Should gambling be taxed?

[obsidian]

[ QUOTE ]
there is double taxation all throughout the tax code. Get used to it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. You are taxed when you get your money and you are taxed when you spend it virtually everywhere.

[Jim T]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those who run the gambling should be taxed on their income. The players shouldn't be taxed (they are gambling with money that has already been taxed).

[/ QUOTE ]

there is double taxation all throughout the tax code. Get used to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd prefer to complain about it and hopefully (and eventually) get it corrected.

[stigmata]

[ QUOTE ]
So why don't other countries tax gambling?

Those who run the gambling should be taxed on their income. The players shouldn't be taxed (they are gambling with money that has already been taxed).


This is the exact reasoning the UK use.

It also saves them the headache of having people deduct gambling losses from other incomes, which would be the logical continuation of taxing winnings.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

The other reason the UK government decided to stop tax on gambling winnings was due to the emergence of offshore internet gambling companies. Removing the tax from the punters was an astute move to protect the large UK gambling industry, and thus protect the taxes recieved from these companies.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
just one more reason why Britain>USA.

if only religion and politics was more detatched like over here, you would be soooo much better off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't Christianity (the Anglican chuch) the official state religion in the UK?

We don't have a state religion in the US?

Isn't it ironic that religion and politics are more detached in the UK?

[MaxPower]

I do think its fair for professional gambler to pay income tax.

However, the US system is unfair to the recreational gambler. Let's face it, the vast majority of gamblers have no records whatsoever. If they ever hit a large jackpot and get one of those W2-G's from the casino, they are going to get screwed out of a lot of money because they will not be able to substatiate their losses to deduct from their winnings.

I think we should hire a lobbyist or try to get the gaming industry to use their lobbyists to get some changes in the tax code.

[Phill S]

in america, by my understanding, one of the first things that political candidates get asked about is their religious beliefs.

furthermore, our PM wouldnt rush back to parliament to sign a bill that the religious right has pushed through due to a vegatable (for the want of a better word) woman who has had near zero brain activity for 15 years having her feeding tube removed to allow her to die.

of course our PM has total disregard for parliament in general, but hopefully that will change when he gets kicked in the arse when loads of voters turn against him in may.

i think the most telling sign of religion having a foothold in america is the way in which american state school cannot teach evolution theory - ie darwinism - without also teaching creatism - ie 1 god, who created adam, eve, a snake and an apple tree.

i agree that anglicanism is the official state religion, but this is merely a throwback to times gone, we dont have religion dictating life. or at least not to the extent you guys do.

what further swings it is that funding for political campaigns coming from religious groups is a rarity here in the UK.

Phill

ps, im not a religious person, but i dont want my views to be taken in any way as to be insulting your faith if you are a christian. or even a muslim, jew, buddhist, hindu or (insert any religious denomination here).

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean really it's ridiculous how much money one can make playing poker online and not pay any tax at all while others work much harder for much less money and they're the ones who have to give a large amount of this to the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

Not that I'm complaining about how it is now.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I am not convinced that it would be +EV for the UK tax office to tax winning gamblers. After all they are such a small percentage of the population, would the returns pay for all the extra admin staff etc? What damage would it do to the gambling industry, killing golden geese and all?

[MicroBob]

I don't much about any of the politics or practicalities involved....but it does seem that aboloshing the income-tax for a national sales-tax could solve many of the problems.

right now, the whole country is a bunch of people trying to figure out a ridiculously complicated tax-code where they don't know whether they should be paying taxes on this or should be deducting that.

for example - most people who win a few bucks at slots or craps or BJ have no idea that they are supposed to report that and pay taxes on it.

The more enthusiastic you are about trying to find deductions the less you will have to pay.

I don't think that the greater tax-obligation should fall on those who don't have the time, energy or interest in finding every little deduction there is.


I have no idea how much a national sales-tax would hurt small businesses that rely on purchasing goods in bulk and selling them to the public for a slightly higher price. Maybe it would put a ton of small-business owners out of business.

But, from what I see, it's not exactly easy to own a small-business as it is and I think many small businesses already feel they are getting the shaft on taxes already.


The point is: There HAS to be a better way. The current system is REALLY bad.

[Amid Cent]

[ QUOTE ]


Which is why, for example, you don't have to pay taxes when someone gives you a gift.



[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to break it to you, but you DO have to pay taxes on any gift valued over $10,000. They call this strange phenomenon a "Gift Tax".

[FishBurger]

I don't mind the taxation of gambling, but the current scheme used by the IRS to tax gambling is oppressive.

There are at least 2 problems that I see:
1) gambling losses are only deductible up to the amount of gambling wins. Capital losses are deductible beyond the amount of capital gains. I don't see why gambling losses shouldn't be deductible for some amount beyond gambling gains.
2) The current scheme of taxing gambling may be unconstitutional. I believe the Constitutional standard for taxation is "accession to wealth." The only accession to wealth that occurs in gambling is your net win for the year. However, currently the IRS treats each session win as income and each session loss as a deduction against income. This is similar to how businesses are treated in that all revenue is treated as income and purchases of capital equipment and what not are deducted against that income.

For gambling, using this type of "session wins are income and session losses are deductible against that income" means that two gamblers that have the same overall net increase in wealth over the course of a year will pay different amounts of tax.

That is, a gambler that has $100K in session wins and $50K in session losses will pay less in tax than a gambler that has $200K in session wins and $150K in session losses. I believe this outcome occurs because of the AMT and means in actuality that the IRS's screwy definition of "income" is taxed as opposed to the gambler's actual accession to wealth.

Anyhoo, the current gambling taxation scheme is unfair regardless of whether gambling should actually be taxed or not.