Berkshire Senior Online

There is currently an effort underway on Beacon Hill to authorize slot machines in the State of Massachusetts. For years, there have been efforts to expand gaming in our state and, most recently, to add slots at the state’s four race tracks in eastern Massachusetts. Proponents have argued that slot machines at the race tracks alone will be a revenue panacea resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the Commonwealth. With that, they claim, will come a welcome increase in economic development and local aid, the creation of hundreds of new jobs, and a recapturing of gaming money being spent by Massachusetts residents in other states. On the surface, the argument put forth by proponents seems compelling. However, upon closer look, this argument does not stand, for we have yet to see any hard evidence to support this argument.

As my sainted grandmother used to say, “If something sounds too good to be true then it probably is.” This proposal sounds too good to be true. In doing a quick cost benefit analysis, one can quickly come to the conclusion that the myriad benefits are not as they are claimed. 

However, let’s assume for the sake of argument that gaming would bring millions of dollars in increased revenue to the state. These moneys will be offset by the unfortunate costs associated with expanded gaming. Those identified direct costs consist of an impact to the lottery, sending much depended upon funding back to all cities and towns for schools and local aid amounting to approximately $110 million; regulatory costs would be approximately $100 million; and social costs on the conservative side would be approximately $150 million, as crime will increase as will the need for increased public safety. Then are there the costs from substituted economic activity, for example, people spending their disposable income at the tracks or on slot machines rather than other sectors of the economy such as at restaurants, stores, and entertainment, etc. With this is the cost of treatment for those with compulsive gambling addictions, which would be staggering.

All told, the direct costs alone add up to be excessively high, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and that is without even considering the indirect costs to local communities, such as infrastructure, housing, education, etc. Further, the jobs will be mostly low paying service jobs. The fact of the matter is that the most perfunctory cost-benefit analysis leads us to conclude that the costs would at best equal the gaming revenue and, in the worst case, exceed the revenue.

Consider that for the Commonwealth to generate $400 million in gaming revenue the average Massachusetts family of four must lose $1,400 per year — this would be the equivalent of raising the state income tax to approximately 7%. Generating revenue from slot machines is nothing more than imposing a regressive tax on the working poor and seniors. As we all know the cost of living is high, many on a fixed income or with little income often look to gambling as their salvation in the hopes that they are someday bound to win big.

There is then the risk of gambling more than one can afford to lose. Gambling is addictive and studies show that for seniors can lead to less money for food or medication, depression and health matters, and, sadly, the problems can only spiral from there.

Expanded gaming in the Commonwealth, if you’ll pardon the pun, is a bad bet. From the state’s perspective and my personal one, the trade-offs of expanded gaming far exceed the benefits.