A Taxing debate

[The Camel]

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

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

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

yes.

Have you no social responsibility?

Why shouldn't you pay tax?

Everyone else does.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brilliant post.

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

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

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

[arbboy]

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

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

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

[horseplayer]

Daily mail mentioned landed

[The Camel]

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

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

Countries should be getting bigger not smaller.

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

Probably would moved up there if it had.

[DaveShoelace]

Daily mail mentioned landed

I'll get the Hitler one in now too.

Also just had a Thatcher reference.

[Honeybadger]

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

[DaveShoelace]

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

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

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

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

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

[arbboy]

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

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

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

yes.

Have you no social responsibility?

Why shouldn't you pay tax?

Everyone else does.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brilliant post.

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

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

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

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

[DaveShoelace]

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

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

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

yes.

Have you no social responsibility?

Why shouldn't you pay tax?

Everyone else does.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brilliant post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Honeybadger]

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

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

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

[arbboy]

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

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

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

yes.

Have you no social responsibility?

Why shouldn't you pay tax?

Everyone else does.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brilliant post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[redsimon]

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

[arbboy]

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

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

[arbboy]

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

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

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

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

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

[redarmi]

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

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