A Taxing debate

[The Camel]

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?

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.

[SuuPRlim]

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

[SuuPRlim]

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.

[h]

 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 ?

[The Camel]

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

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!)

[arbboy]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[arbboy]

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

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!)

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?

[Tal]

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

[The Camel]

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

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!)

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?

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.

[Marky147]

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

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!)

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?

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

[arbboy]

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.

[redarmi]

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.

[AlunB]

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.

[AlunB]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[AlunB]

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