Poker as a Revenue Source for Governments

lol

Honestly, poker is probably bad for a country, overall. I mean, yeah the government can make some tax money off of it, but so many hours are spent doing nothing but playing poker. If people used that time to work a normal job instead, they'd actually be producing stuff and growing the economy, which would give a lot more tax money to the government.

On May 21 2009 13:17 luddite wrote: Honestly, poker is probably bad for a country, overall. I mean, yeah the government can make some tax money off of it, but so many hours are spent doing nothing but playing poker. If people used that time to work a normal job instead, they'd actually be producing stuff and growing the economy, which would give a lot more tax money to the government.

LOL
LOLOLOLOL
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I really hope this is a level, cause otherwise you're retarded.

On May 21 2009 14:01 Kapol wrote: Show nested quote + On May 21 2009 13:17 luddite wrote: Honestly, poker is probably bad for a country, overall. I mean, yeah the government can make some tax money off of it, but so many hours are spent doing nothing but playing poker. If people used that time to work a normal job instead, they'd actually be producing stuff and growing the economy, which would give a lot more tax money to the government. LOL LOLOLOLOL LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL I really hope this is a level, cause otherwise you're retarded.

Why would he be retarded? Don't you think that if Humans didn't have ancient desires for having role models, adrenaline and impersonation than the society as a whole would be much more productive?

No Sports, Arts, Gambling, retarded celebrities and other non-productive activities would make the productive capabilities so much higher (Although the said desires are in fact inseparable from humans as they make us human )



And as to the OP, Government in democratic countries are not there to Maximise Economic Utility, they are there to gain popularity and get re-elected

On May 21 2009 14:51 LemOn[5thF] wrote: [ And as to the OP, Government in democratic countries are not there to Maximise Economic Utility, they are there to gain popularity and get re-elected

On May 21 2009 14:01 Kapol wrote: Show nested quote + On May 21 2009 13:17 luddite wrote: Honestly, poker is probably bad for a country, overall. I mean, yeah the government can make some tax money off of it, but so many hours are spent doing nothing but playing poker. If people used that time to work a normal job instead, they'd actually be producing stuff and growing the economy, which would give a lot more tax money to the government. LOL LOLOLOLOL LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL I really hope this is a level, cause otherwise you're retarded.

no, i just understand basic economics. Apparently you don't, because you spent all your time playing poker instead.

One might reasonably argue that it would be good for the country if we did something more productive than poker. However, I would be most happy if everyone could just do what he likes, whether luddite thinks that is productive or not. In that sense, I think poker is good for the country, because it is making a lot of people very happy. You cannot base an opinion on this on "basic economics". This is an idealistic opinion along similar lines to the egalitarianism versus diversity debate.

Using the amount of tax money that goes to the government as a measure of how good something is for the country is not basic economics either. It is, in fact, retarded.

On May 21 2009 16:37 luddite wrote: Show nested quote + On May 21 2009 14:01 Kapol wrote:   On May 21 2009 13:17 luddite wrote: Honestly, poker is probably bad for a country, overall. I mean, yeah the government can make some tax money off of it, but so many hours are spent doing nothing but playing poker. If people used that time to work a normal job instead, they'd actually be producing stuff and growing the economy, which would give a lot more tax money to the government. LOL LOLOLOLOL LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL I really hope this is a level, cause otherwise you're retarded. no, i just understand basic economics. Apparently you don't, because you spent all your time playing poker instead.

well your original post was funny because by looking at poker from that point of view would mean that any kind of entertainment (watching tv, videogames, sports, etc.) is wasteful and that time could be spent growing the economy.

SO STOP POSTING ON THE INTERNET AND GO PLANT SOME CROPS

Well, you can still object to making money by playing poker, because that removes a natural incentive for you to be productive. Play money poker for entertainment would eventually force you to "get a real job."

New law: 100% tax on any non-productive activity. Anyone in favor?

anyway If poker is ever taxed, they should add back the rake paid before calculating the tax payable amount

On May 21 2009 16:58 Fudyann wrote: One might reasonably argue that it would be good for the country if we did something more productive than poker. However, I would be most happy if everyone could just do what he likes, whether luddite thinks that is productive or not. In that sense, I think poker is good for the country, because it is making a lot of people very happy. You cannot base an opinion on this on "basic economics". This is an idealistic opinion along similar lines to the egalitarianism versus diversity debate. Using the amount of tax money that goes to the government as a measure of how good something is for the country is not basic economics either. It is, in fact, retarded.

Not saying it should be banned. I agree, it's fun and should be allowed. I'm just saying that it will never be a revenue source for a country (unless you're talking about a small tourist country like monaco). The article in the OP was saying that Bulgaria's government was hoping it would provide a stream of revenue for the country, and that's impossible.