Noonan buckles under bookie pressure.

A tax on bets would be awkward IMHO. It would be easy online but not in a busy shop where people try and put on bets at the last minute. You'd have customers and bookies trying to work out the taxes before placing the bet. Be much easier to tax the winnings.

listermint

MagicSean wrote: »

A tax on bets would be awkward IMHO. It would be easy online but not in a busy shop where people try and put on bets at the last minute. You'd have customers and bookies trying to work out the taxes before placing the bet. Be much easier to tax the winnings.

Eh... wouldnt the till do that???

El Weirdo

MagicSean wrote: »

A tax on bets would be awkward IMHO. It would be easy online but not in a busy shop where people try and put on bets at the last minute. You'd have customers and bookies trying to work out the taxes before placing the bet. Be much easier to tax the winnings.

You've got that arseways. Taxing online is difficult, taxing in the shop is easy- sure it worked fine for years, even before the advent of electronic tills that would work it out automatically.

Besides, you don't have to pay the tax on your stake when you make your bet, you can opt to pay the tax on any winnings. Well, that used to be the case anyway.

etab

I understood if we raised the tax to 2%, people would simply bet online with the Isle of Man guys and thats why they're keeping it here. Is pp even paying the 1%??

hondasam

Should we take bets on the chances of Paddy Power moving his business of out Ireland ?

Orando Broom

MagicSean wrote: »

A tax on bets would be awkward IMHO. It would be easy online but not in a busy shop where people try and put on bets at the last minute. You'd have customers and bookies trying to work out the taxes before placing the bet. Be much easier to tax the winnings.

Bets were taxed here for years. It was 10% and written on the docket. So a £15 bet had a tax od 1.50 and you paid £16:50. The customer knew this. I think it was done away with in '99. I'm not big into gambling so I am open to correction on dates.

Why not raise betting tax in direct proportion to the rise in VAT? Folks here are mentioning VAT is going from 21% to 23% and then suggest that the 1% betting tax be doubled

Also a suggestion to make betting subject to VAT :rolleyes: Value added tax on a wager :pac: Are shares subject to VAT?

Folks forget that the margin of profit is quite low in the betting industry.

Orando Broom

If Paddy Power did close all his shops would the loss of jobs not be outweighed by the number of people who are no longer frittering away thier wages on gambling? THe profit margins in Paddy Power would indicate that more people are losing their wages through Paddy Power's 'taxation' of the population than Paddy Power is paying in wages. Cull the few to protect the many.

I think Betting and the horse racing industry in Ireland have had far to high a privilaged position in our society for far too long. It is time they gave much, much more back.

MagicSean wrote: »

A tax on bets would be awkward IMHO. It would be easy online but not in a busy shop where people try and put on bets at the last minute. You'd have customers and bookies trying to work out the taxes before placing the bet.

Eh, that 'awkward' system already happens. The tax is 1% on all stakes and is calculated by 'the till'.

Should all pubs be closed so too?

Dumpthedummy wrote: »

It’s not too late for the Government to increase the betting levy from 1% to 2%.Even at that higher level, it is less in tax than is paid on children’s shoes and essential medicines.

This is a common lack of understanding of how the betting system works. When shoes or medicine or food or a pint of beer are bought it is a definitive purchase, the money is gone. So the VAT of 13% or 21% is necessary.

Whereas when 'Mr Average Punter' spends €100 in a bookies on a Saturday morning, he gets a certain amount back which he gambles again.
So €100 staked, €92 returned, €92 staked, €81 returned. €81 staked, €76 returned etc until he goes bust or the shop shuts.
So his initial €100 betting bank covers a multitude of bets all of which are applicable for the 1% tax, so by the end of day his €100 stake can have paid a cumulative tax rate of 10, 20%.

The constant respend of the same money means that what looks like an overly lenient tax regime of 1%/2% is actually rather fair.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

This is a common lack of understanding of how the betting system works........................

Whereas when 'Mr Average Punter' spends €100 in a bookies on a Saturday morning.........................

You're going to get some chap asking what happens when the €100 is put on a loser initially :pac:

El Weirdo wrote: »

You've got that arseways. Taxing online is difficult, taxing in the shop is easy- sure it worked fine for years, even before the advent of electronic tills that would work it out automatically.

Besides, you don't have to pay the tax on your stake when you make your bet, you can opt to pay the tax on any winnings. Well, that used to be the case anyway.

Gambling debts are not enforceable so the bookie can't look for money after the bet has been taken.

Orando Broom wrote: »

Bets were taxed here for years. It was 10% and written on the docket. So a £15 bet had a tax od 1.50 and you paid £16:50. The customer knew this. I think it was done away with in '99. I'm not big into gambling so I am open to correction on dates.

The customer did not always knew. Only the regular customer did.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Eh, that 'awkward' system already happens. The tax is 1% on all stakes and is calculated by 'the till'.

Once the docket is scanned the bet is on the system so if the customer then does not have the tax the bet can't be changed and the bookie is down the money.

MagicSean wrote: »

Once the docket is scanned the bet is on the system so if the customer then does not have the tax the bet can't be changed and the bookie is down the money.

Its a tax on turnover so once the customer hands over say €10 then 10c is the assumed tax ; the customer doesn't have to physically hand over an extra 10c but he is paying the tax regardless.

MagicSean wrote: »

Gambling debts are not enforceable so the bookie can't look for money after the bet has been taken.

......................

Once the docket is scanned the bet is on the system so if the customer then does not have the tax the bet can't be changed and the bookie is down the money.

If the tax was paid on winnings the bookie deducts it before paying the balance

Secondly, at the moment the bookie pays the tax, if the customer was to pay the tax and claimed they didn't have it they would be treated as slow counters, no cash means no bet taken. Many bookies won't clock in a docket unless the cash is there. And the bet can be changed after scanning it in too

cloneslad

MagicSean wrote: »

Once the docket is scanned the bet is on the system so if the customer then does not have the tax the bet can't be changed and the bookie is down the money.

bets can be voided after they have been scanned. It's just a matter of typing a simple note alongside the bet on the computer, such as 'customer has insufficient funds' and it will be fine.

However this realisitically has to be done before the race is over, as your boss (or the taxman) will look at the time it was voided and the time of the race and think you are trying to steal the money.

starbelgrade

Betting, cigarettes, alcohol etc are all luxury items and should be taxed accordingly.

Rjd2

ThinkAboutIt wrote: »

Why try and cripple one of the areas in the economy that is doing well?
Might as well be arguing to raise our corporation tax.

And an area that actually employs quite a few Iris people..

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Its a tax on turnover so once the customer hands over say €10 then 10c is the assumed tax ; the customer doesn't have to physically hand over an extra 10c but he is paying the tax regardless.

Are you sure it's on turnover?

RoverJames wrote: »

If the tax was paid on winnings the bookie deducts it before paying the balance

Yes that would be easy. But it isn't a tax on winnings.

RoverJames wrote: »

Secondly, at the moment the bookie pays the tax, if the customer was to pay the tax and claimed they didn't have it they would be treated as slow counters, no cash means no bet taken. Many bookies won't clock in a docket unless the cash is there. And the bet can be changed after scanning it in too

But if you are relying on the till to make the calculations then you have to scan the docket to get the total in the first place. And if the race is off you generally can't change the docket or cancel it.

cloneslad wrote: »

bets can be voided after they have been scanned. It's just a matter of typing a simple note alongside the bet on the computer, such as 'customer has insufficient funds' and it will be fine.

However this realisitically has to be done before the race is over, as your boss (or the taxman) will look at the time it was voided and the time of the race and think you are trying to steal the money.

That's my point. It's not workable when it comes to people placing bets close to the off of a race.

MagicSean wrote: »

Are you sure it's on turnover?

100% sure.
Articles like the below one, and if you google something like 'irish betting tax turnover tax' theres other articles that make clear its a 1% tax on turnover.
http://ggbmagazine.com/issue/vol-10-no-6-june-2011/article/ireland-could-double-turnover-tax

Obviously this is just the 'punters tax', the bookie is still liable to the appropriate corporate tax on profits.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

100% sure.
Articles like the below one, and if you google something like 'irish betting tax turnover tax' theres other articles that make clear its a 1% tax on turnover.
http://ggbmagazine.com/issue/vol-10-no-6-june-2011/article/ireland-could-double-turnover-tax

Obviously this is just the 'punters tax', the bookie is still liable to the appropriate corporate tax on profits.

So you think the bookies should absorb the cost instead of passing it on?

MagicSean wrote: »

So you think the bookies should absorb the cost instead of passing it on?

Well the bookie is entitled to do so, as is any other business. So long as the correct tax gets paid the Revenue are happy.

As to whether the bookie 'should', do you mean from a business pov, or from an ethical point of view that the customer is 'getting away without paying'.

From a business pov it makes sense for the bookie to absorb it up to about 1.5%, becomes a marginal business decision above that, and stops making business sense around 2%. Though what happens at 2% and above is that the big players (Powers, Boyles) can absorb it in urban centres which forces the smaller independents to also absorb it. Because if you've a choice between doing a €10 bet in Powers or a €10.20 bet in DaveyKellys across the road then its a no-brainer.

MagicSean wrote: »

.................

That's my point. It's not workable when it comes to people placing bets close to the off of a race.

Of course it's workable, I used to gamble in betting offices when there was a 3% betting tax, it wasn't rocket science to work out the tax. It worked perfectly back then and could work again if they introduced it.

What you are suggesting is punters leaving short the bookie the tax, that's no different to putting €50 on your docket and handing the bookie €49 as that's all you have on you, try that in your local betting office and see how you it goes

Currently bookmakers pay the 1% betting tax which they could pass on to the customer if they wanted.

Fear Uladh

Minister Noonan had sex with his bookie?

cloneslad

MagicSean wrote: »

Are you sure it's on turnover?
.

It's 1% per bet, so yes.

But if you are relying on the till to make the calculations then you have to scan the docket to get the total in the first place. And if the race is off you generally can't change the docket or cancel it.

If the cashier can't add a simple 1-2% to a stake, then they shouldn't be in the job. The cashier only has to enter in the amount staked to scan the bet, the tax is added afterwards, otherwise the computer would think you had put €10.10 on a bet and would mulitply the odds by that amount, rather than the €10.00 which should have been entered.

That's my point. It's not workable when it comes to people placing bets close to the off of a race.

It is very workable. Cashiers can work out the maths very easily. I used to have to work it at 3% and you could take 7-8 bets on the off. Even if the customer put on a €50.00 bet, and they didn't have the tax, the shop would only be down about €1.50, and this can be recovered / explained quite easily. If someone did a 'slow count' more than once, they'd soon be told they wouldn't be allowed to place any bets at the off, or else they'd be told to take their business elsewhere.

I used to have to take bets of over €1,000 from a certain customer, so I'd scan it in, while at the same time, phoning for approval from the shop's raceroom to make sure I was allowed to take it. Most races last at least 2 mins anyway, and you have around 30 seconds after the off to place you bet with most shops (depending on the length of the race).

El Weirdo

MagicSean wrote: »

That's my point. It's not workable when it comes to people placing bets close to the off of a race.

How can you say it's not workable when it was done like that for years before the tax was abolished?

Dumpthedummy

Easy peasy betting tax

Simple. By amending the betting legislation to capture telephone and internet betting, the Government would guarantee that all bets placed in or from Ireland would pay the betting duty. The Fianna Fail Coalition had such legislation drafted, but bottled out under pressure from the bookies and decided not to introduce it in the 2010 budget. This change in legislation would have answered the legitimate concerns that increasing the betting duty from 1% to 2% would drive punters offshore and thereby penalise Irish bookies. That’s the point. If the Government includes telephone and internet betting in the betting duty, it captures all bets from Ireland and there is no financial incentive to place bets in the Isle of Man or elsewhere. Simple to do, but only if you have the political nerve to defy the bookies.