Is it time to ban betting websites from sponsoring radio and TV shows?

NIMAN

Considering fag companies were banned many years back, then followed by the drinks companies, is it now time to consider banning the betting ones?

If you listen to sport on Radio like I do, be in in Ireland or on UK stations, then you are absolutely bombarded with adverts and in-show sponsorship or guests.

I know many will say "you don't have to gamble, no one is forcing you", but it's common knowledge that betting and gambling is likely to be one of the next big social problems in this country. Yet we are letting the people selling this new drug free reign of the airwaves.

Atlantic Dawn

Only if the UK also bring it in, otherwise you are just going to move the advertising targeting Irish consumers to the UK. I think the lottery should be classed in the same evil as cigarettes, all store based advertising should be removed.

I purchased a lottery ticket today (I know, I know) and for some reason I got a receipt, I was rather shocked to see the VAT rate on them is 0%.

Del2005

NIMAN wrote: »

Considering fag companies were banned many years back, then followed by the drinks companies, is it now time to consider banning the betting ones?

If you listen to sport on Radio like I do, be in in Ireland or on UK stations, then you are absolutely bombarded with adverts and in-show sponsorship or guests.

I know many will say "you don't have to gamble, no one is forcing you", but it's common knowledge that betting and gambling is likely to be one of the next big social problems in this country. Yet we are letting the people selling this new drug free reign of the airwaves.

Gambling is already a huge problem and making it easier to gamble is just throwing petrol on the fire. It should be taxed higher and the companies should be forced to ban loosers instead of their current practice of banning you when you win too much.

swampy353

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Only if the UK also bring it in, otherwise you are just going to move the advertising targeting Irish consumers to the UK. I think the lottery should be classed in the same evil as cigarettes, all store based advertising should be removed.

I purchased a lottery ticket today (I know, I know) and for some reason I got a receipt, I was rather shocked to see the VAT rate on them is 0%.

Lottery is considered to be a charity hence the 0% VAT, in fairness the public purse benefits from selling the licence to run the lottery, it was half a billion for 20yrs licence paid upfront

NIMAN

I would agree with the lotto too, ban that advertising as well. People will know it's available to do if they want to.

Iirc, think I heard rumours of a tax on gambling coming up in the next budget. I'd be fully behind that. People will always gamble, may as well take some money of the likes of paddy power if they are.

It might also highlight how big of a problem it is, as I'm sure the government will be able to tell us how much betting tax they collect in a given period.

hullaballoo

Just ban all freedom of choice. No one knows what's really good for them and they can't be trusted to make the right decision when presented with choice.

KevinCavan

Betting ads should definitely be treated the same as cigarette ads, gambling possibly has worse affects on families.

prunudo

Its not just ads, the betting companies sponsor a lot of shows and give aways too.
On a related note I noticed yesterday the lotto app now prompts you when you try to shut it down and asks are you sure you want leave the app.

KevinCavan

jvan wrote: »

Its not just ads, the betting companies sponsor a lot of shows and give aways too.
On a related note I noticed yesterday the lotto app now prompts you when you try to shut it down and asks are you sure you want leave the app.

Nobody makes money long term from betting, it should be treated as a health hazard. Ads on t.v. that make it look fun should be outlawed.

Niles Crane

I've no problem with gambling advertising,drink advertising and even tobacco advertising.

I don't really buy the idea that advertising causing you to take up a habit that may be bad for you, everyone knows these things are readily available so these adverts just cause you to choose a certain brand over another.

I've been bombarded by these ads all my life and I've never drank or smoked and only gamble maybe once a year outside of playing the lotto, In my opinion no amount of advertising will cause you to take up a habit you had no interest in having already.

[Deleted User]

NIMAN wrote: »

It might also highlight how big of a problem it is, as I'm sure the government will be able to tell us how much betting tax they collect in a given period.

The statistics for all tax heads are published by Revenue

A .pdf is available here, showing the total receipts from traditional betting was €29 million in 2017, and that €21.4 million was raised from remote-betting duty (online). There is no duty applied to on-course (e.g. racetrack) bets.

Niles Crane wrote: »

I don't really buy the idea that advertising causing you to take up a habit that may be bad for you, everyone knows these things are readily available so these adverts just cause you to choose a certain brand over another.

That's really just a hunch, which I guess is all of any of us can do.

Reviews of academic literature on alcohol consumption and media advertising have found contradictory results, and most people seem to come down on the side of the argument that suits them. I assume (although I haven't looked), the same would apply to gambling.

in reality, without any longitudinal study that controls for past gambling behaviour (which would be a major work, and quite difficult to approach for all sorts of practical reasons), all any of us have is a hunch. We certainly cannot presume to declare any definitive solution based on our own subjective experiences.

Rjd2

hullaballoo wrote: »

Just ban all freedom of choice. No one knows what's really good for them and they can't be trusted to make the right decision when presented with choice.

Yes, personal responsibility is so uncool right now.:P

People do win from gambling to be fair, its just bookies unfortunately tend to ban them to quickly.

Niles Crane

Rjd2 wrote: »

Yes, personal responsibility is so uncool right now.:P

People do win from gambling to be fair, its just bookies unfortunately tend to ban them to quickly.

Which is a practice that should be outlawed.It's a completely scummy practice.

Of course bringing in measures stopping bookies from banning people because they win too often would be suicide for any politician as they would be hit with accusations of promoting gambling so the bookies know they can get away with it for ever more.

theoneeyedman

NIMAN wrote: »

Considering fag companies were banned many years back, then followed by the drinks companies, is it now time to consider banning the betting ones?

If you listen to sport on Radio like I do, be in in Ireland or on UK stations, then you are absolutely bombarded with adverts and in-show sponsorship or guests.

I know many will say "you don't have to gamble, no one is forcing you", but it's common knowledge that betting and gambling is likely to be one of the next big social problems in this country. Yet we are letting the people selling this new drug free reign of the airwaves.

The obvious ads are one thing, but the bits masquerading as content I find annoying and should be curtailed. Examples are in OFF the Ball the soccer previews on a Saturday afternoon, hosted by the presenter and a bookie, and all about match odds and specials etc. Goes on for surely a half hour. At least with racing, you have an idea it's more about betting than sport anyway, but it's really pervasive at this stage.

Rjd2

Niles Crane wrote: »

Which is a practice that should be outlawed.It's a completely scummy practice.

Of course bringing in measures stopping bookies from banning people because they win too often would be suicide for any politician as they would be hit with accusations of promoting gambling so the bookies know they can get away with it for ever more.

Yeah there has to be some sort of give and take from bookies.

I think when it comes to high profile events like horses and soccer they should not be able to knock back bets unless its a huge stake or a palpable error (e.g Liverpool to win the league at 33/1 )

Someone wanting to have fortunes on some obscure event, fair enough don't lay the punter, but so many lads who are from experts or sharks have there accounts shut because they may have backed a horse or golfer that may have shortened before the event went off which is cowardly book making.

Del2005

Niles Crane wrote: »

Which is a practice that should be outlawed.It's a completely scummy practice.

Of course bringing in measures stopping bookies from banning people because they win too often would be suicide for any politician as they would be hit with accusations of promoting gambling so the bookies know they can get away with it for ever more.

It would be easier to bring in a ban on letting losers bet. We've had the technology to enforce it since the camera was invented. But just like a publican rarely turns away a drunk, because they are good business, the bookies need the problem gamblers to make profits.

BarryD2

swampy353 wrote: »

Lottery is considered to be a charity hence the 0% VAT, in fairness the public purse benefits from selling the licence to run the lottery, it was half a billion for 20yrs licence paid upfront

That the lotto is rated at 0% is more likely because it was originally a state enterprise and since they make the rules, they can facilitate themselves.

It is a non essential luxury purchase and should be rated at 23% VAT.

ArmaniJeanss

BarryD2 wrote: »

That the lotto is rated at 0% is more likely because it was originally a state enterprise and since they make the rules, they can facilitate themselves.

It is a non essential luxury purchase and should be rated at 23% VAT.

Whilst it's not called VAT it has a high tax rate. I think just under 50% of what each customer puts in is paid back to the winning customers in prizemoney?
So after admin/running costs it's probably an effective tax rate of at least 23%.

BarryD2

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Whilst it's not called VAT it has a high tax rate. I think just under 50% of what each customer puts in is paid back to the winning customers in prizemoney?
So after admin/running costs it's probably an effective tax rate of at least 23%.

Sure but take petrol or diesel which are arguably more essential than buying Lotto tickets. There's excise/ carbon duties on the fuel and then you pay 23% VAT on top of that... hmm!

Dravokivich

I'd be of the opinion if you want to prevent someone from advertising, just ban their market full stop. If you don't wish to ban their market, cut this half assed crap of appearing to do something, without actually doing anything.

ArmaniJeanss

BarryD2 wrote: »

Sure but take petrol or diesel which are arguably more essential than buying Lotto tickets. There's excise/ carbon duties on the fuel and then you pay 23% VAT on top of that... hmm!

I'm lost. You implied there was no tax and it should be VATed at 23%. I pointed out that there is an inherent tax in the actual methodology of the Lotto of around 30%. Now you want 23% on top of that.
Why were you putting forward a suggested taxrate of 23% earlier but now want 53% - are you just randomly making this up as you go along?

BarryD2

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I'm lost. You implied there was no tax and it should be VATed at 23%. I pointed out that there is an inherent tax in the actual methodology of the Lotto of around 30%. Now you want 23% on top of that.
Why were you putting forward a suggested taxrate of 23% earlier but now want 53% - are you just randomly making this up as you go along?

Dunno. It's fairly simple. Lottery tickets are products that are sold like any other product. Their cost is based on the factors that go into the schemes: operating costs, profits to operator, contributions to be paid etc. No different in essence from any other product. It is normal for non essential/ entertainment products to be rated at the standard rate for VAT - it's a sales tax. What's hard to understand?

The issue I've suggested is that when VAT was introduced, the state generally rated their own products at zero or 0%. Maybe it made some sense but they were found out though in a court case taken by private car park operators who not unreasonably objected to having to levy VAT in their charges whilst similar state or LA carparks could undercut them/ have a higher profit margin.

Lottery products should logically be VAT rated at 23%. This would increase cost to customers but raise more tax for public spending. What's not to like?

Henryhill2

Niles Crane wrote: »

I don't really buy the idea that advertising causing you to take up a habit that may be bad for you, everyone knows these things are readily available so these adverts just cause you to choose a certain brand over another.

No

The gambling companies are creating new customers by targeting young people with free bets.

Some of these customers will go on to be problem gamblers,it doesn't affect me personally but that is reality .

Henryhill2

Expansion and new markets

Cigarette companies have been doing it for doing it for donkeys years

They moved into Africa when they got curtailed in the developed world

Henryhill2 wrote: »

Expansion and new markets

Cigarette companies have been doing it for doing it for donkeys years

They moved into Africa when they got curtailed in the developed world

Sounds a bit like the RCC :pac:

But it is interesting to see various states in US start to open up the doors to the bookies, main factor was their gov was loosing $bn's of tax receipts due to the huge black market, now at least they can start collecting and regulating.

Pointless banning ads on local media, in a global media age.

It will take a unified, global or at the very least EU-wide reduction. Generally it will have to be a volountry effort. Press ads are the natural enviroment to consider and weight up offers, but with media more immediate and mobile these days it's very unsuitable indeed.

UK PL kit sponsorship would be the most immediate big hurdle to overcome, something like 50% of them are sponsored, and even more in the Championship league.

You can't blur out the front sponsors of every kit on the telly box, nor ask youngsters not to wear replica kits of their soccerball heros.

James Brown

hullaballoo wrote: »

Just ban all freedom of choice. No one knows what's really good for them and they can't be trusted to make the right decision when presented with choice.

When is gambling good for you? It's a vice.
People should be free to do it, like smoking and drinking, but it shouldn't be supported by RTE or government as an okay thing to do. We're not all gamblers but neither are we all chronic smokers and drinkers.
The lads in politics are too beholden to horse racing so it'll never happen anyway IMO.

If they have to put "[insert vice] responsibly" that's a good sign it's not a positive.

I would personally ban or in the least curtail all those cash advance while waiting on your pay cheque places. That's your poverty trap right there.

Turnipman

BarryD2 wrote: »

Dunno. It's fairly simple. Lottery tickets are products that are sold like any other product. Their cost is based on the factors that go into the schemes: operating costs, profits to operator, contributions to be paid etc. No different in essence from any other product. It is normal for non essential/ entertainment products to be rated at the standard rate for VAT - it's a sales tax. What's hard to understand?

The issue I've suggested is that when VAT was introduced, the state generally rated their own products at zero or 0%. Maybe it made some sense but they were found out though in a court case taken by private car park operators who not unreasonably objected to having to levy VAT in their charges whilst similar state or LA carparks could undercut them/ have a higher profit margin.

Lottery products should logically be VAT rated at 23%. This would increase cost to customers but raise more tax for public spending. What's not to like?

VAT is a EU tax. Ireland cannot unilaterally impose VAT on its State lottery, unless every other EU country follows suit.

BarryD2

Turnipman wrote: »

VAT is a EU tax. Ireland cannot unilaterally impose VAT on its State lottery, unless every other EU country follows suit.

Not quite true. We introduced VAT before we joined the EEC, with the idea of bringing us in line with other countries. But it's our legislation and Revenue here are wont to hide behind the argument that they can't change VAT classifications and rates as they are EU imposed. Which is only partially true as far as I can see.

L1011

Turnipman wrote: »

VAT is a EU tax. Ireland cannot unilaterally impose VAT on its State lottery, unless every other EU country follows suit.

We have the power to set and alter VAT rates. The Brexit pushers seem to have convinced people it's down to the EU but it isn't.

The list of items liable and the rates they are liable at here and the UK is vastly and confusingly different for starters. We don't apply VAT to most food items at all, but do hit magazines for instance

Twenty Grand

hullaballoo wrote: »

Just ban all freedom of choice. No one knows what's really good for them and they can't be trusted to make the right decision when presented with choice.

People are idiots. That's you and me included.
We'll always choose the easiest option, choose the path of least resistance and befit ourselves before others.

The entire reason behind governments is to incentivise certain behaviors and disincentivise others.
Everything boils down to that really.

BarryD2

L1011 wrote: »

We have the power to set and alter VAT rates. The Brexit pushers seem to have convinced people it's down to the EU but it isn't.

The list of items liable and the rates they are liable at here and the UK is vastly and confusingly different for starters. We don't apply VAT to most food items at all, but do hit magazines for instance

Agree that it's a crazy system with numerous inconsistencies. But there is a lack of clarity about VAT. I've had occasion to write to our Revenue to enquire on the issue and the reply has been that their hands are tied as the categories were set in 1972 and can't be changed. You also hear the same argument in relation to say changing VAT on building materials and so on. But there is no logic to this and I think there have been instances where the VAT rules have been modified to suit the need of the state. More info needed.