tomoki0kun’s diary

京都在住の現役大学生

今日のボヤキ 3/23

今日のボヤキ3/23

今日のボヤキは日本のカジノの合法化についてです。

カジノと聞いていいイメージを持つ人は少ないように思います。

治安の悪化や依存者の増加など悪影響ばかりが目立ちますが、それだけではないようです。

f:id:tomoki0kun:20220323201049j:image

https://toyokeizai.net/articles/-/536805

 

事業会社の撤退に関する条項によると、初期投資1兆0800億円、経済波及効果1兆5800億円(建設時)、1兆1400億円(運営)で、年間売り上げは5200億円(うちカジノ分4200億円)。大阪府・市は毎年740億円の納付金を受け取るほか、入場料収入320億円も得られ、120億円の税収も入る。構想段階と変わらぬバラ色の夢が完成予想図とともに描かれていたが、同時に発表された3者による基本協定の概要版には、これまで明らかになっていなかった重要な規定が記載されていた。

「基本協定の解除」の項目で、事業者は国から正式に認定を得た30日後に、協定を解除するかどうかを判断することができ、解除の場合、さらにその後の60日以内に通知すればよいとされていた。MGM、オリックスに加え大企業が出資する事業会社が設立され、計画も発表しているのだから、事業は当然完成し実施されるだろうと筆者は考えていたが、どうもそうとは限らないらしい。

解除の是非を検討する条件として、税務上の取り扱い、カジノ管理委員会規則、国際競争力、国際標準の確保 、土地・土壌に関する大阪市における適切な措置の実施等に加えて新型コロナウイルス感染症、国内外の観光需要の回復の見込みなどを挙げている。つまり日本政府が今後決めるルールや大阪府・市の対応に不満だったり、コロナ禍で「鎖国」状況が続いていたり、見込みほど観光客が呼び込めないなどと判断したりすれば、事業会社は「降りる」ことができるという話だ。

 

大阪IRの完成予想図を見てよみがえるのは、関西国際空港対岸の埋め立て地「りんくうタウン」のトラウマだ。結末は無残なものだった。大阪府が各企業と契約を交わす前にバブルが崩壊。日参していた企業の担当者は府庁に寄りつかなくなり、ほとんどの企業が撤退した。玄関口に立つりんくうゲートタワービルは、日本で3番目の高さを誇るもののバランスが悪い。ツインタワーでデザインされたのに、テナントが集まらず1棟しか建設されなかったためだ。建設した府の第3セクターは破綻した。

その後、造成地の土地代を大幅に値下げし、定期借地方式を取り入れるなどして30年かけて漸く完売した。しかし収支は1000億円を超える赤字となる見込みだ。

大規模な開発案件に名乗りを上げても、採算が合わないと判断すれば企業は撤退する。自治体や国がこれにからむと、場合によっては地域住民や国民の負担となる。大阪IRはどうか。

 

新たな財源としてのカジノは魅力的かもしれません。

確かに、依存者は増加するかもしれませんが、消費税等の市民に平等にかかる税金は負担額が一定のため、経済格差を生みやすい傾向にある。

一方、わかりやすい例だとたばこ税や酒税と同じ類で、どこまで税金を高くしても必要な人はお金を支払うため、財源は確保しやすいのではないでしょうか?

この面からみるとたばこや酒よりも動く金額が大きいため、行政にとってはプラスかもしれない。

しかし、最初に考えた治安の問題や、上記のりんくうの例を見ると、市民の生活の保証を確実にしなければいけない。また、その回収したお金が直接的にそのカジノ周辺の市民に還元されなければ納得はできないだろう。

このトレードオフの関係を説明して、すべての市民が納得することは難しいと思うが、企業と一緒で市民が行政の株主のような立場である以上、その過程を怠ってはいけないように思う。

 

 

English edition

 

Today's Blabbermouth

Today's blurb is about the legalization of casinos in Japan.

Few people seem to have a good image when they hear the word "casino.

The only thing that stands out is the negative effects, such as worsening public safety and an increase in the number of addicts, but that does not seem to be all.

https://toyokeizai.net/articles/-/536805

 


According to the provisions for withdrawal by the operating companies, the initial investment is 1.08 trillion yen, the economic ripple effect is 1.58 trillion yen (at construction) and 1.14 trillion yen (operation), and the annual sales are 520 billion yen (including 420 billion yen for the casino). Osaka Prefecture and City will receive 74 billion yen in annual payments, as well as 32 billion yen in admission fee income and 12 billion yen in tax revenue. While the dream was as rosy as it had been in the conception phase, the summary version of the basic agreement announced at the same time by the three parties contained an important provision that had not been made clear before.

In the section on "Cancellation of the Basic Agreement," it was stipulated that the operator could decide whether or not to cancel the agreement 30 days after receiving official approval from the government, and in the case of cancellation, the operator would be required to give notice within 60 days thereafter. The author had assumed that the project would be completed and implemented, but apparently, that is not always the case.

The conditions for considering whether or not to lift the ban include tax treatment, Casino Control Commission rules, international competitiveness, assurance of international standards, implementation of appropriate measures by Osaka City regarding land and soil, as well as new coronavirus infections and the expected recovery of tourism demand in Japan and abroad. In other words, if the Japanese government is dissatisfied with the rules and regulations to be set by the Osaka Prefectural and City governments, or if Osaka is still "closed" to the world due to the coronavirus, or if it is determined that it is not attracting as many tourists as expected, the companies can "get out of the game.

 


The finalized plan of the Osaka IR project brings back memories of the trauma of "Rinku Town," a landfill site on the opposite shore of Kansai International Airport. The end result was cruel. The bubble burst before Osaka Prefecture could sign contracts with the various companies. The people in charge of the companies who used to visit the prefectural government daily stopped coming to the prefectural office, and most of the companies withdrew from the area. The Rinku Gate Tower Building, which stands at the entrance to the city, is the third tallest building in Japan but is unbalanced. It was designed as twin towers, but only one was built because it failed to attract tenants. The prefectural government's third sector that built it went bankrupt.

After that, the cost of the land on which the project was built was drastically reduced and a fixed-term land lease system was adopted, and the project was finally sold out over 30 years. However, the company is expected to record a deficit of more than 100 billion yen in income and expenditures.

Even if a company comes forward with a large-scale development project, it will withdraw from the market if it determines that the project is unprofitable. When local governments and the national government get involved, in some cases the burden falls on local residents and the public. What about Osaka IR?

 


Casinos as a new source of revenue may be attractive.

Certainly, the number of dependent people may increase, but taxes that are equally imposed on citizens, such as consumption tax, tend to create economic disparities because the burden is fixed.

On the other hand, a simple example would be the same kind of tax as cigarette or liquor taxes, which are easy to finance because no matter how high the tax is, those who need it will pay for it.

From this aspect, it may be a plus for the government, since the amount of money to be moved is larger than that of cigarettes and alcohol.

However, the public safety issues we first considered and the above example of Rinku must ensure that the livelihood of citizens is guaranteed. In addition, it would not be satisfactory if the money collected is not directly returned to the citizens around that casino.

It would be difficult to explain this trade-off relationship and convince all citizens, but it seems to me that the process should not be neglected, as citizens are like shareholders of the government, along with corporations.