Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

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

    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    B936 - Betting and Gaming Duties Bill (Second Reading), Lime-man, PetrosAC MP


    Betting and Gaming Duties Bill 2016

    AN ACT to lower gaming duties, creating growth in the economy and lowering costs for customers.

    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
    1. Definitions

    (1) FOBTs refer to Fixed Odds Betting Terminals
    (2) Machine Games Duty refers to total net takings from play on one’s machine games
    (3) Gaming Duty refers to duty paid paid on the gross gaming yield of premises
    (i) Gross gaming yield is stakes received less winnings paid out and charges paid for gaming, such as fees for taking part in poker
    (ii) The rate of duty paid depends on the gross gaming yield of one’s premises in an accounting period
    (4) Category B2 games refer to games with a max stake of £100 pounds, a maximum return of £500 and a spin cycle of 30 seconds
    (5) Category B3 games refer to games with a maximum stake of £2, a maximum return of £500 and a spin cycle of 2 seconds

    2. Machine Games Duty

    (1) The Machine Games duty on FOBTs will be paid at a rate of 20 pence to the pound
    (i) It will be paid at that rate for both category B2 and B3 games

    3. Gaming Duty

    (1) The person registered on the Gaming Duty register must make 2 returns and payments in each 6 month accounting period
    (2) Payments on accounts are based on the gross gaming yield at each premise for the 3 month period using the following bandings and rates;
    (i) The first £1,173,750 will be taxed at a rate of 7.5 pence to the pound
    (ii) The next £809,000 will be taxed at a rate of 10 pence to the pound
    (iii) The next £1,416,750 will be taxed at a rate of 15 pence to the pound
    (iv) The next £2,990,500 will be taxed at a rate of 20 pence to the pound
    (v) The remainder will be taxed at a rate of 25 pence to the pound
    (3) The final payment is based on the gross gaming yield at each premise for the 6 month accounting period less the payment on account made after 3 months using the following bandings and rates;
    (i) The first £2,347,500 will be taxed at a rate of 7.5 pence to the pound
    (ii) The next £1,618,000 will be taxed at a rate of 10 pence to the pound
    (iii) The next £2,833,500 will be taxed at a rate of 15 pence to the pound
    (iv) The next £5,981,000 will be taxed at a rate of 20 pence to the pound
    (v) The remainder will be taxed at a rate of 25 pence to the pound

    Penalties

    (1) Civil Penalties may be applied under the following laws, should the duties not be paid in accordance with;
    (i) Section 9 of the Finance Act 1994 (civil penalties)
    (ii) Customs and Excise Management Act 1979


    5. Commencement, Extent and Short Title

    (a) This bill will come into effect immediately following royal accent.
    (b) This bill may be cited as the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 2016.
    (c) This bill will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Spoiler: show
    [BCostings[/B]

    The changes to machine games duties will cost £300m
    The changes to Gaming duty will cost £158.8m
    However, it’s highly probable that the lower costs passed onto customers will result in the market picking up and revenues increasing beyond their current levels

    Total costs £458.8m
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Spoiler: show
    [BNotes[/B]

    There is absolutely nothing to suggest that gaming duties will reduce irresponsible gambling, and as such they’re a tax on bookmakers that is paid for by the consumers. To those that consider this as a means of encouraging gambling, it is understandable that it is seen this way, however it is also false.

    As per the Gambling Act 2006, The Gambling Commission, Gamcare and the ABB (Association of British Bookmakers) there is plenty being done to help and prevent the <1% of gamblers whose gambling is a problem. An example of this is that a bookmaker has an obligation to perform an “interaction” with a customer should they make at least three debit card transactions, another example would be the refusal of bookmakers taking credit cards or contactless payments. There’s the self exclusion process which whilst it isn’t perfect is pretty effective and with the reformed MOSES process, should be remarkably better in future.

    It’s obvious that as a society we shouldn’t be encouraging gambling, however duties have nothing to do with any of that, and do absolutely nothing for problem gamblers either (except make sure that they lose even more money), in the same way that fuel duties don’t stop people having to drive and tobacco duties don’t stop people who are addicted to smoking.

    The money that is saved from this measure could potentially be invested in facial recognition software in shops to ensure that self exclusions and barring are effectively enforced, and could also be used to prevent robberies from taking place. There was an armed robbery that happened in Barking last week in a Paddy Power’s, in fact I was managing a shop next door as it was taking place.

    There are plenty of ways to discourage gambling, and to help and prevent problem gamblers and gambling, but I urge you to vote in favour of this bill as duties are not the way to go about it.

    tl;dr version:

    Lower duties means more money for companies to enact positive efforts to curb problem gambling.


    Spoiler:
    Show
    Spoiler: show
    [BChanges for Second Reading[/B]

    Formatting has been amended and a “notes” section has been added.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Ah, this is one sexy mutha-frikin bill. Aye, for all the reasons written in the notes.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    If the only changes are visual why exactly is there a second reading?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If the only changes are visual why exactly is there a second reading?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Because the lack of a notes page meant that there was a lack of understanding in the first debate so I couldn't really gauge support for the bill, otherwise it would be in division.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    No, still disagree on principle.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    No, still disagree on principle.
    Have you read the notes? What principle is it?
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Have you read the notes? What principle is it?
    I don't belive that it should be made easier for people to win money off of people via gambling.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    No, still disagree on principle.
    And so do I. A Nay from me.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I don't belive that it should be made easier for people to win money off of people via gambling.
    What does that have to do with this bill?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    And so do I. A Nay from me.
    And what are your principles?
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    What does that have to do with this bill?
    By reducing gambling taxes one if 2 things will happen.
    A) odds raise so that way more people are encoraged to start gambling
    B) odds stay the same so the company makes more money.

    Both are undesirable IMO.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    And what are your principles?
    On gambling, that there should be at least the same level of tax to discourage it, and that local councils should be allowed to refuse planning permission for betting shops. I disagree with gambling on anything that is not based on some form of skill or knowledge.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    By reducing gambling taxes one if 2 things will happen.
    A) odds raise so that way more people are encoraged to start gambling
    B) odds stay the same so the company makes more money.

    Both are undesirable IMO.
    More people won't be encouraged to gamble from "odds" increasing, those who already do gamble won't be further encouraged, it's just that when they win they'll get a little more. Lowering duties means that companies make more money, which is of benefit to the economy, and also of benefit to the gamblers and employees. I had this argument before, however your "principles" are clouding your judgement. It's in a betting companies best interest to keep people from problem gambling. Yes a company can rinse a person dry and leave them with nothing, but that's short term and if it happens the company will have a bad reputation and would end up being shut down by the gambling commission. However, if a company does its best to make sure that its customers are gambling responsibly then they'll have them customers for longer and they'll develop a better reputation which means that they'll have a sustainable business. Having more money to implement things like facial recognition software will make sure that self exclusions are properly enforced, thus helping the problem gambling issue be resolved.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Odds refer to probabilities, what betting companies have instead are prices, which are based on probabilities and betting patterns. If a lot of people are putting their money on one particular horse, the prices drop.,


    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    More people won't be encouraged to gamble from "odds" increasing, those who already do gamble won't be further encouraged, it's just that when they win they'll get a little more. Lowering duties means that companies make more money, which is of benefit to the economy, and also of benefit to the gamblers and employees. I had this argument before, however your "principles" are clouding your judgement. It's in a betting companies best interest to keep people from problem gambling. Yes a company can rinse a person dry and leave them with nothing, but that's short term and if it happens the company will have a bad reputation and would end up being shut down by the gambling commission. However, if a company does its best to make sure that its customers are gambling responsibly then they'll have them customers for longer and they'll develop a better reputation which means that they'll have a sustainable business. Having more money to implement things like facial recognition software will make sure that self exclusions are properly enforced, thus helping the problem gambling issue be resolved.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Odds refer to probabilities, what betting companies have instead are prices, which are based on probabilities and betting patterns. If a lot of people are putting their money on one particular horse, the prices drop.,


    My issue isn't just problem gambling. I'm more opposed to gambling as an industry in general.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    On gambling, that there should be at least the same level of tax to discourage it, and that local councils should be allowed to refuse planning permission for betting shops. I disagree with gambling on anything that is not based on some form of skill or knowledge.
    Most who gamble (including myself) do so on the belief that they are somehow in the know about something. I don't think there should be more gambling, in fact I think there should be less (hypocritical I know, but sue me). However, duties do not mean discouragement, and if betting shops are closed, people will find something else to bet on if that's their wish, or they'll start betting online (which is a much worse alternative). Betting shops are actually the lesser of a lot of evils.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    On gambling, that there should be at least the same level of tax to discourage it, and that local councils should be allowed to refuse planning permission for betting shops. I disagree with gambling on anything that is not based on some form of skill or knowledge.
    One could argue all gambling is skill, knowledge, or a lack thereof.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    My issue isn't just problem gambling. I'm more opposed to gambling as an industry in general.
    Okay, I'm going to ignore the fact that statement runs entirely counter to the fact that you're in the liberal party, and state instead that the statement you just made has very little, if anything at all, to do with this particular bill.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Okay, I'm going to ignore the fact that statement runs entirely counter to the fact that you're in the liberal party, and state instead that the statement you just made has very little, if anything at all, to do with this particular bill.
    It is a liberal position as I belive that the proliferation of gambling harms the poor and to a greater extent society. I think that people kid themselves into thinking they have some knowledge or skill when they really, most often, know nothing, and I think that making money from others misfortune is unethical.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    It is a liberal position as I belive that the proliferation of gambling harms the poor and to a greater extent society. I think that people kid themselves into thinking they have some knowledge or skill when they really, most often, know nothing, and I think that making money from others misfortune is unethical.
    That would be a conservative position and a sensible one. However, the best way to make sure that the poor and society isn't too harmed by the gambling industry is through measures such as the one I've just put forward and ones I intend to put forward in future. I would also say that the gambling industry is a multi billion pound one and as such it's success means a stronger NHS, better funded schools, etc. So it's in the national interest to make sure that it remains strong but at the same time is regulated to a point whereby the people are sufficiently protected.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Nay - this will not help anyone except the rich corporate owners.


    DRINK!!!
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
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
Poll
Are you going to a festival?

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.