In case you missed it, late Friday afternoon, the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies posted the following update on their blog acknowledging that if New Hampshire does not move forward with our own plan for one high-end, highly regulated casino, the state stands to lose approximately $75 million per year.
March 01, 2013
What if NH does nothing on expanded gambling?
Since we published our updated analysis of the potential impacts of expanded gambling in New Hampshire earlier this week, several policymakers and others have responded that our model failed to note the likely financial loss to the state if Massachusetts establishes casinos and New Hampshire takes no action on legalized gambling.
As we noted in this new report, “Expanded Gambling in NH: An update on options,” Massachusetts authorized the establishment of three casinos across the state in 2011, and that state is currently going through the process of determining where they will be located and who will operate them. In presentations earlier this year to the Ways and Means Committees of the NH House and Senate, we modeled the potential impact on New Hampshire of those out-of-state casinos. We looked at what New Hampshire would stand to lose in state lottery sales, as more people chose to spend money at casinos rather than on state lottery tickets and scratch cards. We also considered the likely increase in social costs associated with problem and pathological gamblers from New Hampshire who would travel to those new Massachusetts casinos.
We’re reproduced that chart below. It assumes that two of the Massachusetts casinos will be located at Suffolk Downs (outside Boston) and Palmer (near Springfield) -- both of which are contenders for the new gambling facilities. The model shows that New Hampshire stands to “lose” roughly $75 million a year under that scenario, if New Hampshire policymakers chose to take no action on gambling.
As our recent paper indicated, legalized gambling in New Hampshire would most certainly yield revenue to the state, in the form of tax receipts on casino operation earnings. But that revenue would have to be balanced against the likely increase in social costs from problem gamblers in the state. At a 30 percent tax rate, our model finds that tax revenues are roughly equal to the increased social costs, regardless of the size of the gambling facility.
Here's our most recent analysis of expanded gambling.
And here's our original 2010 report on the topic, commissioned to support the work of the Governor's Gaming Study Commission.