A Taxing debate

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

[Boba Fett]

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!)

This is completely ridiculous!

[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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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."

[arbboy]

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.

[AlunB]

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.

[AlunB]

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.

[arbboy]

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.

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?

[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!)

This is completely ridiculous!

Why?

Everyone else pays tax, why shouldn't we?

[The Camel]

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.

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.

[The Camel]

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.

[arbboy]

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.

[The Camel]

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.

[Boba Fett]

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!)

This is completely ridiculous!

Why?

Everyone else pays tax, why shouldn't we?

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