TAX ON BETTING.

Otago Witness, Issue 3773, 6 July 1926, Page 69

TAX ON BETTING.

MR CHURCHILL’S PROPOSALS. FREE CHURCHES OPPOSED. A NEW VESTED INTEREST. m (From Oub Own Correspondent.) LONDON, May 4. In putting forward his proposals for a tax on betting it is na f ural that Mr Churchill should have evoked a good deal of criticism from idely different sources. The basic principle of the proposals is a tax of 5 per cent, on a! credit and racecourse betting, with the necessary corollary of a licen j for each bookmaker and each betting office \ £lO to be the fee in each case), in order that the Inland Revenue authorities may have control of the business of betting that is now legally recognised. It may be stated here that the present position in England is tha' though there is an Act to ;ap ress betting there are recognised ethodr of evading the Act. The Act says in efFect that it is illegal for anybody to open or keep a house or office for the purpose of making bets with persons resorting hereto. There are two flaws in that language.. The first is the famous query. “What is i place within the meaning ol the Act?” Secondly, the language of the Act only makes the offence criminal if carried n at an "ffice wht.e people resort for the purposes of betting, but Parliament forgot the telephone and the telegraph ;.nd other methods by which one could *end bets to the bookmaker without visiting him METHOD OF LEVYING TAX. As far as can gathered it is proposed to levy the tax on cash bets by means of tickets issued by the Customs and Excise authorities to the bookmakers, one of which wil have to be handed to the backer whenever a bet is laid. These tickets vill be of various denominations so that bets of any anioi.rt. mav be easily covered by hem. They will be bought by the bookmaker. According to present intentions, ’’ey will be for bets of Is. 2s, 2s 6d 3s. ss. 7 S 6d, 10s 15 £l. and £5. They 'ill be issued in books of 100 tickets each and of different colours. With a tax of 5 per cent, i book of Is betting tickets .vould cost ss. a bool of 10s tickets £2 10s, a book of £5 tickets £25. Credit bookmakers will be required to account periodically to the Customs and Excise for the duty on each credit bet. To keep the credit bets on the same footing with cast bets the duty will be levied on the gross turnover. Much discussion has centred the question of the inspection of the books of credit bookmakers. It has been strongly urged that the right of inspection is essential if the scheme is to be carried out This right will be conferred on the Customs and Excise authorities by the Finance Bill, and heavy penalties will' be provided for evasion. BOOKMAKERS’ ATTITUDE. Opinions expressed by f too'kmakere and professional backers assembled at Newmarket for the Two Thousand Guineas meeting seemed to be that the scheme will i 1 only prove unworkable but will have a demoralising effect upon the sporting community at large, similar to that produced by prohibition in America. It is believed that taxation on “legal’’ betting will increase street betting by at least 50 per cent. This will put a tremendous strain not only upon the vigilance, but the probity, of the police. The expenses of collection, it is urged, will be far greater than the Chancellor imagines; while the further demoralisation of those forces in racing that are not easily controllable at any time will most assuredly yield a crop of vexation and trouble, but very little revenue on balance. FREE CHUj.CH MANIFESTO. A manifesto against the tax has been issued by the executive of the National Free Church Council. Every Free Church minister throughout the country is urged by every means in his power “to give his congregation every opportunity of expressing individually and collectively its abhorrence of the present proposals.” The manifesto sets out the principal reasons “Why all citizens should oppose the betting tax.” They are:— A tax would involve the legalising of betting. Experience in the dominion’s shows that an increase in the volume of betting follows State sanction and support. It would mean ultimate loss to the country. Would create a new vested interest, which would prove a h.ndrance to political and social progress. The revenue obtained was revenue obtained at too grout a coat—the cost of the nation’s lile.

During'the past century, it is declared, the “evils of betting and gambling have been recognised by successive Governments, and legislative reforms introduced to remove the more aggravated forms of this menace to wholesome social life. Now a change of attitude is proposed which will, if accepted, strengthen the appeal of betting by giving it State sanction and hinder urgent reform. A tax on betting would involve an entire alteration of a fundamental principle of British law which has governed legislation during the past few years. Dealing with the statement that a tax woxld be morally disastrous, it is declared that betting “is an irritating excitement, absorbing but not satisfying. It springs from selfish desire, and is throughout antisocial. It replaces rational judgment by {polish and often superstitious- fancies. Those qualified to speak of the effect of betting and gambling upon character are in no doubt as to its fascinating but destructive power. It is entirely alien to the idea of Christian character for which the Church stands.” THE WESLEYAN METHODIST CHURCH. The Rev. Henry Carter, secretary of the Social Welfare Department of the Wesleyan Methodist Church, has issued an official statement respecting the attitude of the Wesleyan Methodist Church to the tax. It is pointed out that the Wesleyan Conference last year “reaffirmed its strong opposition to the adoption by the State of any method which would utilise betting or other forms of gambling for revenue purposes, such as the imposition of a betting tax, and also to the creation of a new vested interest by the licensing of bookmakers.” Mr Carter said that the proposed tax will be fought with determination by the Wesleyan Methodist Church throughout Great Britain, and that immediate steps are being taken to give effect to this decision. SOME OPINIONS. The following are the expressions of opinion on the matter by a number of prominent people: ... Miss Ellen Wilkinson, M.P.: I did not think even Mr Churchill was going to join the Suicide Club. His betting proposals are quite definitely taking a backward moral step. . The Dean of Durham (Bishop Welldon) said the causes of drinking and gambling were so closely parallel that it was Impossible for him to understand how the State could be justified in deriving large revenue from the liquor trade and not justified in not deriving any revenue at all from the gambling fraternity. He did not doubt that taxation would redress some of the evils connected with betting. . The Rev. W Y. Fullerton (an ex-presi-dent of the Baptist Union): I am sure it would give betting a foothold in this countrv which it has never had before. It would throw a cloak of respectability over it and it would give those whose principles on the question are not very fixed, an incitement and excuse to engage in it under the aegis of the Government. The Rev. John Hornabrook (an ex-presi-dent of the Wesleyan Conference . 1 hoW betting in itself is wrong. Further, tnai SfntP has no right to batten on the tll€ people. That betting is a wd which gives birth to many other vices no man who knows anything »* the 80c, “ life of England can deny. To me a humiliation to think that this great country should have recourse to such a j ..1-.*fill pvpeflient in order to produce a Bndget withCme sho, of relief in certain directions. THE CLOAK OF RESPECTABILITY. Dr J. D. Jones (chairman of the Congregational Onion of England and Wales). It will legalise and throw the cloak of respectability over what is a serious social •i _ . To legalise betting is to encourage* it. To encourage « to P'fJ’ pone the recovery of those habits of in dustry which are necessary to England s Pr Mr e Thomas S. Penny, J.P. (president of the Baptist Ur' <i): Where will such a policy lead us? If iher moral evils which so sadly degrade our nation become sufficiently widespread and f a Chancellor of die Exchequer is in need of new sources of revenue, are we to tax them all in turn? If bookmakers are to be licensed —which is what their taxation involves—are they to bi compensated if subsequently the legislature repeals the tax and illegalises the ; business? Dr Scott Lidgett emphasised the view placed on record by the National Council of the Evangeli 1 Free Churches: “Any proposal to impose -a tax on betting, - ’ he declared. ill meet with strenuous opposition from the overwhelming majority of Free Churchmen iroughout the country. Their representative assemblies have passed, and are nissinfr. unanimous resolutions against it. In our judgment the analogy of the licensed drink trade is wholly misleading.” LORD LONSDAL /S MISGIVINGS. „ Discussing t v e subject with “Hotspur” at Newmarket, the Earl of Lonsdale (chief steward of the Jockey Club) was not prepared to make a considered statement on the Chancellor’s „ proposals, as he pointed out he was not yet conversant with the details of the scheme. It did seem to him, howe -. that one of the great dangers of the taxation of only legal betting would je vastly to increase street betting instead of preventing it. People would be iriven to betting in the streets instead of on the racecourse, where at least it could be kept under some sort of control and surveillance. Lord Lonsdale believed the Treasury would have enormous difficulties to face, while he foresaw injusticesjn many directions. He certainly could not subscribe to Mr Churchill’s statement that legal betting reoresented nine-tenths of the whole. “Hotspur” continues: Opinion at Newmarket was that on effect of the proposed taxation will h t< thin out attendances at race meetings, uecause people will and it more economical to resort to street getting and other forms of evasion. Betting generalh it is argued, will he sent underground again at a time when it was >ever aniea on s straightforwardly in the credit offices and on the racecourses. A very well-known owner described it to the writer at Newmarket as a “Crook’s Charter.” BLOOP" VALUES DISLOCATED.

The Irish orrespondent of the Sporting Life announces that * Captain Musker has decided to c ell off all his blood stock, numbering five stallions and 200 or more foals and yearlings, at the Thetford Stud, Nor-

folk, and not to re establish the study The stud is, or nerhaps was, the largest private stud in tne world. The view taken bv leading breeders and racehorse owners in Ireland is that a tax of 5 per cent, on backers’ stakes at theracecourse must inevitably tend to reduce attendances at meetings, with a conse- • awntial dislocation of values in the blood wovk world. Rumours are not wanting that the Finance Minister in the Free State will amend the form of the betting tax. THE TURF GUARDIAN SOCIETY. The General Committee of the Turf Guardian Society doubts H the Exchequer will gain anything worth having on balance, if the almost certain 'ailing off in the receipts of the telephone and telegraphic departments and the entertainment tax are placed to the debit of the net yield of the bet 9 tax; while the smaller attendances at race meetings will adversely affect the horse-breeding industry. It is felt that the tax is bound to increase illegal betting and to benefit the most undesirable classes of turf operators to the detriment of responsible law-abiding bookmakers. It will probably put a number of very respected men out of the business immediately it comes into operation. If the tax does come into operation and the members of the body are able lawfully to continue the business in which they arel at present engaged, and which is a very essential part of the racing system in this country, they will do their best to make the tax run smoothly, and all the machinery of the Turf Guardian Society will be at the Government’s disposal for that purpose* ME CHURCHILL’S REPLY. In the course of his reply to his critics Mr Winston Churchill refuted the argument that the illegal -bookmakers would be favoured at the expense of legal bookmakers. They relied on the law to repress, as far as illegal bookmaking was concerned but the illegal bookmaker, when' caught by the police, would be liable to any revenue penalty as well as any penalty in law. Mr Churchill 9poke of the harried and hunted existence of the street bookmaker, who had to pay touts and agents, and otherwise protect himself against the excessive activities of the police.—(Laughter.) Could it be suggested that, by the imposition of a 5 per cent, tax, they were to make the credit bookmaker quit the comfortable and respectable shelter of his commodious office for the hunted life of the unfortunate street bookmaker? Take the case of the backer. Did anyone suppose that the man who now betted with tne credit,bookmaker, who had only to go to the telephone to make his wager by word of mouth under the full sanction of the law—with every facility of public service at fiis disposal—was, for the sake of avoiding a shortening of the odds equal to Is in the £, going to wander around the dritficts of some manufacturing town looking for a mysterious individual into whose, hands to place his bet?