B1479 – Gambling Duty (Repeal) Bill 2019 Watch

Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 days ago
#1
B1479 – Gambling Duty (Repeal) Bill 2019, TSR Libertarian Party
Gambling Duty (Repeal) Bill 2019

An Act to abolish gambling duty.

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.Repeals
(1) Betting and Gambling Duties Act 1981 is hereby repealed
(2) The Gaming Duty Regulations 1997 is hereby repealed
(3) Part 3 General betting duty, pool betting duty and remote gaming duty of Finance Act 2014 is hereby repealed

2.Short title, Commencement, Extent
(1) This act may be cited as the Gambling Duty (Repeal) Act 2019
(2) This act comes into force on 1st April 2019
(3) This act extends to the United Kingdom


Notes
Gambling duty is double taxation on profits for the gambling industry which raises very little for the treasury. The lost revenue can be reciprocated from corporation tax due to an increase in profits and business expansion and new business entering the market. This could lead to job creation and thus more people paying income tax.

Cost
(£2.86bn)

Repeals
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/63/contents
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1.../contents/made
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ntents/enacted
0
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 days ago
#2
Aye - let’s cut sin taxes.
0
reply
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 days ago
#3
All well and good the Libertarian cutting these taxes. But this one is at a cost of nearly 3 billion pounds , how do they propose that this money can be recouped?

Also, maybe some sources for the cost figure.
0
reply
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 days ago
#4
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
All well and good the Libertarian cutting these taxes. But this one is at a cost of nearly 3 billion pounds , how do they propose that this money can be recouped?

Also, maybe some sources for the cost figure.
From the notes "The lost revenue can be reciprocated from corporation tax due to an increase in profits and business expansion and new business entering the market. This could lead to job creation and thus more people paying income tax." In the long term we can make back the lost income.

Source for figures https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-tax-receipts/
0
reply
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 days ago
#5
Imagine cutting a few million pounds worth of help for trans people on the pretence that it’s too expensive and then committing to spend (of the order of) 1000x that on a tax cut because it “raises very little”.

I think it’s important to tax things that are bad for society such as gambling, essentially as a means to provide a light disincentive or even to contribute towards the cost of harm mitigation, particularly as they most affect working class communities. Gambling companies are predatory on those with addictions. Of course I’m not denying it’s a good bit of fun for 99% of people involved. This is similar to my position on drugs, where I support complete legalisation but also support taxing the **** out of it for identical reasons
Last edited by Jarred; 5 days ago
1
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 days ago
#6
(Original post by Jarred)
Imagine cutting a few million pounds worth of help for trans people on the pretence that it’s too expensive and then committing to spend (of the order of) 1000x that on a tax cut because it “raises very little”.

I think it’s important to tax things that are bad for society such as gambling, essentially as a means to provide a light disincentive or even to contribute towards the cost of harm mitigation, particularly as they most affect working class communities. Gambling companies are predatory on those with addictions. Of course I’m not denying it’s a good bit of fun for 99% of people involved. This is similar to my position on drugs, where I support complete legalisation but also support taxing the **** out of it for identical reasons
So we tax harmful activity we don't like and subsidise harmful activity we do like (or accept because not to would upset severely mentally I'll people). Sounds about right
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 days ago
#7
(Original post by Jarred)
Imagine cutting a few million pounds worth of help for trans people on the pretence that it’s too expensive and then committing to spend (of the order of) 1000x that on a tax cut because it “raises very little”.

I think it’s important to tax things that are bad for society such as gambling, essentially as a means to provide a light disincentive or even to contribute towards the cost of harm mitigation, particularly as they most affect working class communities. Gambling companies are predatory on those with addictions. Of course I’m not denying it’s a good bit of fun for 99% of people involved. This is similar to my position on drugs, where I support complete legalisation but also support taxing the **** out of it for identical reasons
Hear, hear. This says a lot about the real motivations of taking away funding from transgender people.
0
reply
LeapingLucy
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 days ago
#8
The gambling industry has destroyed the lives of so many people. I will not support any bill that seeks to allow it to expand.
0
reply
LifeIsFine
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 days ago
#9
Nay.
0
reply
DSutch
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 days ago
#10
Thinking £2.86bn is a small amount of money? That's probably bigger than Jacob Rees-Mogg's wealth.
0
reply
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 days ago
#11
(Original post by Jarred)
Imagine cutting a few million pounds worth of help for trans people on the pretence that it’s too expensive and then committing to spend (of the order of) 1000x that on a tax cut because it “raises very little”.

I think it’s important to tax things that are bad for society such as gambling, essentially as a means to provide a light disincentive or even to contribute towards the cost of harm mitigation, particularly as they most affect working class communities. Gambling companies are predatory on those with addictions. Of course I’m not denying it’s a good bit of fun for 99% of people involved. This is similar to my position on drugs, where I support complete legalisation but also support taxing the **** out of it for identical reasons
A report by the gambling commission released in 2018 shows that the industry is not only growing at a fast rate but that the money generated is also increasing at a rapid pace. More people then ever are gambling this could be attributed to improvement in technology.

Gambling taxes don’t even help problem gamblers they just add to their losses. Problem gamblers don’t see the reduction in potential pay-offs resulting from gambling taxes, and they don’t reduce their gambling as a result of lower potential payoffs.
0
reply
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 days ago
#12
(Original post by LeapingLucy)
The gambling industry has destroyed the lives of so many people. I will not support any bill that seeks to allow it to expand.
As mentioned to jarred gambling taxes don’t help problem gamblers they just add to their losses. Problem gamblers don’t see the reduction in potential pay-offs resulting from gambling taxes, and they don’t reduce their gambling as a result of lower potential payoffs. So the gambling tax actually harms them.

Regarding expanding the gambling industry is growing at a fast rate and more then ever people are gambling, so its going to grow either way.
0
reply
LeapingLucy
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 days ago
#13
(Original post by Mr T 999)
Regarding expanding the gambling industry is growing at a fast rate and more then ever people are gambling, so its going to grow either way.
If it’s already growing at a fast rate - and therefore presumably already creating jobs - then why does it need a £2.86 billion tax cut?
0
reply
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 days ago
#14
(Original post by LeapingLucy)
If it’s already growing at a fast rate - and therefore presumably already creating jobs - then why does it need a £2.86 billion tax cut?
It's unnecessary hindrance on business essentially a double tax that harms business. It doesn't even help problem gamblers. The lost revenue can easily be reciprocated through business expansion and job creation.
0
reply
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 days ago
#15
(Original post by Mr T 999)
A report by the gambling commission released in 2018 shows that the industry is not only growing at a fast rate but that the money generated is also increasing at a rapid pace. More people then ever are gambling this could be attributed to improvement in technology.

Gambling taxes don’t even help problem gamblers they just add to their losses. Problem gamblers don’t see the reduction in potential pay-offs resulting from gambling taxes, and they don’t reduce their gambling as a result of lower potential payoffs.
I do not consider this a thing worthy of celebration.

If we accept that taxes are a hindrance to businesses (and I agree they are) then we must also accept that it has an impact on consumer behaviour. Taxes affect behaviours of all parties involved. In terms of the effect on problem gamblers, you’re missing the point. Of course it’s not a direct help. But it’s a help in how it impacts behaviour and also a help in providing us with £3bn that we wouldn’t otherwise have. That’s money that could be used to invest in addiction treatment and other mitigation services if it isn’t already.

In a nutshell though, taxes distort behaviour. This is often a bad thing. But when it comes to taxing other bad things, it can have very positive effects. Consider the plastic bag tax, a nothing charge of 5p, and it cut bag usage by billions which is awesome. I don’t want to remove similar-ish taxes. This is not some kind of voodoo economics, it’s Pigouvian taxation and it’s great.
0
reply
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 days ago
#16
(Original post by Jarred)
I do not consider this a thing worthy of celebration.

If we accept that taxes are a hindrance to businesses (and I agree they are) then we must also accept that it has an impact on consumer behaviour. Taxes affect behaviours of all parties involved. In terms of the effect on problem gamblers, you’re missing the point. Of course it’s not a direct help. But it’s a help in how it impacts behaviour and also a help in providing us with £3bn that we wouldn’t otherwise have. That’s money that could be used to invest in addiction treatment and other mitigation services if it isn’t already.

In a nutshell though, taxes distort behaviour. This is often a bad thing. But when it comes to taxing other bad things, it can have very positive effects. Consider the plastic bag tax, a nothing charge of 5p, and it cut bag usage by billions which is awesome. I don’t want to remove similar-ish taxes. This is not some kind of voodoo economics, it’s Pigouvian taxation and it’s great.
This tax fails to mitigate negatives effects of gambling and fails to help problem gamblers. The plastic bag charge is not comparable here where it actually worked in reducing plastic bag usages, here we have a tax that fails to reduce gambling or even help problem gamblers. It's a greedy attempt by the government to make extra money.

If you want to reduce gambling or negative effects of gambling then it's better to thighen gambling laws, not increase taxes on businesses where they normally pass this on to consumers.
0
reply
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 days ago
#17
(Original post by Mr T 999)
This tax fails to mitigate negatives effects of gambling and fails to help problem gamblers. The plastic bag charge is not comparable here where it actually worked in reducing plastic bag usages, here we have a tax that fails to reduce gambling or even help problem gamblers. It's a greedy attempt by the government to make extra money.

If you want to reduce gambling or negative effects of gambling then it's better to thighen gambling laws, not increase taxes on businesses where they normally pass this on to consumers.
You’re having your cake and eating it. To quote yourself: the tax is an “hindrance on business” and “harms business”. That’s exactly the point I’m making! This is a desirable thing because gambling is a negative externality. If we have to tax something, let’s prioritise good taxes like that.

Back when the Libers were actually real libertarians rather than orange UKIP, they loved this sort of stuff. When you want tax revenues to be low, you levy the very few taxes you do need against market inefficiencies and use them to correct bad outcomes. That way something you generally don’t like comes with some good side effects. This can be used as a vehicle to reduce or even eliminate taxes on all positive externalities which should be music to a libertarians ears. I suppose this is why they were big fans of LVT to replace income taxes and the like.
0
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 days ago
#18
(Original post by Jarred)
You’re having your cake and eating it. To quote yourself: the tax is an “hindrance on business” and “harms business”. That’s exactly the point I’m making! This is a desirable thing because gambling is a negative externality. If we have to tax something, let’s prioritise good taxes like that.

Back when the Libers were actually real libertarians rather than orange UKIP, they loved this sort of stuff. When you want tax revenues to be low, you levy the very few taxes you do need against market inefficiencies and use them to correct bad outcomes. That way something you generally don’t like comes with some good side effects. This can be used as a vehicle to reduce or even eliminate taxes on all positive externalities which should be music to a libertarians ears. I suppose this is why they were big fans of LVT to replace income taxes and the like.
Any self described libertarian who is actively pro-sin taxes is fooling themselves and isn’t a libertarian, sin taxes are state enforced morality, that’s the antithesis of any libertarian’s philosophical principles.
0
reply
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 days ago
#19
(Original post by Connor27)
Any self described libertarian who is actively pro-sin taxes is fooling themselves and isn’t a libertarian, sin taxes are state enforced morality, that’s the antithesis of any libertarian’s philosophical principles.
It is not necessarily state enforced morality. That some people (e.g. social conservatives) would support the measures to do that is irrelevant to the concerns of the libertarian, who may support the same action for a different reason. In this case we're talking about the following set of circumstances: A libertarian wants limited government/ low taxes/ etc, but most would agree to some level of taxation to fund the services they do deem as appropriate functions of the state (e.g. defence). The choice is then where to target the taxes? It would make sense to target as much as possible against negative or neutral externalities so as to limit the economic damage of the taxes (in fact they have corrective effects but still). This is not a decision of morality but of economic pragmatism - the morals of the situation can be ignored and it be a purely numerical choice. Perhaps it is unlibertarian to have a government pick a decision that maximises economic benefit, but it has to make some decision and I don't think it breaks its core principles to make the pragmatic choice where all choices have roughly equivalent impact on peoples' liberty. Unless you think its unlibertarian for a government to make decisions at all, in which case the existence of government is unlibertarian. That can't be the case, because without government it would be possible for some party to rise up and destroy the liberty of another!

From another perspective, a libertarian government would seek not to intervene in the affairs of its citizens unless one party is violating the life/liberty/etc of another party. Where a negative externality exists, a party is able to do just that, almost by definition. As such, it would be perfectly compatible (perhaps necessary) for libertarianism to tax that externality as means of restoring the balance.
0
reply
Joleee
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 18
#20
Report 3 days ago
#20
this bill makes no sense. you don't put something on sale when there's high demand for it. you put something on sale when less people are buying which is not the case here.

more gambling facilities does not necessarily translate to more gambling. all it might promise is redistribution of gamblers we already have. it's like arguing 'if only we built more hotels, then more people will stay in hotels'. no, they wouldn't. they'd just have more choice in where to stay.

there are 2 million problem/at-risk gamblers in the UK. by providing cheaper gambling, we provide more opportunity for them to live with addiction and ruin their lives. this places a financial burden on all the rest of us. we pay for it through the NHS, through homelessness and the criminal justice system. from King's College London, costs per year include:

  • mental health primary care (£10–£40 million)
  • secondary mental health services (£30 million–£110 million)
  • hospital inpatient services (£140 million–£610 million)
  • JSA claimant costs and lost labour tax receipts (£40 million–£160 million)
  • statutory homelessness applications (£10 million–£60 million)
  • incarcerations (£40 million–£190 million)

but i'm not getting the impression this house cares about good policy, costs on society or people for that matter. there are more problem/at-risk gamblers than there are trans people in the UK but we'd rather treat the latter as the problem.
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (89)
16.57%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (55)
10.24%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (96)
17.88%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (81)
15.08%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (54)
10.06%
How can I be the best version of myself? (162)
30.17%

Watched Threads

View All