Why is the PC Charge not against competition law?

BF = Microsoft and they will get done......................eventually

Abuse of a dominant market position (Chapter II / Article 82 prohibition)
Both UK and EC competition law prohibit businesses with significant market shares unfairly exploiting their strong market positions.

Consequences of breach
Contravention of Article 82 or Chapter II can have serious consequences for a company:

firms engaged in activities which breach these provisions can face fines of up to 10% of group global turnover;
conduct in breach of Article 82 or Chapter II can be stopped by court injunction;
firms in breach of Article 82 or Chapter II also leave themselves exposed to actions from third parties who can show they have suffered loss as a result of the anti-competitive behaviour; and
breach of Chapter II can result in individuals being disqualified from being a company director.
Type of behaviour caught
To be in a position of dominance, a business must have the ability to act independently of its customers, competitors and consumers. Establishing if a company is dominant requires a complex assessment of a number of elements but, as a general rule, if a business has a 50% market share there is a presumption that it is dominant. However, dominance has been found to exist where market share is as low as 40%.

Article 82 requires dominance in a substantial part of the European Union, but there is no requirement under Chapter II that a dominant position must be held in a substantial part of the UK, meaning that, in theory at least, dominance could be considered to exist in a fairly small area of the UK.

However, having a dominant position does not in itself breach competition law. It is the abuse of that position that is prohibited. Examples of behaviour that could amount to an abuse by a business of its dominant position include:

imposing unfair trading terms, such as exclusivity;
excessive, predatory or discriminatory pricing;
refusal to supply or provide access to essential facilities; and
tying (i.e. stipulating that a buyer wishing to purchase one product must also purchase all or some of his requirements for a second product).

They always had a bookmakers license

I am fairly sure that the consistent profits made here are down to systematic techniques. Those techniques might not be classed as gambling and as such I would much rather pay the PC than face income tax and possibly NI.

Let's not take this to the European Court please chaps.

Alex the old wrinkled retainer 11 Nov 15:48


I am fairly sure that the consistent profits made here are down to systematic techniques. Those techniques might not be classed as gambling and as such I would much rather pay the PC than face income tax and possibly NI.

That may well be very true but for the normal person making a decent living off this may not really have a technique at the end of the day trading or other methods are STILL gambling regardless of you views, traders gamble on the market moving in the right way for them

Alex
I agree it may not be worth drawing attention to winning gamblers but it would not matter a hoot to HMRC if 'Dodgys' thread went to any court - if they think winning gamblers should be taxed, they will impose it regardless.

Or claim sickness benefit

*it*

catfloppo 12 Nov 09:16
excessive, predatory or discriminatory pricing

The PC is none of these things. PC payers still pay the lowest commission rates so it can't be excessive unless everyone's commission is excessive. And it actually makes the pricing less discriminatory with PC payers benefitting the most.

Maybe you think is contravenes the law in some other way?

What a load of nonsense ! PC payers do not get a lower commission rate. They pay the same commission as everyone else , but a tax is added on their winnings by Betfair just because they are good at what they do.
It is also possible to have a losing year/account and still have had to pay PC during the year.

No they did not , but that is only because they had a better strike rate than you last week. Why should they be taxed by Betfair only because they are better than you ?

Come on... don't act stupid just because you don't like that someone are better than you. You know that everyone pays commission under the same rules on the markets they are active in.
It's just that those who are to good have to pay a tax to Betfair only because they are to good.

And about your last point there , if someone with a higher strike rate isn't better than you , does that mean you aren't better than those on here who is long term losers ?

strike rate means sod all - it's cash that counts

We are all subject to the same rules.

'Charging different prices to different customers where there is no difference in what is being supplied.'

Despite the above answer from Bf.... surely that is exactly what is happening....

clyde.... a 'volume discount' for higher levels of business is normal practice.

From a customer point of view I dont know how PC equates to this..

catfloppo , I would say that a guy with a 10 k bank making 20 k a year is better than a guy with a 100 k bank making 30 k a year. Do you disagree ?

Ok , so we disagree on who's the better , but I'm pretty sure that most people would agree with me that the 10 k guy is better.
I also thought I answered your question with my reply or was your question about you and me ?

If they work from the same bank size , of course B is the better.

Well , aren't you clever....
I'll refrase my question so that it doesn't hurt your feelings :

No they did not , but that is only because they had a better strike rate than you last week. Why should they be taxed by Betfair only because they have a better strike rate than you ?