HRI want betting tax increased with the punter to pay....

racso1975

http://www.thejournal.ie/betting-tax-ireland-2-3527262-Aug2017/

He starts out by saying the increase in taxes would allow the government more spending money then goes on to say

"He added raising the rate of duty would “allow the funding of horse racing to be increased to the level necessary to successfully develop the industry”.

Lining their own pockets by fleecing us even more.

Wonder at the end of the year would be able to claim tax back on all lost bets.

diomed

It sounds like a victimless crime.

BumperD

How long has that Fella been dining in that job and the best he can come up with is tax the shxt out of punters. Maybe they should look to enforce existing rules on pay caps and contracts for state funded employees

diomed

“allow the funding of horse racing to be increased to the level necessary to successfully develop the industry”.

I think he means pay the insiders more money.
Punters, owners, government contribute to horse racing.
I don't know if he bets. I've seen him, but I've never seen him have a bet.

If a punter was lucky enough to make a 2.5% profit (most lose 20%+) this minor increase from 1% to 2.5% reduces that 2.5% profit to 1.0%, or a 60% drop in profits.

He says the take now is €68 million at a 1% tax.
He wants to increase that by a factor of 2.5 or to €68 million x 2.5 = €170 million.
He wants to take another €102 million from punters.
If there are half a million punters in Ireland he wants to take another €204 from each.

Is someone in the government using him as a mouthpiece, and he knows who pays his salary?

Harry Angstrom

It's the lazy solution. Instead of coming up with more innovative ideas to fund racing, it's the "make the punters pay for it" attitude. They're already gouging racegoers through exorbitant admission prices, and inflated prices for food and drink on racecourses. Kavanagh doesn't seem to realise that a very sizeable chunk of betting turnover is online and if Irish bookies are forced to levy a 2.5% tax on bets, the punters will switch to other off-shore firms who are under no obligation to do so.

diomed

Why does Brian Kavanagh think betters should finance horse racing?
People buy horses from breeders and then employ people to train them.
The horse racing owners pay for the administration of their sport.
Why should the betting public pay for any of this?

Neon_Lights

With ridiculous market overrounds and now they want to tax it on top, what a joke

diomed

I was in the local shopping centre car park this morning when Pat Kenny interviewed Brian Kavanagh of Horse Racing Ireland on the Pat Kenny Show.
Kavanagh was plugging the 1% increase in betting tax again, and he was unopposed in the studio.

A few minutes ago I sent a thirty five line e-mail to the Pat Kenny Show stating my views. I wasn't supporting the tax.

marvin80

diomed wrote: »

I was in the local shopping centre car park this morning when Pat Kenny interviewed Brian Kavanagh of Horse Racing Ireland on the Pat Kenny Show.
Kavanagh was plugging the 1% increase in betting tax again, and he was unopposed in the studio.

A few minutes ago I sent a thirty five line e-mail to the Pat Kenny Show stating my views. I wasn't supporting the tax.

There's another thread in here that you, along with others have discussed the shortcomings of various aspects of horse racing in Ireland - and rightly so.
This 1& increase is not going to help matters.

diomed

Budget Day
No increase in betting tax.

The Tetrarch

Budget Day
Increase in betting tax.

'Absolute horror' for independents as betting tax in Ireland is doubled
https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/independent-bookmakers-to-be-hit-hard-after-betting-tax-in-ireland-doubled/348824

Of the increase in the rate in the context of HRI’s future funding, Kavanagh said: “We’ve always made the point that the industry didn’t believe that the government should be writing a cheque for the shortfall. “In 2018, the tax yield was generating €52m, so there was a cheque from the central exchequer of €28m being written by the government.
(1) Obviously the rate increase would eliminate that and provide the basis for future funding discussions, but they are separate issues.
“(2) The thing now is to get on and address the issues that are facing the industry."

My comments
(1) Does 'provide the basis for future funding discussions' mean 'a basis for future betting tax increase' discussions?
(2) There is no need to 'get on and address the issues'. That is what have been doing, isn't it?

HRI kept quiet this year. Was it because they were told?

Imhof Tank

https://www.theirishfield.ie/news-betting-tax-to-double-next-year-409334/


bookies saying 300 shops to close, 1500 job losses

kiers47

Its hard to feel sorry for bookies in the current climate. Maybe if they stood a few extra bets they might be able to pay that extra 1%.

The Tetrarch

HORSE AND GREYHOUND RACING ACT, 2001

5.—(1) On the establishment day, there shall stand established a body to be known as Horse Racing Ireland or in the Irish language Rásaíocht Capall Éireann, in this Act referred to as HRI, to perform the functions conferred on it by this Act and the Act of 1994.

General functions of HRI.
8.—(1) The general functions of HRI (in addition to its functions under the Act of 1994) shall include the following:
(a) Registry Office functions, that is to say—
(i) naming horses, horse racing passports and identification,
(ii) horserace entries and declarations,
(iii) racing calendar publication,
(iv) stakeholding of race entry funds and prize money for horseraces,
(v) registration of racehorse owners,

in accordance with the Rules of Racing,
(b) the provision and maintenance of mobile track equipment, including starting stalls, photo finish and camera patrol equipment and any other such equipment agreed from time to time between HRI and the Racing Regulatory Body and to provide the Racing Regulatory Body with the photographs, films, sound recordings and other connected materials or data generated by this equipment as required by the Racing Regulatory Body for their examination and use in the enforcement of the Rules of Racing and all such equipment shall be required to be maintained to a specification agreed with the Racing Regulatory Body,
(c) representing Irish horseracing internationally in respect of its functions,
(d) negotiating all income from media rights under section 10 ,
(e) the provision of any financial and other support it deems appropriate to—
(i) maintain and improve the health and welfare status of the thoroughbred horse, and
(ii) assist educational and other institutions and organisations in providing improved training and education facilities and courses for the thoroughbred horse industry to satisfy the training and educational needs of that industry at all levels,
and
(f) any other functions of the Racing Regulatory Body which may be transferred to HRI in the future by agreement of both parties and subject to the consent of the Minister.
(2) This section shall come into operation on such day as the Minister may appoint by order.

I do not see anywhere in the Act permission for HRI to lobby in the media or directly to the Government on the rates of taxation.
Perhaps that power is contained in previous Acts, and if so, can anybody point out which Act and Section?

ustari

Speaking as a relative novice in terms of gambling and horse racing, I think it is right that bookies should have to contribute more to the industr/state.

The sport is the foundation of their business but from my understanding they give very little back to the sport. Add that to the fact that they enable gambling addicts with seemingly little to no care as to the impact makes me think that they should be held more accountable.

UrbanFret

The bookie shops are dead now. Horse racing is an irritant lost in between the endless virtual races, bingos,roulette,football , lottos,49s etc.

The Tetrarch

ustari wrote: »

Speaking as a relative novice in terms of gambling and horse racing, I think it is right that bookies should have to contribute more to the industr/state.

The sport is the foundation of their business but from my understanding they give very little back to the sport. Add that to the fact that they enable gambling addicts with seemingly little to no care as to the impact makes me think that they should be held more accountable.

I did a calculation of the profit margin on the 214 flat Group races (GB & IRE) in 2015.
The bookmaker profit margin averaged 15.7%, or betters pay (lose) that percentage to the bookmakers every race.
On handicap races, maidens, jumps and hurdle races I would be very certain that the profit margin is in the 20% to 30% range.
For example, in a seven race card at a race meeting your 100 euro would, on average, decline by 20% each race.
100.00; 80.00; 64.00; 51.20; 40.96; 32.77; 26.21; 20.97

When you say bookmakers should pay more to the state, what you mean is betters should pay more to the state.
The government is not putting a tax on bookmaker profits, they are putting a tax on bets.
The better is already paying heavily for the privilege of betting.

My second point is horseracing would not exist without betting.
It started when two horse owners had a private wager as to which of their horses was the fastest.
In the early days it was match races, two horses.
Their friends, and other interested spectators had wagers between themselves on the match.
If you eradicate betting on horseracing, you eradicate horse racing, and obviously if there is no reason to keep race horses they will all be killed.
Horseracing is a sport that has a long history, several hundred years.
When I was young, horses were commonplace, on every street, and cars were rare.

Your point about problem gamblers is interesting.
I think you will always have problem gamblers, drinkers, drug takers.
The government could reduce problem gambling if they wished, through identifying problem gamblers by requiring bookmakers to record the amount lost by each person.
When losses exceed a figure the person would be barred.
You might think that impractical.
In the UK they reduced the FOBT stake (Fixed Odds Betting Terminals - one armed bandits) to reduce addictive gambling.
The recent case of an An Post worker who lost 1.75 million Euro of his employer's money gambling could have been stopped.
The bookmaker knew the person by name, and facilitated his gambling.

I take issue with the management of HRI advocating betting tax increases.
From my reading of the Act that set up the HRI the function of the HRI is administrative only, and as far as I can see they have no mandate to try and influence government policy.

Increasing betting tax does nothing to stop problem gambling.
In fact it worsens the position of the gambler by 1%.
You won't hear the government, TDs, or the HRI shouting out that they increased problem gambling by 1%.
The problem is not gambling, it is losing at gambling.
Paying a 15.7% charge to the bookmakers, then paying 2% to the government makes it very difficult to be profitable at horseracing betting.

RivetingRoger

is this the same cabbage who advocated selling the rights to Irish racing to RUK?

Francie Barrett

It will be interesting to see how the tax is levied. When I was younger, the tax was levied on top of the stake, I am wondering are the bookies now going to revert to that model to preserve profits (i.e. you stake €10, you have to fork over €10.20 to cover the tax).

Also, the offshore loop hole, or use of exchanges won't provide an alternative for punters. Since 2015 the government now levy the tax on offshore operations. With regard to exchanges, they are already levied 15% of commission, and under this budget, that figure is going to rise to 25%. I can see Betfair increasing their commission levels for Irish customers to try and rake back some of the effects of the new tax.

My thoughts are that the bookies won't take the hit on this, that it will be substantially borne by the punter, as The Tetrarch says. The industry in Ireland both traditional and exchange is 90% dominated by Ladbrokes (they own Betdaq), Paddy Power (they own Betfair) and Boyles. I would be shocked if they don't all act in concert to push the tax to the punter. If they do this, then the independents would only be too happy to follow their lead.

finbarrk

I remember when it was 20% tax here. Bet a tenner and you had to pay £12.

stooge

decentralized betting FTW!

BumperD

finbarrk wrote: »

I remember when it was 20% tax here. Bet a tenner and you had to pay £12.

Or you had the choice of a deduction from the winnngs at 20%. The exchequer taking a punt back then or the bookies? I suspect the latter

posturingpat

A buddy of mine oversees the running of a few betting shops for one of the big bookies and he thinks there's some kind of protest on the cards...

antietam

I continue to ask of HRI are they paying tax to the Irish system or are they tax free.If [they] HRI are TAX free why and what account do they exist in.

finbarrk

BumperD wrote: »

Or you had the choice of a deduction from the winnngs at 20%. The exchequer taking a punt back then or the bookies? I suspect the latter

You hadn’t a choice here in Ireland as far as I remember. In the UK you had.

ArmaniJeanss

finbarrk wrote: »

You hadn’t a choice here in Ireland as far as I remember. In the UK you had.

In fairness it was always mathematically better (by around 1%) to pay tax on stake rather than winnings so we were being forced to do the correct thing anyway. In the UK most chose to pay on winnings so were 'doing themselves'.

e.g., £10 on an Evens shot with 10% tax on winnings returns £18.
whereas £9 on the same Evens shot with tax paid on stake also returns £18 but only costs £9.90.
So a saving of 10p, 1%.

4068ac1elhodqr

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

e.g., £10 on an Evens shot with 10% tax on winnings returns £18.
whereas £9 on the same Evens shot with tax paid on stake also returns £18 but only costs £9.90.
So a saving of 10p, 1%.

But that assumes the (average) punter wins more at short (even) odds than they loose.

Evenly matched AvB events are also usually priced at around 1.83 (each).

Thereby unless average Joe punter has a real edge/advantage they will be at a disadvantage and the pre-event tax will make it worse for them.

ArmaniJeanss

Carl Green Straw wrote: »

But that assumes the (average) punter wins more at short (even) odds than they loose.

Evenly matched AvB events are also usually priced at around 1.83 (each).

Thereby unless average Joe punter has a real edge/advantage they will be at a disadvantage and the pre-event tax will make it worse for them.

No the maths of it continues to apply regardless of stake/odds and also regardless of whether you are a winner or losing better.

You were always better off paying on the stake in the UK.
Win or lose spending £9.90 to potentially get back £18 is always better than spending £10 to potentially get back £18.

If its a 100/1 shot then spending 9.90 to potentially get back £909 is always better than spending £10 to potentially get back £909. etc

4068ac1elhodqr

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

No the maths of it continues to apply regardless of stake/odds and also regardless of whether you are a winner or losing better.

You were always better off paying on the stake in the UK.
Win or lose spending £9.90 to potentially get back £18 is always better than spending £10 to potentially get back £18.

If its a 100/1 shot then spending 9.90 to potentially get back £909 is always better than spending £10 to potentially get back £909. etc

Perhaps, but that again assumes that the (average) punter wins more than looses.

So for the 'average' unskilled punter it will be worse. It's very rare to hear of any sizeable bookie being beaten, long-term by the public at large.

Those that are able to find advantage, may quickly find market restrictions anyway so the +1% margin wouldn't be much of a concern.