A Taxing debate

[doubleup]

Points re UK

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

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

Points re world as a whole

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

[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.

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.

Interesting idea. 

[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?

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

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

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

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

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

[Doobs]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Camel]

Points re UK

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

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

Points re world as a whole

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

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

Tax dodging is completely unacceptable.

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

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

[arbboy]

Points re UK

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

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

Points re world as a whole

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

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

Tax dodging is completely unacceptable.

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

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

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

[The Camel]

Points re UK

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

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

Points re world as a whole

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

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

Tax dodging is completely unacceptable.

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

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

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

You reckon I think that is acceptable behaviour?

[arbboy]

Points re UK

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

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

Points re world as a whole

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

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

Tax dodging is completely unacceptable.

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

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

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

You reckon I think that is acceptable behaviour?

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

[The Camel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[arbboy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[doubleup]

Points re UK

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

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

Points re world as a whole

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

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

Tax dodging is completely unacceptable.

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

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

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

You reckon I think that is acceptable behaviour?

It isn't tax dodging.

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

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

[The Camel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah true.

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

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

The guy has come a long way since then.

[typhoon13]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would say TB like myself pays corporation tax

[The Camel]

Points re UK

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

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

Points re world as a whole

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

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

Tax dodging is completely unacceptable.

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

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

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

You reckon I think that is acceptable behaviour?

It isn't tax dodging.

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

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

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

I just don't think they understand the industry.

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

That's beyond silly.

[Doobs]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His website is here FWIW

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