Will the closure of Pay Day lenders in SD affect Video Lottery Revenue?

SouthDaCola-56-knudson-video-lotter

Most may tell you that they don’t take loans out from pay day lenders for gambling but for rent. Which is probably true, because what usually happens is they spend their paycheck on gambling then don’t have money over for rent.

It will be interesting to see if Video Lottery revenue goes down due to the fact people won’t be able to get quick cash. I suspect in the first year it will probably be around 15% percent, but I think within the 2nd year, you are going to see revenue way down due to the closure of pay day lenders.

Maybe it is time to eliminate VL once and for all?



9 comments ↓

#1 The D@ily Spin on 12.14.16 at 6:09 pm

Stopping private criminal enterprise was a big step. Similarly, the people could and should vote out video lottery. It seems there are fewer lottery places with fewer people. This could solve itself. Besides, if we vote it out, there will new taxes. Video lottery in Sioux Falls is a place for the homeless to get warm. Something the city doesn’t provide for.

#2 The Blogger Formerly Known as "Winston" on 12.14.16 at 9:13 pm

High interest credit cards, payday lending, and video lottery: Are you telling me that the Republican economic development plan and its tax schemes are beginning to collapse?

Instead of “trickle-down economics” in South Dakota we have been practicing “squeeze economics,” where the flow has come from the poor and the working poor, except that the juice is no more.

It is time to squeeze the affluent so that we can all flourish once again and uplift the masses from the beneath floor.

#3 l3wis on 12.14.16 at 9:21 pm

I support a state income tax, but that tax implementation would have to come with a sales tax total elimination and a property tax reduction and equality.

#4 Titleist on 12.14.16 at 9:25 pm

If VL was a “local option” SF would likely continue to vote against it and the rural parts of the state couldn’t keep voting to keep it because of the belief that the tax comes out of SF.

#5 l3wis on 12.14.16 at 9:28 pm

I have often suggested that the money made from VL (for the state) doesn’t cover the criminal/social costs for taxpayers.

Would love to see a legislative study (if our legislature wasn’t comprised of a bunch of hill billy, backwoods, dipshits) to see if VL revenue benefits the state.

#6 The Blogger Formerly Known as "Winston" on 12.14.16 at 9:47 pm

The Republicans would be opposed to this “study,” because it would cost money, that is how they try to marginalize everything that is a threat to their way of doing business and protecting the wealth class.

As far as a state income tax is concerned, we actually have one already, it is called the inherent low wage reality of this state. If there is going to be any talk or advancement of an income tax in this state, it must be set up as a surtax on income over $ 50,000 per single or $ 100,000 per couple.

Everyone in South Dakota should be required to submit their federal 1040 to the state revenue office for assessment, with the first 50,000/100,000 protected, but after that a percentage assessment would be assigned as needed….. Now, I know, I am dreaming to think that the “House of Lords” Republicans would ever pass such a measure in Pierre, but heck, it is Christmas time and a guy can at least ask Santa for anything, can’t he?

#7 The D@ily Spin on 12.15.16 at 9:04 am

South Dakota is known for no income tax. It’s what attracts people and business. Change would be counter productive, hard to implement, and hard to enforce. We don’t need another hundred employees in Pierre. Sales tax is comparable to other states. Keep it this rate. Please don’t talk tax. I was having a good day despite the cold.

The county and state deserve and spend well. My problem is city of Sioux Falls waste and corruption. We didn’t need an EC and Aquatics thing. There’s to much froo froo architectural planter type thing and monuments. Everything is bid rigged twice the price with executive kickbacks.

I order online and buy from Minnesota as much as possible. If others did, there might be some city controls. This week, the US Supreme Court ruled against tax collection for out of state sales. Perhaps we’ll finally get Uber.

Hint for the day: When it’s this cold and you snuggle with your mate who has emphysema, use a cuzy on the oxygen tank.

#8 The Blogger Formerly Known as "Winston" on 12.15.16 at 2:41 pm

Our dependency upon sales taxes is a house of cards thanks to e-commerce. Its days are numbered in terms of growth and dependency.

There are those who hope that the SCOTUS will address this issue with a new stance on the ability for states to enforce sales tax collections from companies outside their state, but such a hope, is first merely a hope, and second a twisted form of federalism which emboldens individual states to rule not only their homeland but beyond their boundaries as well, which seems to me to strike at the purpose and idea of states’ rights and less federalism (or outside control) to begin with, for most conservatives or those who always applaud such values.

#9 The Blogger Formerly Known as "Winston" on 12.15.16 at 3:33 pm

Here is what the SCOTUS actually did this week:

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/12/12/supreme-court-colorado-internet-sales-tax-law/

It did not rule on this matter, rather it allowed an Appeals Court decision to stand, which included allowing e-commerce businesses to just inform its customers about their own state’s sales tax requirements versus actually collecting them for the state(s).

The South Dakota law recently passed on this issue, however, requires the out-of-state e-commmerce businesses to collect the tax for the state. This reality has not been addressed, yet, by the SCOTUS, however.

Leave a Comment