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

B936 - Betting and Gaming Duties Bill (Second Reading) Watch

    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I can't support this, first and foremost on the ground that absolutely everything should be taxed as much as possible wherever possible. I also disagree that problem gambling is unaffected by the prices bookies offer but I can't offer any evidence to support this.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I can't support this, first and foremost on the ground that absolutely everything should be taxed as much as possible wherever possible. I also disagree that problem gambling is unaffected by the prices bookies offer but I can't offer any evidence to support this.
    From a point of pragmatism though, isn't it better to have people betting in more highly regulated and supervised shops rather than online and on mobile devices?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    From a point of pragmatism though, isn't it better to have people betting in more highly regulated and supervised shops rather than online and on mobile devices?
    that's true, but the answer is to raise taxes on online gambling, not to say 'hey guys betting shops are great'
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    that's true, but the answer is to raise taxes on online gambling, not to say 'hey guys betting shops are great'
    That relies on higher costs being a deterrent for gamblers, and as you said before, there's absolutely nothing to back that up.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    That relies on higher costs being a deterrent for gamblers, and as you said before, there's absolutely nothing to back that up.
    Nothing empirical to my knowledge, but I do believe it is logical.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Nothing empirical to my knowledge, but I do believe it is logical.
    It would be with regards to something that is logical, however Gambling is not. Would someone be dissuaded to Gamble £1 if their returns were £1100 instead of £1200?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    It would be with regards to something that is logical, however Gambling is not. Would someone be dissuaded to Gamble £1 if their returns were £1100 instead of £1200?
    We're talking minute differences in percentages as to whether that's a rational bet here so it's a bad example. The difference between 2-1 and 3-1, though, may well be enough to dissuade a non-addicted gambler.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    We're talking minute differences in percentages as to whether that's a rational bet here so it's a bad example. The difference between 2-1 and 3-1, though, may well be enough to dissuade a non-addicted gambler.
    Yet there's nothing to back this up. Since duties have been raised, gambling has increased, so if anything, the opposite could well be true. Thing is, as seen earlier in this thread, odds and prices are often confused, so lower prices lead punters to believe in an increased likelihood of winning, as they see them as probabilities.

    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    I believe this bill simply costs financially too much
    I don't see how this can be the case, £400m is a drop in the ocean, and if it can help with preventing problem gambling then I can't see why you'd be against it. With everyone else, it's just their idealistic principles that cause them to forget about pragmatism.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    My comments from the last bill still largely stand so i shall probably Abstain.

    Other than saying i'll sort the formatting tweaks that remain, i will also say that you should link to the bills in section 4 via the notes and also provide a source for your costings. Come to think of it, sources for all the taxes (i.e. an explanation of how they all differ) would make the bill a bit more professional in the notes.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    My comments from the last bill still largely stand so i shall probably Abstain.

    Other than saying i'll sort the formatting tweaks that remain, i will also say that you should link to the bills in section 4 via the notes and also provide a source for your costings. Come to think of it, sources for all the taxes (i.e. an explanation of how they all differ) would make the bill a bit more professional in the notes.
    I'll do that, I offered sources for all of those things in the first reading, I probably should have added them in but I didn't think to.

    Isn't a bill to half the amount of duties paid, better than keeping the status quo, especially seeing as a bill to completely remove duties wouldn't pass. (I too am in favour of it, I think that all duties ought to be rid of actually, but I don't see it passing)
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    I'll do that, I offered sources for all of those things in the first reading, I probably should have added them in but I didn't think to.

    Isn't a bill to half the amount of duties paid, better than keeping the status quo, especially seeing as a bill to completely remove duties wouldn't pass. (I too am in favour of it, I think that all duties ought to be rid of actually, but I don't see it passing)
    The more the better generally.

    Yes and that's why you get an Abstain and not a Nay.

    There's a reason the voting reviews suggest the Tories are the hardest party to get an Aye from (the hippies are nice and loose though ).
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Yet there's nothing to back this up. Since duties have been raised, gambling has increased, so if anything, the opposite could well be true. Thing is, as seen earlier in this thread, odds and prices are often confused, so lower prices lead punters to believe in an increased likelihood of winning, as they see them as probabilities.
    So basically you're relying on the average member of the public being really, really thick.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    So basically you're relying on the average member of the public being really, really thick.
    I suspect that there is a negative correlation between intelligence and gambling activities.

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The more the better generally.

    Yes and that's why you get an Abstain and not a Nay.

    There's a reason the voting reviews suggest the Tories are the hardest party to get an Aye from (the hippies are nice and loose though ).
    Well this sucks, would the tories really rather the duties remain at the same level?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    I suspect that there is a negative correlation between intelligence and gambling activities.
    On low stakes your probably correct, i suspect on high stakes though the reverse will be true. It also somewhat brings into question what one defines as gambling. My parents insist that me wanting to invest in equities is just gambling, i'd call it valuation.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    On low stakes your probably correct, i suspect on high stakes though the reverse will be true. It also somewhat brings into question what one defines as gambling. My parents insist that me wanting to invest in equities is just gambling, i'd call it valuation.
    Let me put it this way, the least profitable bets a betting company can take are high stakes on short odds/prices.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Yet there's nothing to back this up. Since duties have been raised, gambling has increased, so if anything, the opposite could well be true. Thing is, as seen earlier in this thread, odds and prices are often confused, so lower prices lead punters to believe in an increased likelihood of winning, as they see them as probabilities.



    I don't see how this can be the case, £400m is a drop in the ocean, and if it can help with preventing problem gambling then I can't see why you'd be against it. With everyone else, it's just their idealistic principles that cause them to forget about pragmatism.
    I know it is only a tiny percentage of the government's budget, but even so, I just find that it would be money wasted on a bill which I am not convinced would work.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    I know it is only a tiny percentage of the government's budget, but even so, I just find that it would be money wasted on a bill which I am not convinced would work.
    Furthermore, it's unclear what constitutes it 'working'. Apparently supporting the gambling industry is a good thing (questionable) and this promotes reinvestment in anti-addiction technologies, but a greater impact on the latter for the same money could be achieved through subsidising investment (not that I'd support that either, but it would be myriad times better than simple tax cuts). Even if we do want to support industry, why the gambling industry? It's pretty obvious it's a demerit good. Why not provide the same value of tax cuts (which I wouldn't support either, but again, it's a better result) to emergent tech firms?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Yet there's nothing to back this up. Since duties have been raised, gambling has increased, so if anything, the opposite could well be true. Thing is, as seen earlier in this thread, odds and prices are often confused, so lower prices lead punters to believe in an increased likelihood of winning, as they see them as probabilities.



    I don't see how this can be the case, £400m is a drop in the ocean, and if it can help with preventing problem gambling then I can't see why you'd be against it. With everyone else, it's just their idealistic principles that cause them to forget about pragmatism.
    How long term are we looking, over the last 5 years? The last 50? In both cases it would make sense to have more gambling because there is more money, and in the latter case more people to be gambling.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Furthermore, it's unclear what constitutes it 'working'. Apparently supporting the gambling industry is a good thing (questionable) and this promotes reinvestment in anti-addiction technologies, but a greater impact on the latter for the same money could be achieved through subsidising investment (not that I'd support that either, but it would be myriad times better than simple tax cuts). Even if we do want to support industry, why the gambling industry? It's pretty obvious it's a demerit good. Why not provide the same value of tax cuts (which I wouldn't support either, but again, it's a better result) to emergent tech firms?
    Will you be voting nay?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Will you be voting nay?
    Yes.
 
 
 
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 7, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.