Gambling Industry In The Firing Line

irishproduce

Their days are numbered in my view.
They will soon go the way of Cigarettes and Petrol/ Diesel. To be taxed more and more each year.

The GAA have banned them from attaching themselves to the Association through sponsorship.

President Higgins has called for a complete ban on advertising in sport.

Today a party to government has called for increased taxes on gambling to fund treatment for addicts.

RTE wrote:

the four Independent Alliance members put forward proposals that included an increase in gambling taxes to fund addiction services

The days of jokey fun ha ha lolz gambling guys on tv ads and radio shows is coming to an end.
We are probably about a decade away from society and business treating it as the cancer that it is on community and family.

I know that a lot of people enjoy a flutter and that but gambling is a disgusting affliction to have to deal with.

I won't miss it when it is no longer emblazoned on jerseys and billboards. I certainly won't miss the gambling rep on the sports talk show offering his tips and a special bet offer to the listeners.

dan1895

I bet your right.

JohnnyFlash

I’m a regular race goer, and enjoy a few bets. But there’s far too many of those ads on the TV that make gambling seem like a care free and victimless activity. And there’s far too many bookie shops as well. And the online stuff is like crack cocaine to some people. I’d be all for responsible on course betting, but the gambling industry does need to be regulated and controlled.

Good. There's no point doing a full underground push but there's no need to make it easy for the bookies either.
As I've said on other threads I find the football pundits and ex-players doing ads distasteful at best. They'll all know or work with someone and have mates who went through gambling problems.

I suppose there is the hypocrisy here as well. I gamble maybe 50-100 quid a year so maybe I shouldn't have a say. :pac:

Billy86

irishproduce wrote: »

The days of jokey fun ha ha lolz gambling guys on tv ads and radio shows is coming to an end.

Yes! Thank god. Thank f***ing god. Can we watch it when they officially get pushed off a bridge in cement shoes and take bets on which one can breathe for the longest underwater?

Mackmatic

Tenner bets this disappears in a couple months

verycool

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057896587

judeboy101

Low hanging fruit. I've never heard a judge use gambling as a factor in summing up a case of rape, incest, motor death, or the murder of a wife or person at a party.

jobbridge4life

judeboy101 wrote: »

Low hanging fruit. I've never heard a judge use gambling as a factor in summing up a case of rape, incest, motor death, or the murder of a wife or person at a party.

Have you never heard of the devestating effects gambling can have on the addict and their families either?

major bill

Lad banter ****e, all Tv ads should be banned for starters along with McDonnells Curry sauce ads (Chips curry!!, ask me ballix you)

Football betting has gone to ****e anyway, no value in it at all.

weldoninhio

irishproduce wrote: »

Their days are numbered in my view.
They will soon go the way of Cigarettes and Petrol/ Diesel. To be taxed more and more each year.

The GAA have banned them from attaching themselves to the Association through sponsorship.

President Higgins has called for a complete ban on advertising in sport.

Today a party to government has called for increased taxes on gambling to fund treatment for addicts.




The days of jokey fun ha ha lolz gambling guys on tv ads and radio shows is coming to an end.
We are probably about a decade away from society and business treating it as the cancer that it is on community and family.

I know that a lot of people enjoy a flutter and that but gambling is a disgusting affliction to have to deal with.

I won't miss it when it is no longer emblazoned on jerseys and billboards. I certainly won't miss the gambling rep on the sports talk show offering his tips and a special bet offer to the listeners.

Yay!! More for the nanny state to ban for the masses because a few people can't deal with it. FFS.

Berserker

Mackmatic wrote: »

Tenner bets this disappears in a couple months

Russian hackers?

Grayson

weldoninhio wrote: »

Yay!! More for the nanny state to ban for the masses because a few people can't deal with it. FFS.

A study a while back showed that about a third of people who bet online are addicted. And it's not going to be banned, just better regulated. We shouldn't advertise during sporting events. We shouldn't allow children to view these adverts. We may want to consider limits of what people can bet. I'd also be in favor of the distance that a bookies has to be from schools & pubs (I know if one bookies that's in the same building as a pub. Every big screen in the pub shows non stop gambling stuff on it).

But none of that is saying that we should ban it. Just regulate it so those that enjoy a bit of a flutter still can and those that are addicts are prevented from going too far. I still want to be able to put a few quid on the grand national.

irishproduce

I would encourage posters to start raising this with their candidates for the next election as they knock on the doors.

What is proposed to stop children seeing it normalised on day time tv?
What if anything is proposed in the area of mobile apps constantly pushing the user for bets during matches?

I think as other posters have said, there is no need to underground the whole thing but there is no need to make it super easy and attractive either.
It really should be like the cigarettes. You can have them if you like as is your entitlement, but they are not "sold" to you in very attractive terms, nor are your children sold an image of them as being great craic.

judeboy101

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Have you never heard of the devestating effects gambling can have on the addict and their families either?

Yes I have but they pale into insignificance next to the social and economic damage done by alcohol. Yet the amount of alcohol sponsorship in Ireland is huge. From local pubs buying jerseys etc its everywhere.

weldoninhio

Grayson wrote: »

A study a while back showed that about a third of people who bet online are addicted. And it's not going to be banned, just better regulated. We shouldn't advertise during sporting events. We shouldn't allow children to view these adverts. We may want to consider limits of what people can bet. I'd also be in favor of the distance that a bookies has to be from schools & pubs (I know if one bookies that's in the same building as a pub. Every big screen in the pub shows non stop gambling stuff on it).

But none of that is saying that we should ban it. Just regulate it so those that enjoy a bit of a flutter still can and those that are addicts are prevented from going too far. I still want to be able to put a few quid on the grand national.

It won't be banned, but the OP showed that they want to tax it. Sucking the life out of anything enjoyable.

valoren

Long be gone the days of betting on a nag in the bookies.
Just looked at Paddy Power. I've no interest in gambling but happened to take a quick look.

FC Midtjyllan are playing FC Astana in a Champions League qualifier.

You can place a bet in 102 categories ranging from something basic such as who will win down to precise Score predictions. Incredible that these are offered for what is effectively a non-event game.

If you are betting at odds of 7 to 1 in the category 'what will happen? 00:00 to 00:59' that a 'corner will be awarded' then you should be worried about your relationship with gambling.

Alternatively, if you are a provider of such a granular level of bets, then you shouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if a clamp down is on the way.

ceadaoin.

Grayson wrote: »

A study a while back showed that about a third of people who bet online are addicted. And it's not going to be banned, just better regulated. We shouldn't advertise during sporting events. We shouldn't allow children to view these adverts. We may want to consider limits of what people can bet. I'd also be in favor of the distance that a bookies has to be from schools & pubs (I know if one bookies that's in the same building as a pub. Every big screen in the pub shows non stop gambling stuff on it).

But none of that is saying that we should ban it. Just regulate it so those that enjoy a bit of a flutter still can and those that are addicts are prevented from going too far. I still want to be able to put a few quid on the grand national.

How will the limits be determined though? Do you think the millionaire sports people who regularly bets tens of thousands (or more) at a time would be happy with a tenner or even a few hundred? Im sure the bookies wont. When I worked for a major UK bookies, a huge portion of their profit for the year came from one customer who came from a family with a seemingly bottomless pot of money who lost millions per year.

Or would it just be working class people who can't be trusted to make the right choice?

Pauliedragon

I'd look at online gambling and who's playing it. I know of a few 15 year olds who punt regularly on horses online. How did they get an account? Pubs have to check I'd for booze. What I'd checks are being done by online bookies?

MarinersBlues

Pauliedragon wrote: »

I'd look at online gambling and who's playing it. I know of a few 15 year olds who punt regularly on horses online. How did they get an account? Pubs have to check I'd for booze. What I'd checks are being done by online bookies?

They check your ID when you try to withdraw.
I **** you not.

4068ac1elhodqr

It does need better regulation, particularly for the 'daily ad blasts' all over the evenings on the TV box.

All that 'non real-world virtual rubbish' (bingo/vegas/poker type stuff) should be fully outlawed however.

But does the OP know that this year the US market has just given the go-ahead for it in many states?
Why? - Tax receipts. ($10bn's worth that is currently going to a black/underground market).

oneilla

the four Independent Alliance members put forward proposals that included an increase in gambling taxes to fund addiction services

Yeah right, I'll believe it when I see it...

irishproduce

valoren wrote: »

Long be gone the days of betting on a nag in the bookies.
Just looked at Paddy Power. I've no interest in gambling but happened to take a quick look.

FC Midtjyllan are playing FC Astana in a Champions League qualifier.

You can place a bet in 102 categories ranging from something basic such as who will win down to precise Score predictions. Incredible that these are offered for what is effectively a non-event game.

If you are betting at odds of 7 to 1 in the category 'what will happen? 00:00 to 00:59' that a 'corner will be awarded' then you should be worried about your relationship with gambling.

Alternatively, if you are a provider of such a granular level of bets, then you shouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if a clamp down is on the way.

That is actually an excellent post.

super_furry

I don't think it's unreasonable to try and prevent school kids from being indoctrinated into gambling. Any kid watching a football match on television will be bombarded by gambling adverts which normalises the whole process before they even leave primary school.

Banning gambling advertising before 10pm is entirely reasonable.

DEFTLEFTHAND

It's better to have it all above board and regulated though.

If you go about banning it entirely it will fall into the hands of criminal gangs.

Then you'll have degenerate gamblers getting the living sh1t kicked out of them because they owe money to some unlicensed 'bookie.'

Pauliedragon

MarinersBlues wrote: »

They check your ID when you try to withdraw.
I **** you not.

So you can put bets on without ID but if you win the bookies don't payout without ID? Where does the winnings an 15 year old make go so?

MarinersBlues

Pauliedragon wrote: »

So you can put bets on without ID but if you win the bookies don't payout without ID?

Exactly.
They don't put up barriers for people to bet, only for people to cash out.

Pauliedragon wrote: »

Where does the winnings an 15 year old make go so?

They don't get them.
At best they get the original deposit back, but nothing is said if they lose.

Donald Trump

Ban it ta fuck

This town
is coming like a ghost town

(Couldn't find the clip of Fr. Billy buying all the tickets)

Mike Hoch

judeboy101 wrote: »

Low hanging fruit. I've never heard a judge use gambling as a factor in summing up a case of rape, incest, motor death, or the murder of a wife or person at a party.

I've seen it in cases of employees embezzling company profits.

Often to the reward of a suspended sentence. Particularly for female defendants.

TomSweeney

Donald Trump wrote: »

Ban it ta fuck

This town
is coming like a ghost town

(Couldn't find the clip of Fr. Billy buying all the tickets)

https://youtu.be/w5ZSJhlsB8Q?t=993

Muahahaha

Gambling is only taxed at 1% yet the cost to society of addicted gamblers is far higher. Even alcohol being taxed a lot more still does not come near the costs that are put on the health service because of it.

With gambling, alcohol and tobacco society is effectively subsidising the costs of the fall out of these products while the industry takes the profits.

weldoninhio

Muahahaha wrote: »

Gambling is only taxed at 1% yet the cost to society of addicted gamblers is far higher. Even alcohol being taxed a lot more still does not come near the costs that are put on the health service because of it.

With gambling, alcohol and tobacco society is effectively subsidising the costs of the fall out of these products while the industry takes the profits.

What is the “cost to society of addicted gamblers”??

happywithlife

weldoninhio wrote: »

What is the “cost to society of addicted gamblers”??

Addiction treatment.
Embezzlement by addicts to fund their addiction.
Breakdown of the family unit due to addiction.
Court time & associated resources
That's just off the top of my head

happywithlife

Pauliedragon wrote: »

So you can put bets on without ID but if you win the bookies don't payout without ID? Where does the winnings an 15 year old make go so?

I'd imagine if they can't withdraw wins they just use them to place more bets so ultimately it'll go back to the bookie

jimbobaloobob

Would that mean an end to the lotto adds aswell ?

weldoninhio

happywithlife wrote: »

Addiction treatment.
Embezzlement by addicts to fund their addiction.
Breakdown of the family unit due to addiction.
Court time & associated resources
That's just off the top of my head

Going by the only figures I could find, there are up to 40,000 gambling addicts in Ireland. 0.8% of the population.

I’m calling bullsh*t on it costing the state anything significant. It’s an easy target for the perpetually outraged.

happywithlife

weldoninhio wrote: »

Going by the only figures I could find, there are up to 40,000 gambling addicts in Ireland. 0.8% of the population.

I’m calling bullsh*t on it costing the state anything significant. It’s an easy target for the perpetually outraged.

40,000 addicts - right what if half of them are married? Thats another 20k affected by gambling.
The 40k will in all likelihood have either living parents or a young family.
Their siblings are affected.
The wider family network is affected
Their friends
Work colleagues.
"Cost to society" as you originally asked doesn't just mean an economic cost. You're not seeing the bigger picture here.
The stat I know is for every gambler 3 people are affected in a direct life altering manner and I think it was 9 are affected greatly but to a lesser extent.
And that doesn't account for the ripple effect of addiction within the person's greater network.

But let's stick with your 40,000 - are you saying they don't count? If 40k people were affected by serious consequences of say a side effect of a drug do you not think there'd be public outcry? Or 40k misdiagnosed? 40k lost their job in the morning? Of course there would. Gambling is an insidious addiction that worms its way into the heart of nearly every community in Ireland. It badly needs to be recognised for the damage it's doing and far more needs to be done to curtail it and abnormalise it rather than normalise it

weldoninhio

happywithlife wrote: »

40,000 addicts - right what if half of them are married? Thats another 20k affected by gambling.
The 40k will in all likelihood have either living parents or a young family.
Their siblings are affected.
The wider family network is affected
Their friends
Work colleagues.
"Cost to society" as you originally asked doesn't just mean an economic cost. You're not seeing the bigger picture here.
The stat I know is for every gambler 3 people are affected in a direct life altering manner and I think it was 9 are affected greatly but to a lesser extent.
And that doesn't account for the ripple effect of addiction within the person's greater network.

But let's stick with your 40,000 - are you saying they don't count? If 40k people were affected by serious consequences of say a side effect of a drug do you not think there'd be public outcry? Or 40k misdiagnosed? 40k lost their job in the morning? Of course there would. Gambling is an insidious addiction that worms its way into the heart of nearly every community in Ireland. It badly needs to be recognised for the damage it's doing and far more needs to be done to curtail it and abnormalise it rather than normalise it

40k is a drop in the ocean. And you are the one that brought economics into it be claiming they were taxed at 1%, but the cost was higher. In Ireland gambling is a billion euro business. 1% tax is plenty. Can't handle yourself, tough.

Muahahaha

weldoninhio wrote: »

40k is a drop in the ocean. And you are the one that brought economics into it be claiming they were taxed at 1%, but the cost was higher. In Ireland gambling is a billion euro business. 1% tax is plenty. Can't handle yourself, tough.

It was me who brought up the 1% and it is not plenty IMO. Taxation on gambling was 10% for decades until free wheeling Charlie McCreevy came in and reduced it to 0% during the Tiger years. Its only in the last 3 years that it was raised from 0% to 1% which is laughable really. In fact even Horse Racing Ireland themselves have called for it to be raised which goes to show how low it is.

As for the 1% gambling tax covering the costs to society- not a hope, nowhere near it, society is subsidising the cost of gambling addiction. In 2016 gambling receipts were 50 billion (more than the entire Irish states annual budget) and 1% of that yielded 50 million in tax. Also in 2016 a single gambling addict alone stole 1.75m from his employer (An Post) and gambled the lot away with Paddy Power who knew all along he was a postman and could not have had access to nearly 2 million quid. But they let him carry on regardless. The taxpayer is now on the hook for that 1.75m that Paddy Power took in profits whatever way you look at it because the post man sure as hell wont be paying it back. And thats just one gambling addict, if we have 40,000 of them then the 1% taxation would not come anywhere near paying for the costs to society of this addiction.

Working class heroes

Free entry for under 12’s into the Galway races.

weldoninhio

Muahahaha wrote: »

It was me who brought up the 1% and it is not plenty IMO. Taxation on gambling was 10% for decades until free wheeling Charlie McCreevy came in and reduced it to 0% during the Tiger years. Its only in the last 3 years that it was raised from 0% to 1% which is laughable really. In fact even Horse Racing Ireland themselves have called for it to be raised which goes to show how low it is.

As for the 1% gambling tax covering the costs to society- not a hope, nowhere near it, society is subsidising the cost of gambling addiction. In 2016 gambling receipts were 50 billion (more than the entire Irish states annual budget) and 1% of that yielded 50 million in tax. Also in 2016 a single gambling addict alone stole 1.75m from his employer (An Post) and gambled the lot away with Paddy Power who knew all along he was a postman and could not have had access to nearly 2 million quid. But they let him carry on regardless. The taxpayer is now on the hook for that 1.75m that Paddy Power took in profits whatever way you look at it because the post man sure as hell wont be paying it back. And thats just one gambling addict, if we have 40,000 of them then the 1% taxation would not come anywhere near paying for the costs to society of this addiction.

He stole 1.75m over 10 years. If you're gonna go all Helen Lovejoy, lets stick to the facts.

Muahahaha

weldoninhio wrote: »

He stole 1.75m over 10 years. If you're gonna go all Helen Lovejoy, lets stick to the facts.

I never said he didnt, he got caught in 2016 which is when it all came out. And it doesnt negate the fact it happened nor does it support your argument that the paltry 1% tax on gambling comes anywhere near covering the cost to society. 50 million a year in taxation is nothing when you have 40,000 gambling addicts in the country flittering away all the money they can lay their hands on. The 1% rate is a joke, it should be what it was for decades before McCreevy got his hands on it, 10% is a fair rate, 1% is a pisstake of PAYE workers who are nailed to the wall paying 52% taxation and are effectively subsidising the gambling industry. All whilst the likes of Paddy Power report hundreds of millions in profits. It is corporate welfare plain and simple and its about time it got called out.

happywithlife

weldoninhio wrote: »

40k is a drop in the ocean. And you are the one that brought economics into it be claiming they were taxed at 1%, but the cost was higher. In Ireland gambling is a billion euro business. 1% tax is plenty. Can't handle yourself, tough.

??? Eh no I didn't

GoneHome

I spent a few days at the races earlier this week, my betting would be small - €5 double, €2.50 each way, a €7.50 lucky 15, that kind of money, after my four days racing I came out with €220 profit which today I lodged into my Credit Union account to put towards a nice holiday later in the year. I would generally do a few bets every weekend mainly on the horses but a few GAA or soccer bets at times, never gambling more than €20/€30 over the whole weekend. Most weekends I would at the very least break even, any profit I make even if it's only €10 goes into the Credit Union account.

Gambling for me is an enjoyable pass time, a great day out at the races meeting up with people I might not have seen all year or sitting in front of the tv on a cold Winter's day watching the racing for a couple of hours. I know plenty of people who would laugh at my betting regime but they are the fools who are losing €100s when they don't even have it in the first place to lose. At the end of the day it comes down to personal responsibility. It is like the way the drinks industry in this country has been regulated to the hilt (closing off licences at 10 pm, talk of minimum unit pricing, etc) just because a small minority can't control their drinking, the gambling industry is going the same way with these talks of increased taxes. The majority being punished because a small minority can't take personal responsibility for their actions.

Working class heroes

GoneHome wrote: »

I spent a few days at the races earlier this week, my betting would be small - €5 double, €2.50 each way, a €7.50 lucky 15, that kind of money, after my four days racing I came out with €220 profit which today I lodged into my Credit Union account to put towards a nice holiday later in the year. I would generally do a few bets every weekend mainly on the horses but a few GAA or soccer bets at times, never gambling more than €20/€30 over the whole weekend. Most weekends I would at the very least break even, any profit I make even if it's only €10 goes into the Credit Union account.

Gambling for me is an enjoyable pass time, a great day out at the races meeting up with people I might not have seen all year or sitting in front of the tv on a cold Winter's day watching the racing for a couple of hours. I know plenty of people who would laugh at my betting regime but they are the fools who are losing €100s when they don't even have it in the first place to lose. At the end of the day it comes down to personal responsibility. It is like the way the drinks industry in this country has been regulated to the hilt (closing off licences at 10 pm, talk of minimum unit pricing, etc) just because a small minority can't control their drinking, the gambling industry is going the same way with these talks of increased taxes. The majority being punished because a small minority can't take personal responsibility for their actions.

Yes Paddy.

ArmaniJeanss

Muahahaha wrote: »

I never said he didnt, he got caught in 2016 which is when it all came out. And it doesnt negate the fact it happened nor does it support your argument that the paltry 1% tax on gambling comes anywhere near covering the cost to society. 50 million a year in taxation is nothing when you have 40,000 gambling addicts in the country flittering away all the money they can lay their hands on. The 1% rate is a joke, it should be what it was for decades before McCreevy got his hands on it, 10% is a fair rate, 1% is a pisstake of PAYE workers who are nailed to the wall paying 52% taxation and are effectively subsidising the gambling industry. All whilst the likes of Paddy Power report hundreds of millions in profits. It is corporate welfare plain and simple and its about time it got called out.

It's more than 1% because of the turnover effect which doesn't apply to consumable items like say drink or food.
e.g., tomorrow morning I'll go into the bookies with €100 and do some bets on the early greyhounds and pay 1% so €1 in tax. Some of my bets will win and I might get €90 back, which I'll spend on the afternoon horses (anther 90c tax). I'll get a winner which bumps me up to €200 and I'll do a few more horse bets (€2 tax). They'll be mostly losers but I'll be left with €60 by 5clock which I'll stick on a football match (60c tax).
So I'm still turning over the original €100 I went in with but have paid €4.50 in tax. If my final soccer bet wins I'll rinse and repeat on Sunday still paying tax on my original €100 weekly betting bank.

Now I'm not actually that degenerate and likely won't even be in the bookies tomorrow, but it serves as an example of how the tax builds up for the punters who will do the above tomorrow.

Some other points re the 10% you suggested.
It was just about plausible pre-internet, not really a runner nowadays with online access to perfectly legal lower-taxed betting in the EU.
Also its arguable whether the tax was ever truly 10%. Yes, the 25p e/w punter did indeed get charged an extra 5p on their stake, but the £100 punter was generally not paying £10 tax in their local independent bookie - the system was hand over £100 but mark £10 and your initials on the docket and pay just £1 in tax, the bookie would know who you were and that it was a £100 bet. Or alternatively go into the local pub and bet with an unlicensed but reliable 'part-timer'. Every decent boozer had one. No tax at all there.
Over the years the various government realised it was better to get 1% of absolutely everything rather than 10% from the small amount of punters who wouldn't be savvy enough to go online or to find a tax free alternative.

I'm Paddy Power obviously.

GoneHome

[QUOTE Yes Paddy.[/QUOTE]

There's no need to be like that, I was only giving you my experience to illustrate that everyone who likes a bet is not spending thousands, the vast majority of gamblers do it the way I've outlined purely for the enjoyment of it, we're not all gambling addicts stealing millions from our employers to fed our habit :rolleyes:

weldoninhio

Muahahaha wrote: »

I never said he didnt, he got caught in 2016 which is when it all came out. And it doesnt negate the fact it happened nor does it support your argument that the paltry 1% tax on gambling comes anywhere near covering the cost to society. 50 million a year in taxation is nothing when you have 40,000 gambling addicts in the country flittering away all the money they can lay their hands on. The 1% rate is a joke, it should be what it was for decades before McCreevy got his hands on it, 10% is a fair rate, 1% is a pisstake of PAYE workers who are nailed to the wall paying 52% taxation and are effectively subsidising the gambling industry. All whilst the likes of Paddy Power report hundreds of millions in profits. It is corporate welfare plain and simple and its about time it got called out.

“in 2016 a single gambling addict alone stole 1.75m from his employer (An Post) and gambled the lot away with Paddy Power”

You did.

Also just because there are 40k addicts, it doesn’t mean all of them are stealing millions. You misrepresented the facts and were called out on it. Get over it.

Fr Tod Umptious

I saw this ad for Ladbrokes the other day.

Jay from The Inbetwneers lands in a space suit or jet pack or something infornt of a group of people, mainly males 20ish, and starts talking about great football comeing up and great odds for such and such from Ladbrokes.

Now one thing that struck me about it.

What demographic are interested in space suits or jet packs?
7 to 12 year old kids, boys mainly, I reckon.

And what demographic are interested in football ?
7 to 107 year olds, boys mainly I reckon.

That's the link, get the kids interested early, link the jetpack to the football to the betting.

You'll have them for life.

Muahahaha

weldoninhio wrote: »

“in 2016 a single gambling addict alone stole 1.75m from his employer (An Post) and gambled the lot away with Paddy Power”

You did.

Also just because there are 40k addicts, it doesn’t mean all of them are stealing millions. You misrepresented the facts and were called out on it. Get over it.

Ah here weldonninho the point just went completely whoosh over your head. If one gambler can lose 1.75m then how do you think that 40,000 of them would come anywhere near covering the paltry 50m year it takes in taxation ? That was the point, you just failed to get it.

Plus youre the poster who was trying to act like Billy Big Balls on the Mayweather thread offering 500-1 odds for anyone willing to back McGregor. When I offered to take you up on the bet you completely chickened out. Bit rich of you now to be coming on here trying to down play the extent of gambling addictions in Ireland when you yourself were throwing ridiculous odds of 500-1 in a two horse race :rolleyes:

weldoninhio

Muahahaha wrote: »

Ah here weldonninho the point just went completely whoosh over your head. If one gambler can lose 1.75m then how do you think that 40,000 of them would come anywhere near covering the paltry 50m year it takes in taxation ? That was the point, you just failed to get it.

Plus youre the poster who was trying to act like Billy Big Balls on the Mayweather thread offering 500-1 odds for anyone willing to back McGregor. When I offered to take you up on the bet you completely chickened out. Bit rich of you now to be coming on here trying to down play the extent of gambling addictions in Ireland when you yourself were throwing ridiculous odds of 500-1 in a two horse race :rolleyes:

I offered to take the bet. You wanted the money (that you wouldn’t have won) up front. I was right then, and I’m right now. You knew you were going to lose, so rather than back up your assertion that you wanted to get you fudged the issue. I offered 500/1 you said you’d take it, then tried to move the goalposts.

You can backtrack and deflect all you want but you said he lost €1.75m “in 2016 ALONE”. Not every gambling addict is a thief. Not every gambling addict is making huge bets. I’m willing to bet (pun intended) that the vast majority of problem gamblers spend €5 to €10 a bet.