Gambling Review White Paper update

A place to discuss anything.
Post Reply
User avatar
ShaunWhite
Posts: 9731
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am

Hepburn wrote:
Tue May 23, 2023 7:33 pm
Ok nice one so no deposits no problemo. :D
That's what I've heard off-the-record from BF and from a few others in the know. The way the regs are implemented is at the discretion of the operator, and they obviously don't want to lose customers so if they can interpret "losing" as being from your betting account or as "losing" money from your bank account by virtue of top-ups then I'm confident they'll choose the soft option. And as we all know that's the realisitic view and it passes the classic 'man on the Clapham omnibus*" test.

And as I've said before, if you give them a heads up if you're going to change you betting patterns significantly then it's easier for them to find a case for you if you get by an automated check later. Planned behaviour isn't a sign of it being problematic. They want this about as much as we do so it comes down to being proactive so they don't get a bollocking if we over-step what's 'normal' for most people. Like a step up from being +/-100 to being +/-1000 which would be a massive flag, but not if you said when and why it was happening.

* The man on the Clapham omnibus is a hypothetical ordinary and reasonable person, used by the courts in English law where it is necessary to decide whether a party has acted as a reasonable person would
User avatar
Derek27
Posts: 24077
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:44 am
Location: UK

ShaunWhite wrote:
Wed May 24, 2023 2:38 am

* The man on the Clapham omnibus is a hypothetical ordinary and reasonable person, used by the courts in English law where it is necessary to decide whether a party has acted as a reasonable person would
I prefer right-thinking member of society.

Ironically, they're supposed to agree with the majority over what's right and wrong but there are very few of them around. :)
User avatar
wearthefoxhat
Posts: 3247
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:55 am

If deposits are an issue for some, and the restriction is say £100 a month, just rebuild and refocus.

Deposit the allotted £100 each month and trade with it. Learn the discipline of protecting the bankroll, in 10 months, £1000+ and any profits accrued. If less than £1000, review previous results, and go again. In theory, you can continue addiing £100 a month indefinitely and compound.

When the bank reaches a certain point, drawdown a % each month until previous deposits are returned, then it's all gravy going forward.
Michael5482
Posts: 1322
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:11 pm

Having wrote to my MP and Government etc regarding my disagreement with the white paper I'm at the point where over the past month or so I've come to accept it.

Whilst frustrating the white paper is it's outside of my control but what I can do is find ways to adapt and attempt to circumnavigate it.

Like not depositing (I can't remember the last time I deposited anyway), maybe look to lower my stakes so if looses come in (which they do) the looses don't trigger any checks, (yes it may mean a lower P&L on the footy but I'm still in the game and that's the important thing), reviewing my credit score and look to enhance it, withdraw at the same time every week as a few examples to explore

Survival of the fittest n all that.
User avatar
LeTiss
Posts: 5433
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:04 pm

wearthefoxhat wrote:
Wed May 24, 2023 8:36 am
If deposits are an issue for some, and the restriction is say £100 a month, just rebuild and refocus.

Deposit the allotted £100 each month and trade with it. Learn the discipline of protecting the bankroll, in 10 months, £1000+ and any profits accrued. If less than £1000, review previous results, and go again. In theory, you can continue addiing £100 a month indefinitely and compound.

When the bank reaches a certain point, drawdown a % each month until previous deposits are returned, then it's all gravy going forward.
That's no good for full-time traders though.
It will stop some traders withdrawing sums purely for security reasons. Although, since 2-step authenticators were introduced, our money is more secure than it used to be
User avatar
LeTiss
Posts: 5433
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:04 pm

I worry that this review may identify to the government, individuals who earn a living from trading/betting

Rather than banning us, they may send us down the income tax route.
That will put Betfair's Premium Charge under pressure.....if they continue to charge traders PC, who then get charged additional income tax on what's left.....that will be game over for many, including me
User avatar
Naffman
Posts: 5692
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 5:46 am

LeTiss wrote:
Wed May 24, 2023 2:36 pm
I worry that this review may identify to the government, individuals who earn a living from trading/betting

Rather than banning us, they may send us down the income tax route.
That will put Betfair's Premium Charge under pressure.....if they continue to charge traders PC, who then get charged additional income tax on what's left.....that will be game over for many, including me
Betfair will never give away with PC, it’s become ingrained in their business model now
WisdomOfCrowds
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2021 2:55 pm

LeTiss wrote:
Wed May 24, 2023 2:36 pm
I worry that this review may identify to the government, individuals who earn a living from trading/betting

Rather than banning us, they may send us down the income tax route.
That will put Betfair's Premium Charge under pressure.....if they continue to charge traders PC, who then get charged additional income tax on what's left.....that will be game over for many, including me
I doubt the government would treat gambling profits as taxable income - although nothing can ever be ruled out with our parliamentarians. But if gambling profits were taxed, surely gambling losses would have to be tax deductable? They couldn't have one without the other, could they? I don't think they'd want to open that can of worms.
User avatar
Derek27
Posts: 24077
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:44 am
Location: UK

WisdomOfCrowds wrote:
Wed May 24, 2023 11:51 pm
LeTiss wrote:
Wed May 24, 2023 2:36 pm
I worry that this review may identify to the government, individuals who earn a living from trading/betting

Rather than banning us, they may send us down the income tax route.
That will put Betfair's Premium Charge under pressure.....if they continue to charge traders PC, who then get charged additional income tax on what's left.....that will be game over for many, including me
I doubt the government would treat gambling profits as taxable income - although nothing can ever be ruled out with our parliamentarians. But if gambling profits were taxed, surely gambling losses would have to be tax deductable? They couldn't have one without the other, could they? I don't think they'd want to open that can of worms.
Talking from memory, which is a bit sketchy, I believe there was a government review 5-8 years ago into taxing gamblers and they decided to tax the gambling operators instead. I didn't look into it any further but I just presumed the reasons would be what you've just described. Gambling is considered by many to be highly risky, they probably expect big winners to be claiming all their taxes back the next year.

They can't have it both ways by taxing profitable gamblers but having regulations that assume all gamblers lose and need protection.
User avatar
ShaunWhite
Posts: 9731
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am

Derek27 wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 12:18 am
. Gambling is considered by many to be highly risky, they probably expect big winners to be claiming all their taxes back the next year.
.
45% of new businesses don't make it past 5yrs, doesnt stop the HMRC having their cut in the good years. Losses can be used to offset future tax liability, there's never been any 'claiming it back' and being sent cheques unless you've overpaid. .... And financial day trading can be subject to CGT so the precident is there.

But I agree, I thought they'd looked at this recently already.
arbitrage16
Posts: 534
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2017 7:27 pm

Derek27 wrote:
Wed May 10, 2023 10:22 pm
WTF has culture got to do with sport? :lol:
Erm, everything? Sport is a huge part of the culture, for some countries it is the definining part of their culture.
User avatar
aperson
Posts: 206
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:23 pm

https://igamingbusiness.com/legal-compl ... ite-paper/

Looks like the first consultation is open. Does anyone know where to post a response?

The questions are a bit vague but I'm going to shoehorn in some comments I'd like to make as it's hard to know what questions they'll ask in the future.

Annoying it's during Wimbledon, don't have the time this week to give it my full attention.
User avatar
firlandsfarm
Posts: 2729
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:20 am

WisdomOfCrowds wrote:
Wed May 24, 2023 11:51 pm
I doubt the government would treat gambling profits as taxable income - although nothing can ever be ruled out with our parliamentarians. But if gambling profits were taxed, surely gambling losses would have to be tax deductable? They couldn't have one without the other, could they? I don't think they'd want to open that can of worms.
Well firstly WoC, yes they can have tax charged without tax relieving losses! Compare it to BTL arrangements. If you make a profit on your rents you pay tax but if you make a loss you cannot offset it against other income ... all you can do is accumulate the loss to offset against any future profit! And secondly, don't think of it as 'gambling profits' ... they will seek to treat it as 'trading profits' i.e. ordinary Jo who has a bet in his lunch break won't be affected but the definition of trading is to act with the intention of making a profit.

Compare the whole set-up with the tax position on selling a car. If you acquire the car to drive it and then sell it on any profit/loss will be outside the tax system but if you buy the car with a view to selling for a profit then you are trading and it falls within the tax system.

Another example would be your principal residence, any gain is tax free yes? No! There is such a thing as trading in your principal residence to catch those who buy a property, do it up and then sell for a profit. Do that too often and you could be taxed and not just from when they make that decision but also on past profits that gave rise to the decision! The position is well explained here .

Some may remember I posted on this a few years ago (viewtopic.php?p=151019#p151019). I believe it could be a very real threat and let's face it I don't see it being unpopular with the public.
WisdomOfCrowds
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2021 2:55 pm

If the government want to 'tax' betting/trading, the easiest way would be to revert back to how things were before Gordon Brown abolished betting tax. Every winning trade/bet would be liable to pay a contribution to the Exchequer. The Lib Dems are actually in favour of this presently.

Surely it would be too unwieldy for the government to require betting winnings to be declared on a tax return or for a Single Customer View type approach to include a submission to HMRC telling them about each individual's winning bets/trades?

Should we see the return of the previous 9% betting tax, we're all basically screwed.
User avatar
jamesedwards
Posts: 2535
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 6:16 pm

WisdomOfCrowds wrote:
Wed Jul 05, 2023 11:08 pm
If the government want to 'tax' betting/trading, the easiest way would be to revert back to how things were before Gordon Brown abolished betting tax. Every winning trade/bet would be liable to pay a contribution to the Exchequer. The Lib Dems are actually in favour of this presently.

Surely it would be too unwieldy for the government to require betting winnings to be declared on a tax return or for a Single Customer View type approach to include a submission to HMRC telling them about each individual's winning bets/trades?

Should we see the return of the previous 9% betting tax, we're all basically screwed.
The idea of this white paper trailing over into the next parliament scares me, and ideally this new legislation needs to be in place while there's still a Conservative government. They still carry the key underlying principle of free market, opportunity, and personal freedom. A Labour government with a more social responsibility agenda is more likely to tighten proposed restrictions still further IMO. Even worse is possible under a Lib Dem coalition.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion”