A TAX ON BETS

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 87, 12 April 1923, Page 10

A TAX ON BETS

BENEFIT TO THE EXCHEQUER (FROM OUR OTVN CORRBSPOKBINT.) LONDON, 20th February. In view of the move in some quarters advocating a tax on bets, there is a good deal of controversy. The system in force in (New Zealand is explained- by a Dominion correspondent to the " Morning Post." The " Pall Mall Gazette " comments : " It is now realised, apparently, m Whitehall, as it has long been everywhere else, that a valuable source of revenue lies neglected in the betting ring and the bookmaker's satchel. It is money, moreover, which in the nature of things can be better spared than the taxation which comes out of salaries, out of the overturn of business, or of the breakfast table. Such taxes would have to be collected through^ the bookmaker, and would involve his licensing and official recognition. That would in itself bring about a most useful purging of the Turf and the suppression of a great deal of welshing and fraud. There is still probably an objection in some quarters to ' recognising ' what everybody knows to exist. But to relieve our public policy of the hypocrisy which leaves every, facility for betting to the well-to-do and punishes the poor man for putting a shilling on a horse would effect a vast improvement of the moral atmosphere."l The suggestion th'at a depleted JSxchequer might derive a substantial revenue from the taxation of letting contracts has aroused wide public interest, not only among supporters of the Turf, but in the mind of the general taxpayer, who sees in it a possible alleviation of his burden. Leaving aside the ethical aspect, of the proposition in so far as it would involve the State recognition of betting, there is the practical consideration as to how the scheme could be brought into play. One West End bookmaker thinks that on the broader question of State recognition the licensing of bookmakers would add to the security of the investing public. Asked as to the prospective yield of t>j tax, he said: "Millions and millions. It is incalculable."

"COLD-BLOODED FRAUD." The editor of the " Sunday Sportsman " takes as his text the letter to ■the " Morning Post," and has something to say concerning the " coldblooded fraud " of the totalisator. " Is seems that in New Zealand," he writes,. " the Pari-Mutuel is monarch of all it surveys, and every race or trotting executive must apply for a license from the Government to instal and work the Government tote at all meetings it is proposed to hold. Into just how th« booty is. divided among the Various gangs of bandits who batten upon the proceeds of the we do not propose to enter, ■ but will content ourselves with the statement that the grand total of deductions sanctioned by law in this delightful (it must be delightful !) country aggregates 12A per cent. According _to the correspondent of the • Morning Post,' the New Zealand tote 'safeguards against all fraud. \\ We should have thought that such a ■rifling of the pockets of the public as of oneeighth part of the/'r total. ;irivestment upon, each race was about as-cold-blood-ed a fraud as could be conceived: by the mind of man. In his paean of praise the 'Post' correspondent ..'.also Vrsmarks." that 'it gives the utmo&t' odds possible!' ■■■■■• •■■- ■■:.:■;■ CONCRETE FIGURES; ■'Well, let -us- Be-"what' happens to the money investor in the tote in that delectable (it must" be delectable!) land, New" Zealand. Let as deal in concrete figures rather than in abstract facts. We will assume that there are seven races on one day, and that the public start with and invest £10,000 on the first race. Then in each of the succeeding races invest what is left after the 124 per cent, has been deducted. On the conclusion of the day's afternoon's sport they are graciously permitted to take away with them the sum,, of £3927 —in other words, .of their original £10 r 000 rather more than £6000 has been swept up by the machine without the punters having' a. run lor the money at all! This is no exaggeration, as any punter who oares to. use pencil and paper for a few moments can readily discover for himself. If this is what the backers' who advocate State control desire, all we have to say is thav they will only have themselves to blame if they'get it; and if bookmakers wish to see their business exterminated and their livelihood taken from them, wa cannot imagine anything more likely to achieve that position of affairs than State control: ' When and if that ever comes about the verdict of the Coroner's jury at the inquest upon the corpse of the bookmaking business cannot possibly be other than ' Felo de se.' "