4 ms·

Its for the same reason you don't give a license to someone with a DUI. They are a harm to others. People with gambling addictions don't just hurt themselves -

Its for the same reason you don't give a license to someone with a DUI. They are a harm to others. People with gambling addictions don't just hurt themselves - they hurt families, friends, and also the society at large as they come to be dependent on the safety net for substeance. I think you dont need to make it illegal to keep it in check. A simple rule saying: IF a person spends more than 20% of the overall W2 or 1099 income on gambling, then the gambling house is liable for every 95 cents of every subsequent dollar paid out. We transfer liability for selling alcohol to irresponsible bartenders - casinos should also take the heat for the malaise they inflict. You'd see very quickly how things get real.

azemetre 1y ago
Could you explain more what you mean? Like after 20% of someone's W2, the gambling house pays out 95/100 times? Trying to understand how this regulation works, I'm intrigued by the idea of progressive levels of taxation against industries but I don't know if this is what you're arguing.
- IG_Semmelweiss 1y ago
  No, its a shift in liability. Simply put, if a gambler shows up in court with a W2 and payouts to a gambling house, they get summary judgement against the house. This works well because once codified ("no gambler shall owe more than 20% of their annual income to any gambling house, individually or in the aggregate") it triggers an unrecorded liability on the gambling house's clientele. In other words, the stock becomes radioactive , unless the gambling house has strong controls around client onboarding and monitoring. Auditors are never going to sign off on financials that have a huge liability unless it is proven there are strict controls in place to not let degenerate gambling continue. The same principle could be applied to universities as well. Basically, you have to shift the risk to the party abusing the system (in this case, not the system, but the addiction).

azemetre 1y ago

Could you explain more what you mean? Like after 20% of someone's W2, the gambling house pays out 95/100 times? Trying to understand how this regulation works, I'm intrigued by the idea of progressive levels of taxation against industries but I don't know if this is what you're arguing.

IG_Semmelweiss 1y ago
No, its a shift in liability. Simply put, if a gambler shows up in court with a W2 and payouts to a gambling house, they get summary judgement against the house. This works well because once codified ("no gambler shall owe more than 20% of their annual income to any gambling house, individually or in the aggregate") it triggers an unrecorded liability on the gambling house's clientele. In other words, the stock becomes radioactive , unless the gambling house has strong controls around client onboarding and monitoring. Auditors are never going to sign off on financials that have a huge liability unless it is proven there are strict controls in place to not let degenerate gambling continue. The same principle could be applied to universities as well. Basically, you have to shift the risk to the party abusing the system (in this case, not the system, but the addiction).