加载中…程阳：钱多人少的巴哈马群岛要不要国家彩票？
(2012-08-25 09:20:26)
标签：
程阳彩票巴哈马群岛公投bahamas财经 |
分类： 彩票视界 |
程阳：钱多人少巴哈马群岛要不要国家彩票？
—— 撇开政治因素，“钱多人少”的彩票产品模式更有趣！
巴哈马，正式名称巴哈马联邦（The Commonwealth of The Bahamas），是一位于大西洋西岸的岛国，地处美国佛罗里达州以东，古巴和加勒比海以北，巴哈马包含700座岛屿和珊瑚礁。一直到第二次世界大战后，巴拿马的旅游业才开始发展，促进当地永久性的繁荣。1964年巴哈马群岛获得内部自治权。1973年成为独立的巴哈马国。仅仅34万人的巴哈马，其人均GDP已在世界排名第二位。
Google:Bahamas national lottery
——————————————————————————————————————
Is the PLP playing a numbers game?
Bahamas Information Services (BIS) issued a story last week on Prime Minister Perry Christie’s communication to the House of Assembly, confirming the government’s intention “to hold a referendum on the issue of a national lottery and/or web cafes.”
He was quoted as advising: “I wish to confirm that it is my government’s intention to proceed with a referendum on the issue of a national lottery and/or web cafes as soon as practicable following the anticipated by-election in North Abaco later this year.”
The story noted: “The referendum will seek to ascertain whether a national lottery should be instituted and/or whether the popular web cafes or web shops be legalized, regulated, licensed and taxed.
“He [Mr. Christie] also reiterated that the government would maintain a position of complete neutrality on the referendum issues: ‘We will not campaign for, nor will we encourage the adoption of, either a yes or no position on any of the referendum issues’.”
The communication obscured more than it revealed. Given that this is a debate on the numbers business it is ironically fitting that the government’s statements seem less like a serious policy discussion and more like a confidence or shell game.
Troubling
There is this troubling paragraph in the BIS story: “He [Mr. Christie] also reiterated that the government would maintain a position of complete neutrality on the referendum issues: ‘We will not campaign for, nor will we encourage the adoption of, either a yes or no position on any of the referendum issues’.” This is not good enough. The prime minister will have to say more. Incidentally, what is “complete neutrality”? Is there an incomplete neutrality on this issue of which we should be aware?
Neutrality by the government on how Bahamians vote in the referendum is understandable. But notice the wording: “referendum issues”. There are indeed related issues on which the government will have to take a stand. These are compelling issues of public policy and social ethics which will not tolerate neutrality or studied indifference.
Two weeks ago, Christie lent his support to erecting a bust of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on Bimini, commemorating the latter’s visits to the island where he reportedly drafted parts of his 1964 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, and a 1968 speech to sanitation workers before his assassination.
Those speeches and Dr. King’s broader mission were driven by a progressive spirit rooted in the quest for social, distributive and economic justice. He loathed neutrality on issues which demanded a stance by those in positions of power. For him, power had to be directed to good purpose. The question of who maintains the greater bulk of the proceeds from a national lottery is a definitive issue. It will mark genuine progressives from paper progressives. It will reveal whether the vestigial rump of the progressive movement, on life support in the PLP, is so anaesthetized by the opiate of power that it is ready to give up the ghost. It will tell us whether Perry Christie’s PLP intends to put the majority of Bahamians first or only selected Bahamians.
Given the longstanding bond between the PLP and powerful figures in the numbers business, including one who served as the party’s treasurer, many are watching to see how the party proceeds. Relatedly, Christie spoke recently of the urgency of campaign finance laws.
Before voting, Bahamians must demand answers from the government on a core of vital issues. Christie spoke of big ideas in the election campaign.
What is his big idea on the apportionment of proceeds from a lottery?
There are various models for lotteries, some more progressive or regressive in terms of how they are run, who runs them, how they are taxed and the allotment of proceeds. The United Kingdom has a state-franchised national lottery operated under private licence and regulated by the National Lottery Commission.
In descending order of how proceeds are allotted, the majority goes to a prize fund, the next largest amount to the Big Lottery Fund supporting “good causes”, followed by a duty that goes directly to the government. The remainder, in equal portion, goes to retailers as a commission, and the private operator receives a sum to cover operating costs, and as a profit.
Uncomfortable
For those uncomfortable on ethical, policy or pragmatic grounds about the government running a national lottery, the UK model is instructive. Still, the model one chooses will reveal one’s values, commitments and policy leanings. Fundamentally, it reveals the purpose of a national lottery and one’s views on wealth distribution, tax policy, economic justice and the common good.
Say it was the 1960s, before majority rule, and the white oligarchy represented by the United Bahamian Party (UBP) proposed a plebiscite on the question of a national lottery, with the greater amount of the proceeds going to private operators, and the government deciding who would be granted licences.
What would the PLP of that era, including members of the National Committee for Positive Action (NCPA), a progressive caucus within the party, say about such a proposal? What might some of those in the university and college student group, Unicol, later renamed Unicomm, say of such a proposal?
What would the progressive movement of what Christie has described as “the golden age of idealism and opportunity” say about a scheme involving a mass Robin-Hood-in-reverse redistribution of wealth from poor black Kate and Ken and their children into the coffers of a few?
With a referendum on the horizon, such fundamental questions are before us. For many it is a clear choice. Those still committed to the progressive movement and those inspired by the movement, share a dream partially fulfilled, yet incomplete.
Imagine a lottery system in which tens of millions annually and hundreds of millions over several years are directed towards the still incomplete mission of lifting up the poor, educating the youth, and providing hope for many thousands.
Still, such a system would be decidedly more beneficial to the common good than legalizing a jackpot windfall for a few. Such a system would also return more money to poor and lower income Bahamians who regularly play the lottery.
Perry Christie, afforded a second chance as prime minister, has a big and defining decision to make. He can reaffirm some of the core values of the progressive movement by acting for the greater good. Or he can betray that movement by enabling the legalization of a system in which a precious few reap a jackpot a day.
No need for a referendum on gambling
by J. Barrie Farrington, CBE
Posted with the kind permission of the author.
The debate on the legalization of a lottery rages on. It is regrettable that the issue is so divisive particularly when there are so many national issues requiring unified attention such as job creation, education reform, and crime eradication. But, it is what it is.
About 40 years ago while travelling through Connecticut, I discovered that a state operated lottery had been introduced with a declaration as to the use of revenue derived from the lottery.
When I returned to Nassau, I immediately wrote to Prime Minister Pindling suggesting the introduction of a national lottery in The Bahamas possibly along the lines of the one in Connecticut. The response from the Prime Minister, although polite, was that a lottery could not be considered at that time. Without being said, I felt that to move in that direction would unsettle the political landscape as well as religious community. However, we must remember that the Bahamian environment in those days was not dissimilar to what we are experiencing today. Lotteries, albeit “illegal” were in full flight. I am sure, many of us can recall the names of Percy Munnings, Stokes Thompson, Gene Toote, and so on. The biggest change in this activity from yester years has been the introduction of sophisticated electronic technology/communication.
Lotteries are virtually a way of life in the United States today. There is much good work being done for the benefit of individual states and citizens.
I personally favour the formalization of Bahamian based lottery subject to certain hard and unbreakable conditions being applied.
Much revenue can be generated for so many worthy causes in our country.
One of the many comes to mind right now. Take a moment and read the article that appeared in The Tribune , Wednesday, July 25, 2012, headed “Bahamas National Youth Choir Accomplishes Great Feat.” They won two gold medals and one silver at the World Choir Games in Cincinnati – this in the face of economic challenges. The statement that caught my attention was, “The Choir Games are held every two years. However, the Choir will not be participating in 2014.” The strain of raising money creates too much pressure. The Government subsidy is welcomed, but insufficient. “Some of the costumes are rotting on the back of the girls, but they prefer to stitch them up and go out and perform.”
This should never be and there is a remedy right before us.
I do not believe that a referendum on this issue is necessary. Generally speaking, we all understand that life is enshrouded in some uncertainty. What happens should the referendum reject the “legalization” of the lottery? Does anyone believe that this so-called illegal gambling will stop? That cannot possibly be an expectation.
In my opinion, the Government should without delay lead and approve the “formalization” of the lottery and commence the process of developing a legal and functional framework for implementation.
Here are some early thoughts on some ingredients:
- Licences should be issued to each approved operator.
- Each applicant must withstand scrutiny. Any criminal history is cause for immediate disqualification.
- Limit licences to six applicants and with each licence a limit of six locations/cafes with online play being considered as a location.
- Control and regulation of lotteries could be a subset of the Gaming Board – new name: Gaming and Lotteries Board.
- The Board should comprise members without regard for political affiliation.
- Supervision by Board staff should include electronic access to all activities.
- Tax should be a minimum of 50 per cent of gross income with threshold minimum tax. This tax can be graduated upward based upon monthly income in aggregate to year to date.
- Licences can be issued for five years with an extension provision, but each licence holder (including all staff members) must be relicensed annually.
We simply must proceed to introduce a national lottery; delay will be to the neglect of many of our social institutions and our citizens particularly the young and unemployed.
Many thanks for your input and unlike others who have cared to comment, your specific proposals to ensure a workable Lottery system is implemented.
Like you, I wonder why there is such a furore over this issue. To my mind, it is a 'no-brainer' that merely requires someone with the chutzpah 'to make it so'! To put the issue to a national decision amounts to procrastination or as they say here in England, 'kicking the ball into the long grass'.
I agree with Mr.Farrington.Just implement the thing but then again the simple things in our country seem oh so hard for these politicians.I think they would just prefer to continue gouging business anyway.Its like the Montague ramp.for years it was held back because whoever it was thought they would lose the thirty votes of the people that were using it.If only they paid as much attention to fighting crime & getting the country a proper justice system as they do worrying about a non issue we might just get things done in this country. I guess Mr.Christie can form a committe to see if its ok to form another committee to see if its ok to form another one to do nothing all over again.
The Referendum on Gambling is the talk of the town.. Every faction in the country seems to know what is best for the country.. However, what we really have is a political side show, orchestrated by the government, where the public's attention is drawn away from the critical economic, financial and social issues that are facing our country today.. We see similar such tactics being used today in the United States where the current administration, which has no meaningful record of accomplishment to run on, has resorted to attack and smear tactics against their political opponents.. What works for them, works for us too..
You are so correct S3S, this tactic is a form of political procrastination which keeps the voter's minds off of the real issues of the day.. As Dennis so pointedly stated "implement the thing", but then politicians would have to address the creeping financial crisis that may be ahead of us.. Could it be that the politicians have no real idea of what our economy is potentially facing?? You be the judge..
喜欢
0
赠金笔