blonde poker forum

Shame on all the Euros moving to England in order to avoid their tax obligation in their native country.

Level?

SHAME ON THEM.

People should pay their taxes.

Not at all.

They knew they had to pay tax if they won money when they entered the tournament.

To move to a country where they don't have to pay is pure tax dodging.

They are poker's version of Lewis Hamilton.

I believe Martin Jacobson has lived in London for a number of years, though I don't know him or anything. Maybe the others have too? You would have imagined the Basque guy might have moved over a year or two ago after Spanish regulation.

Just because we as British people have drawn the lucky straw as to live in a country where gambling isn't recognised as a job and taxed, why shouldn't others be able to do this?

Fair enough. I do appreciate the difference, but still feels like you are putting yourself up to be shot at here.

I've argued about 1000 times before how ridiculous it is that pro gamblers aren't taxed in this country.

Almost as ridiculous as countries that do levy on gambling winnings that tax people who win on slots, blackjack or keno.

If these guys did indeed live in London before they made the FT of this tournament I withdraw some of the implicit criticism. Although still a bit effing cheeky to choose a career in gambling and then refuse to pay your fair share of tax in your country.

Pro gamblers pay far more tax than the majority of people in this country just not any income tax.  Everytime you win a cash pot live you pay 50% of the rake charged goes straight to the government via the casino.  The same applies for all reg fees charged on live mtts.  Every time you have a bet/lay on betfair a proportion of your winnings goes to the treasury via bf's corporation tax bill.  Never mind all the vat pro gamblers pay on their lifestyle of champers/fast cars/petrol/air fares/hotels/restaurants amongst numerous other spends.  Sit down and work out how much total tax you pay a year like i did in all forms of taxation (excluding income tax which we obviously don't pay) and you will never let anyone tell you again you don't pay any tax.

The government is quite happy with how much it takes out of the gambling game already and knows it would cost more to police than it would ever raise.

They are your suppliers/contractors/whatever. In the normal course of business, your suppliers also pay tax. And they don't pay it every time. They pay it based on their net revenue from gaming for a defined period.

Norway's system as far as I can make out seems pretty sensible. No tax on recreational gambling winnings, but tax on gambling where it is an income.

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2014/05/13/poker-earnings-hit-by-tax/

Totally impossible to prove and where do you draw the line?  The city trader who won £200k on the yes/no vote wouldn't pay any tax because he has a job yer someone earning £25k a year grinding cash games would.

Well in the case of the link above the courts drew the line, just like they have to with all kinds of other complex tax issues. Just because something is difficult doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.

And yes I actually think that's fair. One is relying on it as income, one is using it as discretionary spending.

I'm not having that argument.

The casinos/bookmakers/exchanges are paying those taxes not the player.

Rake, commission or over round wouldn't change if there wasn't gambling tax.

And the other bit is just laughable. That's like suggesting people who pay income tax shouldn't have to pay VAT, duty on fags, car tax etc etc.

Easy this.

If you can't prove that gambling isn't your main form of income you are taxed on winnings.

The Swedish tax laws used to be ridiculous.  You had to pay tax on any winnings but you couldn't offset any losses.  So you had a million in winnings and had paid £900,000 in losses, you paid more tax than you had in profit.  It has recently changed, but even now you can't offset fully.  But if he had moved here years ago and was settled and liked it here, why would he move back? 

The Dutch gambling tax law is/was stupid too.

I think Rob Hollink worked out it was virtually impossible to carry on playing if the laws remained unchanged.

I notice Jorryt hasn't used London as his home town. Makes me want to root for him even more.

Also suggests they have changed the law too.

Felix has lived in london before he entered the tournament fyi.

Also you remember Peter Eastgate's tax situation? He moved to london AFTER he finaled the main event then claimed because he was a UK resident he wasn't liable to pay Norwegian taxes, however it was eventually ruled that because he was a resident of Norway when he entered the tournament (when the "wager" was placed he was made to pay nearly 75% of the $9.1m

Last year the IRS took home over $9.5m from the WSOP final table!

Puis Heinz managed to not pay a penny on his $9m.

Land of the free, home of the taxed.

 Every time you have a bet/lay on betfair a proportion of your winnings goes to the treasury via bf's corporation tax bill. 



I thought Betfair Will hill etc
all skipped off to gib years ago to escape paying uk taxes on internet turnover
is that right ?

I mean, that is a stupid law, charging 75% tax.

But Peter knew the law when he entered the tournament and trying to weasel out of paying his share of tax after he's reached the final is attempting to tax dodge pure and simple.

If his house got robbed, would he call the police? If he broke his leg would he go to hospital? Does he put his rubbish out to be collected? Etc etc and etc.

People with a lot of cash pay more than skint members. That's the way it works.

I think a pro poker player who cops $10 million should pay a large % of it in in tax. (Although 75% is a bit toppy!)

You obviously haven't seen how stars are cutting back on their vip programme because of the new tax laws they are having to buy into because of the GC.  Therefore, via the back door, rake commission or over round, will change it just doesn't appear to but it does via the back door.

Do you think live mtt rake is at the same rates as it was 10 years ago?  No it isn't.  The reason because of new tax laws make it even more uneconomical than before to run £20+2 live mtts.  Most are £20+5 now.  £900+£100 now for a £1k when it used to be £1000+50 for the year 1 of the gukpt.   Jump from 5% to over 11% for a £1k live mtt in 6 years.  I remember someone (think it was Channing in a bluff article he wrote) saying the vic pays £2.5m out of their annual £5m rake straight to the govt in tax.  This all comes from the players therefore it's a tax on players.  Just because it's not called income tax doesn't mean poker players don't indirect pay a tax on their income.  

I never played live cash 10 years ago but i am pretty sure £10 raked out of £200 pots wasn't standard in £1/£2 games like it is now.  Pretty sure a £5 hourly session was more standard. £50 per hour leaving the table max instead of £150+ now which leaves the table under the same circumstances to help pay the increased tax burden.

He could be in £10m of make up though and under your system because he has won $9m he has to pay $4/5m in tax on something he hasn't won because his 'company' (ie make up) has already made $10m of losses and this $9m of revenue just reduces those losses.  This is how a 'normal' company would be taxed.    How would you tax the guy if he has sold 85% of himself and actually hasn't won $9m at all?  It's impossible to police in reality which is why the govt gets their 'income tax' from pros via the back door and hence the increases in rake over the past few years to cover this.  How would a guy in $10m of make up with his staker prove this to the tax man across numerous online/live channels over numerous years?

Thread highlights how irrelevant the main event final table is in 2014.

There's a much more compelling argument to tax stakers surely?

They aren't even winning with their own skill/luck. They are cutting down their "gamble" to a bare minimum by staking lots of horses in order to cut down their variance.

If anyone should pay capital gains tax it's them.

If that's the case, he fills in forms after the tournament giving details to avoid any issues like this.

It's just so much easier for the govt to tax it at 'source' effectively though and let the companies act as 'income tax' collectors via the rake box.  Even if they collect less they have no expenses chasing it so the net figure is much higher than it would be.

Whilst I agree in principle that you should probably pay tax as a professional gambler in reality it would be a tax on the honest like it is in the States.  I know lots of people who don't declare or under declare their profits and even those that are not avoidable like tournament or jackpot winnings they often do something like go to the racetrack and pick up losing tickets to offset againt those profits.  Its pretty laughably easy to avoid unless you are making very large amounts of money.  The only real way around that is to tax like they do in Sweden etc and that kills the game as a profession effectively. Also it seems fairly unlikely that any goverment would ever manage to come up with a set of rules that understood the business and were equitable to all parties.  You only need to look at match/race fixing trials and the way the gambling commission have operated to see that gambling isn't something that the government understand on anything more than a very superficial level and they dont seem keen to learn.

I really think it's a lot simpler than you are making out. It's taxed if it's your main source of income. That's it. And that really is very simple to prove or disprove. Anything else remains tax free.

Sure as you say there are ways to cheat the system, and thousands of self employed people do in all trades, but unless you live a cash based existence it's going to pretty tough to hide from a full audit. And that will always be the risk.

But these are two very separate things.

One is a company dealing with an increase in costs.

One is you as a personal citizen dealing with your own liability to the state.

The idea that you shouldn't pay tax because the casino is paying tax on your winnings already is like saying the casino shouldn't pay tax on any profits it makes from selling beer.

 ;applause;

The only increase in costs is the increased tax % forced onto the operators by the GC new tax rules because they are using casinos/betting companies as tax collectors effectively much more than they did in the past.  Therefore once this is deducted casinos are left with similar levels of rake as a % than before.

Yes, but that's an increase in costs to the business not to you. You are confusing two distinct and separate things.

1. There is a general tax on gambling, which at one point was paid by the customer and is now paid by the business. If they choose to mitigate any increase in this by making customers pay more that's a business decision. It's like the government raising the tax on fags or booze or petrol. It's a stealth tax, sure, but it's not related to income tax.
2. Everyone is liable for personal income tax. If your income is from gambling then you should, arguably, pay tax on that income.

This is completely ridiculous!

Certain incomes are exempt from income tax.  Gambling winnings of any kind are deemed this under tax statute from years ago.  Because of this the government has taken the indirect route to tax gamblers via the rakebox/companies collecting it on behalf of them etc in the way they do as it's much easier to collect/monitor that way. This is the main reason why rake has increased on comps/cash games because the government is demanding a bigger slice of the pie in recent years.  I personally have no problem being 'taxed' in this manner but it's pretty naive to say professional gamblers/poker players are not 'taxed' just because they don't pay income tax.

I really don't agree with you at all.

Gambling winnings are indeed exempt from tax, and this is due to the government passing this tax burden onto the companies. Ironically this was to prevent them all moving offshore, which they all ended up doing anyway. So now they are coming back onshore. There are also companies who are facing this cost for the first time such as PokerStars.

But none of that has anything to do with income tax. That's a totally separate debate. Gambling tax is a duty on a commodity the same as a tax on alcohol or tobacco. We are talking about the tax due from an individual earning an income. The vast vast majority of gambling winnings would never be classed as income. What we are talking about here is a small subsection of gamblers.

The main ruling I've read http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/bimmanual/bim22017.htm is based on, in my view, a poor understanding of what professional gambling constitutes. If they really understood what most pro poker players and gamblers do they would, in my view, class it as a trade.

"He plays today and he plays tomorrow and he plays the next day and he is skilful on each of the three days, more skilful on the whole than the people with whom he plays, and he wins. But I do not think that you can find, in his case, any conception arising in which his individual operations can be said to be merged in the way that particular operations are merged in the conception of a trade. I think all you can say of that man ... is that he is addicted to betting."

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say.  My point is, and always has been, give me a system that you would propose to tax me as a professional gambler and not tax a £5m lottery winner/$10m wsop main event winner or a £2k lucky15 bink in the bookies on a saturday afternoon who you deem to be a recreational gambler.  I will then easily find a way around it with various loop holes which couldn't be challenged legally.  Which is why the govt chooses to continue the way it does.

OK. Quite simply this.

Is gambling your main source of income? If yes pay the tax. If no then happy days.

Sure that would lead to loads of people falsifying returns and getting part-time jobs they never go to, which would as far as I can see be classed as illegal.

By main source of income I obviously mean consistently over a 12 month period, not purely based on one big bink being more than your salary from your job.

I assume you would allow losses to be carried forward to offset against future profits?  All reasonable expenses would be deductable prior to your final taxable figure being reached? I assume you are proposing identical tax rules than if the said individual was running a standard compnay.  Why would getting a part time job to cover my basic living expenses be seen as illegal yet a guy could be signing on the dole/claiming benefits and win £100k and not be classed as illegal?  It's a minefield which occurs to so few people (there are not many professional gamblers around in the government's eyes) that it would cost much more to police than any tax revenue it would ever generate.  Similar to not means testing benefits for certain benefits because it would cost the government more money to carry out the tests than it would save by just making the benefit universal for all.  Professional gamblers are lucky i suppose in this way to not pay any income tax but i would add there are numerous downsides of the 'profession' which a lot of people don't consider.

How would you tax a bet365 trader who earns £25k a year basic salary working for bet365 but makes £25k a year on top of his salary gambling in a consistent £2k a month flow month in month out for 10 years in a row?

Bet365 cleaner/tea lady who earns £10k a year basic salary but makes £10k a year betting following the traders in on their info?

bet365 trading director who earns £150k a year basic salary but makes £100k a year on top from his betting activities?

Why?

Everyone else pays tax, why shouldn't we?

It's sad that the only cogent argument for pro gamblers not paying tax is that we don't trust the law makers to impose something equitable.

Thinking out loud;

How about a set rate of tax at 30% of the average wage, if you play x hours of poker per year.

If you don't pay the tax, you are automatically barred from casinos and online poker sites.

Not ideal (account sharing would become rife), but a possible solution which would avoid the farce they have in the USA.

What if said poker player pays his £7500 in tax (£25000 x 30%) for 2014 and loses £150k playing mtts (quite possible) during the year.  Does he get a refund?  £150k of losses carried forward against future years profits prior to taxation in 2015?  It's just totally unworkable from a real life point of view to tax it and find a set of rules which is actually workable.  It affects so few people the government can't be bothered intervening as they get their share from other taxes from these people all collected at source instead.

That's the beauty of having a fixed rate.

No money wasted by HMRC delving into individual cases.

If you choose to be a professional poker player you pay £7500 per year in tax whether you win or lose.

Why should the government just randomly get a large % of a big score in tax.  The player took all the risk, if the player lost the government doesnt give them some of their buyin back so why should they freeroll a % of it?

Its not that Im against paying tax exactly (although Id rather not) but why should a player be taxed more than the average person if they strike it lucky one time?  Just seems like pure greed by the government.  The greed of the government is the reason why American has no online poker (which affects poker players around the world), the greed of the French government is the reason why the French have to play on separate sites and now the greed of the UK government is the reason why UK players wont be able to play on those French sites anymore.  They seem quite happy to screw with the livlihoods of professional poker players/gamblers in the short term so that they can rinse them for as much as they can long term.  Disgrace!

Are you paying any income tax Keith?  If you feel so strongly about it Id imagine you're paying some voluntarily

Points re UK

Sports betting pros actually pay negative tax as their winnings mean that less gross profits tax is paid by the bookie

All poker players pay tax via the gross profits tax.  Many poker players would win if it wasn't for rake.  It is an undeniable economic fact that in a competitive market, rake could be lowered if the tax was lowered.

Points re world as a whole

Some countries simply have vindictive tax regimes where gambling is concerned.  They want to punish winners (and often losers).  They don't deserve any loyalty whatsoever and criticising refugees from persecution of this kind isn't fair.

Interesting idea. 

The winner of a big score is paying the tax for all the players who don't have a big score. That's how a graduated tax system works, those who make the most pay the most.

Bankers pay tax on their bonuses which could be considered the equivalent of winning a big score.

Of course I don't pay tax. I think I should, but I won't while I don't have to.

I pay my NI stamp every year though which I'd be surprised if more than 10% of pro gamblers do.

I think the problem si a lot of things either become unworkable or inequitable.  

I am starting a job on Monday for the first time in a while.  This puts me in a much better position for my gambling than I was before.  I don't need to carry a big bank, I can spend a bit more freely, and safely gamble bigger.  My earnings overall will be a lot better, and I wil find it much easier to pay any tax.  But I see here that people like the new me won't have to pay any gambling tax, but the old me would.  That seems really wrong to me.   Also over the last 10 or so years I have done many periods where I have been new me and old me in the same tax year.  What do I get taxed then?  I hav ehad losing gambling years as well as wining ones, if I can carry forward these losses, then why can't somebody less proficient?

If the new me has to pay gambling tax, then what about the fella who sits next to me with a FOBT addiction.  Why doesn't he get tax relief from the wretched things that the Government collects so much revenue from?  I also know a few people through my profession who gamble in serious size on poker, markets and sports.  I am fairly sure some of them have huge swings year by year.  Where are we taxing/offsetting losses with them?  It just becomes very messy when you start thinking about it.

I don't really see how you can charge someone tax if they have no earnings, that seems deeply wrong to me.  I can't see anyody introducing a flat rate tax of that size any time soon, it is like Poll Tax on steroids.

It just strikes me as a huge amount of effort to craft new laws for not much revenue.  I am guesisng there must be a big chance costs > revenue here.

Anyway genuine question, does anyone know if Tony Bloom pays tax?  I am guessing he must do given his activities, but am not entirely sure.

While I agree with you that several countries do indeed have a overly harsh tax rate levied on poker players the players know this when they chose to play.

Tax dodging is completely unacceptable.

You live in a country, you should pay the tax.

Don't wait until the tax impinges on you negatively then move to a different country.

Why not that's what 99% of company's do.

You reckon I think that is acceptable behaviour?

Tax to businesses/companies is just another overhead.  Therefore to pro gamblers it will just be the same.  It is therefore up to the government to price this 'overhead' at a competitive rate to ensure businesses don't run and make them feel like they are getting bang for their buck.

Seems more "deeply wrong" that the rest of society picks up the tab for the stuff pro gamblers are getting for nothing.

If you aren't making a profit over a year, perhaps you shouldn't be gambling for a living.

As for TB, I'd be very surprised if he pays tax on his betting profits.

He must pay income tax/NI on all of this employee's wages though as an absolute bare minimum?  Surely all his staff can't work tax free as they are not self employed gamblers but workers with a gtd income?

It isn't tax dodging.

If the country in question banned gambling by any of its citizens, would you consider it reasonable for them to move to continue gambling?  A tax regime that makes it virtually impossible to gamble is effectively a ban.

It is perfectly reasonable to have a discussion about tax and who should pay what.  But when gamblers are excessively taxed just because some bureaucrats know they are an easy mark and the public won't stand up for them, that is oppressive and it is perfectly reasonable to protect yourself from that.

Yeah true.

One day maybe he'll write a book about how he's built his empire, that really would be fascinating reading.

I remember him playing £1-£2 PLHE at the Vic about 20 years ago.

The guy has come a long way since then.

I would say TB like myself pays corporation tax

I may be naive, but I honestly don't think most governments overly tax gamblers because they are trying to screw that sector hard.

I just don't think they understand the industry.

For example I see from Oct 1st Pokerstars aren't allowing UK players to auto rebuy or top up in cash games or tournaments.

That's beyond silly.

I assume he charges people who use his syndicates and consult with him on gambling.  I think it would be hard for him to argue he isn't running some kind of pooled investment business as well, so he should get taxed on that?  I have no idea if he does if he does pay tax, but if someone is curious enough to part with a bit of cash, I am sure they can find some accounts somewhere.

His website is here FWIW

http://www.starlizard.com/what-we-do.html (http://www.starlizard.com/what-we-do.html)

The FCA would be very very angry with that

Isn't this what Blatch was running?

Instead of calling the police maybe we should have called the FCA!

In a brief answer to your question, yes. It would be treated like any other trade with the same tests applied to it. The onus is on the individual to prove he's not engaged in the trade of gambling, not the other way around.

I think in all three of those examples they would arguably all be classed as self-employed income same as if they were renting a flat out on the side.

Probably would be, I have just checked and can't see him on the register now, but he was from 2002 to 2005.  That could easily have been for something else though, as he seems to have a lot of property interests.

I am going beyond my expertise, but don't know what rules would preclude gambling from pooled investment scheme rules.   I don't even know what he really does and who for either.

Good post

I really don't see why it would be so complicated the government couldn't do it. It just classifying gambling as a trade. Then as I say the onus is on the individual to prove he wasn't engaged in the trade of gambling. In the vast vast majority of cases that will be obvious to anyone. And yeah some people will cheat and bend the law, but that's hardly new. Look at what happens in many other trades

I downloaded star lizard accounts from Companies House the other day. Will try and dig them out. Not particularly illuminating, which suggests the gambling income is not subject to tax.

Turns out I did so over a year ago.

Star Lizard made £270k profit from about £10.6m of turnover in 2012.

But if you caount gambling as a trade, people could offest their losses against profits elsewhere?  And losers outnumber winners by a huge margin.  I know  other countries just tax winners, but that doesn't make it right.  I don't have the answers and do think gamblers could pay some tax, I just don't know a system that could make it sensible.  I genuinely think I am in a better position as a semi pro gambler than someone who has only gambling to fall back on.   

Thanks.  That satisfied my curiosity.

Hmm. Yeah maybe. I expect this comes down to defining the trade of gambling. You can't just go out and deliberate enter into a loss making activity and offset it against profits in any other trade. You need to meet certain criteria. A quick google tels me

 You need to spend at least ten hours a week on the business for HMRC to accept it as genuine, and you must be trading with a view to making a profit

I am not sure I know a single gambler who intends to make a loss though?

 :)

I would say most of those that do spend less than 10 hours a week on it

Thinking about it that could raise some interesting problems with poker for sure. Presumably with it being a zero sum game it should balance out in a closed market, but the UK isn't a closed market.

When I worked at the Revenue if you made a profit on a sideline business  it was a business if you made a loss it was a hobby :)

Just as an aside. Think how amazing it would be for the poker games if you could treat poker as self-employed income and offset against PAYE. Loads of people would set themselves up as poker traders and lose a ton of cash knowing they had a safety net of sorts.

The courts decided years ago that gambling in the sense of playing cards and betting on horses etc isn't a trade, profession or vocation and therefore doesn't fall within the relevant income tax schedule, so all the debate about hours, profitability etc is irrelevant.

The govt would need to create a new tax schedule - that would take up parliamentary time, require HMRC to amend their systems and lead to everyone who places a bet having to make a tax return.  Millions in admin to collect a very small amount of tax (that would incidentally be trivially easy to avoid).

So it isn't going to happen.

I posted that link earlier in the thread. You know they can change their mind on this right?

As in they could reclassify professional gambling as a trade fairly easily.

I agree, I doubt it is going to happen too.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

Or that people who exploit the UK's blind spot aren't tax dodgers by moving here when they are going to win a fortune.

Why? And why is it not the case in other countries where gambling is subject to tax?

I'm not going to get into an argument about this as we are both laymen, but AFAIK once courts have ruled on the interpretation of legislation, it has to be changed by parliament to overcome that ruling.

Anyway the trade thing would 100% open the door to people offsetting losses against other income.  It would be very easy to demonstrate that the variance in MTTs could lead to losses for years before hitting a big one.  Professional scoop six players like Doobs and Adz would easily be able to mathematically prove that their positive expectation entitled them to be classified as entrepreneurs as they ploughed fortunes into the Tote week after week, chasing the dream :)

It's not an argument. At least I hope it's not. It's a debate I'm quite enjoying. And you're dead right, I am most definitely not an expert on this. I was just assuming with some political will it would be a relatively easy task to pass a small piece of legislation or simply overturn the decision. I may well be wrong.

I agree it's all theoretical and is very unlikely to happen, but what often happens with these discussions is people try and sidetrack The Camel's point with a discussion on the practicalities of such a law as opposed to looking at it and arguing the moral and ethical implications of not paying tax so I was just trying to suggest a way it would be plausible and realistic to prod the discussion in another direction. And I still think it could be. It is in many other countries after all.

In terms of offsetting losses, I think that's actually reasonable if it's done honestly and the people winning are paying tax as it all balances out. The mere fact of having to keep records for all play and prove 10 hours a week and some kind of business plan etc would stop 90% of people doing it anyway.

It is the case in the other countries that it is trivially easy to avoid.  It is only the really big winners that are really subject to intense scrutiny.

Fair enough. But it does change things slightly from an ethical standpoint. It's then tax avoidance rather than just not having to pay tax.

I think there is no need to change the tax situation in the UK.  obviously I'm biased but it just seems so much work for so little gain.

Also if it did come into place, then you'd just see so many accounts being opened up in family/friends names and then you'd switch accordingly.

In terms of live cash poker, then they'd have to issue receipts for records too.  A lot of money in the gambling world comes from illegal activity and you would see a lot of the players choosing a private home game too. When you see how much money is in the black economy, it's staggering and the proof of it is on every single high street.

I'm more than happy for the govt to tax the companies and for me to pay for it with a cut in rakeback etc.  not so happy about losing the French sites tho! :(

With regards to the UK being the home to many European players.  Well obviously they are spending money while they are living here so again while they don't pay any direct income tax, I would imagine the total tax receipts from a poker migrant is probably higher than the average UK workers.

I think perhaps you're overestimating most people's tolerance for illegal activity, but it's an interesting point(s).

Interesting debate. You may find the Betting, Gaming & Lottery Duty Bulletin that can be downloaded from:https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/Pages/TaxAndDutyBulletins.aspx interesting in terms of trends and the how the various elements contribute to the total. The National Lottery figures are pretty jaw-dropping.
Also saw that total gambling revenues make up about 0.3% of total Government revenues, so doubt they will want to make a headache for themselves, especially as punitive regimes (at individual level) in other countries are very likely to prove to be self defeating.

Thanks for the link. That's really interesting.

I don't see why it has to be a huge headache for the government or why it would need to be net negative. I certainly don't see why it would be punitive to ask someone to pay a normal amount of tax on their income.

Gambling and the black economy just goes hand in hand.  That's why betting shops tend to be in poorer areas, that's why certain groups of people are in casinos 24/7.  It can either be forced into crappy private games where even more issues arise (mainly security, and the naive guys are most at risk), or kept in the casinos and let them pay the tax. I remember at Luton a few years ago, when some guy came and did £250k on roulette at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon from plastic bin bags.  Doubt the HMRC or Grosvenor cared where that was obtained.

And most people don't even know when they are contributing to the black economy. I have a poker acquaintance who operates a load of the hand car washes in old petrol stations/pub car parks that have popped up in the last few years.  They are only viable as a business because the Romanian guys working there are on £3.50 an hour.

I just don't think, say, your typcal mid 20s online pro is going to run headlong towards private games and start hiding his winnings from the taxman. But maybe I am too naive.

Unlikely I agree, but then the online player would be at a huge disadvantage to the live player who could more easily hide their income.

Think I read that this was why the US tax system was unfair as MTT players got taxed but guys who played cash games could always hide it/ pay a token amount.

Also how many poker players, who haven't had to pay tax before, will have the foresight and discipline to put away 20-30% of their winnings for when their tax return is due.

I suspect that the judge that gave the tax ruling was probably quite worldly wise.  I think that he appreciated that bookmakers had an edge and invited customers to take a bet and contrasted this with a Steve McQueen type figure, buzzing about, looking for a game and mostly winning, but always with the threat of a bad run or diminishing skills vs his opposition.

My main activity at the moment is place laying on Betfair.  I explained this to a friend and he said "that just seems a bit haphazard".  And it probably is, as most edges don't last (if they were there in the first place).

My point being that the judge was able to distinguish between the viable business of the bookmaker and the "haphazard" activity of the individual.  And I think there are a lot of people who might be getting by on gambling now, but have no guarantee whatsoever they will be in a few months.

There are obviously a few people who are so systematic and regularly profitable that they might be in a trade anyway - eg bot assisted arbers, market makers on betfair or heads-up bumhunters who only take action from recs - but the vast majority of "winners" can't hand on heart claim they will still be winners next year (in the same way that most businesses can).



    

Or even realise what happens in year 2. That's a right kick in the balls.

Interesting discussion on the NFL and its tax status at the moment in the US

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/09/nfl-tax-exempt

I pretty much said this right at the start. It's never going to happen. If it didn't happen during the boom years of poker/arbing/sports betting pre recession it's certainly not going to happen now. Far more professional gamblers have moved onto other forms of income in the past three years than have joined the ranks so the net tax to collect from this group would be much lower than in 2006 when they couldn't care less.

Good thread about the November Nine this, well excited for the final now.

ie. mods maybe split this thread in two? Pretty good discussion on tax n that, probably should name it as such.

This is a spurious argument Ryan.

Every other self employed person has to "put money away" to pay his/her taxes.

Why shouldn't poker players?

It really isn't tough unless they are complete degens.

The last line is funny.

If you are staked/sold %'s then the person with the stake/% is liable for the tax, not the person who won the money;

For example if I had 10% of Peter Eastgate then when he was submitting his tax return he would require my personal tax information - as in LV I'm not liable to pay any tax on my winnings he would be able to send me my $900k and I would be able to keep it, if I was american I would have to pay a % of that to the IRS.

How it works with american->american (or tax country-> tax country) staking deals I'm not so sure, so if someone was in $250,000 make up and won $1m I guess they would have to show those previous $250,000 in loses to get tax relief on them.

You can claim back over the year but as far as I know you cannot claim back previous years losses, which makes it very unfair. Meaning if he was in $250k make-up and some of those losses were accrued in a previous year he might not get relief on them this year (but would have had on them last year I guess...)

@Ryan - yeh live cash guys have an advantage that it's easier to hide winnings - but this is only good to a certain point, as what use is $200,000 in cash if you've declared a taxable income of $44,000. You go and buy a car in cash for $40k and the IRS is all over you.  Also in Vegas the casino's record how much casino chips' you've cashed out and this info is available to the IRS also, so could be even worse, you could have $200,000 in bellagio chips and that's even less use if you're planning to hide it.

Not disputing that live cash players have an easier time with this but the advantage is fairly negligible and most will declare an amount much closer to the true figure than you would imagine. Making $300k in a year and saying you made $40k not really an option for most pro gamblers in the states.

I think that tax on gambling winnings is far too high, and far too rigid.  The argument of "well other people pay tax so why shouldn't gamblers do too" is fair enough but the way it's implemented means that the top earners get taxed way more than "real world" counterparts.

Ryan Reiss paid 42% of his main event win to the IRS, filed as a self employed gambler, do you honestly think a self employed person who made NET profit of £5,000,000 would have paid £2,100,000 in taxes? Absolutely no chance. So many ways and method of reducing your tax exposure legally that are not available to gamblers.  Also if you're going to be taxed on your profit then surely you should be able to claim back the tax you've already paid on the rake of entering the tournament?

Obviously the UK system of not taxing it at all is unfair in the reversal of this. Simply put though my view is that if a government is going to treat it as a self employed income and tax accordingly then the same amount of tax benefit should be allowed in return.

!

Have asked the techy Mods to split the thread AFTER the fourth Post. Everything after that will be in a new thread, probably called.....

A taxing question

It'll not be until later this morning, the lazy tossers dont get up until 7am.

Couple of points on that.

That is not something that is being implemented for any tax-related reasons, it is coming in (rightly or wrongly) for completely different reasons.

It is not just PokerStars UK, it is ALL sites that wish & need to comply with the new UK gaming Licences. As it happens, not all of them will introduce this on Oct 1st, as it is being appealed. I would expect that if it is implemented, most sites will do so by January 2015.

Re the 'offsetting losses' points, if this ever came into play I think it would clearly be on the basis the losses can only be offset against future profits from 'the same trade', i.e.  poker winnings.
The idea of a self employed IT consultant with an expensive poker habit offsetting year on year losses against his IT income Is bonkers.

But think how good it would be for the games?!

I find it hard to give a shit about the nov 9 to be honest

Should we have a thread about taxi on the forum at this time?

Not sure what you mean, Mr L. Have I been whooshed by the BITB?

Think he is talking about this

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvn-tBeLpCk

I mean at a time where governments are doing lots of negative stuff to the industry I'm sure their experts are swooping around forums etc, do we need to have a huge debate in here. Maybe best to say nothing kind of thing.

^ This is mildly hysterical mr leno

They are not doing "lots of negative stuff" to our industry. The UK government is trying to claw back some of the lost revenue when everyone took the p*** and f***ed off to Gibraltar so they didn't have to pay any tax.

Elsewhere it's totally reasonable and sensible that governments attempt to control and regulate online gambling.

Governments not necessarily our government.

And I guess I mean stuff that immediately negatively effects a lot of people on the forum, including those itt.

Ahh, gotcha. You typed "taxi debate" which sort of curve-balled me, sorry.

I think you are being a shade paranoid here & I don't agree that it is unwise to discuss this.

I can't imagine that anything written on a two bit poker forum will change how Governments think. It'll be on others forums, too. We can't really censure or ban such a debate because we think it might be bad for us.

Some folks believe that we should not discuss Bookmakers tactics on Fred, as they think the bookies spend all day surfing blonde in case someone gets £10 @ 5/1 on a 4/1 shot. I don't buy that either, not for a second. The bigger bookies are taking bets via automated software processes, in the run up to big events they are taking thousands of "BPM" ("Bets Per Minute"). The notion that they have a little man sitting there, spying on blonde, can't be serious.

Same with the UK Government, or the Tax people, they have better things to do than read every UK "specialist" forum.

For the record, I think regulation, broadly speaking, is not only very necessary & overdue, I think it is a good thing.

I do regret that some players will be inconvenienced, &/or negatively impacted, but it is what it is, it is needed.

Such as?

I think the days of online poker being, essentially, an unregulated free for all are long gone. This is the new world, and frankly there is more positive momentum in Europe than negative from regulators and governments towards the game as far as I can see.

The documents here are interesting as they capture some of the debate within Government regarding proposed taxation of Professional Gamblers on Betfair some years ago:
http://www.hblb.org.uk/documents/87_Responses_to_HMCustoms&ExciseConsultation2002.pdf

Beware though there are 209 pages of it and you may find several hours of your life disappear if you download it. Lots of interesting stuff about the Bookmaking Industry in general and impact of Betfair on it.

How come a "major" bookmaker asked Blonde to delete one of my posts then? :)

I know the guys from betfred, bet365, willhill very very well from my time in Gibraltar and hats exactly the kind of stuff they will be doing. I'd guess that somebody form each of the above logs on t blonde every day.

bet365 don't have any sportsbook guys in gib do they?

Very good. ;)

Well they sponsored blonde at the time, so that may have had a bearing on matters. Bookies sure as hell don't have hordes of staff monitoring forums. 

   

I've ever read papers when I used to work in poker expat that had reports on blonde poker and comparisons etc, there is a lot of people with a lot of time on these jobs.

The recent banning of auto top up for UK players would suggest to me that the UK government knows very little about poker, and probably don't know anything about poker forums.

Sky Bet almost certainly doesn't, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if some of the more old-school trader heavy books spend a chunk of time looking at forums and twitter

care to link to your article?

the submission to the UKGC was very interesting

...and every other "Gambling Forum"?

blonde is tiny compared to many.

"Major" Online bookmajkers have hundreds of thousands of Clients, can take 50 or 60,000 bets on a decent football match at the rate of hundreds of bets per minute, & the whole thing is software automated. There's no place in that for a little man spying on every sports betting forum. 

If everyone "regular" on Fred has a bet on the Arsenal Man C game, that might be £2,000 of bets in a very liquid market. The bookies will collectively take a 7 figure number on a MNF match, so £2k or whatever is nothing.

That surprised me so I looked into it. It doesn't appear to be new. It's from a technical standards document from 2009. What is new is that companies are having to comply with it as they are now licensed by the UK government.

To be fair to the UK government it's actually a more complex issue than it looks. While it obviously does benefit winning players to be able to auto top up, there can be little doubt in my mind it causes losing players to lose more than maybe they would otherwise.

They also have a chunk of time in the morning where they are sitting around not doing a great deal looking at various information sources to price up matches and decide what to push to punters and how to price up specials and offers.

Well I'm sure they all take note of, say, Pricewise etc, but very little beyond that sort of thing.

Maybe so, but I think we need to keep the size of blonde, & Fred, in perspective. It is very very small indeed in the grand scheme of sports betting in the UK, not even on the measureable scale.

Seems fair in principle if they pay tax where it's due.

However, if most of us were in the same spot and paying the tax made a big difference to our future how many of us would try to dodge it if they could? I think I probably would. It's easy to say you wouldn't when you don't have that real situation laid down in front of you.

They don't like the idea of people putting money in play without actually acknowledging that they are doing so.  It isn't anything like a silly as some of the other regs throughout the world eg the French taxing a pot when there isn't a flop dealt.  If players find some way of showing that there aren't any risks, it can probably get changed.

Also HMRC gave poker a carve out because rakeback/player rewards were so prevalent and the definition of gross revenue for tax purposes is rake less rakeback/rewards.

TY. Its not 'my' arguments btw, some guys on 2+2, but interesting stuff indeed:

http://www.pokerstrategy.com/news/world-of-poker/87097/

It's true. However, I'm of the belief that it's an opt-in feature that only the big grinders are really aware of and use. Just like recs dont use the 'cascade' feature or the 'default to 2.5bb bet' features, they also don't know of or feel the need to use it.

The poker reps maybe (Is Vali still at WH btw? Top bloke) but doubtful the sports guys. The poker industry is so much smaller than we all think and it's a minnow compared to sports betting and horse racing. I imagine Tikay and co get the table right at the back near the toilets at the SkyBet Xmas do.

It's not exactly hidden. It's about two clicks away in the main menu bit on the client isn't it?

BTW UK pro players paying tax could likely solve one of the biggest issues they face, and that's getting a mortgage. They would still face hurdles of course but not as many.

As a taxpayer I love watching UK pro players shit themselves whenever I tweet a headline with UK+poker+tax in it. I'm surprised James Atkin hasn't been on yet, he is usually the first to panic. Bless him.

It is remarkable how two clicks is a massive barrier for some people online.

I doubt they monitor TFT, but some sure as hell have Google alerts for their company name switched on.

Far too much of a coincidence that a "stale" price is flagged up on blonde that has been there for days and is chopped within minutes of appearing in the thread.

Maybe not all bookies, but some for absolute certain.

Lol, right on both counts Mr C.

Compared to Sports Betting, Poker is positively tiny.

Globally, the amount wagered on all Online gaming is absolutely huge. The Internet caught everyone off guard, & regulation - not just gaming, everything, especially legal areas such as defamatory comments, & "libel" generally - have not been policed or Regulated because they fall outside the structure of tradition legal jurisdictions. They have to be Regulated.  We've had 10 or 20 years of freedom, but it ain't been all good.

It'll take a while to get right, & upset a lot of people, & even harm some, which is regrettable, but it has to be done. You just can't have a multi trillion business unregulated. (Or multi billion in the case of Online Poker).

Call

EVERY bookie, in fact every business, has google alerts.

Can you imagine how many google alerts, say, Wm Hill get in an average day? 20,000? 50,000? Not sure I buy that some poor chap reads all of those within seconds of them appearing. For starters, there is some time lag before google alerts even reports them.

If a stale price suddenly gets action, especially in a thin market, the bookies software ought to insta flag it up.   

If you are suggesting the global Online Gaming market is less than a trillion (& to be fair, you'd likely know that far better than me) I'd be very surprised. Then again, I'm not exactly sure what a trillion is.

If you mean turnover, as in all the money bet in the world endlessly recycled, then maybe it might get close to a trillion.

But most estimates of global industry have revenues at around $40bn annually, which I personally think is a bit toppy.

For example PokerStars annual revenue is around $1bn, which makes the global poker industry approx $2bn using a pretty crude estimate. Most of the 'expert' data people have it at around $4-5bn so not sure where they are finding the rest of the revenue, unless they know something pokerscout doesn't.

Well that's an odd one, because as you know, one player can take a tenner & end up with a turnover of £100 or more in a day, very easily. So the bloke spent £10 but the turnover was £100.

Yeah it's a bit of a nonsense metric and is only used by people looking for a dramatic headline.

bet365 had a turnover well north of £20bn last year, but "only" posted revenues of £1.3bn for the same period.

In other words they only actually turned over £1.3bn in a real sense. The rest was just money working its way around the system as a theoretical concept before it dropped into anyone's bank account.

No the poker guys are mainly useless there as we know but there betting teams are much bigger, think you'd be surprised by some of the "smaller" stuff they do or even pay others to do.

Surely taxing any system that allows play across borders that include the ability to offset losses are easily worked around. You'd just dump all your profits to your mate in Amsterdam and take a long weekend picking up your cash every month

It's interesting quite a few people had adopted the, if the law moves against you move against the law approach.

Do you think most poker pros would rather resort to borderline criminality than simply pay tax?

yes.

borderline criminality is a bit over the top surely?  Moving to another country you are 100% legally entitled to under EU law to reduce your expenses as a business is hardly 'borderline criminality'.

he spoke about chipdumping

Have you no social responsibility?

Why shouldn't you pay tax?

Everyone else does.

Thousands of people on benefits too lazy to work with children don't pay any income tax (even though they 'earn' way above the personal tax allowances in benefits in some cases having effective gross incomes of £60/70k pa if you gross up the net value of their benefits) should they not feel an even bigger social responsibility as they have children/keep having children whilst on benefits who are a much bigger drain on the system than poker players who take very little, if anything out of the social security till, and are usually single?

I am not looking for a ruck here but there are possibly millions of people in the UK who don't pay income tax and another several more million who pay very little if they do.  The main reason i choose to become a professional gambler was the tax advantage of being legally allowed to do it.  There are not many other upsides and plenty of downsides as listed before.  If in 2005 i would have been taxed on it in line with any other job i would have probably chosen to have stayed in paid employment tbh.

If I was a young person in Europe today I would have absolutely zero social responsibility.  Ridiculous house prices, massive youth unemployment caused by austerity to protect the wealth of the rich, propping up the banks for the same reason.  I couldn't possible criticise someone who decided to look after themself.

This might explain what Gus Hansen is doing.

That's such a depressing viewpoint. That's exactly the mentality of the people at the top.

Yeah my wording wasn't the best. But as Pleno says I was reacting the the concept of chip dumping and collecting a brown bag of cash once a month and other suggeations of falsifying accounts. Moving country is fine by me. Freedom of movement and all that.

I agree it's a depressing viewpoint but as a single man with no children i pay way more tax, without even paying income tax at all, than i ever get back from the system in services received.  I have never once felt bad about performing my chosen profession in the last 10 years without paying income tax.  I just took advantage of a tax law at the time which still exists.  As i have said before, sit down and work out how much tax you pay a year on all your expenditure like i have, and you will realise you still pay far more tax than you ever get back in services.  That has virtually always been the case for me for my whole life whether i pay income tax or i don't (i have 9 years of paying and 9 years of not paying).  I find it really annoying when i get told in 'normal' company outside of gambling circles i am a tax dodger/non tax payer etc etc in the same way as these same people would be offended if i told them they shouldn't have children if they can't afford to bring them up without taking benefits from the system to do so.  We all have choices in life.

The vast vast majority of those not paying tax do so because they are really fkn poor and are struggling to get by mate

I am not disagreeing with you.  The point was made because the original statement said 'everyone pays tax' i just wanted to clarify that is not strictly true.

What about families who choose to have 8 kids who can't afford them yet received 'salaries of £70k/£80k effectively from the state in benefits' but don't pay a single penny of income tax even though their 'income' in benefits takes them easily over the higher rate of tax never mind the basic rate?  This is the reason why people get fucked off with the system when however they choose to work/pay income tax etc don't really care about not paying their share when the real scum of society just keep abusing the system.  If there is a way not to fund these people in 2014 legally (like being a professional gambler) i will do whatever I can not to pay.  Last time i looked i have never signed on/claimed a penny, broke any laws through out my life through my choice of employment and dodged any social responibility (ie i pay way more tax every year than i ever get back out of the system) yet people who choose the same employment route as me are made to feel like we are the criminals in all of this. 

I have some sympathy for your perspective of having your own moral compass and determining the level of tax you pay is appropriate or makes you a net contributor ergo 'don't look at me'.

Pretty sure most non tax payers don't work this out but maybe that's because it is an irrelevance - of course there are net contributors and net taker outers - that's kind of the point and so it is legitimate to assert that, you, as a non income tax payer should pay some direct taxation too.

Regrettably, you, like most people could be one operation/one illness away from becoming a massive net taker outer. Even if it was just for this reason, your argument about your personal  current P & L with the Government is pretty worthless - yah, worthless.

read the question again, bro.

Just because a tiny percentage of the population are scumbags with no conscience doesn't mean "If it's ok for them, it's ok for me".

That's the path to anarchy.

Nailed it.

So you never went to school?

Education and health are the biggest two chunks of public spending and we all get our fair go out of those before our time is done. And that's not even getting into the police or transport or all the myriad other day to day stuff.

I am not a scumbag though.  I choose my profession because of the tax laws determined by the govt not by me.  I don't fecklessly produce children and expect someone else to pay for them.  I don't expect fellow tax payers to fund my lifestyle via the benefit system.  These are the real scumbags in society not professional gamblers.

When did this thread become the daily mail comments section?

Do you think people earning £60k/£70k in benefits (salary equilvalent when it is grossed up) should be subject to income tax any more or less than a professional gambler who earns the same?

They probably pay a shit load of tax on all the fags, booze and scratchcards they buy with it anyway, so no need.

Camel - Thatcher then globalisation chucked society in the bin.  I'd love it to come back, but it isn't going to.

Brilliant post.

Even without anything unfortunate happening which would require a huge capital investment, I still struggle to believe any pro gamblers are net contributors to the tax system.

Do you drive? Do you have your rubbish collected? If someone looks suspicious do you call the police?

The list is nearly endless what the tax system gives to society.

So do most professional gamblers on their audi's r8's and the petrol to run them/champagne in strip bars/air fares/hotels etc etc.  The question was 'should they be subject to INCOME tax' prior to them choosing how to spend their net income like everyone else in the country?

Daily mail mentioned landed

I was torn over what I wanted the result of the Scottish Indy vote to be.

Countries should be getting bigger not smaller.

But then I realised Scotland might just become a socialist utopia if the Yes won and I started fucking hard for it to win.

Probably would moved up there if it had.

I'll get the Hitler one in now too.

Also just had a Thatcher reference.

Loving the idea that driving nice cars, drinking champagne and frequenting strip clubs is the socially responsible thing to do. Now you can degen it up at the strip club whilst knowing you are contributing to society. Those strippers have mouths to feed after all :)

To answer your question, probably not, simply because the money is derived from other people's income tax, so it would seem a bit pointless. But I haven't thought about it at great length to form a full opinion.

I'm not against professional gamblers making the most of the tax benefits in this country, I work in the gambling industry so I can only imagine it benefits me, it is the seemingly random deflection blaming people on benefits I was pointing out.

I wonder be amazed if betfair hasn't paid more corporation tax in the last 8 years from my contributions to rake and commission than i would have paid in income tax.  I am paying my tax on my income at source effectively via betfair.  Why should i then be subjected to a second form of income tax again on my income after i have effectively paid it at source?  no other form of income has to do this why should i?  If there wasn't such a tax on gambling firms to the levels there now are bf would be able to charge lower commission/rake levels to reflect the lower cost base they have and then i would make sufficiently more to cover my income tax bill.

That really is just a business expense that happens to be subject to a lot of tax by the party who recieves it. Like someone else posted, they chose to charge you extra for that. There will be plenty of businesses with high turnover and low profit margins who could claim the same thing, but they also pay tax on their income.

Again, no issue with poker players doing what they do, just sayin

I personally can't see that the validity of the argument "well pro gamblers spend their winnings on nice cars and champagne so they are paying tax/VAT through their spending". However, I do agree with the point that a lot of gambling is taxed at source, and that rake etc would be a lot lower if the govt did not tax it as heavily. DTD for example had to increase their rake substantially as a direct result of the gambling tax being applied to them (since they had done things properly/above board and got a full casino license). If pro gamblers had to pay income tax as well it would be like getting hit twice with the tax burden.

Yes, I realise that all companies get taxed and have other expenses, and that they pass much of this burden on to their customers through higher prices. But the gambling tax is super harsh compared to the majority of other business taxes. The tax is on revenue, not profits. So for example DTD has to pay full tax on every penny of rake generated, and cannot offset costs.

So I do think there is some validity in the argument that pro gamblers in the UK are already indirectly paying tax. I win a pot at DTD and I have to pay £10 rake. £6 or so (I don't know the exact figure) goes to DTD, and £4 goes to the government. So it is like I am paying £4 in tax to the government every time I win a pot. If you are a pro poker player then your income really is being taxed at source on a pot by pot basis.

I agree but if i decided to become a trader for a firm again and earn £xk a year and pay £xk a year in standard income tax bf would lose that liquidity which generates corporation tax for the govt.  It would just receive my income tax instead.  If every professional gambler did the same how much less corporation tax do you think betfair would pay a year?  The product would probably not exist in reality so the answer is very significant.  I am really struggling to understand how Camel thinks a proper full time hard working professional gambler doesn't pay more tax into the system as they take out.  I have done the maths on what i pay and it's staggering how much tax i effectively pay a year given i get branded a 'tax dodger' by the vast majority of society.

not wanting to sidetrack debate but do you pay PC at Betfair Arbboy?

No that would make the argument even more compelling if i did than ever.  Although the PC i agree with predominately.  Very few people actually understand it and why betfair charge it.  I have no problem with the PC.  The only people who do operate bots which hoover out money far too quickly out of the betfair system and give betfair little back in commission (ie the churn factor isn't there and betfair are spending more marketing their brand to new 'mugs' than they get back in commission from these bots crushing them).  If you are a position taker you will pretty much never pay it unless you are incredibly successful.  Arbers by the very nature will never pay it either as they use betfair as an insurance against the other side with the firms generally so will always lose on bf plus unless they back and lay on betfair they will always be a position taker on every event as well rather than a green up merchant on bf alone.

Just to clarify i said the cars/strippers/champers/booze/hotels etc argument not to avoid paying income tax but to answer the statement that professional gamblers don't pay any tax at all.  Obviously spending on these products has no influence over whether professional gamblers should pay income tax or not.

The reason why its super harsh is because the government has taken the view it's easier to collect 'income tax' from gamblers at source rather than on a person to person basis.  Therefore professional gamblers are taxed we just don't pay traditional income tax which is what i have said all along.  Rob wouldn't be charging £10 a pot rake if this wasn't the case.

Your burden of taxation is still lower than the average person and that is fundamentally unfair.  If it was only professional gamblers business that Betfair paid corporation tax on then that might be a legitimate argument but anyone that gambles there pays that tax and they pay income tax and you don't.  That is fundamentally unfair because you have access to the exact same services that they do yet contribute less if you carry out the same actiivites as them.  

You say that you sat down and worked out whether they were making a net profit from the tax that you paid but that totally misunderstands the whole point of the tax system.  It is there to make the country more equitable and ensure that people that can contribute help those that can't.  When you are 39 you are not supposed to be taking out more than you put in, you are effectively saving up credits in case something happens to you or for later in life when you cna draw a pension.  More likely if you were to get S pregnant then you wouldn't have to pay anything for her to be looked after and your baby to be delivered.  If you lived in the States for example the bankroll that you use daily for your business as a professional punter would be daily under threat everytime you crossed a road or had sex because it couldn't withstand the hospital fees potentially involved if you didn't pay insurance but in the UK you are protected by the national health service yet you don't pay national insurance.  Again that is fundamentally unfair.  The state protects you but you don't contribute to it and the idea that it is okay because someboody else does it is fairly ridiculous when they are largely either scumbags or some of the most vunerable people in the country that deserve the help of others.

Really disagree with this logic honeybadger. All businesses (or self employed people) pay large amounts of money to other businesses who also pay corporation tax. The situation of the pro gambler is not unique in this respect at all. It's just more directly obvious.

As honeybadger rightly points out in certain limited circumstances (live gaming) there is an almost punitive tax rate but that doesn't stop the companies wanting to open more casinos. That is their business cost and relates to them not you. It has nothing to do with your personal liability. It's a logical fallacy to connect the two imo.

Should people working for freight companies not pay tax as their company already pays so much indirect tax when buying fuel? Should a cab driver?

Just for the record the tax on online gambling really isn't going to be that high and currently is absurdly low for most companies. And betfair really doesn't pay that much corporation tax. It only made £60m profit last year.

Tbh, I am not 100% behind the argument anyway. However, I believe there is some validity in it - mainly when applied to the very unfair punitive tax laws that apply in, for example, live poker at a casino or DTD.

Also, I think I should start voluntarily paying my National Insurance every year. Seems the right thing to do IMO. Anyone know how I go about paying it?

Yes I suspect you are probably right in that there is a narrow set of circumstances where it has some merit. But not much :)

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/ni/volcontr/basics.htm

It's about £600 / year for me.

Obv nothing to do with income tax, but poker players stil paying for local services via their council tax payments

only income tax matters on this thread!  Other taxes don't count.  It's a lefties thread.  If you earn £60k a year on benefits though u get this paid for you (thanks to Blair and Brown's kindness for 13 years towards those who love the play the system for the max - you might even get to live in Mayfair or Westminster on the state as well even though no one in the real world can afford such luxuries) for free via other tax payers (professional gamblers do pay council tax alongside every other tax apart from income tax) and don't have to pay income tax on your income (benefits) before you pay it out of your net income.

isn't the benefit cap 25k per year? Where do you get 60k from?

It has been £25k since 2010.  Before that anything goes.  Hence why the country is skint!  This is a grossed up figure as well just for clarity of what people would have to earn in a real job to 'take home' the benefits they do to pay for the services/rent they do.  Even at a cap of £25k a year the real cap is in excess of £35k in real gross wages earned in order for them to receive £25k net.

Except of course absolutely nobody is saying that.

And we are talking about income tax (and NI) as these are the taxes gamblers don't pay. Not a great deal of point discussing the taxes we all do pay.

If someone is earning £60k in benefits then of course they should pay tax on it. Although it would make a lot more sense to simply reduce the benefit amount at source.

Afaik the Tories brought in a benefit cap so nobody is earning that much anymore anyway. Prior to that the number of people claiming that amount was in the low hundreds anyway.

People didn't really answer your point before not because they were defending huge benefit claimants but because they felt it was an utterly irrelevant side issue. As do I.

The country is skint because of the lack of a benefit cap prior to 2010?  Have you any idea how much that cost at all, or what proportion of state spending that was?  Rhetorical question obviously.

It's not so much how much it costs, more the message it sends to people who don't want to live that life because it's wrong and how demotivated they become because of it.

The Daily Mail ldo

Need the words "Political correctness gone mad" to complete the full house.

Where's Woodsey when you need him? ;)

Nah, PC tossers is better lol  ;bumwiggle;

The irony of Arbboy slating benefit scroungers, whilst informing us he's paid income tax in 9 of the last 18 years, is not lost on me. He's calculated he's in the red on taxes paid too, shock horror.

I've been paying income tax the full 18 years, so I guess I must be fucked.

what's your point?

If you're in employment (work for someone else) then you pay x% tax and nothing you can really do (not strictly true but generally) as a self employed person businessman (which is what a poker player is for the benefits of this discussion) you have some options to legally reduce the amount of tax you're paying - there is nothing socially immoral about this as you're still contributing to society you're just managing your money smarter within the boundaries of the law.

The price you pay for this is that you sacrifice a great deal of the security you have in a conventional paid employment.

On a £100,000 p/a job you would pay (this is a bit of a guess) ~£30,000 in taxes a business owner with a £100,000 net profit and a good accountant could prolly cut that by 1/2 or 2/3 but obviously that isn't £85,000 clean into his bank account.

Meh this is why I like to moan about it. I probably do £20-30k on tax every year, so you bet your arse I'm gonna bitch about where it gets spent, especially when I think about where I think it's being wasted. Other than the general expenditure on police etc I don't get any back apart from the odd GP appointment every few years.

The more I travel the more I see people that have a hunger and desire to work and earn money so they can eat and take care of the basics. That is a virtue that is sadly lacking with a proportion of our society today, and they need a HUGE boot up the arse to take responsibility of themselves imo and I'm sick of PC tossers making excuses for them.  ;adamm; ;whistle;

Anyway, there's my after 1 bottle of wine rant for the day  :D :cheers:

So it isn't why the country is skint them?  Next you'll be blaming the banks.  Guess that is an easier message to sell than blaming the pensioners or the doctors.  

This whole argument about who is a net contributor is wrong too.  

You start off with somebody else paying for your education.

Then when you are in your productive years, you might pay more than your share.  Though even then there are probably some rich folk doing most of the subsidising.   

Then you get to the bit at the end where you take your pension and other benefits; finally you have to hope you don't suffer a long term illness that will cost the NHS a fortune.  There isn't any way you can know if you paid more than your share until you die.

Contender for thread of the year now.

Absolutely incredible that people still assume that cos they don't use front line services that they don't receive anything back.  Taxes end up going on so many things that allow day to day life to function.

Must not post in thread

Must resist the urge to create a forum account called 'HMRCman1' and start posting here to wind up Pleno

Would have been so good. 

As a Professional Gambler you are fortunate to benefit from a loophole and pay no income tax. The flip side of this is that a future Government could legislate or tax your livelihood out of existence at any time.
If anyone feels this is unjust they should feel free to write a cheque to HM Treasury with a note asking for it to be set against the National Debt.
There's a handy tax calculator here for anyone who wants to do this: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/tax-calculator/

It doesn't wind me up I haven't been living in the uk for 7 years :D

I really don't understand why anyone would feel and sense of social responsibility towards paying income tax. I think everyone is well in their rights to try pay as little as possible.

NI is a different matter, not that it goes to the right places ofc.

Sounds harsh but people should be encouraged to act legally in their best interests and not for the sake of social responsibility, IMO.

You must be a raving Tory, shame on you  ;djinn;

Shame indeed!!

If you want a man to do something then the benefits of doing it should way vastly outweigh those of not doing it.

Socialism is a great idea in principle, just really doesn't work and that's historically proven.

I think there should be a tax cap. So after a certain £ amount it reduces from 40% back down to ~15%, I reckon they might actually collect more tax that way.

Oh dear now you've done it lol  :tikay:

Don't know how you somehow equate social responsibility with socialism. If you put to one side the basic human trait of altruism, most people realise it IS in their own best interest to act socially responsibly.

I think this is largely the problem with political discussions in general. It all becomes so polarising. For the most part I expect we all hold some views that are left wing, some that are right wing etc etc.

I really don't see how wanting a low tax environment is at odds with wanting everyone to contribute. I would have thought the two things were in agreement not conflict.

I wasn't.

I was kinda responding to the comments made ITT r.e. the UK welfare system, but mostly to woodsey's comments about being a "Raving Tory" :-D

Why is NI different from income tax? It's not the 1950s, they are both essentially the same thing these days.

Also think about your last sentence logically to its inevitable conclusion. You like the way that society looks? It's a bit (lot) more complex than that IMO. But I accept that's just IMO.

Just seen the edit, I never disputed that, I said that I personally don't believe that someone attempting to pay as little tax as is possible could be considered socially irresponsible.

People who say its fair that a man who earns £20,000 a year should pay £2,500 in tax and someone who earns £500,000 a year should pay £220,000 are in cloud fucking cuckoo land IMO.

I recently upped my pension payments again to avoid doing the 52% in tax on a bigger slice of my income, I guess I'm socially irresponsible   ;djinn;

Paying as little tax as possible LEGALLY is totally normal.  It's not my fault that the government makes the income tax rules the way they do.  If they changed them i would just make some calculations based on the new rules and, like any business, work out whether it was logical to continue or seek to trade in other areas.

Can someone point out where in this thread anyone said that? It just seems like this has come from nowhere to me.

I'm legally avoiding tax, just like the poker players moving to the uk.

This is when it was mentioned

No no no!

You're just being smart, you Tory bastard :-P

I have lots of issues with uk society.

I'm fairly sure he meant paying SOME tax not arguing you should pay the maximum amount possible.

In before "I already do pay some tax"

Get yourself to Doncaster

I do pay the maximum amount of income tax possible on my income.  Nothing.  My income is exempt from income tax.  I don't make the rules i just play by them.

Yeah fair point as the 20k fella will be paying more than that and there is very little chance the 500k fella will pay that much. 

Sigh.

Gold star for missing the point.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not saying professional gamblers should pay income tax in the current environment. That's just daft. As you say you are not legally obliged to. Not even the camel pays income tax right now.

I AM saying they should pay income tax in theory.

Think we also need this one

(http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00306/108147372_Carr_306839b.jpg)

I have no problem with paying income tax if the law states i have to. It's up to the government to set the limits/bands, i will then make a decision based on these bands as a businessman which form of income is going to be most beneficial for me to engage in and i will then do everything in my power to legally minimize how much tax i have to pay.  That's just human nature/standard business practice surely?  If i am deemed to be a tax dodger doing this then, imo, it's the fault of the government for not setting the rules strictly enough.

Tax system in the UK is flawed all over the place, IMO.

A good welfare system should, and i realise this is very ambitious and a little seperated from reality, encourage those at the bottom of the system (welfare recipients) to move up and progress, whilst protecting those who genuinely need looking after (which I actually think is a higher % of welfare recipients than most people believe) give the people at the top value for money and reduce incentive to cheat the system and most importantly protect the people in the middle of the system - the class who really do get shafted by the current system as they are too high up to benefit from the welfare system they massively contribute to and too low down the system and without the same resources as those at the top to creatively reduce their exposure.

Not taxing professional gamblers is another example of the flawed system, when they do decide to tax pro gamblers, they are almost certainly going to significantly over tax it, more flaws.

I've paid voluntary NI for the last 4 years, but like Alun said it doesn't go to the right places so it's just another tax, how on earth you can justify taxing one person significantly more national insurance than another is mystifying to me.

Very good post.

Wouldn't the whole thing be simpler if all taxes were collected on expenditure rather than income?

Arbboy would be right then and the thread could come to a halt.



(obviously there would have to be rigorous customs operations, but we could retrain the Income Tax mob to add numbers to that)

No definitely not.

People who earn £10 million a year would pay a tiny % of their wages in tax whereas minimum wage earners would pay near 100% tax!

Agreed.  It would be far too regressive to operate like that.  VAT is currently too high at 20% and is overly regressive without adding basic income tax to expenditure as well.

That system would work if it included a tax rebate for everyone - say £10k a year.

I'm confused by this point?

I'm stupid.

So like a personal allowance on first £10k of purchasing tax.  Wouldn't VAT have to be 60% to make this work?  Also - isn't there a problem in that if you earn in UK and spend it outside the country you'd be tax free?  It would also kill tourism unless there is some kind of tourist exemption (which would be open to fraud).

Feels like a bad idea to me.

Pretty sure they have no personal tax in The Bahamas and it's all based on property, capital gains and sales taxes.

It's pretty hilarious at the airport with the size of the bags the locals have and wearing about four pairs of jeans trying to get through customs.

When my father died, his estate got taxed 60% which IMO is an absolute joke. He worked all his life as a doctor, paid his taxes etc and still had to pay 60% after he was dead. The UK government is pure greed and if you can get what you can whilst you are alive then good on you, and tbh it really is nobody's business to dictate what others should or shouldn't do.

Agree with Scotty too, so much poker money doesn't actually come from poker, people do whatever it takes to survive and it should be on their head to face whatever consequence should they get caught. It really isn't rocket science.

I suppose all the people ITT demanding poker players should pay tax would also shop a drug dealer etc to the police ?

Poker + gambling  = Greed = every man for himself.

The amount of taxation in this country is obscene. Anybody who would not pay as little as possible must have rocks for brains.
And bollocks to all this holier than thou gamblers should pay income tax. The law says they don't have too so why should they?
Too many guardian readers in this thread!!!

I don't think anyone in this thread has said poker players are imoral, demanded they pay tax or called them tax dodgers. Everyone has said that they theoretically should pay tax. Everyone getting so defensive are putting words in the other's mouthes and not understanding the difference between a debate in theory.

The only exception has been Camel, who ironically is a professional gambler, which has certainly made things interesting and probably a tad more heated.

Minimum wage earners would pay zero on foods and essentials. People earning £10MM pa could pay 200% on their Ferrari and having the swimming pool serviced.

I do understand that it wouldn't really work in practice, but it could be designed to be fair in theory.

Suppose you lot calling out the government for pure greed will be all for slashing old age pensions, shutting down half the hospitals, or campaigning for schools to run with 40 in each class.  That is the reality.  The Government had been really struggling to raise enough tax as things like pensions and the NHS keep increasing exponentially every year. 

Last week a neoliberal, this week a guardian reader.  How quickly things change on the boards.  Makes me long for some less rabid discussion with kmac. 

And you think the pension the government gives is acceptable ? Loloooool !

Money is used for royal family, bentleys big holidays etc etc hence the why I said greed. Maybe if it was used for what it was meant for I wouldn't be slating the government.

My mum has never not worked in her life. Last year she became really ill, physically couldn't work so she was advised to claim benefits, what did they say? "You haven't paid enough national insurance to be eligible for any help" LOL. She is 56 years pls and always worked on the books in her jobs so pls tell me how that is fair? How the government is helping the working class? They are not. All for one and one for all is what I say.

Thank you for illustrating the point beautifully.  You are all for cutting taxes but at the same time find the state pension a disgrace.  Education, the NHS and pensions and benefits for the elderly are going to be something close to half the Government budget.  If you asked people what we should do with those 3, there would be far more people say we should increase spending than cut it.  Way of the World.  The last election was a joke, the public finances were in as bad a state as they had been in a generation, and they all arc like there isn't going to be a real issue with the big budget items going forward.  I got so sick of it, I was thinking of voting green.  How did they respond to the biggest financial crises in our time, yep they were going to double state pensions.  You couldn't make this shit up.   

Again we saw it in the Scottish referendum, we are going to be paying bigger pensions, more spending on the NHS and schools, start a big state oil fund for our futures and we are going to make a big cut in corporation tax.  How does that all work?  But people don't want to hear the reality, they want to keep their heads in the clouds. 

You could give every MP a chauffeur driven Bentley and pay their bills at 3 star Michelin restaurants, but it isn't going to scratch the surface of the NHS budget.

FWIW inheritance tax isn't 60%, and you certainly don't pay it on all your inheritance.  I personally would far rather tax the children of a dead person, who have done naff all for that money, than some nurse who is working nights.  Somebody has to pay the tax at the end of the day.  Each to their own.  Saying this really isn't in my self interest right now either. 

there is no basic human trait of altruism...........

Can't believe there are so many advocates of UK poker players being taxed ITT!
Why is it that some people seem to think that casinos, online poker sites etc being taxed heavily by governments is completely irrelevant to the situation. The taxes imposed upon such business is absolutely 100% directly linked to the amounts players are charged in terms of rake. All poker players are directly funding these businesses tax payments thus are effectively paying a % 'tax' on winnings (and even losses!). It's a system whereby professionals, or those who play more are charged more to play than those who rarely play.

Importantly too, this system is easily controllable, taxing at the source and allowing those businesses to pass on these expenses as they see fit, in a competative environment. Were these businesses paying no tax at all, competition between them would inevitably lead to tournaments and cash games with almost 0 rake at all, so how people can say pros aren't contributing at all is beyond me.

If a tax were to be introduced, professionals in this country would be hit hard and many wouldn't be able to continue doing what they are. Some players would inevitably end up moving to locations where they wouldnt be taxed, or finding other ways around it. Using the current system although taxes appear to be 0, the real cost on players and tax gains for the government are significant, yet sustainable imo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfgSEwjAeno (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfgSEwjAeno)

This video touches on inheritance tax, and while obviously from an American POV, it has a great point.

The Royal Family budget and the salary and expenses of MPs are minuscule to the national budget.  In fact I would far rather see MPs salary rise massively to £300k a year and attract far better people who right now stay in the private sector, than the politicians we have right now.

Sounds like it would be pretty good for the game to have a mass exodus of mediocre pros though right?

The royal family budget is covered easily by the tax paid indirectly by the thousands of yanks and asian tourists' spending which hit London every year to see the sights and love the royal family. 

No one goes to Paris, Rome, Amsterdam, Berlin, Barcelona, Venice etc etc etc etc etc do they?

Nhs is in a lot of trouble, should be privatised IMO.

Schools are the big thing that public spending should focus on, in an ideal world.

There are no online poker companies that pay any meaningful amount of tax to the UK government at the moment. PokerStars is based in the Isle of Man. It paid $5m tax on $422m profit in 2013. All the UK government got was an even smaller amount in corporation tax from its UK marketing subsidiary.

From December it will have to pay 15% on its UK revenues to the UK government and just the threat of it reducing player rewards to compensate has players up in arms.

People who don't currently pay tax leaving the country so they don't pay tax also doesn't seem like a huge loss.

Can starbucks also leave the country?  Easily the biggest 'non standard income/corporation tax non payer' in the history of the country based on turnover.

Starbucks also create circa 8,500 jobs in the UK, whose wages then get pumped back into the economy. Wonder how many UK employees pokerstars have? I'll go for the under.

poker stars probably have 10000 'employees - poker pros' who pump way more into the 20% vat economy than starbucks zero hour contract min wage guys do.  Does that make it ok for Starbucks to pay fuck all uk corporation tax?

Lots of companies employ 8,500 people, or more and Starbucks can't avoid having that many if they pursue their tactic of a coffee shop on every corner. I'd guess most of them get minimum wage and with a standard tax code that doesn't generate much in the way of tax, and not a huge amount in the way of priming the economic pumps.
They use clever/devious/dirty (delete according to view) manoeuvring of their internal costs to reduce their tax bill in this country. It's currently legal for them to do this, but adjusting the laws to revise this situation seems to me to be more important, and money generating, than adjusting the laws on taxation in respect of gambling winnings.

I don't want to get into this argument but privatising healthcare really wouldnt be a good thing for most people financially.  My wifes salary in the States is about $2.5k a month and the healthcare costs for her and my daughter that come out of that are $600 a month and that is with her company contributing a decent amount on top of that for her.  Despite paying this when she was pregnant I still ended up paying about $8k in deductibles (with almost all healthcare plans you have to pay the first 10% up to a certain amount).  The overall bill just for the three days she was in hospital when she had Liv was nearly $35k and that is without certain special care she had to have during her pregnancy etc.  So many people live in constant dread that any kind of illness could wipe them out for years even if they have healthcare and it doesnt even bear thinking about for those that don't.

Arbboy, you're so full of shit it's unreal.

Please expand why i am full of shit so i can correct you. ty in advance.  Would be nice if you answered my question first though as to why it's perfectly acceptable for a company the size of Starbuck's to pay hardly any uk corporation tax even though their profits in this country are huge  before telling me i am full of shit! ;)

'The main reason I chose to be a professional gambler was the tax advantage of being allowed to do it' - Arbboy, page 10 of thread

Followed by something along the lines of  'Starbucks should be kicked out of Uk cos they don't pay enough corporation tax'

To be clear, I don't like Starbucks practises in paying less tax than they should, they do it because they can get away with it. But for you to have a dig when you freely admit you do what you do to avoid tax is ridiculously hypocritical at best.

And I agree, yes you should start paying N.I.

I don't avoid any tax.  I make an honest living doing what i do and choose to do it over being a trader in paid employment for a living because i was financially better off doing it.  My income is exempt from income tax period.  Always has been always will be.  Starbucks income isn't exempt from uk corporation tax barring some tiny legal loophole.  Costa run thousands of identical shops to them s long the same products and pay corporation tax. There is no doubt about this in the slightest.  I don't have to fiddle figures between my other operations in other EU countries to lower my tax bill in the uk (tiny legal loopholes which should not even exist but high class tax accountants find them for these firms - they will disappear in a number of years unlike the laws on my income which will not change in the slightest and haven't changed in the slightest in decades) because i legally have no tax bill in the uk.  Your argument is stupid and pointless.  I do what i do because i am 1000% legally better off doing it than working a job in the same industry.  If i was offered a £250k a year job at lolbrokes tomorrow paying 50% income tax i would be on the same gravy train as you are.  It's just a pure business decision for me nothing about avoiding tax.  I have never avoided paying any tax i am due to pay at any stage of my life.

How do you know if i pay NI or not?  Do you work for the tax man?  Do you have access to my personal records?

Your defensive barrage of questions was sufficient to answer my one, lol.

Ok, so why did you write the main reason for your current choice of work is the 'tax advantage' if you do not 'avoid' tax? Either retract your original comment, or continue your random tangent of arguments until they trip over themselves, again. Maybe it's a 'pure business decision' for Starbucks to maximise their position to minimise their tax too?

L it's not tax surely.

If you can earn 100k and pay 30k in tax obviously you'd do that over earning 50k and paying zero.

Nobody chooses a job on how much tax they pay, it's just about net amount At
End of the year.

Arbboy does, apparently

Why isn't it a pure business decision of Costa  to fiddle their figures and pay no uk corporatiom tax and every other coffee shop in the uk then who sell identical products to identical customers in identical areas? Every rival of mine ( fellow professional gamblers all pay the same legal amount of tax due on their earnings - zero. This is set by the government and out of our hands.

The main reason for my current line of work is purely financial like most people's work decisions. They tend to take the jobs which pay them the most money 100% legally.  That is what I have done most of my life.

If you actually read my replies you would see what you said it wrong as usual.  I said if I was offered a 250k year a job at lol brokes paying 50% tax I would probably be back paying tax. Like Pleno correctly stated i have no problem paying income tax I have paid lumps of it for half my working life and if the best opportunity in the future involved it again I woukdnt think twice as long as It was 100% legal. Not sure where you are getting confused here?

Pretty sure most people don't do this actually.  I would say 90% of the arguments you have on here come from your worldview that everyone makes decisions based 100% on their financial impact (certainly this one and to a large degree the ones on scottish independence) and actually for most people that isn't the case.  They make decisions for a whole host of reasons but maximising the amount of money they make is actually not why people get a lot of jobs.  If that was the case nobody would become nurses, teachers, social workers and loads of other professions that don't pay that well but have a social good.

This is true but the vast majority of people decide what career they want to enter for enjoyment etc then choose the best paid role within the industry they can find which suits their personak situation. 

No confusion on my side actually. You come across as quite cold and calculating... nil sense of wanting to contribute  to society, 100% about what's good for you. Therefore I don't think its appropriate for you to comment on Starbucks, Costas, etc, who certainly contribute more than you do to the UK.

And now for a short musical interlude

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx9cMWF_ZiQ

Anyone see the difference between a global corporation deliberately avoiding paying tax and an individual not paying tax he's not liable for?
Interesting circumstances to advocate censorship.

Doobs, perhaps rather than saying the level of taxation is obscene I should have said the efficiency with which it used is dire ( although improving).
Can't agree that my children should pay tax on what I work to leave them so that a public sector employee can work tax free,regardless of the time of day they work.
Finally, Guardian reader? Could be worse, could be Mail or Telegraph.

A reminder of just how bad it was for high earners in the '60s and how ridiculously good the Beatles were.

Didn't realise how much I liked the song until I stumbled upon this dire Tom Petty version, which reminded me how much better the original was

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA6PRMbTGaA

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS_V5BJgdZk

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbneAdXnW9c


.

There are so many songs from so many albums, and so few duds.
I stumbled on to the last 40mins of this the other night.
http://www.cbs.com/shows/the-night-that-changed-america/
 Searching for a dvd of it now.

Oh, tax?
Matthew 22:21
Not religion, just a sound moral code.

I would really hope they do in absolute terms as they take out more money from the uk economy for their own needs than probably every professional gambler in the uk made last year.  However i would be happy to have my largest wager of the year that i paid a higher % of my total uk based earnings in the last year in tax than starbuck's did on their equivalent figure.

You sure? Betfair paid no corporation tax last year, in fact they have a £4.2m credit to carry forward to next year so none of your BF commission has ended up in the Treasury.

be more specific about the bet please. are you saying you paid more direct tax or indirect tax by way of your spend?
how much was your biggest bet of the year so far?

I don't pay any direct tax on my income it's all indirect on spend as that's the way the government chooses to collect it.  I can't lose the bet as, after expenses last year, i made a trading loss therefore even if i only spent £1 in tax my % would be higher than starbucks.  However i don't get any taxable losses allowable against future year's profits i have still paid all my tax at source via the rakebox etc etc.

Interesting.

I thought about it and in my mind if they privatised healthcare here, but the main chunk of welfare payments was to subsidise healthcare? So benefits payments would go down but healthcare subsidies would increase. N.I would be dismantled and you'd recieve a % of your of your health insurance returned to you based on your salary + circumstances.

So professional gamblers paying no tax would recieve no benefit, people on low salaries would recieve a certain % in tax relief back and anyone in full time education would recieve for free. Pretty good incentive to find work (or to work hard to find work) if you'll lose healthcare if you dont

Having said all this though I really don't know what I'm talking about it's mostly idle speculating but I just feel quite strongly that profit-run organisations are always going to be way way more efficient than not.

Even though i am a massive tory i totally disagree with this.  I think the nation's health and education are two things which cannot be be left to the private sector.  It just wouldn't/doesn't work and when you travel abroad, esp in the USA, you realise how lucky we are to have the NHS in the UK.

The NHS isn't perfect and private healthcare would give better care to those who can pay for it. That said I wouldn't change what we have now too much as it does a pretty good job overall. People who can afford it can still take out health insurance now anyway if they want better care.

I think a hybrid of the two systems would be best, I agree that if it was what we have now or what the is the states them were better off work the NHS but I think it could be significantly better.

Are we including the employers NI payments as tax for Starbucks?
And business rates?
And VAT on the goods and services Starbucks buy?

only speculating but I imagine starbucks are V.A.T reg;d?

But if much of the drinks they sell are not, what do they net it off against?

pretty sure coffee and hot drinks are VATable products, same with coffee beans.

They generate VAT though, for sure

not to forget employee's NI too, an indirect consequence of the salaries paid by Starbucks (Arbboy loves all things indirect so he'll allow that I reckon)

Nonetheless Starbucks have actively avoided paying tax in this country. As far as I can see arbboy isn't liable to pay tax. Is this right or am I missing something?
Do you work for Starbucks Dwayne? Or just really love their coffee?

This is right Samurai.  You are missing nothing. 

shame on arbboy for not paying tax.

SHAME.

FYP

SHAME.

He's never made anyone here a latte and a muffin though I bet

VAT is so unfair, all I'm trying to do is spunk my untaxed income away buying shit and they whack 20% on everything.

I wanted a way bigger TV, 60" will have to do I guess, robbing bastards.

No VAT on children's clothing though so you are winning there :)

For the ultimate tax swerve buy it using VPPs through Amazon

Saving grace is they at least try to hide it, not like the bloody yanks,


2 hours at $400 an hour should = $800 shouldn't it. Does it fuck.

To be fair Starbucks also aren't liable to pay corporation tax.  Their profits chargeable to corporation tax are tiny, and agreed by the Revenue. 

We can argue about what parliament intended by its tax laws, but that is a murky road to go down.  The fact is the law should be considered black and white.  If Starbucks are doing something wrong then HMRC should pick them up on it.  They clearly aren't, so if we are not happy with Starbucks' behaviour then Parliament should change the law.  Moaning at Starbucks won't get us anywhere - they are only doing what is best for their shareholders.

(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bys3QFdCMAAiJ-L.jpg)

maybe that's what the government WANTS you to think the media is trying to make you think?

I'm moving to Russia.

The 3% number is tad disingenuous as I believe it only refers to jobseekers allowance. There is also a huge chunk of money going towards housing benefit and other types of income support.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending

Pretty sure the government didn't intend to let Starbucks avoid declaring taxable profit by borrowing money from other parts of their business at high interest rates or by paying royalties to sister companies with more favourable tax regimes when they framed the laws. Murky road or not.

The point I was trying to make was that it seemed a touch harsh to take umbrage with an individual not paying tax they're not liable for, for criticizing a global corporation who have at best been creative with their accounting in the past.

That said if the chancellor who abolished boom and bust let them get away with it for that long good luck to them!

The inter company loans and inter company royalties were foreseen as they are covered by transfer pricing laws.  Now, these laws may not be stringent enough, but the solutions seems to change these laws/rules as opposed to us all getting angry at Starbucks.  It's possible that away from the general outrage, the government looks at the VAT, PAYE, NIC and business rates that Starbucks generate and figure it's not in their interests to make things difficult.  Taxation of corporations is a balancing act for Governments. 

Point taken though that it's a different scenario than an activity being completely tax exempt.

Yep. Definitely agree about the laws needing to be changed/applied more rigorously. To be fair to the UK governments past and present without global cooperation it's nigh on impossible to maximize revenues.
That said it's interesting to note that Starbucks did pay 5 million last year so perhaps a bit of negative publicity/ public outrage isn't such a bad thing.

Very true - I couldn't believe it when Starbucks did that.  I thought it weakened their posiiton considerably.

Could be worse guys http://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/09/poker-and-taxes-belgium-increases-taxes-19389.htm

20 more high earning big spending punters moving to London then.   Why would you ever want to tax people at 75% who are successful at their profession as a country?  Like having a restaurant and charging £500 a head for a starter and wondering why your restaurant is empty every night.

Yep - the concept some governments don't seem to realise is that when they set their tax rates and regulations, they are effectively pitching to a rich individual or company for that person/entity to set up there and make it their base.  Obviously there is a balancing act and people/companies should be willing to pay for the services/infrastructure of that country, but set it too high and they'll simply go somewhere else or look at ways to avoid the burden.

The counter argument people make is "good riddance" but of course if all the contributors leave them your country is bankrupt.

Probably to discourage people from doing it as a profession in the same way as the UK governmant taxes cigarettes and alcohol heavily to discourage use.

A quick google seems to suggest top rate of tax is 50% in Belgium. Assume the 75% figure means poker winnings would be subject to some form of additional capital gains style tax.

Also seems like a pretty hefty tax rate whoever you are. Lowest earners paying 25% tax.

Just like you can buy shampoo with the promise that it will leave your hair up to 100% flake free, Politicians can "look to" tax poker players up to 75%.

Seems that some pro poker players in Belgium form limited companies and pay tax on that basis on their activities. My guess, since the article mentions that only 20 players are likely to be affected, is that they are threatening those who won't go down this route with a big stick.

I've heard them make this point....but if you closed their coffee shop, almost certainly another operator (knowing a coffee/cafe operation works at this location) would take over, paying a similar amount of VAT, PAYE,NIC, business rates etc?....and probably some corporation tax ;-)

Quite possibly - but I guess Starbucks drove the coffee culture (or Seattle Coffee Company as they were then).  Don't remember there being much interest in it before they arrived, so it's possible they just do it better than other companies.

It's a tough one because the indepenent bakers/coffee shops in my town has closed down since Starbucks turned up as the middle england house wifes love an expensive brand over spending locally and with a company who pay corporation tax so it definitely does hurt other businesses who would pay corporation tax imo.