BETTER FOR ALL CONCERNED

Northern Advocate, 6 March 1947, Page 6

BETTER FOR ALL CONCERNED

It was contended that a 5 per cent tax on the net winning of the offcourse bettor might work out to his advantage as well as that of the Government and the racing club conducting the event. Mr Leicester auoted the example of a win pool of £IO,OOO with 10 horses equally backed. The owner of the winner backed £IOO on it through the totalisator, and would fare as follows: — . Pool taxation £IO,OOO, which less taxation, etc., would leave a pool of £8313, to be divided, making a dividend of £B/6/-. The ownei of the winner would receive £B3O. If the wager was made with a licensed bookmaker, and net winnings were subject to 5 per cent tax, the position would be, assuming that there were 900 tickets on the winner and the ■‘amount of the pool was £ 9900. Pool, £9900 which, less present taxation, etc., would leave a pool of £8230 to be divided, making a dividend of £9/3/-. From the licensed bookmaker at starting-price odds the owner would receive £915, less 5 per cent on net winnings, leaving him £874/5/-. The relative positions on the Government and racing clubs were:— (1) Government: Were £IOO invested in the totalisator, it would receive £10: were £IOO placed with the bookmaker, on the assumption that it received 60 per cent of the taxation , on winning bets. £24/9/-. 12) Racing club: Were £IOO invested on the totalisator it would receive £7710/-; were £IOO placed with, a bookmaker, on the assumption that it received 40 per cent of the taxation on the winning bet. £l6/6/-. If the horse failed to win, the bookmaker would pay £5 tax on the bet, and on the proportions mentioned the Government would receive £3 and the racing club £2, revenue which neither derived at present. To protect the public and to. secure payment of taxation due on’ offcourse betting, each licensed bookmaker would furnish a fidelity bond of £2OOO. Licence fees would be: Bookmaker with one telephone £ 100. rising by £SO for each extra telephone. The association that it was possible to give an estimate of the re-

venue to be derived by the Government and racing • clubs from its scheme. This was based on the following assumptions; (1) There -was a licensed bookmaker to every '3OOO people. (2) The bookmaker held £BOO in wagers on each racing day. (3) Tax was imposed at the rate of 5 per cent on winning bets (4) There were 60/ racing days yearly. The turnover would be £24.000.000, producing revenue us follows: Tax, £1,200,000; licence fees <SOO at £2OO average), £100,000; licence fees of bookmakers’ clerks (say 1000 at £lO each), £1(nQ00; ticket tax estimated to produce £25,000; total, £1,335,000. The association also claimed that the amount annually wagered in offcourse betting was substantially in excess of that invested upon the tolalisator. The following figures showed the actual amount held by 165 members of the association on November 23, 30 and December 7, 1946, and the calculated amount held by 173 members who had not furnished returns: £.392,664, £350,969, £360,274. Totalisatov returns for the same dates were: £329,639, £316,992. £310,862. The association did not feel that betting shops, possessing as they did a lure to women and juveniles, provided a desirable remedy to the present off-course betting situation. Nor did it advocate a return to the system of 40 years ago, even under such strict control as would be exercised by the Licensing and Betting Board. So long as human nature evoked the desire to gamble, and this was stimulated by Press, broadcasting and racing publications, the imposition of increased penalties on bookmakers or off-course bettors would not lead to any greater respect for the gaming laws. A doubles totalisator, the association felt, would be used for the most part only by those on the course: would be unattractive to bettors in that no price would be known at the time of investment; and would tend to tie up the money of course bettors and reduce the revenue derived by racing clubs from totalisator investments.