health organizations. But we did say do not donate to THESE three. Please visit www.nycclash.com/ACSBoycott.html "

DLr wrote on Jun 8, 2006 3:46 PM:

" The ND Legislature has to get it's act together on gaming funds and the effect of it's smoking ban. The fact is: Many non-profits are providing services that the Legislature is failing to properly fund. I know of numerous non-profits who supplement the programs they run directly for the State with their gaming monies. So, if the State is going to tax the you know what out of these non-profits, then put in a smoking ban that cuts their funds even more, they need to do one of two things. Either fully fund the programs they expect these non-profits to run for them, or ease the tax burden so these non-profits have the funds to continue to operate. The State can't have it both ways. "

Puff puff wrote on Jun 8, 2006 2:58 PM:

" I guess smokers are now 2nd class citizens. Now I have an idea of what it must have been like to be black in the Deep South in the 50's... "

Agree with "Ha Ha" wrote on Jun 8, 2006 2:36 PM:

" I can still hang out with my friends in a drinking establishment and NOT drink, but if I go someplace that allows smoking, I can't "choose" to not breath... "

Ha Ha wrote on Jun 8, 2006 12:31 PM:

" To "LETS BAN ALCOHOL TOO" Alcohol is here to stay. If you want to smoke go outside with the rest of the butt heads! "

Dan wrote on Jun 8, 2006 12:28 PM:

" Congratulations to the anti-smoking Nazi's. One charitible business segment has been brutalized, and now they're sure to go after bars too. Please continue to save us from ourselves!! "

LETS BAN ALCOHOL TOO! wrote on Jun 8, 2006 9:33 AM:

" I am not a smoker, but I believe that it is not right to tell a business that they absolutely cannot have it on thier privately owned property! I could see the benefit when businesses had to have an entirely enclosed area for smoking. And a lot of them did that. There are plenty of places that were already smoke free, and it is my choice as a consumer whether I patronize a business, whether it is because there is/isn't smoking or if it is because it has/doesn't have quality food. I also work in an establishment that has been smoke free for years. This was a choice made by the company. I had the choice as a job seeker to apply anywhere I wanted to. If I didn't want to work in a building where they allowed smoking, I didn't have to. If smoking in the workplace was such a big issue for ALL workers, then why were all these places so well staffed? Now they want to ban smoking in bars. There was a smoke-free bar in Mandan--that went over well! It has been closed for quite some time! If it was so important for all these people that want to ban smoking in bars, why were they not setting an example and patronizing the smoke-free bar? My friends (a lot of them smoke)and I already hang out at our homes more often than going to bars because it costs less. Looks like that will just become our norm if this goes through. Then we will have bars closing, more jobs lost (by the way-there are very few people working in the bars that I go to that are non-smokers), and tax dollars lost. I think the next logical step would be to ban drinking in workplaces. There would be less DUI's because people would be drinking at home and less crashes and fatalities. But of course, drinking is still ok. Because it is so much more dangerous for someone to get in to a car and drive after they have been smoking all day! And Lord knows, the more people smoke, the more obscene and loud they become! "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.