On December 14, 1982, I defended, at Mackenzie University's Faculty of Law, the first PhD thesis in the legal field of that institution, with the presence of the university's dean, who will complete a century and a half of existence next year.
The chosen theme was the taxation of activities that are in the borderline between the legality and the illegality, in a broader view of conformation of the tax imposition norm as social rejection norm, because, in all geographic spaces and historical periods, the Citizens pay more than they owe to allow the state to provide public services and to benefit the privileges of the holders of power in their self-granted benefits and in the inherent corruption - to a lesser or greater extent - to those who exercise political command.
At the time, I tried to show that gambling taxation would be the best way to prevent criminals from taking all the money from illicit gambling — and also limit gambling trips. Thus, Brazilian money would not be lost in Uruguay, Paraguay, the United States, the Principality of Monaco, and other countries where gambling is permitted.
I argued, at the time, that when alcohol was banned in the United States, American "gangs" got rich at the expense of Prohibition, and the state lost money for not collecting taxes, as well as spent taxpayer resources to combat this crime, something immortalized for future generations with the cinematic work “The Untouchables”.
In addition to the ban on the private exploitation of gambling, there is a false morality, as it allows the sports lottery, the federal lottery, and horse betting. The possibility that the gaming activity will lead people to ruin can be seen even in horse racing, as recorded by the anthological tango that Al Pacino dances in the movie “Women Perfume”, entitled “Por una Cabeza”. To conquer a woman, the character of the song bets everything on a horse — and loses the woman and the fortune, because her animal does not win the race for the difference of a head.
I understood and understand that we legalized the game in Brazil with: 1 - heavier taxation on those who like to play; 2 - rigid control over players, to gauge contributory ability and age; 3 - police surveillance; and 4 - definition of proper cities for gaming tourism, as occurs in Monte Carlo. We would therefore no longer be permissive with the diversion of Brazilian money to other countries.
We would also remove “gangsterism” from the control of clandestine gambling in the country and obtain greater revenue for the state, money that today is also destined for those who criminally exploit such activities without any benefit to the people and the state.
In my thesis, I suggested that such tax resources be earmarked for the calamitous Brazilian prison system, today a true school of crime, and not for the rehabilitation of the miscreant to return to society, as the penitentiary science specialists idealized.
The antidote to the poison of snakes is taken from their own to save the lives of those who have been bitten by them. Thus I advocated, at the time, the release of gaming under strict control and high taxation.
My answer to the above question, for the reasons given above, is that I am in favor of opening up gambling in the country under the above conditions.
IVES GANDRA DA SILVA MARTINS
President of the Superior Council of Law of Fecomercio-SP, lawyer and emeritus professor at Mackenzie University, Army Command and General Staff School and War College.
Source: Folha de S.Paulo
