Governor Leaves Consistency and Principle Behind

Playing a “skills game”. Photo credit: Virginian Pilot

by Dick Hall-Sizemore

With his proposed amendments to legislation regulating “games of skill,” Gov. Youngkin has demonstrated deep inconsistencies, if not outright hypocrisy.

Before getting into the specifics, a little background is needed.

“Games of skill” are machines on which people can play and win money. The proponents of the machines claim that some element of skill is needed to win. The opponents claim that the machines are not that different from slot machines, in which pure luck is involved. Not having played any “games of skill,” I am not going to offer any judgment on this argument.

Skill games are present in many, if not most, convenience stores, truck stops, and even some sit-down restaurants, such as the Kelly’s Tavern franchise in Virginia Beach. The machines themselves are owned by large corporations, mostly from out of state. The owners of the venues receive an agreed-upon share of the revenue generated by the machines. The revenue can be significant and many of the businesses have come to depend on it.

The opponents of the machines cite the dangers of gambling and the fear of people becoming addicted to gambling; never mind that the Virginia Lottery has been around for almost 40 years and the Commonwealth now allows betting on horse races (with machines depicting races in the past), sports betting, and the establishment of casinos.

Democrats in the General Assembly have also engaged in the hypocrisy regarding skill games. In 2021, they passed legislation banning the games. Then they allowed them to stay in place in order to bring in revenue during the pandemic. After that, the ban was challenged in the courts. In the meantime, the ban was lightly enforced. The Virginia Mercury provides more detail on the fighting over this issue here.

In addition to those who sincerely oppose the expansion of legalized gambling, a lot of the opposition to skill games has come from casino operators who don’t want any competition for the money of people who want to gamble.

Strong support for the skill games has come from organizations representing the small businesses that have had them on site in the past.

In probably the most heavily-lobbied issue of the past session, the General Assembly passed legislation that authorizes skill games, regulates them, and taxes the revenue. (SB 212—Rouse, Virginia Beach.) The governor has returned the bill with several pages of amendments that constitute a substitute bill.

There are many provisions in the governor’s substitute that cause consternation among proponents of the bill, but this article will focus on three.

  1. Local option. The proposed amendments allow a local governing body to pass an ordinance prohibiting the presence of skill games in the jurisdiction or it may hold a referendum on the question. Also, a referendum must be held if a specified number of citizens petition for it. Contrast this provision with the governor’s veto of legislation authorizing a local referendum on raising the sales tax to support renovation or construction of schools. (HB 805 [Rasoul, D, Roanoke] and SB 14 [McPike, D, Prince William]). Youngkin is willing to allow a local referendum to prohibit something he does not like, but he is not willing to allow a local referendum to adopt something he does not like.
  2. Tax increase. The adopted bill would have imposed a 25 percent tax on earnings from skill games. The governor’s amendment would increase that tax to 35 percent. A governor who has frequently voiced his opposition to tax increases, saying that he wants the citizens of Virginia to keep their hard-earned money in their own pockets, now proposes to increase a tax on small businesses.
  3. Protection of vested interests. Perhaps the most outrageous provision proposed by the governor is one that prohibits the presence of skill games within 35 miles of any casino or racetrack or satellite facility. Obviously, the governor is not trying to protect Virginia’s citizens from the dangers of gambling; his main object is protecting the profits of casinos and racetracks. In addition, there are limitations on how many machines can be in a single facility and the number of skill games statewide is capped at 20,000. The governor’s spokesperson revealed one of his major concerns was the “impact on the Virginia Lottery.”

So much for consistency and principle.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

20 responses to “Governor Leaves Consistency and Principle Behind”

  1. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Short short-term capital gains. 35% for “assets” held less than a minute in the electronic aether when it’s 28% for material assets held less than a year sounds fair.

  2. Rafaelo Avatar

    Just re-watched The Godfather. Youngkin bears only a vague resemblance to Marlon Brando. But he wants 35% of the action on gambling? “I’m gonna make the Democrats an offer they can’t refuse,” he says.

    Mr. Hall-Sizemore and I concur as to Mr. Haner’s last sentence.

  3. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    The 35% is really better viewed as a shakedown than a tax. 😉 A piece of the action. If there is a mandatory share dedicated to prizes, it will reduce the profit of the store or the machine owner. It may be 35% is the state’s piece of the action on other forms of gambling. It will probably reduce the local business’ share.

    The whole thing is so grubby.

    1. John Harvie Avatar
      John Harvie

      No, because ANY new revenue to the facility is income that wasn’t there before. Ergo, a bonus?

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Here is the language: “A gaming tax equal to 35 percent shall be imposed upon all gross profits generated from the play of electronic gaming devices.” Sounds like a tax to me.

      I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence.

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        I agree. But with a bit of loan shark thrown in. And remember, the net income after prizes is…also taxed! Might be a gross receipts tax, too. The “house” always wins but so does the taxman….

      2. That could be interpreted as a tax on those who [successfully] play the games…

      3. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        I agree. But with a bit of loan shark thrown in. And remember, the net income after prizes is…also taxed! Might be a gross receipts tax, too. The “house” always wins but so does the taxman….

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      And a cigarette alcohol tax is? (Don’t say sintax. Too obvious.)

  4. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    Time to end legalized gambling.

  5. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    1. There already is a requirement for local support before a casino can be built. Adding the same for games of “skill” is wholly consistent.

    2. Any tax is arbitrary. I get the feeling that Youngkin would prohibit gambling across the board if he could. But since he can’t – he will tax it heavily. This is also much different from the Democrats’ proposed payroll tax for sick leave. Nobody makes anybody play games of “skill”. Just like tobacco, liquor, and marijuana – you want to sin, let the taxes begin.

    3. You have something of a point with regard to the separation of games of “skill” from casinos. I assume Youngkin realizes how much money casinos generate for the state and how transient games of “skill” in 7-11s really are. In 10 years, the games of “skill” will be gone but the casinos will still be here.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      The inconsistency with regard to local referenda is not the comparison with casinos. It is the comparison with his veto of authorization of an increasse in the local sales tax subject to referendum. In one case (prohibtion of skill games) he would allow a referendum; in the other (increase in the sales tax) he would not allow a referendum.

      So, taxes are OK if they are levied on something the governor does not like, but not OK in other situations.

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        The consistency is allowing localities to decide whether or not to allow gambling in their area. If localities can deny a casino the right to operate, why not also games of “skill”?

        Gambling taxes.

        Should all local taxes should be put to a referendum? All real estate tax hikes, for example. How is it consistent to put one local tax on a referendum but not all the rest?

        The decision for all new gambling in a locality is to be voted on in that locality.

        Seems consistent to me.

  6. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    “ Protection of vested interests. Perhaps the most outrageous provision proposed by the governor is one that prohibits the presence of skill games within 35 miles of any casino or racetrack or satellite facility. ”

    And churches? The 1000’ prohibition zone on alcohol sales virtually guaranteed that there were no beer and wine sales on Todds Lane in Hampton.

    Thirty-five miles is really prohibitory (an hour’s drive one way). Wonder how much the casinos, tracks, and OTBs paid for that? (and to whom)

  7. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Awwww, not Virginia… 14 States step up to help reduce children in poverty.
    https://sfo2.digitaloceanspaces.com/itep/State-Child-Tax-Credits-in-2024-figure-2.png

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Did Youngkin ever offer this in exchange for expanding the sales tax?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Prolly not. Republican.

  8. Donald Smith Avatar
    Donald Smith

    “Governor Leaves Consistency and Principle Behind”

    Well, when he’s dealing with Democrats, what choice does he have?

  9. VaPragamtist Avatar
    VaPragamtist

    Do localities benefit from the 35% tax, or does it all go into the state coffers?

    I’m undecided on this issue. If the number of machines is limited, then I appreciate the prohibition near casinos. I can envision scenarios where Caesar’s is the central hub of gambling in Danville., and gambling/(“skills games”), becomes a theme for hotels, restaurants, gas stations, rest stops, smaller outposts in the area. . .all of which take up the allotment of skill games. Basically all of the gambling (and revenue), concentrated in a handful of areas lucky enough to have a casino.

    On the other hand, the idea of protecting the lottery is laughable. For voters and localities the whole lottery referendum in the early 2000’s turned out to be more chance than skill. . .and, as is almost always the case, the House (and senate) won. New revenue meant to supplement education funding has only supplanted it.

    And I won’t even go into how gambling disproportionately impacts the people with least amount of disposable income to throw away on chance, people desperate to improve their situations. . .who live in the localities with the fewest resources. But if localities could benefit from the skill games, they’d have more resources. . ..

Leave a Reply