October 14, 2006

Weekend Question 2: What Are the Latest Reasons to Reject ‘Ohio Learn & Earn’?

Filed under: News from Other Sites,Taxes & Government,TWUQs — Tom @ 3:38 pm

ANSWER: Glad you asked.

From Jill at Writes Like She Talks (original entry relating to Jill’s effort is here) –

  • Reason 28 — “Because the states with the highest-grossing gaming markets are also the states that lead the nation in several undesirable categories and the last thing Ohio needs is to be shouldering for space in some of those top ten lists.Think Nevada, then think tops in divorce rates, illegitimacy rates, suicide rates, rates of death from firearms and female incarceration rates.”
  • Reason 27 — “Because if you think I’m a kook – either for my reasons to vote against Ohio Learn and Earn, or because I’m reciting 57 of them, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.” Jill goes on to cite a dozen blogs carrying anti-Issue 3 posts. If you make the rounds of Ohio blogs on the left, the right, and in the center, and you won’t find much support for Issue 3 at all. That is as it should be.
  • Reason 26 — “Because we should focus on maximizing the use of currently available means for paying for higher education rather than on subsidies that will wind up going to students who will 1) qualify for assistance anyway, 2) have the ability to pay without state assistance and/or 3) head to college regardless of the existence of the gambling proceeds. Throwing money to these groups of students will fail to make college more affordable, fail to get more Ohio students to attend Ohio colleges and stay in Ohio afterwards, and fail to pay for college for those kids for whom college is least affordable. The idea that higher education isn’t affordable comes from the perception that institutions of higher education have ratcheted up tuition through unconscionable increases, in part due to state cutbacks in assistance. Thus, giving gambling proceeds to the top 5% of Ohio’s high school graduates doesn’t do a single thing to address or attack these roots of the affordability problem.

Bonus Reason at the end of Number 26

Imagine if this woman’s legal arguments succeeded in Ohio and every Ohio who had a “60-hour-a-week gambling regimen” which they called “a business” was able to convince the Ohio judiciary that they should be able to deduct all their gambling losses from their taxes.

In MN, “…Justices concurred that she was involved in a ‘trade or business,’ even if it wasn’t a particularly reasonable one to practice…”


No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.