$20 raffle tickets for a shot at $1.4M house? State says no

Does anyone really give a crap what the Gambling Control Board says? They are a bunch of losers who have nothing better to do with their time than tinker around in other people's daily lives. What a bunch of a**-clowns.

In other states the way they do this is to have a "win a house" essay writing contest. There's an entry fee (same as the cost of the raffle ticket), and "in the event of a tie" the winner is chosen by a drawing. Surprise! All the entered essays are "judged" to be winners, and so who gets the house is decided by a drawing.

This was a bad idea from the start, but not because the Gambling Control Board said it was. My guess is a majority of the people who would have entered the raffle would not have been able to pay the approximately $30,000 property taxes on a $1.4 million dollar house. Oh, and the effect on your income taxes to all of a sudden "inherit" an asset that large.

That's $30,000 per year, mind you.

You'd still walk away with a profit eventually...sell it for 900,000, pay the taxes...even it you made 300,000 total on the entire deal...wouldn't you take it???

Eripsni wrote:

You'd still walk away with a profit eventually...sell it for 900,000, pay the taxes...even it you made 300,000 total on the entire deal...wouldn't you take it???

You've got to leave Good Luck alone.
Short sighted people need not apply.

Why Me wrote:

<quoted text>
You've got to leave Good Luck alone.
Short sighted people need not apply.

Usually in deals like this there is a clause in the contract stating you can't just up and sell the house for X number of years.

Short sighted? Realistic is more like it. You wouldn't even be able to take possession of the house until the necessary fees and taxes were paid.

Don't waste your time posting unless you have something valid to add.

You're wrong! If you won the house, you could put it up for sale for (say $800,00). It would be snapped up at that price and you'd still end up with $500,000 AFTER TAX, and no property taxes to worry about.

Good Luck wrote:

This was a bad idea from the start, but not because the Gambling Control Board said it was. My guess is a majority of the people who would have entered the raffle would not have been able to pay the approximately $30,000 property taxes on a $1.4 million dollar house. Oh, and the effect on your income taxes to all of a sudden "inherit" an asset that large.

I think this is a hell of an idea! Helping out all those charities when they are struggling is really what this is about as I read it. And, if I won a $1.4 million house; trust me, I'd find a way to solve the short-term challenge of taking possession or selling it to a person who could afford it.

What is the Gambling Control Board doing to help the non-profits in trouble? Isn't this what charitable gambling is all about?!

Have an Indian tribe do the raffle. They are exempt from state laws. i.e. the smoking ban

Too bad the gambling board wouldn't take a gamble on helping out all those charities. What's the worst that would happen? The reward was certainly worth the risk. Many non-profits will suffer or expire in the coming months becasue this Board refused to act.

if the state can't get a cut, then it cannot be allowed.

like the reverse situation for cigarettes.

Sounds like the $10 raffle tickets being sold at teh Megamall to win a Ferrari. Doesn't look exactly legal to me.

If the charities are struggling, look to the wisdom of the city councils, and of course the MN. State Legislature. The statewide anti-smoking ban has had a severe impact on charitable gambling.
If some guy who earns $50,000 a year won that house, he would pay gambling earnings, as well as whatever taxes might be due on the property. As to selling the house, can you say major slump in the real estate market? So, he sells it for $800,00 and makes $500,000 allegedly. He will still have to figure ways to continue to pay taxes on the increases in his income. It isn't all roses and sunshine when something like this is done.
Certainly we all would love to win a million, but there are caveats to it.
Don't anyone complain about the Indian casino's. The compact was written and approved under that fabulous Governor Perpich and Attorney General Hubert "Skippy" Humphrey....good DFL, little guy champions.

Glass Half Full, the Gambling Control Board is not responsible for making a charitable, non profit gambling operation profitable. That is up to the members of the organization who hold the license. They have to be willing to work at making that enterprise work. When a for profit business is struggling, the owner of the business has to change tactics, and go with the market.

press 2 for english wrote:

Have an Indian tribe do the raffle. They are exempt from state laws. i.e. the smoking ban

Yeah, sure, lets complain about the Indians, they got one thing oing for them, how dare they...

Just Sayin wrote:

Sounds like the $10 raffle tickets being sold at teh Megamall to win a Ferrari. Doesn't look exactly legal to me.

Hey? Where do I go to get one of those tickets? A Ferrari would look good in my garage.

Parnelli Jones wrote:

Glass Half Full, the Gambling Control Board is not responsible for making a charitable, non profit gambling operation profitable. That is up to the members of the organization who hold the license. They have to be willing to work at making that enterprise work. When a for profit business is struggling, the owner of the business has to change tactics, and go with the market.

Hey, Parnelli Jones, it sounds to me like the non-profit here did what a for-profit business would do. They got innovative, rather than lay people off! But they needed approval, so they requested the Gambling Control Board to let them implement this innovative idea. But, according to the Executive Director of the GCB, Barrett, who is quoted in the article as saying the Board was afraid that some legislators would ask them what they're doing (their answer could have been--we're enabling our State's non-profits to use an innovative way to raise money in a tough economic period.

What's wrong with that?

seems like another example of overregulation by people who are not even involved with the cause, true politics at its best...

Looks like a lot of people not willing to comply with current laws putting up a fuss. Talk to your local elected officials if you're unhappy about this.