General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Question 34 - What is (was) your full and specific job title?
Question 37 - At your workplace, what is (was) the main activity of your employer or business?
did you hide your dark secret or are any famous great grandchildren open to huge embarrassment on 'Who do you think you are?' ;)
Question 37 - At your workplace, what is (was) the main activity of your employer or business?
did you hide your dark secret or are any famous great grandchildren open to huge embarrassment on 'Who do you think you are?' ;)
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 91
|
By:
Q 34. Market Analyst
Q 37. Analysing Market Trends Just failed to mention that it's the betting market. |
|
By:
I'm not a full timer but if I were I would have just said I was an independent bookmaker.
|
|
By:
Independent bookmakers require licensing and are liable for betting tax, levy and income tax.
Not a wise choice imo, ror. I've had this on a couple of previous censuses. Prior to going full-time in 1990 I was a self-employed translator, and am still registered as such with the Revenue. I simply haven't done any work or returned a Declaration since 1990. So I simply put self-employed translator in the boxes and tick 15 hours or less for number of hours worked. Not had any comeback from such an approach in the last couple of censuses. (I'm assuming here that the Revenue and other interested parties do comb through these responses looking to trap people, regardless of assurances of privacy.) |
|
By:
I said
34. Superhero 37. Cracking down on crime in the local town |
|
By:
Q.34 Speculating in futures.
|
|
By:
Short term investor. (6 furlongs short enough?)
|
|
By:
thanks for the replies, like screaming there is a paranoid part of me sure someone will be going over these in minute detail looking for any discrepancies.
i was going to put almost exactly the same as TheAnorak but then thought someone could think i should possibly be paying tax on that, so maybe exchange gambler or gambler was the way to go in reality i don't think anyone will care either way! |
|
By:
funnily enough i came across this online, a list of Victorian occupations to help decipher the 1891 census.
http://www.census1891.com/occupations-g.htm Gamester - gambler or prostitute  |
|
By:
I was just going to put not working. Seemed the best option to me unless I am missing something.
|
|
By:
unemployed
|
|
By:
considering that the census has been contracted out by the Government to Lockheed Martin (who are also our our friendly local suppliers of Trident Missiles), i'd be quite cautious about p*ssing them off with smart@rse answers ... after all, they know where you live !
 |
|
By:
The form didn't mention recreational activities so I didn't write any.
|
|
By:
Are we talking about a census form here? Is it not the case that the information provided cannot be passed on to any third party including the government / state? This is the case in Ireland anyway
|
|
By:
Was there a census? :)
|
|
By:
When I saw there is a penalty involved for not completing it, I threw it in the bin in protest. How dare they think they own my time, I need every minute to make posts on the forum!
If I did complete it, I would put unemployed. |
|
By:
I'll say it never arrived in the post..
If they ever get around to asking! |
|
By:
They have to impose a penalty otherwise you'll just get loads of people not filling it in. As for what people should put down, I really have no idea why you don't just put professional gambler down. It undermines the whole purpose of the census if people are not truthful.
|
|
By:
Putting down Professional Gambler as employment implies it's a regular, reliable source of income, i.e a genuine business, hence liable for taxation and possibly licensing.
The reason that propunters escape income tax is an ancient court judgement which distinguished gambling from bookmaking because of differing expectations of profit: the gambler was not acting in a "business-like" way. Call gambling "employment" and you are offering the Revenue a chance to bypass that judgement. |
|
By:
a) I'm not telling the Inland Revenue that I'm employed as a gambler. I put it on the Census form. It's not for their eyes.
b) Whether one calls it "employment" or not is immaterial. They can't make some gamblers who are up over a sufficiently long period of time, eligible for income tax, and others not, merely because the former label their activity as employment! That would be absurd. I'm certainly not going to lie on the Census form. We all have a duty to be as truthful as possible. |
|
By:
Why would you put Gambler on a Census form? [smiley:crazy]
|
|
By:
As long as the census form insists on knowing your full name, current address and previous address, I am not prepared to assume the compilers won't be sharing the information with other interested parties.
|
|
By:
What else should I put? I don't do any other work. Gambling is my only source of income (despite not making that much). So as far as I can see it's the only appropriate thing for me to put down.
|
|
By:
Well, for questions 26 and 30 I'd say that last week you were 'none of the above' and 'other'.
|
|
By:
the register has an article on this you might want to read. Partially opinion of course, but .. well all you need to know is it meets the Labour standard of data confidentiality - not very much.
|
|
By:
(I'm not a pro gambler, in fact I pride myself on my amateurism :P)
|
|
By:
Gambling is not illegal. There's no reason to lie about what you're doing to make a living. And I'll be telling the inland revenue what I'm doing anyway. It's up to them to define whether it is officially designated as employment, a declarable or non-declarable income etc.
|
|
By:
If you put 'unemployed' no-one could make a valid claim that you were lying.
|
|
By:
I'm not sure what the disadvantage is in saying I'm a gambler. Or to put it another way; how do I gain by describing myself as "unemployed"? Too late now anyway since I've already filled and sent the form off.
|
|
By:
I believe not employed is correct over unemployed.
|
|
By:
Section 39 of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 is, so the Act says, about "Confidentiality of personal information"; in practice the section achieves the precise opposite. Section 39(1) begins well enough. It states that: "Subject to this section, personal information held by the Board in relation to the exercise of any of its functions must not be disclosed by (a) any member or employee of the Board, (b) a member of any committee of the Board, or (c) any other person who has received it directly or indirectly from the Board."
However, Section 39(4) then states that the disclosure prohibition in section 39(1) "does not apply to a disclosure which (take a deep breath): a) is required or permitted by any enactment, b) is required by a Community obligation, c) is necessary for the purpose of enabling or assisting the Board to exercise any of its functions, d) has already lawfully been made available to the public, e) is made in pursuance of an order of a court, f) is made for the purposes of a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings (whether or not in the United Kingdom), g) is made, in the interests of national security, to an Intelligence Service, h) is made with the consent of the person to whom it relates, or i) is made to an approved researcher." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/25/confidentiality_of_census_data_not_guaranteed/ |
|
By:
I think a clear answer is needed as to why it is advantageous to conceal the fact that your sole income is from gambling.
|
|
By:
It's not advantageous but it's not classed as a job so it's incorrect to put that on the census.
In some circumstances it's advantageous to conceal it because the taxman will come and give you a pain in the backside (Even if you're legitimate) as it's a common claim to be a winning gambler amongst people who DO have something to hide. Assuming the census is as confidential as it should be, then there's no problem either way I shouldn't think. |
|
By:
I guess you could say that if too many people put it, the gvt would have more power to tax it.
|
|
By:
Unemployable gambler will do me [;)]
|
|
By:
Lori
Date Joined: 20 Apr 04 Add contact | Send message When: 30 Mar 11 20:55 Joined: Date Joined: 20 Apr 04 | Topic/replies: 32,526 | Blogger: Lori's blog I believe not employed is correct over unemployed. What's the difference? Unemployed is temporary and not employed is not? |
|
By:
Unemployed, I believe, is claiming benefits. I'm no expert though and could well be wrong, but that's stuck in my head from somewhere.
(I don't mean from the days of "unemployment benefit" I think my sources was better than that... though again, it's fogged by bad memory somewhat) |
|
By:
*Which would probably make your definition correct anyway!
|
|
By:
It's to do with tax (Unemployment benefits and their ilk are taxed) if I'm recalling correctly.
|
|
By:
Looking around google, it seems the term im looking for is "Jobless" and I can only find distinctions between the two in the USA, so don't know if there is one here or not.
|