Gambling Review White Paper update

[ShaunWhite]

Ok nice one so no deposits no problemo.

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

[Derek27]

* 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.

[wearthefoxhat]

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]

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.

[LeTiss]

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

[LeTiss]

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

[Naffman]

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]

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.

[Derek27]

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.

[ShaunWhite]

. 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]

WTF has culture got to do with sport?

Erm, everything? Sport is a huge part of the culture, for some countries it is the definining part of their culture.