BETTING TAX MAY FAIL

Hawera Star, Volume LI, 3 January 1931, Page 7

BETTING TAX MAY FAIL

RAND WICK RING DESERTED

BETTORS WOULD NOT BET,

New South Wales bettors had their first taste of the new two shillings in the pound betting tax on Saturday last (states the Sydney correspondent of the “Auckland Stax - ”, in a message dated December 24). Afl fliers Stakes day was the big draw-card at Rand wick racecourse, but if indications- given then are right, the new tax will be a failure.

The Labour Government. Jed by Mr J. T. Lang, rushed the measure through Parliament at the beginning of last week in order that the tax could be extracted from the bettors at the Yiliiers- meeting.

The tax provides for a levy of two shillings in the pound on all winning bets made on N.S.AV. racecourses. It was stated by Air Lang that lie estimated that £2,000,000 would result.

Punters literally went on strike on the first day that the new tax came into operation. Decreased attendances have been the order of the day, but Randwick has suffered least of all the clubs in Sydney. It was thought that the attraction of seeing the A T illiers Stakes x-iin would draw a big crowd, betting tax or no betting tax, but the forecasts were wrong. The usual hum and bustle of a big Randwick race day was absent. The stands and enclosures, usually crowded to capacity, were, half empty* lawns and reserves were deserted, and even the betting ring, the hub of the whole course resembled that of a, down-the-line picnic race meeting. Bookmakers reported the worst day, as far as money was concerned, for the past 20 years. Some of the big operators, accustomed to holding up to £2OOO and £3OOO on a race, had to work like Trojans to entice £l5O into their bags. Smaller men could hardly hold up to £SO. An indication of the manner in which the new tax has scared people from the racecourse caxi bo gauged from the fact that attendances in every enclosure were 50 per cent, below those of the spring meetings which were, in their turn, 50 per cent, below the corresponding meeting of last year.

One of the bookmakers, noted for his ability and willingness to lay odds to anything up to £IOOO on any lace, stated that bis largest bet of the day was £IOO to £25 Pavilion in the A’i 1 - liens. That, he stated, was made by a client who bets in £SOO to- £IOOO a week ago. One punter had a peculiar experience-. AAflion the An fliers Stakes was being run he bet seven to one on—£7o to £lO on —Pavilion. The horse won, but the bettor received only £72 back from the bookmaker—the tax gathered in £8 —ten -per cent, levy on the total amount of stake and -bet—so that actually the bettor laid 35 to one on. Treasury and taxation officials were present at the course to observe the collection of the new tax. The Act throws the responsibility for collection on Ihe bookmaker, who, in addition, has to supply the Taxation Department with a duplicate record of all bets made cm a race, whether on or off a racecourse, within .seven days. Alany of the book-makers spent " Satixrdav niglit in their endeavours to unravel the mysteries of the betting hooks for the taxation authorities.

Opinions of the tax among hookmakers and punters is that it will serve only to drive bettors to betting illegally at starting price odds. The hope that- it would raise £12.000,000' was based on the volume -of betting put through on a normal day at- Randwick, hut if last Saturday is any indication of the future, that estimate will fall fax- short of the actual sum collected over a year.