Countless studies regarding Indian gaming have come to the same conclusion: Indian gaming is definitely helping the economy.
In California
- More than 57,300 Californians employed by tribal gaming facilities
- Nearly $2 billion in wages and benefits
- Billions of dollars in overall economic activity
- More than 150,000 jobs created indirectly, generating billions more in wages and benefits
- Nearly $450 million in federal and state payroll taxes generated annually
- As mandated in the Tribal-State Compact, payments made by tribes to the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund, the Special Distribution Fund and the state's General Fund from 2000 to September 30, 2005 totaled $543.4 million
- Tribes also donate an estimated $70 million annually to local charities and community groups
Nationally
- More than 670,000 jobs created by tribal gaming operations
- In 2006 alone, Indian gaming provided $11 billion to federal and state governments through employment, income, sales and excise taxes, and revenue sharing agreements
- Tribes provided more than $100 million to local communities pursuant to tribal-state compacts
- Tribes gave an additional $150 million to local and national charitable organizations
- Tribal governments spent nearly $340 million to regulate Indian gaming, including more than $255 million on tribal regulation and $70 million to state gaming regulatory agencies
A comprehensive study conducted in 2003 looked at the economic dividends Indian gaming delivered for Riverside County, California:
- $2.4 billion in overall economic activity
- Total combined direct and indirect economic impact of tribal government gaming generated 54,677 jobs and $1.3 billion in payroll
- Total impact of tribal economic activities resulted in over $1.1 billion in purchases
- Tribal government gaming operations employed over 10,000 county residents
- Tribal government gaming operations generated $460 million in payroll
- Tribes purchased $330 million in goods and services from local suppliers
- Tribal government activities resulted in $124 million (directly), and $220 million (indirectly) in federal and state income and payroll taxes
All residents of the United States, including Indians, must pay federal income tax. On the state taxation level, however, there are caveats.
California Indians do not pay state income tax if they are “eligible” Indians, live on a reservation or Indian trust allotment, and work on the reservation or trust allotment. If they live or work off the reservation or trust allotment Indians must pay state income tax.
Indians pay real property tax on property owned off a reservation or trust allotment, but do not pay property tax on land or buildings built on reservation or trust allotment land. However, if a tribe or individual Indian owns the land “in fee” the property is subject to taxation.
Indians are not subject to fees and licenses that apply to buildings or activities that occur on reservations or trust allotments. Indians are exempt from paying vehicle license fees by legislation signed by Governor Gray Davis in 1999 if vehicles are used primarily on reservation land.
Indians pay sales tax on sales off reservation and trust allotment land, but are exempt from paying sales tax on most sales on reservations.
For example, in 2002 alone, Native Americans paid $4 billion in personal federal income taxes. In California, tribal government gaming generates more than $400 million in federal, state and local taxes each year.
It is important to remember that under federal law, tribal government gaming cannot be taxed like a business. The tribal governments own the facilities.
Like the California lottery, which does not pay taxes on its revenues because it is owned by the state, Indian casinos don’t pay taxes because tribal governments own them. Governments cannot tax other governments.
Gaming opponents want people to think that there is a direct link between Indian gaming and increased crime. In fact, research shows that the social problems in communities with casinos are no different than those in communities without casinos.
A 2007 Massachusetts study by the Middleboro Casino Gambling Study Committee cited a U.S. Department of Justice report that examined the effects of casino gaming on towns found that crime did not rise as a result of a casino.
A study issued in 2000 by the General Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress, found "no conclusive evidence on whether or not gambling caused increased social problems….”
A popular myth perpetuated by gambling opponents claims that the introduction of casinos causes a rise in street crime. However, recent studies refute this claim. Communities with casinos are just as safe as communities without casinos.
A 1997 study by Peter Reuter of the University of Maryland provided additional evidence refuting a causal linkage between crime and gaming. In his Report for the Greater Baltimore Committee, Reuter concluded the following: "In no case is there any evidence that casinos have had a major impact on the crime rates of towns or metropolitan areas in which they are located.”
In 2000, the Public Sector Gaming Study Commission reached similar conclusions, finding "no link between gambling, particularly casino-style gambling, and crime." In fact, the 2000 report recognized that casinos are more of a crime deterrent than an instigator. According to the report, " The security on the premises of gambling facilities, the multiple layers of regulatory control, and the economic and social benefits that gambling seems to offer to communities are effective deterrents to criminal activity.”
In fact, a Harvard University study done in 2001 found rates of certain crimes actually fell in areas surrounding tribal casinos. Plus, the US Department of Justice has found no evidence of an organized crime element in the Indian gaming industry after years of investigation.
Statements by law enforcement agents in gaming jurisdictions across the country also refute critics’ claims that gaming causes crime. Twenty-four sheriffs and chiefs of police submitted their findings to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC), stating there was no connection between gaming and crime in their jurisdictions.
As for the issue of decreased property values, there is little documented evidence supporting the argument that casinos cause reductions in property values.
As for the issue of decreased property values, there is little documented evidence supporting the argument that casinos cause reductions in property values.
Tribal governments are going to extraordinary lengths to protect the economic operations that support their people and employ hundreds of thousands of Americans. Nationwide, Tribal governments spent nearly $340 million to regulate Indian gaming, including more than $255 million on tribal regulation and $70 million to state gaming regulatory agencies.
Tribal government gaming is subject to more stringent regulation and security controls than any other type of gaming in the United States. The regulation of tribal gaming operations occurs at three distinct levels of government -- tribal, state and federal -- and includes oversight from the National Indian Gaming Commission and other federal agencies such as the U.S. Justice Department, the FBI, the IRS and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Tribal regulators are experienced law enforcement officers and professionals, such as former FBI agents, state SWAT team members, tribal police, and state regulators. Overall, there are some 3,350 tribal gaming regulators in force today.
Compacts between states and tribes give states some regulatory power over tribal government gaming, though IGRA recognizes that the federal government has primary responsibility for government-to-government relations with sovereign Indian nations.
The federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act clearly states that the majority of tribal government gaming revenue must go to:
• Tribal government operations or programs
• The general welfare of the Indian tribe and its members
• Promoting tribal economic development
• Donations to charitable organizations
• Helping fund operations of local government agencies
Investors receive only a small percentage of overall annual revenues from gaming operations as reimbursement for their investment.
Tribes thoroughly train their gaming employees to recognize the signs of compulsive or problem gambling and provide ongoing support to clientele, as well as to organizations offering assistance to problem gamblers and their loved ones. Overall, tribes throughout the country give tens of millions of dollars annually to problem gambling programs.
While some people assume that gambling disorders will increase if there is an expansion of gambling, the research indicates that this is not true. With commercial and Native American casinos operating in approximately 30 states, gambling participation rates doubling and consumer spending exceeding $40 billion annually, the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC) in 1999 determined that the 0.6 percent of pathological gamblers has remained the same.
Additionally, the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago completed the first-ever national (U.S.) survey on problem gambling prevalence in 1999. The study found that approximately 0.9 percent of the population exhibited problem gambling behavior.
Tribes must comply with National Environmental Policy Act guidelines when building and operating their facilities. They must submit comprehensive and exhaustive studies and documentation examining all environmental elements, including traffic, water, wastewater, wetlands, waterways, cultural resources, coastal zones, endangered species, environmental justice and socioeconomic conditions, that could be affected by the proposed facility.
In California, compacts negotiated and signed since 2003 also call for strict adherence to California Environmental Quality Act guidelines with the construction of any new gaming facility.
Tribes work diligently to minimize any and all foreseeable impacts. In an effort to be good neighbors, the vast majority of tribes goes directly to local communities and listens to their concerns and opinions before embarking on any course of action.
For landless tribes, the process is even more complex. Before a tribe can break ground, it must submit what is called a fee-to-trust application to the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs, which must meet the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations for land acquisitions, BIA policy manuals, and other applicable federal statutes.
The application is extremely comprehensive, and contains many elements including exhaustive environmental documentation, historical and regulatory paperwork, and other important items.
<TOP>