Nevada Governor Candidate Alexis Hill Calls for Higher Casino Taxes, Targeting State’s 6.75% Rate

Democratic Nevada gubernatorial candidate Alexis Hill is calling for a higher casino tax rate in the state, placing her squarely at odds with the state’s dominant gaming industry as she mounts an uphill primary campaign. Hill, a Washoe County commissioner, has argued that Nevada’s 6.75 percent gaming tax rate is the lowest in the nation and that major casino companies should pay a greater share to fund public services.

Hill told the Nevada Independent that she would work to raise the gaming tax rate if elected, though she did not specify an exact target. She framed the proposal as part of a broader tax reform agenda aimed at making corporations and billionaires pay what she characterized as their fair share, while providing more support for working-class Nevadans and small businesses.

The Policy and the Politics

Nevada’s current 6.75 percent tax on gross gaming revenue is indeed the lowest statewide rate among major gaming jurisdictions in the country. For comparison, Pennsylvania taxes casino gaming revenue at 54 percent for slot machines, New Jersey at roughly 15 percent on table games and 15 percent on slots, and Illinois at 15 percent to 50 percent depending on the operator’s revenue level. Nevada’s comparatively low rate reflects the state’s historic relationship with the gaming industry, which has long been the dominant driver of its economy and tax base.

The Las Vegas Strip’s major casino operators, including MGM Resorts, Caesars Entertainment, and Wynn Resorts, have significant lobbying power in the Nevada Legislature and have successfully resisted attempts to substantially raise gaming taxes for decades. Hill’s proposal is politically ambitious given that context, though Nevada’s budget situation and the gaming industry’s strong recent revenues have given tax advocates new arguments to make.

Nevada casinos posted an all-time monthly revenue record in April, with the state’s commercial properties collectively generating $1.3 billion, driven in part by a 20 percent surge in baccarat play on the Las Vegas Strip. That record performance may make the industry’s resistance to tax increases harder to sustain publicly, even as operators argue that low taxes enable the investment that drives tourism and employment.

Context and Implications

Hill’s campaign is considered a long shot in the Democratic primary against better-funded and better-connected opponents, meaning her gaming tax proposal is unlikely to become policy in the near term. But the debate she is elevating reflects a broader national trend of states reconsidering the financial terms under which they allow gambling.

Illinois raised its sports betting tax rate significantly last year. North Carolina is actively negotiating an increase to its sports betting levy. Several states are looking at gaming revenues as part of solutions to structural budget gaps. In Nevada, the question of whether the state is leaving money on the table by taxing its core industry at relatively low rates is gaining traction even among observers who are skeptical of Hill’s specific proposals.

For the casino industry, the political environment is worth watching regardless of how any individual race resolves. The accumulation of state-level proposals to raise gaming taxes, across multiple jurisdictions and multiple formats, signals a shifting calculus among lawmakers about the appropriate balance between industry growth incentives and public revenue generation.