Government saves over £70 million in gambling crackdown

Fixed-Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) used to have a maximum gambling limit of £100 per play, until a £2 limit was enforced this April. These machines are effectively digital roulette, and with all the sparkly lights and stuff have the potential to become very addicting.

Good news though, the limiting of the stake to £2 is estimated to save addicts "on an annualised basis of approximately £70-100m" from just William Hill alone. It will also lead to the closure of 700 to 900 William Hill shops, most likely those in areas where the public aren't that interested in gambling but there are young addicts just playing the machines. The impact is even greater when you factor in the other gambling shops, but they haven't complained today.

Tom Blenkinsop makes a good point that online gambling is still increasing, and I'm sure we've all seen it creep into games with payments for a chance at rare items etc.

What do you think? Do you welcome this news, or should it go further into the online world? Perhaps you work for a gambling company and wish you could profit more from some addict by letting them burn even more money each play?

Reply 1

z-hog

For some reason gambling was and still is prohibited within the religious sphere, for exactly the same reasons we have here. It has become a real problem for many thousands, I've known young people without a pot to pee on and with massive gambling debts because it is now available at the click of a button on the palm of the hand and it is only human to chase that pot of gold. Plenty of horror stories of ruined lives playing the one-armed bandit.

However... It would be hypocritical to go back on the libertarian scruples and the regard for the notion of individual responsibility, the industry doesn't force anybody into ruin and despair. It's the individual who is the ultimate responsible party, WH can't be fully made responsible for it. Presumably, most punters don't break the bank and those who gambled big money on these things without losing their skin are being deprived of them. Many jobs are being lost too. Most people drink responsibly and alcoholism is a huge problem too, should we close pubs down?

So the question is simply whether this is an issue where people can't be left to their own devices and need State intervention for their own good or should we just be libertarian about it and let the world unfold the natural way? I don't gamble, very rarely.

ps, it will cost the Treasury in lost tax revenue from WH's profits too.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 2

Napp

How has the government saved any money here sorry? They dont compensate the morons who play these things and they're not liable regardless?
If anything z-hog is right in that this will simply cost the government in various forms of revenue.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Articles for you

Edexcel A-Level Economics Paper 1 - Unofficial Mark Scheme - 18 May 2023

Dealing with depression at university

What is an LLM and how could it benefit your career?

Powerful questions business students forget to ask their career advisers