Online gambling hit by 15% tax (UK)

Online gambling companies have condemned a new 15% tax set by Gordon Brown. The rate, which takes effect from April 1, is in line with tax imposed on other forms of gambling but is much higher than the two to three percent for which online gambling companies had lobbied. John Coates, chairman of the Remote Gambling Association, said in a budget response statement: "The UK has effectively turned its back on the industry. It will now be almost impossible for a UK-based operator to compete with offshore businesses." He noted that a lower tax would have encouraged a more regulated and lucrative market, attracting offshore operators to the UK. A Treasury spokesman responded by insisting that the rate simply brings online gambling into line with the rest of the industry, emphasizing that "the UK cannot and should not try to compete with tax havens."

News source: vnunet

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Court strikes down Internet porn law

Next Story

AutoHotkey 1.0.46.10

13 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Well more than likely they want people to goto super casinos rather than the comfort of their own homes.

So encouraging gambling makes sense.

I think the UK should ban all on-line gambling, close bookmakers and arcades.

If you wish to place a bet then get to the track.

It almost reads as if they want sympathy for not being able to squeeze more out of an often already gullible and desperate part of society -- those who think they can solve all their money woes by gambling. What on earth made them think that they should get any special dispensation in the first place!?

"the UK cannot and should not try to compete with tax havens.”
Here, here!

Reverse engineer, people like you always come out with that quote.

So under labour we have 3 million on sickness benefits, that were moved from income support.

1 million on job seekers allowance.

2 million single parents on income support.

Labour change the way things are recorded to make figures look better.

So if you add income support, job seekers and probably 2 million of the 3 million on sickness benefits can work they just want the extra money it provides so pretend, so thats 5 million adults that do not work in Britain.

There was not 3 million unemployed during Maggies time.

Get your facts right.

leesmithg said,
There was not 3 million unemployed during Maggies time.

Get your facts right.

Why don't you try and get your facts right:

1984 (for example) uk unemployment 3,221,000 source

bobbba said,

Why don't you try and get your facts right:

1984 (for example) uk unemployment 3,221,000 source

Periods
MGSC YBTI YBTL
1984 3278 12.1 21.5
1989 2106 7.4 19.5
1996 2344 8.4 21.6
2005 1426 4.9 21.5

first column, number unemployed in thousands
second column, percentage unemployed
third column, unemployed as percentage economically active

observe how labour trumpets its low unemployment figures but we're still exactly the same percentage inactive/on benefit.

they are spin masters

well if the number of unemployed has gone down while the ratio of unemployed to economically active has remained the same, that reads to me like the number of economically active has fallen as well. this might be labour spinning the category of who is unemployed but it could just as easily be down to an ageing population, more in education, more early retirement etc.

and it still reads like over 3 million unemployed during "maggies time" to me even by their figures!

bobbba said,
well if the number of unemployed has gone down while the ratio of unemployed to economically active has remained the same, that reads to me like the number of economically active has fallen as well. this might be labour spinning the category of who is unemployed but it could just as easily be down to an ageing population, more in education, more early retirement etc.

and it still reads like over 3 million unemployed during "maggies time" to me even by their figures! ;)


You have got to remember that then at 16 you could leave school and sign on unemployed, also income support, unemployment and sickness benefits payments accounted for all unemployed. Now I think it's 19.

Labour like they did with reported crime changed the way it was recorded, so they only count as unemployed those on job seekers allowance.

You must also take into account all the needless jobs also created by Bliars spin doctors and ball hangers this past 10 years.

Gordon Brown is screwing the UK over. This year's budget is letting down the majority of people in the UK. Labour might say Thatcher was bad for the country, but more people are worse off under Labour than there was under Thatcher.

Hopefully when he stands in the next election he/Labour won't be re-elected. I certainly won't be voting for them.

chicken-royal said,
Gordon Brown is screwing the UK over. This year's budget is letting down the majority of people in the UK. Labour might say Thatcher was bad for the country, but more people are worse off under Labour than there was under Thatcher.

Hopefully when he stands in the next election he/Labour won't be re-elected. I certainly won't be voting for them.

The 3 million+ who were unemployed during her reign would disagree there...that's more than double what it currently is here (and that is NOT taking into account the growth of the population).

I'm not voting labour, and it wouldn't matter who was leader, but that's not to do with their economic policies.

chicken-royal said,
Gordon Brown is screwing the UK over. This year's budget is letting down the majority of people in the UK. Labour might say Thatcher was bad for the country, but more people are worse off under Labour than there was under Thatcher.

Hopefully when he stands in the next election he/Labour won't be re-elected. I certainly won't be voting for them.

Will you be to busy gambling?

Reverse Engineer: maybe so, but now the lowest rate of tax is now 20p per £1, seeing as Brown has scrapped the 10p per £1 for the first £2000 (I think its two grand), which he introduced in 1999. So he's created something then scrapped it. Obviously knows what he's doing.

I can see what you mean though, I'm not saying Thatcher was great, but she wasn't *that* bad, lol.

bobbba: nope, I won't. But I will be paying the extra 2p/litre on petrol this year, then another 2p/litre next year, then a further 1.8p/litre in 2009 (total of at least [depending on oil prices] +5.8p/litre). This isn't really a problem for me, but considering we already pay Road Tax (which is going up for cars giving off >225g/km CO2, but only cars registered from April 2006) and fairly high duty on petrol.

About the CO2 emissions and road tax going up to £400 for cars giving off >225g/km CO2, it won't stop people driving. If you had to pay £400 road tax, you'd use your car more to get better value for money surely? And older cars give off more CO2 than newer cars, obviously because of the development in technology.

Quite a bit of a rant there, sorry, lol.