Ok - I live in California, and In the S.F. Bay are on top of that. Having said that I think I am in one of the smallest minorities out here. I am a white republican male. I am writing this, because we have a proposition out here that is really starting to get me riled up, regarding Indian gamming. 

 It seams that yet again the white man is out to screw the Indian's, Claiming this time that they are not "paying there fair share" - Oh my god. Ok lets see here, we have consistently changed the size of their reservations - if not moved them all together. The land that we do tell them they can have, is (in most cases) desolate, barren, and way the hell out of the way. Now we already stipulate what kind of games they can have, how many machines they can have, and they have to negotiate a lease ( typically 99 years). Now the Indians want to branch out and put casino's on land that "isn't reservation land". The land would be purchased by private funds, and taxed. I believe just sales tax, And I am not sure if they would pay property tax every year. Anyway, we have two conflicting ballot propositions in the mix for the vote, coming up in November. Here are what the say:

Proposition 68

Proposition 68 essentially makes this proposition to the gaming tribes: pay 25% of your "net win" to the state or lose your monopoly on casino-style gambling. "Net win" is the take from all slot machines after prizes are paid out, not including operational expenses. Tribal casinos in Connecticut and New York pay up to 25% in their respective states, and Proposition 68 backers view 25% as a "fair share." The tribes would also have to comply with state laws on environmental protection, gambling regulation, and political campaign contributions.

If Proposition 68 passes, California's 64 gaming tribes (those with tribal compacts) would have 90 days to agree to the 25% charge. If even one dissented, the tribal gaming monopoly would end, and casino-style gambling would be open to card clubs and racetracks.

If casino-style gambling were enabled in card clubs and racetracks, they could install up to 30,000 slot machines. Card clubs would pay 30% of the net win to the state and between 1% and 2% to the county and city hosting the casino. Racetracks would pay an additional 20% into a fund to benefit the horse racing industry.

In both monopoly and non-monopoly scenarios, the net win revenue would go to a new Gaming Revenue Trust Fund, and the bulk of it would be redistributed to local governments throughout the state for additional child protective, police, and firefighting services. Net win revenue could be over $1 billion in either scenario, according to the Legislative Analyst.

Proposition 68 proponents say that the gaming tribes consume public services, but pay almost nothing in taxes from casino income, and that in return for their slot machine monopoly, the tribes should pay taxes on a par with gaming tribes in other states. If the tribes are unwilling to do so, proponents contend, the monopoly should end, and card clubs and racetracks should have the option of offering slot machines too.

The official ballot argument against Proposition 68 contends that the proposition is "really a deceptive attempt to change California’s
Constitution to create huge Las Vegas-size commercial casinos on non-Indian lands throughout California." Opponents also object that almost none of the net win revenue would go to the state, and that because Proposition 68 would negate the current gaming compacts, the state would suffer a substantial revenue loss. Opponents claim that the compacts negotiated by Governor are a better deal for the gaming tribes and California taxpayers.

Proposition 70

Essentially, Proposition 70 would:

• Continue the tribal gaming monopoly, with no limits on the number of machines, facilities, or types of games on Indian land. Casinos could offer roulette and craps (currently forbidden), and have any number of slot machines.
• Tax Indian gaming income at the state corporate tax rate, currently 8.84%, and waive most other state and local taxes and fees on tribal gambling activities.
• Require the governor to negotiate new 99-year compacts at a gaming tribe's request. Existing compacts expire in 2020 or 2030.
• Require gaming tribes to prepare environmental impact studies for new and expanded casinos.

The Legislative Analyst says the amount the state would receive in gaming revenue from Proposition 70 is uncertain, and tribal payments to local governments would be reduced by millions of dollars annually.

Proposition 70 supporters say that the state should treat tribal gambling operations as it would any other business, and tax them the same way. It is not fair, they maintain, to burden the gaming tribes with alleviating the state's budget difficulties, as Governor Schwarzenegger has attempted to do with his renegotiated compacts. Proponents note that, unlike Proposition 68, Proposition 70 restricts tribal gambling operations to Indian lands.

Proposition 70 opponents contend that its monopoly status makes tribal gaming unlike other businesses, and that the fiscal relations between gaming tribes and state and local governments are best governed by the compacts negotiated by the governor. Proposition 70, opponents say, is a tax giveaway to the gaming tribes and an open door to an unprecedented expansion of gambling operations in the state. Opponents also object to the lack of an auditing requirement for independently confirming taxable gaming income, and criticize the 99-year compact provision as too long.

Excerpts taken from - - http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/library/htProps68&70TribalGaming.html

official ballot text -- in .PDF format can be viewed here:

Proposition 68:

Text
Legislative Analysis and Ballot Arguments
Campaign Finance

Proposition 70:

Text
Legislative Analysis and Ballot Arguments
Campaign Finance

 

I guess I think we should give the Indian tribes something back (maybe not the national debt) but, they deserve some recompense for the Hundreds of years of persecution we have given them (as a whole). I think that should not have to pay taxes that everyone wants them to pay. So what if California is in dire striates, and it looks as if he tribes stand to earn a substantial amount of money. Were have we been with money for the Indians when times were good - did we (government) give them any more, because we could afford it, No, and now we want the tribes to bail us out of our financial woes. I don't think that is "Fair"