When Revenue Becomes the Point, We’ve Lost the Plot | Think Tank - Pennsylvania News Beep

Berks County District Attorney John Adams’ comments on skill machines highlight a recurring flaw in modern policymaking: The assumption that any untaxed activity represents lost government revenue waiting to be captured.

That premise is worth challenging. The role of government is not to maximize revenue, but to protect citizens’ rights, ensure fairness, and allow voluntary economic activity to flourish. When the conversation starts with how much money the state is “missing out on,” it risks treating citizens less like participants in a free society and more like sources of revenue.

There is also a notable inconsistency in the argument. Adams expresses concern over “unregulated” machines yet supports their continued use when they benefit nonprofits such as VFWs, fire halls, and social clubs. If these machines are acceptable in one setting, the issue is not their existence—but who is collecting the proceeds. That raises a deeper concern: Public policy should be grounded in consistent principles, not selective exceptions.

Reasonable regulation to prevent fraud or abuse is entirely appropriate. But regulating, or taxing, for the sake of expanding government revenue is a different matter altogether. A system that prioritizes revenue collection over fairness and consistency risks undermining both public trust and economic vitality.

A better question is not how much money the state could collect, but what level of oversight is truly necessary, and where restraint is warranted. Government serves its citizens best not by capturing every possible dollar, but by respecting the limits of its role.