Slide #19 - "Remaining Concerns (2) - "Use of Gambling Money to Fund Education"
Dr. Hartman presented "Use of Gambling money to fund education" as one of his "Remaining Concerns" about Act 72.
I asked Dr. Hartman if he has seen any poll that shows a majority of Pennsylvanians opposing using slot machine revenues to fund tax relief. He said that he has seen no polls.
I told him that every poll taken shows a majority (From 65% to 75% ) favoring using slot machine revenue to provide tax relief. (Google Search: "Pennsylvania Gambling Polls")
The polls also consistently show that 30% - 33% of the Pennsylvania people polled have a problem using gambling revenues to fund tax relief.
Within the Juniata Valley school district, there were 1,088 homestead applications and 38 homestead/farmstead applications approved that represent 69% of the total possible. In effect, seven out of every ten residential, owner-occupied households have given their tacit approval to gambling funding tax relief or they would not have applied for the exclusion.
I am also aware of over 166 individual letters being sent to the Juniata Valley school board urging them to adopt Act 72. All of these people would not have sent the letter if they were opposed to gambling funding tax relief.
Clearly, the majority of people within the Juniata Valley school district, like the 70% in the entire state of Pennsylvania, are in favor of using gambling monies to fund property tax relief.
People who are paying residential school property taxes who also have a problem with the source of the tax relief funding can choose to not participate in Act 72 by not applying for a homestead exclusion. Ken Tucker has told me that he is aware of a number of people who have done just that. It is conceivable that the remaining 31% of Juniata Valley school district homeowners may have felt that way.
In my opinion, people who are not currently paying residential real estate taxes should stop complaining about the source of the tax relief because they are not paying the unreasonable tax to begin with, and are not feeling the pain of making day to day decisions on prescription drugs, food, etc.
The real morality question here is not whether money from gambling is "tainted" but rather whether or not it is acceptable to continue to demand unreasonable amounts of real estate taxes from people who do not have the means to pay.
The Pennsylvania Legislature defines "gambling" as having three elements:
1. There must be a prize to be won.
2. There must be a consideration (i.e., the money offered by the person/gambler)
3. There must be a determination of a winner primarily by chance.
Gambling in Pennsylvania is illegal except for the following situations:
Certain nonprofit organizations are allowed to get licenses from the state to have raffles, BINGO, and other games of chance for raising funds. The rationale from the state legislature is that the fund-raising process by certain nonprofit organizations is "in the public interest." Fire companies, churches, senior citizen groups, and other 501-C-3 organizations would have great difficulty paying their bills without this capability.
The second entity allowed to "gamble" is the Pennsylvania Lottery where a lottery ticket is purchased with the hopes of winning a monetary prize. The state can use 30% of the lottery proceeds to help fund programs for older residents. PACE or PACENET prescription drug benefits, Area Agencies on Aging, and other needy programs receive lottery funding.
Slot machine parlors represent the most recent entity allowed to "gamble." Act 72 states that 34% of all slot machine revenue will serve as a tax to fund residential school property tax relief. Twice a year, the PA Department of Education will send each school district who has "Opted-In" to the program, a check for their individual share of this tax. As much as 60% of the property taxes paid by residential property taxpayers can be relieved based on the volume of slot machine tax realized by the state.
In my mind, the process associated with my taking money out of my pocket to buy a BINGO/Raffle ticket, or purchase a lottery ticket, or to pull a slot machine handle is identical. Each is defined as gambling as per Pennsylvania law, but I do believe that a portion of my money is going to good use. Further, I agree with the Legislature that the public interest is well served by all three exceptions to the gambling law.
Robert K. Wargo