Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    I don't agree with this.

    We shouldn't encourage gambling like this when it already targets the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
    It's not encouraging gambling and the bill has no effect on the gambling act 2006 or the gambling commission to make sure all betting premises adhere to their licensing objectives. What this means is that bookmakers we'll still be under a legal obligation to protect children and the vulnerable. The bill means that those who already gamble get better prices, and the bookmakers themselves therefore make more money. The duties don't have an effect anyway, if someone is addicted to smoking, or alcohol, the higher prices don't stop them from smoking/drinking, so why does anyone think that slightly lower odds are going make people less likely to gamble?

    (Original post by Aph)
    Won't lower costs, I expect the prices will stay the same just the taxes will go down and profit for a small industry doesn't bother me.
    They won't, and the betting industry is worth billions.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. There are enough bookmakers in the market already; anyone (including myself) making a living from the gambling industry is a social parasite. I wouldn't mind if this encouraged conventional sports betting while taxing FOBTs to death (good grief those are awful), but a simple reduction seems a bad idea.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    There needs to be evidence for the figures used, but introducing bill that costs money after the budget is another ground for incompetence against the budget. There have been two bills released this week that would put the figure in the spending review off by £20bn, the spending review was wrong as it was, this makes the spending review worse.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    There needs to be evidence for the figures used, but introducing bill that costs money after the budget is another ground for incompetence against the budget. There have been two bills released this week that would put the figure in the spending review off by £20bn, the spending review was wrong as it was, this makes the spending review worse.
    Ummm, so the budget was incompetent because it was released too early now?! You have got to be kidding me.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Ummm, so the budget was incompetent because it was released too early now?! You have got to be kidding me.
    The budget can be released early but there should be allowances in it for any acts that people in the government may try to introduce at a later date.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    The budget can be released early but there should be allowances in it for any acts that people in the government may try to introduce at a later date.
    Ummm no. Later acts should not start immediately but from the next term. We in the government are not psychics and cannot put billions away just in case someone makes a law that will cost a lot.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    There needs to be evidence for the figures used, but introducing bill that costs money after the budget is another ground for incompetence against the budget. There have been two bills released this week that would put the figure in the spending review off by £20bn, the spending review was wrong as it was, this makes the spending review worse.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ine-games-duty
    http://www.statista.com/statistics/4...duty-receipts/
    https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ing-duty-rates
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Ummm no. Later acts should not start immediately but from the next term. We in the government are not psychics and cannot put billions away just in case someone makes a law that will cost a lot.
    The government rightly adjusted the budget to make an allowance for a Sugar Tax bill that members have been told is coming, the government should have done the same with the increase in defence spending but the government did not, the government should have made the same allowance for this act but is has not. This act is a financial act that is binding immediately following its potential passing, the act could be binding inside this term when the current government is still the government.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    The budget can be released early but there should be allowances in it for any acts that people in the government may try to introduce at a later date.
    And for once I have to cite law to you. HMT cannot put up money on this basis. There is a provision for emergeny funding to be given to departments on request with HMTs consent, but what also has to be remembered is that in the real world such things rarely come into force immediately. Regardless, this is a somewhat silly argument.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    This Bill will not reduce the number of betting shops that plague the average High Street nor reduce gambling based on chance not skill. A Nay from me.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    I'm not sure tbh, I'll decide later

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    £458.8m is a lot of money for something which isn't really necessary.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    The government rightly adjusted the budget to make an allowance for a Sugar Tax bill that members have been told is coming, the government should have done the same with the increase in defence spending but the government did not, the government should have made the same allowance for this act but is has not. This act is a financial act that is binding immediately following its potential passing, the act could be binding inside this term when the current government is still the government.
    They cannot make allowances for things that they do not know are coming. Of course it is easier IRL because the government controls the legislative agenda so they have a very good idea what is likely to change. How do you propose is it implemented in here? For instance, if there had been a budget passed before the God awful ATA would you have criticised a right wing government for not putting in a £200bn+ revenues allowance for such an act?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    £458.8m is a lot of money for something which isn't really necessary.
    Is a piss in the middle of an ocean, or is about 0.05% of the budget a huge sum? If St university would you not but a chocolate bar because you don't really need it and it's a tiny part of your budget? Doubt it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And for once I have to cite law to you. HMT cannot put up money on this basis. There is a provision for emergeny funding to be given to departments on request with HMTs consent, but what also has to be remembered is that in the real world such things rarely come into force immediately. Regardless, this is a somewhat silly argument.
    As always, a very interesting comment, however, in this case the comment is irrelevant because it deals with a different issue than the comment I made. Contrary to popular belief, departmental funding does not involve the Treasury handing out lump sums of money to be stored in a safe in each government department, nor do most government departments handle money, the spending figures published in the budget are the maximum managed spending figures for each department, that is, the maximum amount of money each government department is allowed to spend.

    In the TSR budget recently released, the maximum level of spending for the Ministry of Defence was set, but the Defence Statement of Intent exceeds that maximum expenditure limit set, causing the department to receive emergency funding, or the minister to be demoted with projects cut in the next financial year to make up for it. It is important note the idea of emergency funding being an extra bit of money the Treasury hands over is made up, in reality the Treasury would simply increase the allotted budget for that department on the request of the Prime Minister, or if the Chancellor felt there was a reason to do so. In real life, the budget would not contain one amount for defence spending but then the Secretary of State for Defence deciding the figure is going to be some £20bn higher than in the budget.

    This is what happened in 2010 to give the infamous black hole in defence spending where the previous government had been regularly spending above their yearly maximum expenditure limit. The government knew the Ministry of Defence was going to exceed the maximum expenditure limit, so the government should have raised the maximum expenditure limit in the budget, knowing the department plans total spending above the limit.

    On this bill, the bill introduces a tax cut, if the government are planning to introduce a tax cut at a date after the budget, the budget should have been adjusted to show the the expected fall in tax revenue from the cut that will take place. The budget does not need to include the act, but when the deficit is predicted at the end of the budget, the deficit should be predicted with changes to tax rates included in it.

    This is consistent with real life, when the real life budget comes out detailing all of the spending cuts, those cuts have not taken place yet, the figures in budget form a forecast of what the country's finances will look like after the measures in the budget have taken place. An example of real life is the budget making a forecast of how much will be saved by the bedroom tax before the Welfare Reform Bill 2012 had even been passed in Parliament. Your analogy of a £200bn bill is absurd, only working if the bill was introduced by the opposition that the government could not account for. It is very rare the government introduces bills after the budget that have not been accounted for in the budget.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. This is needlessly complex and does not go far enough.

    Come to think of it i still agree with my prior bill..

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=2387108
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    As always, a very interesting comment, however, in this case the comment is irrelevant because it deals with a different issue than the comment I made. Contrary to popular belief, departmental funding does not involve the Treasury handing out lump sums of money to be stored in a safe in each government department, nor do most government departments handle money, the spending figures published in the budget are the maximum managed spending figures for each department, that is, the maximum amount of money each government department is allowed to spend.

    In the TSR budget recently released, the maximum level of spending for the Ministry of Defence was set, but the Defence Statement of Intent exceeds that maximum expenditure limit set, causing the department to receive emergency funding, or the minister to be demoted with projects cut in the next financial year to make up for it. It is important note the idea of emergency funding being an extra bit of money the Treasury hands over is made up, in reality the Treasury would simply increase the allotted budget for that department on the request of the Prime Minister, or if the Chancellor felt there was a reason to do so. In real life, the budget would not contain one amount for defence spending but then the Secretary of State for Defence deciding the figure is going to be some £20bn higher than in the budget.

    This is what happened in 2010 to give the infamous black hole in defence spending where the previous government had been regularly spending above their yearly maximum expenditure limit. The government knew the Ministry of Defence was going to exceed the maximum expenditure limit, so the government should have raised the maximum expenditure limit in the budget, knowing the department plans total spending above the limit.

    On this bill, the bill introduces a tax cut, if the government are planning to introduce a tax cut at a date after the budget, the budget should have been adjusted to show the the expected fall in tax revenue from the cut that will take place. The budget does not need to include the act, but when the deficit is predicted at the end of the budget, the deficit should be predicted with changes to tax rates included in it.

    This is consistent with real life, when the real life budget comes out detailing all of the spending cuts, those cuts have not taken place yet, the figures in budget form a forecast of what the country's finances will look like after the measures in the budget have taken place. An example of real life is the budget making a forecast of how much will be saved by the bedroom tax before the Welfare Reform Bill 2012 had even been passed in Parliament. Your analogy of a £200bn bill is absurd, only working if the bill was introduced by the opposition that the government could not account for. It is very rare the government introduces bills after the budget that have not been accounted for in the budget.
    I'm aware of how it works, and so the 200bn figure is absurd because it relies on somebody other than the government passing something, but here it is not absurd because???? The matter also has to be raised that in the real world things take far longer and the government is more omnipotent, or do you believe that the TSR government knows all bills that have been written by other parties, are being written, and will be written for the rest of the term and a rough idea of their costs, especially when they don't even know what they themselves are doing and cannot even work out their own costs properly?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    They don't do anything, there's no way I'd get support for complete removal of them so I cut them.
    Other than raising money for the Treasury?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I'm aware of how it works, and so the 200bn figure is absurd because it relies on somebody other than the government passing something, but here it is not absurd because???? The matter also has to be raised that in the real world things take far longer and the government is more omnipotent, or do you believe that the TSR government knows all bills that have been written by other parties, are being written, and will be written for the rest of the term and a rough idea of their costs, especially when they don't even know what they themselves are doing and cannot even work out their own costs properly?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    As I have stated, it is excusable for the TSR government to not account for bills written by other parties, but it is inexcusable for the TSR government to not account for its own bill, or not account for tax cuts; this bill is a tax cut from the government. It is even more inexcusable for the Secretary of State for Defence to publicly ignore orders given to him by the Chancellor by using a different figure £20bn over the agreed figure. Publishing a budget that does not account for tax cuts, or spending changes the government plans, and includes a figure £20bn less than the figure used in a Statement of Intent makes the budget a waste of time.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    As I have stated, it is excusable for the TSR government to not account for bills written by other parties, but it is inexcusable for the TSR government to not account for its own bill, or not account for tax cuts; this bill is a tax cut from the government. It is even more inexcusable for the Secretary of State for Defence to publicly ignore orders given to him by the Chancellor by using a different figure £20bn over the agreed figure.
    It's not a tax cut from the government, it's a PMB by a non MP that was only seen by anybody yesterday and happens to be seconded by a government member to have it out to the house.

    Was lime man even around when the budget was published?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 3, 2016
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.