|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Nov 9, 2013 7:45:32 GMT -6
It seems that there is plenty of money to be spent in Streator. Looking at the per capita retail spending numbers though reveals a much different picture. It would be great if they were to use some of the income to control the negative activities that go on in our streets.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2013 8:03:07 GMT -6
and is the smallest town. better explain before someone jumps on here small town than MOST listed. i do know there are 1 or 2 smaller listed than streator
|
|
|
Post by dog on Nov 9, 2013 8:16:02 GMT -6
Your chart is accurate but somewhat misleading. The $1.9 million was figuratively "on paper". The actual physical amount of money put into the machines was $541,000, which is still a lot of money. It is unfortunate that the city only gets about $7.700 of the taxes collected, where the state gets $38,000 in taxes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2013 8:28:53 GMT -6
It seems that there is plenty of money to be spent in Streator. Looking at the per capita retail spending numbers though reveals a much different picture. It would be great if they were to use some of the income to control the negative activities that go on in our streets. 1 month, huh? And we're closing schools and laying off teachers and support staff? I'm stunned at this amount...absolutely stunned.
|
|
|
Post by oldtimer on Nov 9, 2013 8:30:05 GMT -6
That figure was the total amount put into the machines in October.
Then you take away how much was paid to those who played. Dog, it looks like you're saying that was about 1.4 million which means the actual money collected in streator was what you said, dog of $541,000.
Now, the profit that dog mentioned is then divided between the state, the city, the businesses maintaining the machines for the state and the businesses that have the machines inside them. The businesses portion is based on how much was played in their business only.
|
|
|
Post by dumdave on Nov 9, 2013 8:42:55 GMT -6
The chart comes no where in accounting for the non-legal gambling $$$$$
|
|
|
Post by dog on Nov 9, 2013 8:44:33 GMT -6
That figure was the total amount put into the machines in October. Then you take away how much was paid to those who played. Dog, it looks like you're saying that was about 1.4 million which means the actual money collected in streator was what you said, dog of $541,000. Now, the profit that dog mentioned is then divided between the state, the city, the businesses maintaining the machines for the state and the businesses that have the machines inside them. The businesses portion is based on how much was played in their business only. Look at it this way, you put $20 in the machine. You sit there a while, run your total up to $200, lose a hundred, run it up to $200 again and lose all of that but $30 and you cash out. The wagering activity would show that $400 was spent in the machine, when actually only $20 physical was spent. The $400 of wagering activity was only on paper. The actual money spent put into the machine as $20 and the actual money paid out was $30.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Nov 9, 2013 8:50:42 GMT -6
Your chart is accurate but somewhat misleading. The $1.9 million was figuratively "on paper". The actual physical amount of money put into the machines was $541,000, which is still a lot of money. It is unfortunate that the city only gets about $7.700 of the taxes collected, where the state gets $38,000 in taxes. So the other $1.36 million was winnings that were also spent. Either way, it was spent. It could have been taken out and spent on something else if desired. Wouldn't that type of winnings spending also be happening in the other communities listed and included in their figures as well? I just find it interesting that our retail spending is so low, yet gambling so high. I am very happy that these establishment owners are doing so well and contributing to our tax revenue (this is so much better than the illegal gambling). Maybe they can now afford to pass on the income of selling another drink to people that are already intoxicated to create an atmosphere on our streets that is more conducive to other types of businesses too?
|
|
|
Post by 34bears on Nov 9, 2013 9:00:53 GMT -6
Do your own math. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by dog on Nov 9, 2013 9:02:00 GMT -6
Your chart is accurate but somewhat misleading. The $1.9 million was figuratively "on paper". The actual physical amount of money put into the machines was $541,000, which is still a lot of money. It is unfortunate that the city only gets about $7.700 of the taxes collected, where the state gets $38,000 in taxes. So the other $1.36 million was winnings that were also spent. Either way, it was spent. It could have been taken out and spent on something else if desired. Wouldn't that type of winnings spending also be happening in the other communities listed and included in their figures as well? I just find it interesting that our retail spending is so low, yet gambling so high. I am very happy that these establishment owners are doing so well and contributing to our tax revenue (this is so much better than the illegal gambling). Maybe they can now afford to pass on the income of selling another drink to people that are already intoxicated to create an atmosphere on our streets that is more conducive to other types of businesses too? You are correct, that money could have been taken out and spent on tangible items. I could have been a multi-millionaire in the stock market now if I was very aggressive with my portfolio if I sold high and bought low on a daily basis. Most people don't think like that though. You need to educate people to cash out when they are up a modest amount. You probably wont get owners to "pass" on selling another drink for the same reason...............Greed, or the chance to be greedy.
|
|
|
Post by oldtimer on Nov 9, 2013 9:02:11 GMT -6
Your chart is accurate but somewhat misleading. The $1.9 million was figuratively "on paper". The actual physical amount of money put into the machines was $541,000, which is still a lot of money. It is unfortunate that the city only gets about $7.700 of the taxes collected, where the state gets $38,000 in taxes. So the other $1.36 million was winnings that were also spent. Either way, it was spent. It could have been taken out and spent on something else if desired. Wouldn't that type of winnings spending also be happening in the other communities listed and included in their figures as well? I just find it interesting that our retail spending is so low, yet gambling so high. I am very happy that these establishment owners are doing so well and contributing to our tax revenue (this is so much better than the illegal gambling). Maybe they can now afford to pass on the income of selling another drink to people that are already intoxicated to create an atmosphere on our streets that is more conducive to other types of businesses too? You really seem to be hooked on the over serving of drinkers. Instead of mentioning it in every post for the 50 or so people who read it on this little old website how about channeling your energy and writing to your lawmakers?
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Nov 9, 2013 9:45:46 GMT -6
So the other $1.36 million was winnings that were also spent. Either way, it was spent. It could have been taken out and spent on something else if desired. Wouldn't that type of winnings spending also be happening in the other communities listed and included in their figures as well? I just find it interesting that our retail spending is so low, yet gambling so high. I am very happy that these establishment owners are doing so well and contributing to our tax revenue (this is so much better than the illegal gambling). Maybe they can now afford to pass on the income of selling another drink to people that are already intoxicated to create an atmosphere on our streets that is more conducive to other types of businesses too? You really seem to be hooked on the over serving of drinkers. Instead of mentioning it in every post for the 50 or so people who read it on this little old website how about channeling your energy and writing to your lawmakers? We already have the laws in place, both at state and city levels, they just need to start being enforced. I have written our lawmakers many times though; they just ignore my letters and it keeps continuing. That is why I am trying to keep the problems in the tops of people's minds, so that more might ask for the change we need. I think there might be a few more than 50 people that come here.
|
|
|
Post by dog on Nov 9, 2013 10:13:24 GMT -6
You really seem to be hooked on the over serving of drinkers. Instead of mentioning it in every post for the 50 or so people who read it on this little old website how about channeling your energy and writing to your lawmakers? We already have the laws in place, both at state and city levels, they just need to start being enforced. I have written our lawmakers many times though; they just ignore my letters and it keeps continuing. That is why I am trying to keep the problems in the tops of people's minds, so that more might ask for the change we need. I think there might be a few more than 50 people that come here. Since I don't know much about the penalties for public urination, fighting or whatnot, I have to ask if something like this comes into play. How much does it cost to arrest/and or ticket, process paperwork and/or the perpertrator and then sentence the offender from start to finish? I know the law is the law but if it costs $1000 to do the process from start to finish just to collect a $75 fine, that sounds like a waste of time and services to me. The city is only a small part of the problem and even if you get more enforcement from the city, the county cant afford to house them and the county doesn't want to prosecute, what have you really accomplished? I saw this on the news last night and I think it somewhat pertains: www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Cook-County-Spends-Millions-on-Cases-That-Go-Nowhere-231206651.html
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Nov 9, 2013 11:44:07 GMT -6
It may cost money to have law and order, but not spending enough on it can create problems.
I think it is a matter of priorities. I'm not against park improvements but this is more of a priority to me.
I am trying to convince more people that it needs to be a priority here.
If we kept people from getting so drunk that they were doing so many stupid things, we wouldn't have to worry so much about enforcement.
Instead of being called out for a mugging and be distracted by a street brawl, they could be concentrating on other things.
|
|
|
Post by oldtimer on Nov 9, 2013 12:13:40 GMT -6
It may cost money to have law and order, but not spending enough on it can create problems. I think it is a matter of priorities. I'm not against park improvements but this is more of a priority to me. I am trying to convince more people that it needs to be a priority here. If we kept people from getting so drunk that they were doing so many stupid things, we wouldn't have to worry so much about enforcement. Instead of being called out for a mugging and be distracted by a street brawl, they could be concentrating on other things. Maybe it would be best if you started a thread directly related to the topic? Then, instead of referencing it every time you post, it would be solely under that thread for all the more than 50 people to look at. You will probably get great feedback if you did that. Why not give it a try? And, quite frankly, its common courtesy to just post responses directly to the topic. We don't want to be high jacking threads, do we?
|
|