There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
28 Oct 25
21:35
Joined:
Date Joined:
29 Jun 05
... child poverty, or extra ''family allowance'' for two plus child families. ! WHAT WILL THIS STATUTE HAVE ON THE EFFECT OF FUNDING FOR HORSE RACING !!
Please discuss...
Please discuss...
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 113
|
By:
I hate starmer and this govt but are you seriously trying to say horse racing is more important than kids in poverty?
|
|
By:
Probably is to the kids' parent(s).
|
|
By:
Is it not the parents responsibilty to provide for their offspring?
|
|
By:
Don't think it has been referred to as 'Family Allowance', since nineteen hundred and frozen to death?
|
|
By:
Teenage girls get "podded up" in order to get housing and benefits for life.
Mick (the verminous dog }Philpott knocked out over twenty children funded by the State but it was still not enough for him so he murdered some in order to be housed in a mansion. What other civilised Country suffers this state of affairs? |
|
By:
Betting shops (sorry, FOBT shops) will close leading to a loss of Racing Post sales and media rights payments to racing channels and racecourses.
Mind you, that will probably happen anyway even without any extra taxes since many shops are borderline loss-making since FOBT limits and over-expansion in the good times. So the only difference is the betting shop chains will blame the Chancellor rather than their own directors' greed and stupidity. |
|
By:
Many of these parents who have "children in poverty" will continue to spend this extra money on dope, alcohol and smoking and there will be no benefit to the kids.
It should be made clear(to use a politians saying) and made law, that if you have more than 2 children (twins or more excepted on the second birth) then your benefit will be capped. WHY CAN THAT LAW NOT BE BROUGHT IN NOW -*(Make effective from Jan 2027, giving slightly more than 9 month notice) WILL SAVE BILLIONS ON BENEFIT IN THE YEARS TO COME. It may just help save the planet too! |
|
By:
Unfortunately, Labour won't hit these parasites hard enough. Probably be a small tax increase for them, which saddens me. The unquestionable predatory, and reprehensible practices of the big corporations over the years leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.
Personally, I would hit them with a profits tax and hit them hard. But that's me! |
|
By:
You got to ask yourselves this. Why are the same companies always being fined small amounts of money for major failures ? And why are they still able to carry a licence?
|
|
By:
The latest wheeze is to spend it on subsidising "hospitality" Absolute insanity.
|
|
By:
The part of the economic system that has fallen into disrepair is the control of monopolies. Blair and Brown had this strange idea that it was easier to regulate a few very large companies than a lot of smaller ones so they encouraged take overs. The opposite is true. Bring back rules against monopolies and we would see prices fall and real wages rise.
|
|
By:
Gordon Brown has advocated for taxing the gambling industry to fund measures to reduce child poverty, arguing the sector is "undertaxed" and the revenues can help end policies like the two-child benefit cap. He believes this is a "straightforward budget choice" to tackle the "intolerable" child poverty crisis. The Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) opposes the idea, warning it would harm the industry and push gamblers toward illegal, unregulated markets.
Gordon Brown's proposal Proposal: He supports increasing taxes on the gambling industry, particularly online betting, to raise funds for programs that help children in poverty. Reasoning: He has stated that taxing this "extraordinarily profitable" and "undertaxed sector" is a cost-effective way to address the 4.5 million children living in poverty. Specifics: He has highlighted that these funds could specifically be used to end the two-child benefit limit, which he believes would lift half a million children out of poverty. Industry and expert counterarguments Betting and Gaming Council (BGC): The BGC has warned that higher taxes are "economically reckless" and would drive customers to the black market, which is less regulated. Economic contribution: The BGC points out that the industry already contributes £4 billion in tax and £6.8 billion to the economy, supporting 109,000 jobs. Alternative views: Some argue that conflating gambling taxes and child poverty is a flawed approach. Others question the specific figures used in the proposal. |
|
By:
I agree with Mr Brown a higher tax on bookies; bookies have been handled with a kid glove by repeated government resulting in regular and progressive higher profits annually. The business strategy of bookies to solely rely on fobt for profit and growth generation are having a massive and detrimental effect on society because of problem gambling and addiction to playing fobt. And, every penny spent must be paid for by bookies.
However, I do not share his view that the extra revenue generated be used to tackle child poverty (solely or not) eg uncap child benefit to 2 per family; 2 kids in a family is sufficient (others with only a single child or childless) given the high cost of living; nhs, education and welfare funding; a higher increase in world population to food production; etc. I think one has to cut the cloth accordingly, and not rely on the state to fund any extra luxury, belief, tradition, etc; pay for any addition yourself (not by the state). |
|
By:
Ask bookies to separate the sportsbook from the casino, completely different websites, same for shops. Much lower tax on sports betting, much more on casino games. Would they agree? Would they f*ck. Without the addictive casino games (bookies are also addicted to the easy money) most would have to shut up shop tomorrow.
|
|
By:
A bookmaker should be a bookmaker. A slot machine operator should be a slot machine operator. If you want to do both then thats fine, but have two separate companies, two separate shops, two separate websites, two separate tax rules.
|
|
By:
The bookies are in the similar position as banks; more customers disappearing / dying or betting online in the comfort of their homes. And, what is happening with the high street banks?
Branches are closing with more to come in the near future. It's inevitable. |
|
By:
Impossible would half a brain cell donated make your half feel less lonely?
|
|
By:
Tax rises inbound, can't see the bookies getting away with nothing as it's an easy target
|
|
By:
CagliariG 03 Nov 25 18:43
Impossible would half a brain cell donated make your half feel less lonely Stop coming across like Albert….. |
|
By:
Don't encourage them! So long as we don't go back to paying tax on every winning bet as we did for half of my adult life. I got round that one by having a telephone account in Gibraltar which was perfectly legal but hardly any of my racing pals thought that it was.
|
|
By:
betting tax will be the least of our problems, if they are putting this idiot chancellor in front of us, holding a 'big' presser three weeks ahead of a postponed budget.
|
|
By:
'our', as in anyone who has worked in the private sector, and accumulated assets over time through hard work. otherwise now known colloquially as boomers.
|
|
By:
They still don't seem to grasp that growth depends on the right sort of jobs being created, incentives to work being increased and incentives to stay at home being reduced. More people in HMRC trying to learn and enforce the myriad new taxes are NOT the right sort of jobs.
|
|
By:
They do get it, but ideology trumps reality.
|
|
By:
We were doomed, since the fluffy types infiltrated the so called conservative party. So eventually they preferred a Labour government than a 'right' leaning one, and sensible economics lost all credibility with the public.
|
|
By:
Anyone would think that an interminable tory disaster would teach people a lesson at just how bad they are at improving the economy, obviously not!
|
|
By:
At least you're putting a brave face on it crusty, keep fighting!
|
|
By:
And as for the Reformnazi party, just re-branded Tories, Anne Widdicombe and Nadine Dorries FFS
|
|
By:
Nebs03 Nov 25 13:15
A bookmaker should be a bookmaker. A slot machine operator should be a slot machine operator. If you want to do both then thats fine, but have two separate companies, two separate shops, two separate websites, two separate tax rules. Excellent post Nebs, totally agree. |
|
By:
Nail on head Nebs.
|
|
By:
A bookmaker should be a bookmaker. A slot machine operator should be a slot machine operator. If you want to do both then thats fine, but have two separate companies, two separate shops, two separate websites, two separate tax rules. -so simple and so right.
|
|
By:
The root of this goes back to before the White-Paper. The "bookmakers" were more than happy for all "gambling" (i.e. gambling & gaming) to be lumped together and treated the same because it suited their agenda at that point in time. Racing of course, did what it has always done - and just went along with the bookmakers.
Chickens probably coming home to roost now for the Racing Industry, due to a complete lack of leadership, with no strategy, no vision, no imagination and a complete lack of foresight. I expect racing will survive but anyone that didn't see this coming, doesn't really deserve to survive it. I've lost count of how many times I pointed all this out several years ago - but most people on here were also happy to go along with the bookmaker/Racing Post propaganda - i.e. droning on about a Draconian state & civil liberties, etc in a feeble attempt to defend all gambling (including gaming). So effectively going along with a strategy that put racing at risk by using it as a defensive shield to protect the casinos/slots. As I said, chickens probably coming home to roost now. |
|
By:
think it was the ukrainian guy who constantly said we should defend all slots, wheel of fortune games, etc.
|
|
By:
Dunno who that was (the Ukrainian guy?) Die Linke - but iirc it was pretty much everybody on here that went along with it (defending all gambling including gaming).
The root of the problem imo was that most people commenting seemed pretty (or completely) ignorant of the 2005 Gambling Act - so effectively their argument was saying "I have a God Given right to gamble". But given that there is and long had been a Gambling Act, that argument was akin to saying I have a God Given Right to drive without a seatbelt or to launder money or to give my 5yo cigarettes - and anyone that tries to stop me is part of a Draconian Nanny State. Not surprising it didn't pan out too well imo. |
|
By:
I've often argued casino/pure luck based gambling should be treated differently to other forms e.g. sports betting.
|
|
By:
What makes you think HR would somehow escape if it was separate from the casino and bingo nonsense?
That's an argument for moderating self inflicted gambling harm for sure, but hiking the tax has nothing to do with that. |
|
By:
The supposed question from the Labour government isn't how can we reduce alleged gambling harm, it's how can we utilise gambling revenue to redistribute wealth.
|
|
By:
Bookies with fobt on the high streets could all close for all I care - every one of them. They are the pedallers of the most addictive and destructive form of gambling ever; crack cocaine or opium of gambling.
They are no longer the 5th social service. And, very few will miss them. |
|
By:
I agree, it's akin to mourning Blockbuster video or physical banks. But surely if you're worried about addiction, then the primary concern should be digital, mobile, bingo and lottery. It's like virtue signalling about pubs but doing nothing with off licences, supermarkets, and now the likes of deliveroo and uber.
|