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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    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

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That would be my mistake, after seeing PetrosAC I assumed it was a bill by the government, however, my point on the £20bn overspend in the Defence Statement of Intent still stands.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    That would be my mistake, after seeing PetrosAC I assumed it was a bill by the government, however, my point on the £20bn overspend in the Defence Statement of Intent still stands.
    Never said that didn't, much like the attempted transfer of 1.2bn from Foreign Aid to health cannot legally stand, even it not being in the budget aside. Speaking of the budget, I've noticed the new chancellor has been AWOL since before their appointment.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Never said that didn't, much like the attempted transfer of 1.2bn from Foreign Aid to health cannot legally stand, even it not being in the budget aside. Speaking of the budget, I've noticed the new chancellor has been AWOL since before their appointment.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I agree, the funniest part of the transfer is not that it is illegal, but that it is impossible because there is nothing to transfer, it is worry the government thinks departmental spending includes vast lump sums of money ministers can hand between them. The new Chancellor was appointed to fill a gap left open, the Chancellor was never going to be active but the government will use the budget to prove the Chancellor did something.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I agree, the funniest part of the transfer is not that it is illegal, but that it is impossible because there is nothing to transfer, it is worry the government thinks departmental spending includes vast lump sums of money ministers can hand between them. The new Chancellor was appointed to fill a gap left open, the Chancellor was never going to be active but the government will use the budget to prove the Chancellor did something.
    I've also just checked the figures and the original figure allocated to foreign aid was 500m give or take below the legal limit even before the alleged transfer.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I've also just checked the figures and the original figure allocated to foreign aid was 500m give or take below the legal limit even before the alleged transfer.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The government has never defended their illegal cut in foreign aid, Saracen's Fez seems to be happy to ignore his party's own bill.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Nay, "better" odds will just mean more gambling, less in tax revenue and that money wouldn't even reach employees.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Can it be clarified how the two sets of tax returns work, am I right in interpreting it as the revenues being taxed, in effect, twice over two different time spans, so suppose I made £1m in the first quarter I would pay £75000 on that for the 3 month return, if I then made another million in the second quarter I would then pay £75000 on that million for the 3 month return, but also an additional £150000 on the 6 month return for a total over the 6 months of £300,000?

    Also when saying "premise" do you mean to be writing "premises" because otherwise it doesn't really make sense.

    Finally, what is the status quo, given you haven't added a notes section to tell us this info.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    Nay, I won't repeat what others have said, but mainly due to the costing...!!! Why would we want to do this when it's going to cost the government so much!
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Nay, I won't repeat what others have said, but mainly due to the costing...!!! Why would we want to do this when it's going to cost the government so much!
    This is practically pocket change though and you've supported far more expensive suggestions, the biggest I remember off the top of my head being up to 50 times this, and if the government had acted upon the motion, apparently caring little for democracy, it should have cost at the very least the same as this and in reality several times.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    This is practically pocket change though and you've supported far more expensive suggestions, the biggest I remember off the top of my head being up to 50 times this, and if the government had acted upon the motion, apparently caring little for democracy, it should have cost at the very least the same as this and in reality several times.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I support things more expensive than this, when I care enough about them that I want it to pass...

    Which Bill was that out of interest though?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    I support things more expensive than this, when I care enough about them that I want it to pass...

    Which Bill was that out of interest though?
    That was the fuel duty motion which was ignored in the budget, although it looked as if it might have been considered in an earlier draft.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    That was the fuel duty motion which was ignored in the budget, although it looked as if it might have been considered in an earlier draft.
    Ahhh yes haha, I remember that one!
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    That was the fuel duty motion which was ignored in the budget, although it looked as if it might have been considered in an earlier draft.
    It was a motion. Technically we can ignore it even if it passes.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    It was a motion. Technically we can ignore it even if it passes.
    Obviously you can ignore it, but that is separate to the question of whether you should or not, especially given that about a third of your MPs that voted were in favour (by my reckoning it was 6-13-1).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I didn't read the whole bill, but the gist is that is won't be something that means people gamble less. Gambling is not constructive, getting people to part with their money for basically nothing in return except for the high isn't something the government should be seen to be encouraging surely? There are enough problems associated with this as it is.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Other than raising money for the Treasury?
    More money can be raised from them being cut.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Can it be clarified how the two sets of tax returns work, am I right in interpreting it as the revenues being taxed, in effect, twice over two different time spans, so suppose I made £1m in the first quarter I would pay £75000 on that for the 3 month return, if I then made another million in the second quarter I would then pay £75000 on that million for the 3 month return, but also an additional £150000 on the 6 month return for a total over the 6 months of £300,000?

    Also when saying "premise" do you mean to be writing "premises" because otherwise it doesn't really make sense.

    Finally, what is the status quo, given you haven't added a notes section to tell us this info.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You are right there, but the way the current duties work is that you'll be paying twice that in duties. This bill effectively halves the duties that a bookmaker has to pay.

    It is stated premise, because the duties are paid on the GGY on the single premise, rather than the corporation as a whole.

    The status quo is effectively the same tax system (other than the taxes on the FOBTs which has been reformed) except gaming duties have a 50% cut. These are my sources.

    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

    (Original post by StudentMature)
    I didn't read the whole bill, but the gist is that is won't be something that means people gamble less. Gambling is not constructive, getting people to part with their money for basically nothing in return except for the high isn't something the government should be seen to be encouraging surely? There are enough problems associated with this as it is.
    Gaming duties do not discourage problem gamblers from gambling, in the same way that tobacco duties do not deter smokers and in the same way that alcohol duties do not deter alcoholics. The Gambling Act 2006, the gambling commission, ABB (Association of british bookmakers) and the bookmakers themselves do all in their power to help prevent problem gambling and they have my full support, duties however, are not a deterrent.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Nay, I won't repeat what others have said, but mainly due to the costing...!!! Why would we want to do this when it's going to cost the government so much!
    The money will be picked up elsewhere, through increased market activity and increased earnings of companies and their employees. Gaming duties are excessively high, and while I, and many others, may disapprove of gambling, there are already measures in place to prevent problem gambling and high duties do nothing to adequately prevent this.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    The money will be picked up elsewhere, through increased market activity and increased earnings of companies and their employees. Gaming duties are excessively high, and while I, and many others, may disapprove of gambling, there are already measures in place to prevent problem gambling and high duties do nothing to adequately prevent this.
    What has to be remembered I'd that statistically only about 40% will be recovered further down the line

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    What has to be remembered I'd that statistically only about 40% will be recovered further down the line

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's still worth it though, gaming duties might bring in money to the treasury, but they mean that punters get worse prices, employees get paid less than they would otherwise, and companies make less profits. I'd like to see fuel duties cut, alcohol duties cut and tobacco duties cut too, duties are regressive taxes on consumption that hit the poorest almost exclusively.
 
 
 
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
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

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.