Cries of poverty from gamers don’t add up
To the editor:
Hotel-casino officials in Nevada continually cry poverty and proclaim they cannot possibly pay more than 6.75 percent in gaming taxes — not to mention Bill Weidner, president of the Las Vegas Sands Corp., saying in a recent Review-Journal commentary that a gaming tax increase “will ruin this state.”
It’s interesting to note that many of them are taking their profits out of Nevada to build in Macau, where they pay 40 percent in gaming taxes. Yes, 40 percent — and they don’t bat an eye.
In 2005, the Macau gaming industry paid 78 percent of the entire Macau region’s fiscal budget. I’m sure it’s 100 percent by now. The more than 1 million residents of the Macau region pay no taxes on anything.
The hotel-casinos here in Nevada pay the lowest gaming taxes in the world — 6.75 percent. Wake up, people.
DAN CULBERT
LAS VEGAS
Golden goose
To the editor:
Tuesday’s front-page story about the coming cuts in the education budget was very enlightening. Shame on you, Steve Wynn, Sheldon Adelson and Kirk Kerkorian. You build multibillion-dollar casino resorts and ignore your future employees.
I know all about the taxes you pay to the state, but you have a responsibility to the community. It’s time to step up. To hell with the golden goose.
KYLE OTTO
LAS VEGAS
Ball game
To the editor:
After reading your Monday editorial and other commentaries this past week regarding the investigation into the use of performance-enhancing drugs by Major League Baseball players detailed in the Mitchell Report, I have a different view on the subject.
I believe this problem is actually symptomatic of our society. First, let me draw a distinction between amateur and professional athletics.
In your editorial, you note the past problems that have been found in Olympic and college athletics. There is no place in amateur athletics for the use of any performance-enhancing drugs. Period. But professional athletics presents an entirely different problem.
Professional athletes are entertainers who are being paid to perform. Like so many in other fields, some have chosen to enhance or sustain their abilities through artificial means. Does this make them wrong? While the quick answer tends to be yes, some thought about the issue shows the ambiguity of the entire subject.
Do you ever wonder how many professional entertainers have used artificial means to enhance their appearance in order to remain famous and employable? What about botox, breast enlargements, face lifts or other cosmetic surgery? These procedures are not banned or illegal, but could be injurious to one’s health. They seem to be widespread in the entertainment industry today. Do they give some entertainers an unfair advantage?
And these enhancements are not just being used by professional entertainers. What about journalists, the talking heads who we see on television? Do you ever wonder where the wrinkles go? What about business executives who are reported to be using the same enhancements? What about the politicians who are now condemning the baseball players? Haven’t some our political elite enhanced their appearance? Has botox caused wrinkles to go away on some?
So where do we draw the line on the use of enhancements? If the drugs that have been used by the baseball players are illegal for anyone to use, punish those who are using them. But if the drugs or supplements were not illegal or banned when they were used, then quit condemning someone for seeking to enhance or sustain his career. It sure seems like a lot of other people are doing the very same thing.
I always wonder when the pot is calling the kettle black, and some people, particularly politicians, have a habit of doing this.
David R. Durling
LAS VEGAS
Power lines
To the editor:
In response to your Monday editorial on green energy: When I read your editorial, my first reaction was to roll my eyes and say, “Here they go again.”
You mention the power line that the San Diego utility proposes through Anza Borrego State Park. It is not just a “state park near the Mexican border,” it is the largest state park in the 48 states. Large metal transmission lines and parks do not go together. The park is there, in part, because of its scenic values, which would disappear with the construction of the power line.
It is not only the “environmentalists” who oppose the location of the project, but many Republicans, Democrats and libertarians who live within view of the project. They moved there to get away from this kind of thing.
Perhaps if the engineers design the project correctly, fewer people would object. The project is not green unless the technology and the design are green. Their project may be appropriate, but the plan is bad.
Greg Seymour
LAS VEGAS
