blonde poker forum

What's the most unpopular benign opinion you hold?

(i.e. not political, just socially derided)

eg breaking bad is terrible

eg Mrs Browns boys is a masterpiece of comedy

eg I like people eating on public transport

eg Literally anything is a better use of people's time than going to a gym.

nirvana were an inferior band, who's influence is overrated. and their drummer went on to form a much better band
 
glastonbury festival far from being a haven for alternative lifestyles and new music merely reflects the middle of the road the tastes and sensibilities of its octogenarian millionaire rural land owner.

a lot of the characters in the sopranos could have been lifted out of a simpson's mafia special  for all their realism and grittiness.

I prefer The Monkees over The Beatles.

I think that the Paralympics should not take place.

Women tennis players should not get the same prize money as the men.

Women in sport generally. If they want equality on pay etc, play with men(until there are none left!)

Wrote my dissertation on gender pay discrepancy in sport. That was the conclusion of my work. In hindsight probably not the most sensible thing in the world when your tutor has written a book titled - 'ladies who lunge: celebrating difficult women'.

  
I would be interested to know why you think the paralympics shouldn't tale place.

I think the money spent on holding them would be better spent on improving the lives of all disabled people.

I would imagine they do, indirectly, improve the lives all disabled people but it's a fair argument.

Any idea how much they cost?

BTW- Is the same thing true of the regular Olympics?

People who rely on benefits to feed themselves shouldn't be allowed to breed.

The first item on my manifesto would be the abolition of school holidays.

Paul McCartney is cooler and better than John Lennon ever was - Paul was the best Beatle.

+1

Macca is a boss

It should be illegal to cycle on roads.

People who put their opinions on here are idiots.

I agree, it makes no sense that bikes and cars share the same space rather than bikes and pedestrians - seems like a historical accident that it happened this way but nobody ever got around to fixing it.

So are you both saying it should be legal to cycle on pavements instead or should cars, cyclists and pedestrians each have their own space?

It's an interesting one. If cyclists and motorists both obey the highway code it's perfectly safe and causes little inconvenience to either party. If cyclists and pedestrians share the same space there's no 'pavement' code to protect either party.

The risk to pedestrians if cyclists are the pavement seems greater to me. possibly fewer deaths but surely more actual accidents?

What about cars and HGVs sharing roads? I know some countries keep them separate so should we?

I think we should separate cars and HGVs by the way and also agree that cyclists shouldn't be on the roads. Shame we haven't got a bit more space....

Ideally there should be pavements, cycle paths and roads but obviously most places don't have space.

I had a quick google and most pedestrian accidents involve cars, even though pedestrian and cyclists share the same spaces a lot more frequently than pedestrians and cars. So it seems the perception of the risk of cyclists mixing with pedestrians is far higher than the actuality.

I also think that it's a lot more likely that you'll get the majority of cyclists behaving safely towards pedestrians than you would motor drivers behaving safely towards cyclists (or motorcyclists - but they're definitely staying on the road :) ).

And if a cyclist is guilty of dangerous cycling they're probably going to cause a few bruises in an accident and at worst a broken bone - on average the worst case scenario in a pedestrian/bicycle accident is going to be so much higher than a car/bicycle accident it seems odd that it's stayed as the status quo for so long as it is.

Having said that, it would be perfectly sensible to introduce some new laws about cyclist behaviour on pavements with a proportionate level of punishments for when they're caught.

Far too sensible an approach Jon MW.

Cyclists should use cycle paths where available, if no cycle path is available they should carry their bicycle whilst using the pavement.

I agree however how would jeremy kyle find guests?

I think Cheryl Tweedy-Cole-Fernandez-whatever is a 5 AT BEST.

No idea why everyone thinks she's so hot.

Cheryl Cole, Kardashian, sherzinger : other women hold them as ideals, and id argue rate them more attractive than men rate them

I don't mind the whole US tipping culture.




Kardashian was a lot better before her ass blew up, and Cole looks better when she doesn't seem to have an eating disorder.

I think Nicole is gorgeous, but her penchant for melodramatics isn't attractive.

I'm sure they all have me rated in the upper ranges of the 1/10 scale, too.

Have you even looked at her elbows? Way too pointy! :-)

:D

I'm a forgiving person...

If you kill another human being your life is taken from you instantly.

If on benefits and offered a job which you refuse every benefit it taken from you, again instantly.

Wow. Just wow.

What did you expect from the title of the thread?

Any unpopular opinion in particular that you're 'wowing'....?

Not trying to speak for Keith, although we tend to agree about tons of stuff. I'm thinking Hector, Steve S, people on benefits not breeding and 'on the spot' death penalties are the shockers (monkeys beetles (sic) is very subjective :-). Happy to list what I perceive to be the flaws in those if you'd like?

I'm with Adz on women's sport - particularly on national TV.

The BBC trying to promote minority sports (like women's football and cricket which overall is typically watched live by 2 men, a dog and a couple of hundred school kids with free tickets) as a mainstream popular nationally important headline worthy news sport.

I did try watching the Women's England cricket and football but it was awful.

Mmmm.  Women playing with men.

These are meant to be benign opinions. ie lighthearted

"game of thrones is totally crap" etc

instant death penalty for example is not a benign opinion! 

Big Cheryl fan isn't he. Sorry Keith I didn't mean to offend.

2 Very interesting topics, I'd be very interested in a separate thread for that discussion??

I think Sir Philip Green was unfairly treated.

OOOOHHHHHH NO HE DIDN'T!!!!

 rotflmfao      rotflmfao

From the title of the read I expected some benign opinions. Like Macca is cooler Lennon or Cheryl is only a 5.

Some of the other opinions are the furthest thing from benign!

OK OK, she's had her 6.25 moments, shuld post some pictures of her eating a kebab after a night out that would be better,.

Instantly goes up to an 8 if she frequents kebab shops.

Haha marky a man after my own heart

:D

I was maybe a tad harsh with my comment regarding people on benefits not being allowed to breed. What if I water it down a bit and say that they can breed as much as they desire as long as they don't expect someone else to fund the results of that breeding?

Can I remain 'benign' with that slight alteration?

(https://i.imgflip.com/p25cd.jpg)

I'll go with ABBA are shite

I guess I'm thinking more about the various scenarios that lead to people being on benefits. A scenario where a military veteran, perhaps even a decorated war hero has limb blown off. Will we let him/her breed? People who abuse the welfare are the lowest of the low. People who need the welfare state because life fucked them over or dealt them a bad hand should have exactly the same rights as the rest of us.

Mark Knopfler, Eric Clapton, Dave Gilmour and other guitar heroes of their ilk are just crashing bores, musically speaking.

Watching any white man 'play the blues' is a near death experience

Daniel Negreanu really isn't a very nice person.

Clapton was a firebrand in his day, and immersed himself in blues. One of the finest blues players around was ol' eric in his pomp.

London was a hotbed of black American music in the early 60s, and Clapton played with the best well before he became well known. He earned their respect too. He's a boss Robert Johnson scholar, also. Cap doffed.

as for white folk, Martin Simpson lives the music, here he is  splicing spoonful into jasper songbird. Its one hell of a ride, innit


YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wPOIIkvnwU

Men wearing replica football tops are no different to star trek fans wearing lycra federation jumpsuits.

Beckham was easily the most technically gifted British footballer of his generation, and also the most underrated.

Jonathan Pie isn't funny, smart or even a decent satirist.

Pads twitter attempt at this thread has gone south....

Edit - deleted. Good call

Gone before I could read the replies. 

WHAT THE FUCK BARRY

Sadly, Glen moves down to number 5 in my list of all time favourite blondes.

benign opinions!

no politics, social engineering etc

meant to be a light hearted thread.....

I agree with both of these. Think an important qualifier for the first one is that while both ST replica uniforms and football shirts on grown men might seem kinda lame in approximately equal measure. They are both more than acceptable if that's what you like to do.

All cyclists should have insurance to use the roads.

Star wars is shite.

Interestingly I nearly left Knopfler off as I did actually buy the first album and loved it for a while..im a fraud, No 4 please :-)

OTOH, I'm fickle too, just came across this so back to 5 please

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CB9OrGZ7-c

Children shouldn't be allowed on long haul flights.

Reality shows are a primary reason for our ongoing social breakdown.

Barry Humphries' Dame Edna incarnation was uncomfortably perverted and completely lacking in any original humour.

Voting, Driving & Armed Forces age should be increased to 20. (Teenagers shouldn't be put in charge of any of these loaded guns)

women comedians are not funny.

Would have normally +1'd this but went to comedy store the other night and saw one of the best 15 min stand up acts ive seen in agggges from an Australian women.

So if you're prepared to adjust your opinion to "most" women comdeians are not funny then I'm on board.

I know some 15-19yr old boys who'd disagree with that! Wouldn't actually have made a difference to me, would have just saved me some time :P I'm long past 19yr old girls (or rather they're long past me) so don't give a fuck about this until I have a 14yr old daughter, in which case I'll be massively on board I've no doubt.

Want to hear more about this theory because I would not take much persuading on it.

My bad, just googled definition of benign, sorry to anyone I upset.  Can I change kill to Murder then pretty happy to go😀

Actually this made me think of one of mine, which is that overall social media does more harm than good for society.

MPs and top tier civil servants are paid far, far too little and the reason why the political system in this country is such a state.  We have either career politicians like Corbyn and Abbott, or former Eton schoolboys who decided to give it a go after reaching the peak in the private sector and have money/connections behind them so they can afford to take a huge pay cut - which results in both sides being ultimately out of touch.

Make it 500k a year, no second jobs and and also completely do away with the expenses system except for absolute essentials like travel (non of this paying for a mortgage on a second home or covering the cost of decorating a living room).

OFC the average man on the street would never get behind this.

Most of the BBC talent seemed underpaid, especially when you consider all of them have agents who take 10-15%.  The only ones which stood out were the MOTD team, a programme that wouldn't have any real decrease in viewers if it was hosted by Tikay.  In fact bring back the Orford and Kendall dream team please.

Smartphones should only be allowed for over 16s, under that age and you have a Nokia 3310 or equivalent.

Not sure about 500k but agree with what you are saying.

Look at the US President job, $400,000 a year to be the most powerful person in the world? There is no wonder they all take bungs from campaign donors.

yeh, madness isn't it.  You make decisions that have multi-billion dollar impacts and you only get $400k, it's like asking the £7.90 store clark to give a fuck when someone steals £30 worth of stuff

I watched the very first Big Brother. It was ground breaking and very interesting viewing. But this was before the producers started manipulating the field, and began the process of selecting people that would a) be in conflict with each other or b) would be happy to engage in sexual activity with each other. If the plan wasn't working, c) add alcohol.

This, of course, has spawned all the other so-called reality TV shows. Not that I'm a connoisseur of all these shows, but I think that TOWIE and MIC are probably least damaging, in that they're designed to create drama and humour around alleged everyday lives. The shows that I think do lots of damage (perhaps unintentionally) are the Benefits Cheats/Life on Benefits/Parents Spying on The Kids in Costa del Sol/Big Brother/Love Island etc etc types.

These shows increasingly portray poor behaviour as normal/acceptable: bullying, racism, casual onscreen sex, binge drinking, voyeurism, promiscuity, dishonesty, criminality and greed are all seen to full effect. I'm not saying that these behaviours are being promoted, but they certainly run the risk of normalising them by ongoing exposure. They become less unusual and more "normal". What's really worrying is that it's all designed by the programme producers with the sole aim of increasing viewing by being more outrageous. You could even include The Apprentice, now that I think of it, lol.

in addition theres the suggestion that this is some kind of way to become "a celebrity". Being a celebrity is now seen as a valid career choice, and there's not a lot these people won't consider doing if it means they have a shot. Remember The Word? They had a "I'll do anything to be famous" slot, and people were happy to do the most disgusting things simply to be on TV for all of 5 seconds. No doubt there's a YouTube archive. I've lost count of the number of young people (girls, esp) whose answer to the question "What do you want to be?" is "A celebrity".

I agree on the lot

I read this book earlier this year and it puts a lot of research to the things you've arrived at already, worth a read if you like that sort of thing (It was also written before Miley Cyrus became a 'bad girl' and before Amy Winehouse died, and he pretty much predicts both).

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51Tq5kwNk1L._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)

That would be a book written by a celebrity narcissist?

Yes

Facebook us full of narcissists; twitter is worse; most of us here are in our own way.  The gap between us and "celebrities" is getting smaller.  This seems a good thing to me.  I don't watch any of the programs mentioned, so they can't be at fault for my small scale narcissism.  People always wanted to be liked.

Neither of my two want to be a celebrity.  I am not sure many more want to be famous than they ever did.  There is just much more opportunity these days.

Just for the record; wanting instant fame & fortune (for min effort) through becoming a celebrity was only a part of my post.

The normalisation of bad behaviour and personality traits through constant exposure is far more worrying. I don't suggest for a second that people start watching all this stuff but you really need to see some of it to understand fully the point. I have two daughters who watched rather more than I liked, and they've turned out fine - even if they do still watch Love Island without fail - so I'm not suggesting that your average, educated viewer will immediately start copycatting, but there's a significant minority who will be tempted.

I don't have a problem with athletes who dope

WOW

Really?

Jimmy Carr is a very unfunny man.

Dogs should be banned from built-up areas.

Shooting cats that shit in your garden should be legal.

defo wanna hear more on this!


Change it to screaming children, on any flight and its a +1 from me.


Very unfunny? Surely not!


I don't really care for cats so if it upsets you Woodsey i'm happy to +1 this.

i've never eaten tomato ketchup, can't stand the stuff

I also don't like any hot liquids, soup, tea, coffee, hot chocolate etc

In my opinion, in a day and age when salary is intrinsically linked to performance, it makes sense for sportsman to push every edge they can get in order to maximise their results. If they are willing to take the consequences that come with getting caught then fair play to them. It's a short career for most and in order to set themselves up for a life post sport, I don't have an issue with those who want to push the boundaries (cheat).

It's admirable for those who don't and still reach the world class level but the guys who are dope by are still doing the same training and still pushing  their bodies to the max. It's basically the ultimate calculated gamble (and we all love gambling!) - risk career, reputation and health but reap the rewards if undetected. There are plenty undetected too.

With you on the cats.  If not, it should be standard for the cat owners in the neighbourhood to go round scooping up all the shit from everyone's garden. 

How do we tell which kids are going to scream before the flight?  Even with my own, I don't get a lot of notice before they go into meltdown. 

Agreed.   

On an alternative route to my work, there's often an oldish lady (grey hair, older than my Mum but not 90) that cycles slowly along the road holding up several cars as she does.   Immediately to her left is a cycle lane......

Then how do you know you don't like the old Tommy K?

People over 70, especially women, should not be allowed to drive(unless their son is drunk at the golf club and cant get a taxi home).

So doesn't robbery fall into the same category? i.e. risk but reap the rewards if undetected?

My mum hates it and made such a big deal of how disgusting it is when i was a kid, she'd say at any oppurtunity (even pretty out of context) "URGH KETCHUP, IT'S DISGUSTING, OMG URGH" and as a result I used to throw up and the very sight of anyone eating the stuff. When I was 7-10~ age and went to birthday parties at Wacky Warehouse's I used to have to sit and eat on a table by myself surrounded by menu's so i didn't clock sight of anyone else eating TK.

Borderline child abuse I'd say but she was pretty good aside from that so i've let it live.

IDK Doobs, I'm just the ideas man, leave the practical stuff to others :P

Robbery is illegal. You can dope legally - per criminal law. If it was a criminal act then, sure, I'd have a problem with it.

About 10 million people cycle at least once a month, if you charge them a £1 a month insurance thats £120 million a year income.
There are about 3000 cycling accidents a year (serious enough that might warrant an insurance claim - bicycle theft is already a 'thing' for insurers so this is what might come up in addition to things like that).

Over half of cycling accidents are attributed to the other party - even if you anticipate an increase in reporting (because it can now be linked to a claim) you're still looking at maybe a couple of thousand payouts a year.

Most of those payouts would be for a negligible amount of money. Even with the occasional 'big' claim I don't see how the insurance payouts top a few million.

Even if you make the insurance £1 a year I don't see how this does much good apart from generate a new line of profit for the insurance companies.

EDIT: Also we've already established we don't think cyclists should even be on the road :D

facebook is for saddos.

Once people reach a certain age they shouldn't be allowed to vote any more. I don't know what this age should be but somewhere around retirement age when policy doesn't affect you as much seems about right.

The experts on Bargain Hunt shouldn't be allowed to buy bonus buys that make big losses. Most of them are auctioneers themselves and know too well what things go for so to pay £100 for something that even I know is only going to get £40 is not excusable.

Wow. Pushing the boundaries of 'benign' a bit there..... Almost definitely getting a Tighty warning for this one.

Young people shouldn't be able to vote either as they know fk all until they get into real life, they will then at least start understanding the real issues and that stuff that needs paying for actually comes out of their pay packet. Reckon we propose a 25-65 voting age, sound about right?

I think 18 is fine at the young end. They may know nothing and they may make a mistake but they have to live with that mistake if it was one. As they get older they need to become educators to the next set of young voters to make sure they don't make similar mistakes.

70 as the upper age would be my first thought. Retired, home all paid for, easy life etc. Whatever happens after that shouldn't have too much affect on you personally and if it does it's because you voted wrong when you were allowed to..... (collectively of course, not on an individual basis)....

100% supposed to be an expert ffs and they fuck it up every time. Sends me barmy, they should be forced to pay from their pockets.

Speed cameras should be banned from any road that is a 40mph limit or higher, especially motorways.

I don't think that's going to be all that unpopular!

With a steadily aging population, there would be a huge disenfranchised segment. Surely this would also give the government free reign to tax the hell (I.e steal) out of pension funds without fear of implications at the voting booths? Not sure this is what you had in mind, but we're all getting older, and most of us will get beyond 70: you're certain to have a different view when you do.

You'd be surprised!

MMA is for losers and Connor mcgregor is a tosser.

British professional gamblers should pay income tax.

Definition please for tax purposes and if you go skint and lose £500k in a year do you get rollover tax relief carried forward to future business ventures like other loss making businesses would?  Are certain tax years losses deductable against future tax years profits as in standard businesses?  Do the 98% of people who gamble get a tax debate against their losses each year via their tax return?  How would you effectively police it?

If Paul Newey (ocean finance and worth £400m) wins £5m a year gambling casually because he is a zillionaire via investements/business interests is he considered a professional gambler for tax purposes?

Would British amateur gamblers be exempt?

Young, vulernable kids will be forced into doping by managers, trainers and agents in order for their financial gain.

Who knows what long term risks they will be taking with their health.

The same as any other business basically, whatever a trader would have to do as a jumping off point.

FYI I dont mind that they dont, its good for me as somebody who works in the industry that more money is going in and out, but they should pay tax like everyone else is my point.

I agree in principal but the enforcement and paperwork associated with this would be a nightmare and would probably cost way more than it generates.  Kind of like how the state pension/free TV license isn't means tested so just given to everyone even if they are multi-millionaires.

Also the amount of professional gamblers is actually quite small, how many in total in the UK?  A few thousand?  The govt still rakes 50% of income in live casinos don't they, and 15% of online profits?  Most pro gamblers will have paid more in tax than the avg person via this route, plus the makeup demographics of them will mean that they don't use as many public services as the avg person too (male, between 20 and 40 and without kids).

The average pro gambler def lives in a bubble and they should donate to charity or volunteer tho as its a very selfish industry and perspective is required.

Yep. Youngsters' health being put at risk for others personal gain and public entertainment. Basically a sporting reality to contest with physical health replacing mental health.

Youth doping is happening already in a number of sports. I know anecdotally of a few youth rugby players on doping programs in order to get themselves a physique to compete for a first team spot from age 18. 'Natural' youngsters being left behind and not getting contracts. Cycling, basketball, tennis also have youth doping issues.

Is cheating in all forms, in all sports OK for financial gain? Or just drug cheating?

That's hilarious. Just publish a set of rules and then make it self assessment. It pretty much runs itself until you investigate someone.

Easiest way is to make gamblers register as sole traders. You'd have income and expenses the same as every other sole trader in the country and yes if you made a loss one year you could roll it over for tax purposes. All the paperwork is the responsibility of the gambler and they probably need an accountant to help with the year end return. The cost to HMRC though is negligible compared to the revenue generated.

Sure you can just lie but so can everyone else in every other business. It's the risk of getting caught that makes everyone tell the truth and the same would go for the gamblers.

It'll happen one day so make the most of it while you can.

Isn't the main argument that if you taxed pro gamblers, then you'd have to give the average punter the opportunity to claim back their loses too, hence why the Govt go for taxing the companies instead?

The govt take from casinos and online is actually money from all the losing gamblers. Those that win are not being taxed in any way.

I think it should be a matter of conscience. Those (e.g. Channing, nice bloke that he is) that make chunks from gambling whilst constantly tweeting about how everyone should vote for a socialist agenda that will cost taxpayers a fortune, should be self-declaring their income in order to pay tax & make a fair contribution to all those costly policies they're supporting. I'd hate to think that they're expecting the rest of us to pay for their largesse.

No doubt NC pays tax on his other businesses (e.g. BE), but I would suspect that that only represents a small part of his total income. Also, if such a high profile figure as him volunteered to pay tax, then perhaps there would be others with consciences who would follow. Maybe even some Tory-voting-fascist-fatcats who want to appear a little more caring?

This thread should not have been started

The govt take from casinos and online is actually money from all the losing gamblers. Those that win are not being taxed in any way.

It's the winners of the pot in a live cash hand that pay the rake.

Tournie entry fees are obv the same for everyone.

The tax is levied on profits across the casino's entire operations, I think. The vast bulk of their profits come from the pit games and slots. Yes, there's a little from the poker room, but the rake & registration fees probably only just cover the overheads of the room. What the casinos hope is that the players who actually win at poker step outside and lose it back in the pit. We've all heard the stories.

So, I maintain that the tax levied on casinos and online bookmakers is largely funded by losing punters.

Actively encouraged for me. Aside from golf, obv.

Was thinking of this when watching the community shield yesterday and saw that Chelsea now have a sponsor on the shoulder.  I watch probably 3/4 matches a week

The effectiveness of advertising is vastly overstated and doesn't factor in much to peoples purchasing decisions.  Out of the 20 headline sponsors I have only used 2, Bet365 and American Express.  Bet365 for the bonus offers and AmEx cos I get more points than using my Visa.  Wasn't at all tempted to switch to Yokohoma tyres.

It won't happen in my lifetime.  Happy to bet it does if you want a wager.  If it didn't happen in the ten year credit crunch era when online gambling boomed i am pretty sure it won't happen in the next 20 years.  imo obviously.

If Corbyn gets in then e is going to find some creative ways of funding his Utopia, could happen imo.

big if.  he has had his chance and missed by a mile even though most lefites thought he won.  it wouldn't generate a copper coin anyway.  I think it would be tax negative if you combine the cost of collecting it which would be impossible with the lost of legit revenue as the live/online games die for poker and the firms take less action and don't have the pro money to hedge against their mug positions which they need to smooth their earnings time to time.

Why do you think it would be so hard to collect, other than because of a reluctance on gamblers to be honest on a tax return?

how do you prove how much i have made a year in a live cash game ?  When i change all my chips into notes with other players rather than the cash desk?  Just for a start.

How does my window cleaner when I hand him a fiver once a month?

The tax man would compare your window cleaner to other window cleaners on similar estates.  How does he compare sam trickett to me?  One of the only advantages of being a pro gambler is paying no tax.  There are bundles of huge disadvantages believe me.  This is why the governement will never rock the boat.  It will never generate enough tax to justify doing it even if they could collect 100% of what they were due.  They get it already from the rake box and the firms from losers anyway.  That is their view of the situation and it will never change.  If it was going to change it would have done between 2000-2015 during the boom years.  There has never been as many pro gamblers from 2015 onwards than ever before and they still have zero desire to tax them.  Nothing will change.

Anyone volunteering to pay tax that they don't legally have to would have to be some kind of f**king idiot.

Is that what actually happens? Does HMRC look at a window cleaner who claims he earned £10,000 a year and question it based on local averages?

I'm not saying a live pro player isn't near impossible to track, but it's no different to anyone else who deals in cash. Very hard to police of course, but that's not a reason not to insist on it.

a live window cleaner in sheffield would be much more predictable what he earns than a live 1/2 player at genting sheffield over  a year.  Plus the first £12k is tax free anyway.  how many pro gamblers actually get into higher rate tax levels?  Ie £50k+ a year earnings?  Not many.  That is where the governement really makes its money.  I have lost my personal tax allowance for 12 years because i have no taxable income.   £150k of income that i have made in that time wouldn't have been taxable anyway.

With respect, it sounds like you are trying to persuade yourself more than me. I agree that it's unlikely we will see a change in the near future because it's not on the HMRC's radar, but it certainly could happen, and LOL at the idea that 'no tax is the only good thing about being a pro gambler which is why the government leave us alone'.

Agree I'm asking if HMRC question earnings as you suggested based on the earnings of similar people in the same field (genuinely asking, never heard that before).

They don't question earnings they sit in their office and compare professions amongst the self employed especially cash businesses from my experience as a chartered accountant 20 years ago dealing with them.   If something stands out on their legal accounts they will investigate further, put some random checks into the business to see how busy it really is and move on from there.  How are you going to check 'how busy' trigg is at genting sheffield playing 2/5 cash to understand how profitable he was in 2018 for example?  You can't put standard business profit ratios onto poker players or gamblers like you can taxi businesses and kebab shops.  It just doesn't work.  They have expenses and costs of sale which have to have invoices (and are VAT able).  Pro gamblers literally have no bookable expenses the tax man can look at to justify if they are making a living (to cover these exs) or not.  

I'm not saying I think it would be enforceable or easy to catch people out, it would be self assessment like most other professions, but that's not a reason not to do it. Plus given most gambling is online now, that obviously is much easier to keep tabs on. Not making it law because 'bah we'd never get them anyway' is not a rational I can see the government making.

Most pro gamblers would lie on their returns is what I presume you think would happen?

Where is this - £16 'ere in 'emel ffs

There are so many ways around it it isn't worth it.  The government is already over the moon what it gets out of gambling anyway.  Live cash for example every £1000 that goes into the rake box £500 goes to the govt so its really tough to say to poker players they don't pay tax when they play live cash for a living.  If the tax take wasn't so high the rake would drop as the casino wouldn't have to take as much out of every pot.  The government is smart and gets the tax at source from the service provider which is much more reliable in general than chasing cash playing individuals.  This is true both live and online.  If you were a huge online cash player you could just dump £100k to a big loser and avoid tax.  It literally would be that easy and the government couldn't say a thing about it.

Sheffield, he'll clip your whippets nails and give you a pork pie for an extra quid n'all

Haha, I'm gonna move up that way one day -I've always liked Rotherham

Poker?

We don't all own castles ffs

Ah, Rotherham. My old stamping ground. I could tell you a tale or two....

It's seen as normal for parents to get tutors for there children prior to taking the 11 plus, the manipulation of children to get what adults want is normal.

I went there a couple of years running in around  1982, 1983 for a football tournament. I played for a team in London called Latin American Newsletter mainly made up of exiled Chileans. At that time, Rotherham had one of the biggest Chilean communities outside of London (in the UK). 8 teams participated and the teams that travelled were put up on the floor of a working mens club, fed and watered too.

Fond memories of the welcome and the care we received from the (weird to us) Northerners  - was great and beer was cheap too.

I wish, just a standard 6 up, 6 down:-)

:D

Lol at the idea that the casino cardroom manager empties the rake box each morning and goes "That's one for the casino, and one for Mr Taxman. That's another for the casino, and another for Mr Taxman." And repeat...

that is what happens in reality.  Live poker pros don't pay tax though!  If the tax was 10% the gamees that are capped at £5 would be capped at £3.  Thats the reality.  the casino would make the same.  Therefore the players are being taxed £2 a pot.    The government gets the money this way because it is easier and more reliable and incurs less hassle collecting it.  Professional gamblers do pay tax they just don't pay income tax. 

The chance of gambling being taxable in the near future is really small as the govt/hmrc have such bigger fish to fry.

However, if it did come about, I imagine the casinos/bookmakers etc would have regulations imposed on them to keep records of payouts/cashes etc so that there is some sort of third party record of a gamblers financial transactions.

There is a lot going on at HMRC to try and deal with the "black economy" (or tax evasion as they call it) as they obviously don't like cash transactions with no corresponding records. They have cracked down on businesses such as scrap dealers, so no reason they wouldn't monitor casinos etc if it was in their financial interest.

Not a sport. Also, haven't some people been prosecuted for cheating in poker - Ali Tekintamgac?

'Just logging on to grind out my online window round!'

Was trying to make a joke of which site he would use but got stuck when i found out another name for window cleaner is 'Transparency Enhancement Facilitator'

Amen.

So you would have no problem with robbery if it wasn't illegal?

I think it's fair to say it's just not a great shout. Cheating is fine as long as money is the primary driver and you should use the laws of a country to set your moral compass. Seems like a lot of fail in this one.

Yep, sorry rinswun, I gave it my best shot to be convinced but i'm afraid i'm not on board for the doping being fine.

Rake will classified as a Service Fee by the Casinos for taxation purposes. The 50% rate only applies to revenues over ~£6m from "Casino Games". Different tax rates apply to the machines, depending also on the maximum stake (higher the stake, higher the tax rate). So, along with Food & Drink, rake will be taxed at the standard 20% Corporate Tax rate - but only on profits.

The Rank Group publish their revenues by sector, but they don't (of course) publish net profit by sector. For the 6 months ending Dec 2016, here's the revenues for GB Casinos only:

Casino Games.  £126.2m
Gaming Machines.  44.5
Card Room Games.  7.9
Food, Drink/Other.  15.1

Total 193.7m

Card Room Games will include Comp Reg Fees, so you then need to make a judgement about what the running costs are. Dealers, Floor Managers, Card Room Manager, valet service - and an allocation of fixed overheads probably based on floor space. I struggle to see how any card room makes a significant profit. I'd hazard a guess that the £7.9m revenues don't even cover the book costs. But what some casinos recognise, is that a lot of players spend time before & after comps, and even during breaks, donking off their cash at the wheel and blackjack tables.

Perhaps the most surprising thing in Rank Group's accounts is that their expected net tax rate for the current year is 22-23%.

In reality I think professional (profitable) gamblers & poker players pay most of their tax via VAT. It's stretching it, IMO, to say that Rake is a tax.

Diving in football should not be punished.

Historically, our players haven't been trying to con refs too badly in the premier league, compared with many other countries' leagues. This leaves us at a massive disadvantage when it comes to European football and international tournaments. So the FA cracking down on this will be to the detriment of us, as fans.

What about what it teaches kids?    Terrible to see (although it can be quite funny at times).

If our players aren't as good at it, and don't do it as frequently, then surely we're disadvantaged by not punishing it?

I kinda thought you may have forgotten to put one of these at the end of your post 😉

Au contraire.

Diving should be punished by a straight red card.

Professional foul should be an automatic goal.

Maybe cars should be banned from roads instead of cycles

https://theconversation.com/cycling-to-work-major-new-study-suggests-health-benefits-are-staggering-76292?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1501254014

Hey, it's unpopular opinion, purpose of the thread right?!

imo cannot see taxation for gamblers coming into force in a formal way anytime soon. This has been debated to death many times on here. Can remember plenty of people saying it was happening 10 years ago and still hasn't happened.

Gamblers pay plenty in 'tax' in various forms. Govt take their significant cut from bookies etc ( when betting tax as abolished for a flat rate on profits of bookies etc govt income from this quadrupled). Players pay through worse odds offered, worse terms, less bonuses etc, just look at how shit rakeback is now

Yes you are the only person in 11 pages who's managed to produce an opinion that is both unpopular and benign :-D

I like those but only in tandem with some combination of cricket's 3rd umpire and tennis's challenge system.

I must have "mug lives here" over my door.

My Sheffield window cleaner charges £9 for my house.

Cheeky fucker  :D

Used to pay £14 in Leeds, ffs

Pardon the completely off-topic question, young Dave, but this is the only thread I know you'll read.

I was with a friend of yours at the weekend, someone you know well from Leeds, & he was telling me you'd been very unwell recently, in hospital, possibly "finger-related". True or false?

Hey Teacake.
Yeah true unfortunately, some gross stuff happened to my poorly finger and needed to have a bit of the bone removed, the infection i got made me really really ill which was the worst bit :( on the mend now though!

Had a nice week on a some hefty pain meds though so wasn't all bad :P

Yikes, really sorry to hear that Dave. He told me you were pretty ill with the infection.

You OK now?

I don't give a shit about Lil Dave's poorly digit.

Tikay has no idea what 'unpopular' means.

I must have 'pro punter lives here' my window cleaner always says its a trading decision when he refuses to clean my windows.

haha

It's ok now, no pain meds but infection mostly gone, should be right as rain by the end of the week.

Well enough for breakfast at the very least!

Fucking bookies restricting accounts is a massive joke. Should be illegal to do that. They set their prices and it's up to them to get them right.

Pay a tenner down south. 

£15 here and we get an emailed invoice that is paid via Paypal. #whattaxevasion?

Probably only a tenner for cash

£4.60 to be precise, Meersbrook for those Sheffield folks wondering where I live.

Isn't that the posh bit just off the Abbeydale Rd?

Yep stones throw from Abbeydale Road, not posh but it is the kale eating yoga practicing Corbyn voting hipster area.

How many windows you got Barry?

DO they charge more if you have lots of windows/bigger house? Seems logical? Wonder how it's calculated.

First world issues.  Like people who pay £3 a week to get their wheelie bin cleaned by a guy in a van who follows the bin men around.  You can literally sell some services to anyone.  How on earth does your wheelie bin need cleaning every week after it is emptied when it lives in your garden?  Never mind paying £3 a week for the priv.

Griff Rhys Jones was ok in Not the nine o'clock news, but seems a smug tw@t in It'll be alright on the night.

You're spot on. I saw a programme about how he abuses his staff and family members. He has treatment for anger issues.

How is everyone's window cleaner so cheap! Mine is £35 and he literally won't negotiate any lower!

Min does it proper though, up a ladder - none of this pole-fed bullshit!

£35 do you live in a lighthouse?

Pro golfer.  10 bed mansion.  Pretty standard price for a house of that size!

Yeah wasnt thinking! Obv depends on how many windows you have!!! Ignore me, I am tired

He saw you coming.

My window cleaner stopped coming even though I owe him £60 for 4 lots of cleaning. He wanted to collect money on a day that I wasn't home and he wouldn't come any other day so he stopped coming. I think I bought some socks with the £60 :)

Absolute  Genius

Nandos is dogshite for peasants.

 Morecambe and Wise were shite.

cats are shit pets and really rather cunty animals

princess diana was not a person who should have been revered: far from being a selfless person, she was a person who chased power, money, and celebrity. and she didnt mind who she slept with to get it. she probably never had a complex thought in her life and the idea that she was in any sense dedicated to charity is nonsense. she wasnt a victim of the paparazzi, she was in cahoots with them. she chose to bum around with playboys who allowed drunk drivers to ferry them from ritz to palace in supercars, and she ended up a victim of the drunk driver she chose to get into a car with. a very ordinary person

 ;gobsmacked;

You've never met the right cat!

For peasants I'd imagine it's actually rather luxurious.

For people who live above the poverty line then yes there are most likely better options.

How do we define peasants these days? Austerity results in about 7.5 million people in our country living in poverty. I wonder if the food bank puts on a better spread than Nando's?

On chav food, I dipped into Taco Bell in Notts last week and thought the beef tacos were pretty decent. Far higher level of chav food than the shit Nando's serves up  :o

Agree with most of this.

And yet she was still a 100 times better person than any of the royal family.

Given your stance on people on benefits (i largely agree apart from those who are disabled in some way physical or mental) i think it's better to have people on benefits unable to vote rather than older folk.

Russell Brand lacks any talent.

It goes way beyond that, he is just an utter cock....

"a person who chased power, money, and celebrity. and she didnt mind who she slept with to get it."



So that person is 100 times better than this person  for instance? How does that work then?




(http://www.hellomagazine.com/imagenes/royalty/2017050238513/Princess-Charlotte-second-birthday-picture/0-205-634/charlotte-t.jpg)

I pay mine by bank transfer if I forget to tape the £16 in an envelope to the back door. Did yours insist on seeing the whites of your eyes for the transaction  :D

I had trouble finding a local one who would get up there on the ladder - which I think produces better results - but he tries to come once a month...no thanks!

A lot of people are incensed at the fact that a select few are lucky enough to be born into the Royal family, perhaps this is Keith''s gripe?

Nah, it can't be that. Princess Di was lucky enough to marry into the Royal Family, which must make her as least as bad as Princess Charlotte in the jammy stakes.

The best sauce to accompany a steak is

(http://www.heinz.co.uk/-/media/heinzcouk/media/images/products/product-info-images/her1200638-tktopdown_570g.ashx)

There is no steak that can't be improved by it.

Yep, I agree with most of this too. She was reasonably clever with her use/manipulation of the media to her own ends, although she wasn't bright enough to realise that she was playing with fire and would end up in flames.

However, I think this country needs the Royals more than it appreciates. I can't see how anything would improve in the average poor person's life if they were abolished. There's no doubt they have a huge, positive impact on trade and tourism, so any savings from their annual grants would be quickly counterbalanced by trade/tourism losses.

Finally, I actually think that the future of the monarchy is in decent hands; once Charles & Camilla are out if the way. Diana's boys seem pretty grounded - well, as grounded as possible, under their circumstances - and for all her faults, Diana was largely responsible for this. And while it does seem unfair that these people are born into vast wealth and silver-spoonship, it's the same deal for children of the vastly wealthy in industry, celebrity, sport and politics. And it was ever such.

Most people who complain about the royals and such fail to realise that they themselves are also in the top 1% of people who have ever lived in human history. In the West at least many people in poverty (which is actually relative poverty) live better than royalty did 100 years ago. So they are actually miffed they are not in the 1% of the 1%.

Not really a fan of royalty, but Wills and Harry seem like really good blokes and when you travel to other countries, most of them love our royal family and they clearly do bring *some* tourism our way.

Surely this is a lifetime ban from here?

Ketchup with steak? Blasphemy!

Tal!

We've spoken in person...you're well spoken, intellectual, interesting...you play chess, write well, always sound clever, god dammit you're even funny in that posh witty kind of way.

Then you go and say things like Tomato Ketchup with steak!

I'm thinking more about it, must be a troll. Has to be. Shame on anyone who fell for it. I'm not buying it, you have to get up pretty early to get one past me :)

 

Also.

+1 Hate cats, evil animals, all sweet and lovely when they think you're some use to them, then once they're over you they'd scratch you're eyeballs out for mild amusement.

I also like the royal family, massively. Have mixed feelings about Diana. Love a bit of Prince Harry. Won't hear a bad word against princess charlotte (12/1 shot oioiiii) :)

That Princess Charlotte - always in celebrity photos, never had a complex thought in her life.............

If William is trying to instill a bit of  Diana's spirit in Charlotte he's doing well: she's read the same number of books as Diana already.