The Macau SAR Chief Executive, Ho Iat Seng, has estimated that the city’s total gross gaming revenues (GGR) could reach as much as MOP180 billion ($22.3 billion) in 2023.
The city’s top official made the comments while answering questions by legislators at the Legislative Assembly special session held on Friday, in response to inquiries concerning the continuing austerity measures left over from the pandemic and still being implemented by the administration.
During the session, the CE commented that he anticipated there would still be a budget deficit next year, even if the revenue from gaming taxes amounts to MOP200 billion ($24.8 billion), stating that the local budget deficit would persist unless gaming taxes reach MOP230 billion ($28.5 billion), the figure required to balance the government’s income and expenditure.
Macau authorities collected as much as MOP26.7 billion ($3.3 billion) in taxes from casino operations in the first half of 2023, a more than two-fold increase from the same period of last year. This amount represents 52.7 per cent of projections made by the local government for gaming tax income in the whole year of this year.
Meanwhile, the first-half total gross gaming revenue already amounted to MOP96.8 billion ($12 billion), or 61 per cent of the government’s full-year forecast of MOP130 billion ($16.1 billion). This figure also represented only 55.6 percent of the pre-pandemic volume reported in 2019.
During the AL session, legislator Agnes Lam expressed concerns over the government’s continuing austerity measures in recent years, urging various departments to reduce or refrain from increasing their budgets, and questioning the CE whether the government will ensure a reasonable fiscal budget to support livelihood benefits and various social services.
According to Ho, the Macau’s government has essential annual expenditures of at least around MOP100 billion ($12.38 billion) with gaming taxes making up most of the public income.
However, he clarified that the government is requesting a 5 percent reduction in departmental expenses but would not cut a single cent from legally-mandated livelihood benefits, such as education and medical expenses.
