gambling summit

[jimmym]

The UK is holding a gambling summit today, I just watched our leading politition on the news here, and she said that she thinks the US will reverse its ruling on online gambling within the year and will join the other countries on better monitoring and vetting of online gambling sites.



I will keep you posted of what comes out of the summit.

[Talking Poker]

I really, really, really hope that ends up being the case.

[Penguinfan]

I had hear the US was the only country invited that chose not to attend.

[jimmym]

True and a shame.

It looks like the UK is going to become the major player in online betting control with the backing from the goverment. I think this is a good thing and will offer good security for both the players and the sites that join, offcourse there will be a fee payable in taxes by the sites and this fee will have to be recouped by the sites through the players but it will offer security and I suppose in the long term this is good.

I cant understand why the US dont come on board as Tessa Jowell has said what the US goverment has done will only lead to Crime and turn good citizens into criminals and just for having abit of enjoyment and with there own money.

Prohabition wont work it hasnt in the past and never will. I feel that if the UK set up good relations and security working with online gambling sites the pressure for the US to come on board will happen soon.

Anyway back to the latest on the gambling summit.

[jimmym]

Well not much news from the gambling summit, the media gave it the usuall 15min of glory mainly interviewing a few loses who managed to use up all there money because they were allowed to and they dont have a problem its the sites fault ect ect.

I hoped eejit would have been interviewed giving his take on it and how easy it is for any1 to make a few pound ot 56k.

the bbc have had a message board running and a few quotes for and against have appeared. lots of thought and effort to just sign up and then again the usuall braindead posts,

If two players each have a finite number of pennies and begin to toss them with the winner keeping the penny. Each player has a 50% probability of winning. Now repeat the process until one player has all the pennies.
If the process is repeated indefinitely, the probability that one of the two player will eventually lose all his pennies must be 100%.
P1 = N2/N1+N2
This means that the probability of winning is linked to the number of pennies. Casinos have more pennies so will always win.

American attempts to prohibit alcohol failed. You cannot dictate to people and legislate against gambling it won't work. Not being a gambler myself I fail to see the attraction in giving aways money for an illusary gain. Leave these people to get on with their lives. We are only here for a short time make the most of it.

f the government can make money out of people gambling, then I'm all for it.
Maybe it'll distract them from thinking up new taxes to impose on normal folk.

I have just read the article about Vicky Clark running up a £27000 debt via internet gambling. I'm sorry but I don't have an ounce of sympathy. Why should the Government put restrictions on these if people like Vicky can't take responsibility for their actions -tough!

this last made me laugh the site gave her back the money she lost, because they didnt want bad press...fucking stupid I think..

"I think all form of gambling should be outlawed there will be fewer people with gambling addiction and fewer people with gambling debts" - dianna lyew, birmingham

I suggest you read up on 1930's prohibition in America. People will gamble if they want to, it's their right if that's what they want to do with their life.

Banning only puts it in the control of criminal gangs.

So there we have it,,Gambling Online is great,,If you live in the UK pay your taxes and spend what you cant afford..I did notice though that the Media didnt interview any players who were winners at all, perhaps we have NONE.

[Penguinfan]

I'm probably in the minority, especially on a board like this, but I am all for taxing things like gambling, cigarettes, alchohol, resturaunt food, sporting event tickets, concert tickets, etc...

I see no reason not to tax the things people are spending their extra money on, IE, things they don't need. Why just blanket raise the property or income tax that will affect people who can't afford it and probably will see zero benefit from the tax.

I just got my partial season tickets to the Penguins in the mail and I have no problem with the extra $3-$5 a ticket I paid in taxes on them, I would have bought the seats at $85 as opposed to $80 anyway, and it's something I don't have to have.

Let the people who have/spend the most money pay the most taxes, I will never have a problem with that.

Funny that people who gripe about cigarettes going up 20 cents a pack really never look twice at the $6 ATM fee in a casino.

[Talking Poker]

We're off topic here, but I'm with you. I have no problems with luxory or sales taxes either.

During the last elections, there was a vote to raise our sales tax by ONE PENNY (1%), which was of course defeated. So, property taxes went up instead. The money has to come from somewhere - I say let it come from the tourists, and not from the property owners. For the most part, Florida does a pretty good job with this - there are no state or local income taxes here (this saves me thousands of $ per year over what I used to pay in PA), thanks mostly to huge taxes on hotel rooms, rental cars, etc. Let the tourists pay!

Oh, about the salex tax thing, items like food and clothing should be exempt, of course, and for big ticket items, you'd only have to pay on the first $5000 (50 bucks). It's not like you'd have to pay this when you buy a new car, etc... People are stupid though, so naturally it was shot down.

[Kurn]

Well, I have a problem with taxes of any kind. I realize that they are necessary for government to function, but that doesn't mean that more is good.

The problem is best described this way.

1) You have no choice whether or not to pay.

2) As soon as you accept the idea that government is a repository of funds that can be used to "improve" society, people and groups will start lining up with "good ideas" for how to use this money.

3) Since the sum of "good ideas" and the money necessary to fund them (demand) will always be greater that the total of tax money available (supply), there will always be pressure on the government to increase tax revenue. basic economics. When demand exceeds supply, prices rise.

And I'm not putting quotes around "good ideas" because i think they're all bad. Some of these ideas sound good to me. However, in a pluralistic society what X group thinks is good, Y group may think is bad and the result is if X group happens to have the majority it gets to impose its will on Y group *and* force Y group to help fund the idea.

So what I'm saying is that while I don't think it is right for the US government to try to stop online gambling, I am completely opposed to them regulating it and taxing it. At least philosophically, that is.

[Talking Poker]

No one likes taxes, but let's be realistic here. Do you really want to not have a police or fire department, for example? Or would you rather people just get 5 and 6 figure bills (that they won't be able to pay) when they need to use said services?

Surely you are ok with us having roads and bridges, and understand that these things are not free to build or to maintain, yes?

One thing I will give you is school taxes. I don't understand why a homeowner with 0 kids has to pay for other people's kids to go to school. Meanwhile, the renter with 5 kids pays nothing. Yes, I understand it's for the general good of the community to educate the children, but I'm never quite understood why THAT money comes out of property taxes.

[jimmym]

Its Ironic in a way that Taxes have come to the forefront of this topic, when I say Ironic I mean The UK has for the past few years taken away all tax on gambling, so now when we put a sports bet on we dont pay tax at one time we use to have to pay 17% of the wager upfront or have 17% of the winnings deducted.
If we win now we dont have to pay tax either in sports betting or online games, I think that only proffestional gamblers have to pay tax, but my understanding is that the perks such as claiming outlays such as travel, clothes ect result in virtually no tax being paid.
I understand the UK goverment want to make its money from the sites and bookmakers these costs must be recuiped from the customer how each does this I dont know.
But I again feel that with our Goverment has a hidden agenda somewere down the line.
I too agree with taxes if there spent on the right things or used by the Goverment to better the thing they have taken tax for.
With our Goverment putting in so much effort to regulate Online gaming surely taking a tax from the players that win and from the Gaming sites profits is a nice earner but that doesnt mean because they are paying time taking the taxes and checking the sites profits will result in better gaming with better regulations and security, its the idiots who gamble on credit and dont when to stop is the problem.
Perhaps the Goverment should better regulate the credit companies who seem to lend to anyone with a pulse, I mean even a person on very low income can now get the lowest loan from credit companies and do this over and aver again using 100s of different companies, a example of this is earlier this year we applied for a car credit loan on a major supermarket credit site, we had over 50 responses from differnt companies all offering us 10.000 credit immedietley, thats over half a million for a car. Now thats what needs regulating to me.

[Penguinfan]

The person who owns the building they are renting pays the taxes for the 5 kids in your example.

Everyone shares the burden of school taxes simply because it would be too expensive to break it down per child. I see what you are saying, but the reality is most people wouldn't be able to afford to send their kids to even public school if they had to bear the burden themselves.

Just in my school district the teachers make about 60K with about 20 kids in the classroom, I'd have to pay $3000 per year per child just for the expense of a teacher, not to mention the cost of the building, administration, activities, transportation, etc.. It would add up to a ton more than I pay in taxes now I am sure.

[Tony Cheval]

Horrible timing from the standpoint of US participation, another couple weeks and our politicians will be back to 'squeeze money from every rock in sight' mode.

[Kurn]

The personal federal income tax accounts for less than 50% of all faderal tax revenue. You could cut that in half and still cover things like law enforcement and whatever portion of federal dollars go to fire (though I think that's mostly state & local). Highways would also be OK, since a lot of that is funded by gasoline taxes (I have no issue with use taxes).

My point was not to eliminate taxes all together, but to control them. A flat, capped income tax is the best way to go. We cannot demand fiscal responsibility from government as long as there is no systemic way to prevent tax increases...Massachusetts, for example, has very good public schools, yet property taxes are constitutionally capped.

The point is to lower them by a significant percentage and then take action to cap them.

I have an example, but I'll start another thread.

[Tony Cheval]

Kurn sure seems awfully interested in the subject of taxes lately. I wonder why...

[jimmym]

Back on track..

Some news from the Summit. I honestly didnt read this before the Taxation issue rose on this forum, but its interesting to see the Taxation issues may be the block for a united agreement.I cant help feel with the UK on the verge of a Non Smoking community and seeing that this happened in Eire 2 years ago and there goverment has seen millions missing from the tax smokers paid that now the UK goverment is really trying to introduce backdoor Taxation on gambling knowing its popularity is huge.

Please dont read to much into my smoking theory I dont want a debate on the goods and bads,as a 50 a day smoker I pay huge tax willingly and dread next March when I cant smoke when and were I want in my own Country..enough said on this matter.

BRITISH HOSTS 'PLEASED' WITH ONLINE GAMBLING SUMMIT

But UK minister warns that his government will not protect UK execs from legitimate extradition orders

Delegates from 32 nations at the Remote Gambling Summit held in Ascot, England have established what one of the hosts, sports minister Richard Caborn described as "....a road map that will lead to better regulated remote gambling across the world."

"Those present today agreed to cooperate further in a number of key areas to ensure that gambling remains fair, crime-free and vulnerable people are protected," Caborn told a news conference.

Asked by one reporter what the British government position was on the extradition of British online gambling executives to foreign countries, Caborn said that Britain would not protect UK online gaming executives from extradition requests if they took Internet bets from countries in which they were illegal.

"People have to abide by the laws of particular countries," he said. "We will not acknowledge people who operate illegally."

Earlier, the British culture secretary Tessa Jowell had been critical on the prohibition course taken by the USA on Internet gambling, asserting her belief that regulation was the better option to exclude crime and protect online players and vulnerable sectors of the community such as the under aged and addicted.

"We do not support the approach the United States has taken," she said at the summit. "The enormous risk of prohibition is that it forces the industry underground," she said, likening the move to the U.S. ban on alcohol sales in the 1920s.

The conference agreed a draft framework of regulation to protect consumers and prevent underage gambling and gambling addiction.

After the summit closed, Caborn said he was pleased with the progress made, and wanted to involve wider international institutions, including UNESCO and the global financial sector.

The summit ended without formal agreement over minimum international standards for internet gambling. A government source denied that this amounted to failure.

“We never expected to get everyone on board in a day and we are delighted that everyone is keen to work together in future. They are arguing over commas, and the final version will not be very different from today’s draft.”

Richard Caborn, the Sports Minister, who, along with Tessa Jowell, the Culture Secretary, was trying to secure agreement, said that an international working group would be set up. “We now have in place a road map for that will lead to better regulated remote gambling across the world. Those present today agreed to co-operate further in a number of key areas to ensure that gambling remains fair, crime-free, and vulnerable people are protected.

“We will follow this up with proposals for an expert working group representative of those countries present today. We will want this to involve wider international institutions, including Unesco and the global financial sector, to advise on the development of worldwide standards.”

Caborn said Britain was sympathetic to a complaint made by Antigua to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) accusing the United States of protectionism of its gambling industry, but he stopped short of saying Britain would support the complaint.

"It will be a landmark decision ... We sympathise in the sense we want the WTO to clear up this area," Caborn said. "Antigua has made it very clear it welcomes the support of the EU in this. We will find out the WTO's position in 2007."

The BBC took the news angle that taxation could flow from online gambling firms relocating to Britain from their various offshore tax havens, and quoted Party Gaming's John Shepherd as saying that the quantum for taxation is the "missing piece in the jigsaw."

But minister Caborn said that regulation was not about a "tax grab", but about protecting British players, preventing the young and vulnerable being sucked into addiction and keeping out organised crime.

The Beeb pointed out that in the borderless world of Internet gambling, where national laws can have only a limited effect, delegates were pinning their hopes on the much more ambitious route of an international agreement based on the principles of the UK legislation.

The broadcaster also examined the possibility of a reversal of the US law against online gambling transactions following a possible change of political direction after the mid-term elections in the USA.

Andrew Gellattelly, of bettingbusiness.co.uk said it was essential to regain the American business if the industry was to continue to grow, and there were hopes that the US could follow the Italian example of flexibility in turning away from prohibition in favour of regulation and taxation.

The ban was part of back-to-basics style package called the American Values Agenda - aimed at helping the Republicans retain control of Congress, he said. If the Republicans succeed, the industry is hoping they will follow Italy's example, he adds, where an initial ban on internet gaming was scrapped in favour of tough regulations.

If the Democrats win, the hope is they will re-think what many of them see as an ill-thought-out and unworkable ban.

[Talking Poker]

I find this a bit troubling:

But I find this encouraging (well, hopeful, anyway):

BTW, can I tell you how anniying I find it that such a thing as the "American Values Agenda" even exists??? Talk about the government being too hands on.

[eejit101]

I have to pay no taxes on the money i won.

HOWEVER.

If i dont work for 9 months now and continue to withdraw money, gambling becomes my job and i must pay 22% in income tax of anything over $8,450 per annum on what i win.



The UK will never ban internet gambling, its the opposite. 888.com sponsors a Premier League football club. Bet365 sponsors anothers ground. All advertising boards at grounds have poker/casino logos somewhere. TV shows are sponosred by Stars/Interpoker/Bet365/StanJames. Gambling is advertised in the highstreet and in newspapers/magazines.

The government is making money on this already, then they tax the companies who get the rake for operating from the UK. they dont need to tax the players because they are already taxing us throught the house rake.


The summit were having will not stop this happening. The USA will think about what they are doing.


Theoretical debate question - who gave 50 people the right to vote on if we can gamble online.