BETTING TAXATION.

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 132, 5 June 1923, Page 5

BETTING TAXATION.

N.Z. CLERGYMAN'S VIEW. WOULD INCREASE GAMBLING. LOSTDON, June 4. The Rev. .T. J. North, of Christchurch, New Zealand, speaking at Whitefields Central Mission, said that if bctttng were taxed it would he the most disastrous thing that could happen, as it would put the stamp of legality on gambling. Bookmakers would give thousands of pounds to have such a bill. When New Zealand tried to stop bookmakers, and installed totalisators, the Government benefited by a large tax, but in five years New Zealand had five times as many bookmakers as before, and the amount spent in betting was fivefold. Racehorse owners found that they could make more money by betting with bookmakers, and the machines helped them by attracting many who otherwise might not have bet.—(A. and N.Z. Cable.) Discussing the betting taxation proposals the political correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian" recently wrote: I During the last few weeks the Customs i Department of the Treasury have been J conducting an inquiry into the betting : tax proposal. It may seem surprising that this should be done by the Customs Department and not by the Inland Revenue Department. It is a matter of convenience. A betting tax, if it is to be imposed, is regarded as kindred to the entertainment tax, and it wae found more convenient and economical, though rather anomalous, that the Customs Department should deal with the entertainment tax. If the tax were adopted on betting it would be administered by the Customs Department. I believe the recommendations are substantially as follows: — There are three classes of bookmakers, the bookmakers who do betting on accounts with lairly well-to-do people, generally called commission agents; the bookmakers on the racecourse itself, and ; the street bookmakers whose trade is definitely against the law. I understand that, ac to methods, the commission agents and the racecourse bookmakers echould be registered and licensed—this not so much ac a source of revenue, though there would be a licensing fee, übt as a means of auditing their transactions. The real eource of Tevenue would be an ad valorem stamp duty on t'hc stako. Suppose that a man put down a 'bet of £10 ou the racecourse or a .bet of £13 through a commission agent, it would carry a duty of £1. For the payment c-f that duty the bookmaker or commission agent would be responsible, and the form or ticket .recording the transaction, would have to carry a stamp of that value to be obliterated by the book-ma-ker. The stamps would be on sale like, postage stamps or receipt stamps for the whole necessary range of values. It is from this stamp duty that a revenue would be expected. The calculation is that the revenue to be expected would be between ten millions and twenty millions in a full year, but some authorities think that it would be much more. However, as to that there are no data. 'Nobody knows, and any calculation is at the best shrewd guessing. There remains the case of the street bookmaker. To impose a duty on street corner and public-taouee 'bookmakers would mean legalising the one form of betting that ie now wholly illegal. Taw licensing of bookmakers generally may be considered. On the one hand, it is argued that it would facilitate street and public-house betting, and so put a more open and greater temptation in the way of the poor, who, as everyone agrees, cannot afford to bet; on the other hand, the burden of the stamp duty might push more people towards illicit betting. J think the balance of opinion is that the latter danger is not a great one, and that if the tax were adopted street betting would still remain illegal.