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.
I understand your political characterisations James but Tories aren't Tories anymore and Labour aren't Socialist anymore so fck knows what anyone will do.
I'd settle for either true Labour, fighting for the freedom for a blue collar worker to have a bet. Maybe even forcing big-business bookies to take bets from us the downtrodden proletariat. Or.... true Tory giving people financial freedom to try and prosper in a free market. Sadly I think we'll have nannying and taxing whoever gets in because it's about focus groups not ideology.
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 reason GB abolished the Betting Tax was because the major bookmakers said they would all move their business offshore (Gibraltar) and go online only to avoid the tax. The thought of all those job losses and the death of the small local betting shops that could not compete was unacceptable.
See my post above re bet trading, it would not be unwieldy ... trading can only take place on an exchange so they would just need to set a definition for trading and require the exchanges to supply details of any customer meeting the definition ... just as the banks do now for interest bearing accounts. I could design a workable system this weekend!
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.
An over-arching problem is that the only tax that may be popular with the general public is a 'betting tax'. This probably won't be lost on any of the three main parties at the next General Election.
I agree with your general summary regarding the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems. The Tories are hypocrites. They claim the individual knows how to best spend their money... except for gambling. Labour will want to impose something stricter and the Lib Dems would be a nightmare.
Should we see the return of the previous 9% betting tax, we're all basically screwed.
There were professional gamblers when there was the 9% tax and you could only bet at the 30% overround bookies. You won't be screwed but you might need to be better.
But on income tax vs a VAT style betting tax, if someone earns a steady six figures a year for a decade then there's no moral argument for not being taxed. And why should a bookie laying bets from a pitch at Ascot be taxed but not someone sitting at home doing it? A flat tax would be bad for the industry but if a few pros quit because they can't afford the income tax than nobody will even notice
We don't directly create employment opportunities, we don't provide a service to the public, we don't contribute to the tax system other than via Betfair's tax liability, we're parasites.
We don't directly create employment opportunities, we don't provide a service to the public, we don't contribute to the tax system other than via Betfair's tax liability, we're parasites.
Not exactly true. A professional trader is very likely to be a net positive tax contributor. They contribute a significant proportion of Betfair's profit (which in turn is used to fund salaries, sports investment, and corporation tax etc). They pay 20% VAT on most spending. Then there's Council Tax, Road Tax, Insurance Tax, Interest and other Investment Taxes - and all this while paying their own way and very unlikely to be claiming any benefits etc.
We don't directly create employment opportunities, we don't provide a service to the public, we don't contribute to the tax system other than via Betfair's tax liability, we're parasites.
Not exactly true. A professional trader is very likely to be a net positive tax contributor. They contribute a significant proportion of Betfair's profit (which in turn is used to fund salaries, sports investment, and corporation tax etc). They pay 20% VAT on most spending. Then there's Council Tax, Road Tax, Insurance Tax, Interest and other Investment Taxes - and all this while paying their own way and very unlikely to be claiming any benefits etc.
That's just the unavoidable tax on spending everyone pays not just professional gamblers, even children and benefit claimants like pensioners pay VAT. But most people on a good regular wage also contribute when they earn it. I'm just from a place and a time where people with pockets full of money that haven't paid any tax were seen as scroungers, even if they spent it.
.
It's not about the taxes you pay it's about the ones you don't. The classic question is do you pay more tax than your cleaner.
Should we see the return of the previous 9% betting tax, we're all basically screwed.
There were professional gamblers when there was the 9% tax and you could only bet at the 30% overround bookies. You won't be screwed but you might need to be better.
On-course betting tax was abolished in March 1987 by then Chancellor Nigel Lawson. I was betting full-time on course from the late 1980s through to the end of the 1990s. Had 9% tax been payable, I wouldn't have been able to make a living from it.
If a 9% tax was introduced now, there'd be too much work for too little profit. Sadly, I reckon I'd have to call it a day.
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.
We don't directly create employment opportunities, we don't provide a service to the public, we don't contribute to the tax system other than via Betfair's tax liability, we're parasites.
Not exactly true. A professional trader is very likely to be a net positive tax contributor. They contribute a significant proportion of Betfair's profit (which in turn is used to fund salaries, sports investment, and corporation tax etc). They pay 20% VAT on most spending. Then there's Council Tax, Road Tax, Insurance Tax, Interest and other Investment Taxes - and all this while paying their own way and very unlikely to be claiming any benefits etc.
So when I spend my money be it at the local supermarket, a pub/restaurant, fill my car with petrol etc. I am contributing to that suppliers profits and in turn funding the supplier's tax thereon and the staff salaries (on which they pay tax) etc. Hey, does that mean I don't have to pay Income Tax on my pension etc.? I agree with Shaun.
So when I spend my money be it at the local supermarket, a pub/restaurant, fill my car with petrol etc. I am contributing to that suppliers profits and in turn funding the supplier's tax thereon and the staff salaries (on which they pay tax) etc.
Extract from Today's Racing Post 31.7.23, written by editor Tom Kerr:
If you, like tens of thousands of other Racing Post readers, regard the very notion of affordability checks as an affront, then the British government’s white paper issued in April was a decidedly mixed bag, enshrining the loathsome checks as official policy but at least promising to moderate their impact on ordinary bettors.
Gambling minister Stuart Andrew even appeared in these pages in June to reassure Racing Post readers that the proposals for affordability checks were proportionate, necessary and would have a "minimal" impact on the sport. Most importantly, he stated, most punters would never realise the checks were even happening, echoing the white paper in claiming that they would be "completely frictionless".
Last week we discovered the reality. The Gambling Commission’s detailed proposals for affordability checks, published in its consultation document and apparently agreed with the Department for Culture, Media & Sport, reveal a lack of betting knowledge and an unmistakable (though potentially unconscious) contempt for those who choose to bet.
The most charitable thing that may be said for the government is that it might be unaware just how offensive, meddlesome and damaging the Gambling Commission's proposals will be. So let me explain.
There are three deeply objectionable elements to the regulator's new proposals. The first relates to the frequency with which the most intrusive affordability checks, which will be triggered at a spend of £1,000 in 24 hours or £2,000 in 90 days, will be required.
Now redubbed 'enhanced financial risk assessments', these checks will be carried out as often as every six months. The theory here is that financial circumstances change, and so checks must be periodically rerun to ensure gamblers have not fallen into the abyss.
Allow that to sink in. When you purchase a car on credit, does the dealership come round again after six months to check your payslips again? When you take out a mortgage, does the lender demand biannual bank statements to ensure you are not spending beyond your means? And yet to bet – with your own money! – the government proposes you should be subjected to these checks.
It also begs the question of who the Gambling Commission believes this measure will protect. What tiny percentage of a percentage of gambling harm is suffered by those who were sound in June, ruined by December and unable to sensibly adjust their own betting behaviour as a consequence?
It is hard to comprehend that there might be anything more revealing of the regulator's disdain for bettors than this measure, which suggests it believes we are so inevitably prone to life-ruining irresponsibility that only biannual financial audits will suffice, and yet there is worse.
Next is its attitude to winnings, which has been covered extensively already in this newspaper, including by Lee Mottershead on Monday. In brief, the regulator proposes ignoring for the purposes of calculating net loss positions winnings won more than seven days ago for the £1,000 threshold, or 90 days for the £2,000 one.
Explaining this in the consultation document, the commission states "a big win a number of years ago may well not have any bearing on risk now". Then, without any attempt at explanation, it makes the leap to determining the time period in which winnings can be considered winnings should not be years, or 12 months, but one week.
This is yet more evidence the Gambling Commission does not understand betting – the proposals could sound the death knell for exchange betting, with its reliance on high turnover market makers – but its more sinister implication is the further contempt it reveals for gamblers, suggesting that the period in which we can – on balance – just about be trusted not to entirely fritter away a big win is 168 hours.
All the above might almost be acceptable if affordability checks were truly "frictionless", but the consultation admits the truth in its third, and worst, objectionable aspect. To conduct checks, operators will first seek "income and expenditure data, such as current account turnover" from credit reference agencies. 'Current account turnover', or Cato, is an existing data set provided by banks to credit agencies, and as the name suggests offers information about incoming and outgoing sums in your bank account. It is already used by lenders to assess affordability.
For those with a regular income source like a salary this may just offer the fabled "frictionless" experience. But for those without – such as the self-employed, retired, company directors, the independently wealthy and pro punters – a system that ignores savings, investments or irregular income simply will not work. For this vast cohort, it appears there is no route to frictionless checks.
This then is the true form of the government's affordability checks strategy: a bouncer on your own bank account, prying into your financial affairs twice yearly to check you haven’t succumbed to state-proscribed irresponsibility, ignoring anything but the most recent winnings, and for many racing punters leaving no choice to comply but to submit sensitive financial documents to bookmakers.
The glimmer of hope in this dismal picture is that the Gambling Commission's proposals are only that: proposals, put out to public consultation for the next two and a half months. As such, everyone who bets, cares for the future of racing, or believes the rights of the individual to reasonable privacy and freedom are worth protecting must respond to the consultation and make their views clear. It is no exaggeration to say the future of betting as we know it – and the racing industry which relies on it – is at stake.
Thanks for that WofC. I would suggest everyone copies it to their MP asking for their comments on the issues raised. I will be. The only issue I would raise is that yet again there seems to be no understanding of the difference between betting and gambling. I see gambling is to wager on the outcome of a game of chance ... roulette, blackjack etc. whereas betting is where there is an element of assessment, a judgement ... football, horse racing etc. Do we not say "that's a bit of a gamble"! It's a lesson the Gambling Commission needs to learn.
Yes write to your MP, the Gambling Commission, complete all the calls for evidence and surveys from the Government & GC. Everything you can.
They really are waging a war on gambling and intent on classing everyone as a gambling addict.
You have to ask do we really live in a free society when your personal and financial data is about to be intrusively searched on a regular basis to enable you to enjoy something which for millions is nothing more than a past time.
"In brief, the regulator proposes ignoring for the purposes of calculating net loss positions winnings won more than seven days ago for the £1,000 threshold, or 90 days for the £2,000 one."
It's just a proposal at the moment. Having watch so many things go through parliament, I can not stress enough that if you are vocal enough and make strong enough arguments much will change between now and any law, if it happens.
