Pennsylvania Senator Chris Gebhard has introduced a new bill proposing a 35% tax rate on skill games, aiming to resolve the ongoing debate surrounding these controversial devices in the state.
Key Takeaways:
- Senate Bill 756 suggests a 35% tax rate as a middle ground for skill game regulation
- The proposal seeks to establish oversight by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board
- Stakeholders remain divided, with concerns about the impact on casinos and small businesses
A Compromise in the Skill Game Debate
Sen. Chris Gebhard’s Senate Bill 756 represents the latest attempt to address the contentious issue of skill-based gaming machines in Pennsylvania. These devices, which occupy a legal gray area due to their similarity to slot machines, have been a source of controversy for years.
The proposed legislation aims to create a regulatory framework for the thousands of unregulated skill games currently operating across the state. Under the bill, the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board would oversee these devices, imposing a 35% revenue tax.
Gebhard’s proposal positions itself as a compromise between competing bills. Governor Josh Shapiro’s budget plan called for a 52% tax rate, while Senator Gene Yaw’s Senate Bill 706 suggested a more modest 16% levy.
Balancing Act: Revenue vs. Business Viability
The 35% tax rate is designed to generate substantial revenue for the state without driving skill game operators out of business. Gebhard emphasized that this figure is not final, stating, “We have a long way to go before we get to wherever we’re going to settle.”
However, the proposal has faced criticism from various quarters. Casino stakeholders argue for stricter controls and higher taxes, claiming that skill games enjoy the benefits of gambling operations without facing the same regulatory scrutiny. On the other hand, small business advocates worry that a 35% tax could erode already thin profit margins.
Legal Uncertainty Looms
Complicating matters further is an impending Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision on the legality of skill games. This ruling could potentially reshape the entire debate, either legitimizing the current unregulated market or necessitating a complete legislative overhaul.
Despite the legal ambiguity, companies like Pace-O-Matic (POM) continue to push for regulation. They argue that official approval would allow the state to benefit from tax revenue while eliminating illegal machines.
Impact on Local Businesses
Some small business owners have voiced support for skill games, crediting them with helping to keep their operations afloat. Geeta Patel, owner of Roxborough News Shop, stated, “Because of skill games, we were able to retain our employees and stay in business, continuing to serve our community.”
As Pennsylvania lawmakers work to broker a budget deal in the coming weeks, it remains to be seen whether Gebhard’s middle-ground approach can break the impasse and provide a resolution to the skill game controversy.
