The Gordon Brown Mega Casino

[Satch]

My son was doing his PSE coursework last night about the evils of drink, drugs and gambling. He asked me why the Government is just sooooooo keen to let us all be responsible grown ups and have 40+ mega casinos to play in when elsewhere this is held to be A Bad Thing.

So I told him.

The answer is Gaming Duty, which is all but invisible to anyone except the Casino operators and Gordon Brown. Calculated on the "Gross Gaming Yield" which is all the stake money less winnings, it is charged like this:

The first £258,250 2.5 per cent.
The next £573,250 12.5 per cent.
The next £573,250 20 per cent.
The next £1,003,750 30 per cent.
The remainder 40 per cent.

Of course that is a "duty" so the Casino operators still have to pay Corporation Tax on their remaining net profits, but they expect to make enough net of Duty & Corporation Taxes to make it very profitable for them.

So since the experts reckon that the UK gaming spend could easily go from about £750m to £2500m and the house always wins you end up with the Treasury hoping to rake in £500m to £750m p.a overall.

And much of that is expected to come from some of the most vulnerable members of society. So there really are no depths to which this Government will not sink to extract yet more Stealth Taxes


QED

 

[PJH]

Ironic that one week the news is:-
"Your pension isn't going to be enough, you must save more..."
the following week :-
"Govt to allow more Casinos..." which will get more money off people who can't afford to loose it, and prevent them saving.

 

[peterchurch]

<irony> Don't have a go at poor old Gordon! He is only trying to find sneaky ways of taking money off the criminally insane to pay for all the ridiculous IT projects and government overspends that the equally criminally insane Civil servants keep agreeing to. (Maybe the same civil servants will pack the casinos out, as they seem to be so inept at seeing when they are being screwed) The casinos can afford it the punters will be too stupid to figure out that they are being caned again (just like those of us that smoke and drink). Meanwhile it generates more money that the private sector can take off them and make a few select individuals very rich happy people </irony>

 

[Satch]

<irony> Don't have a go at poor old Gordon! He is only trying to find sneaky ways of taking money off the criminally insane to pay for all the ridiculous IT projects and government overspends that the equally criminally insane Civil servants keep agreeing to. (Maybe the same civil servants will pack the casinos out, as they seem to be so inept at seeing when they are being screwed) The casinos can afford it the punters will be too stupid to figure out that they are being caned again (just like those of us that smoke and drink). Meanwhile it generates more money that the private sector can take off them and make a few select individuals very rich happy people </irony>

If a established gaming client drops £10k at the tables and has been allowed to run an account, 40% of that has to be paid to the Government by the Casino as duty even if he defaults.

So the people who come around to break his legs will not not doing just to make the obvious point nor expressing their collective displeasure at being unable to sue for gambling debt, but because they have had to pay £4k of their own money in Gaming Duty to the Government.

Wretch could of course take out another cash advance on another credit card and make another punt in another Casino. Maybe he could sell his house but, damn, it will take a month to get the Homebuyers Info Pack sorted before he can even start to market it.

It is rotten to the core and betrays the horrible manipulative cynicism of Blair & Brown even to their own party loyalists. The poor cow who had to stand up in the House of Commons and get roasted for this was just a stooge.

 

[peterchurch]

Yep I agree. The thing that I find really scarey, is trying to track how far back this stunt goes...

Labour take power and elect to build the dome. (We didn't start it but we want to show the country what we can do when we turn our minds to it!)
We fork out somewhere near a billion pounds (howmuch lottery money did the poor F*ckers on the surounding council estates pay towards that I wonder?) Suprise suprise nowhere near the expected numbers of visitors turn up...
Fast forward a few years and it is now time to dispose of it, at which point it is given away for a pound! This is not stictly true but I will come to that bit later. Gordon must have been screwing at the lack of stamp duty captured in the deal, and Im sure that there is a law that stops you from avoiding stamp duty on the purchase of property in this manner! ( I will look forward to arguing this point in a court of law when I sell my house next year ).
The crux of the argument was that they are to return £570 million of public money over the next 5 years based on what? You guessed it projected figures... But part of the complex should be a Casino to attract visitors, which the 270 planned concerts for the first year won't of course! This, in turn lets in an American Firm that has a world reputation for building and running "entertainment venues", and they are very good at it I might add.
Don't get me wrong I am very excited about this project. The Dome will, at last be an outstanding venue!

But we get it at the cost of selling the UK gambling industry to a gambling superpower and like all Government contracts I doubt the figures will add up or the money ever returned But by then, the civil servants will have moved jobs and removed accountability and the polititians will have taken thier next jobs on...

No one could argue that this was a fair price could they?

Im glad that Im a Tory! At least I can sleep at night without worrying about the duplicity of claiming to represent the poor while stealing from the very mouths they said they would feed

 

[R2D2]

Kind of ironic isnt it, The Salvation Army wont except money from the National Lottery because it is the proceeds of gambling, but the government want The Salvation Army, amongst others to pick up the pieces of those whose gambling becomes an addiction.

Funny old world isnt it?

 

[Benzowner]

Well I'll set myself up for it, what a load of bulls**t I have just read from what appears to be a bunch of right wing do gooders Just because the casino is there, does not necessarilly mean that people will spend all their money gambling. The pubs have been there for centuries, we are not all alchoholics (hic), It maybe you do not like to see others enjoy themselves, maybe we should al be moaners as well, don't forget Maggie wanted to rob the poor with poll tax so all the well offs would be even better off

Well there you are, hit me with it

 

[peterchurch]

I’m not trying to protect the poor. I just can't stand hypocrisy, and watching these tossers continually steal money out of consumer circulation, just so that the MOD can tell us that we need to make cuts in the armed forces, and screw the Black Watch while buying Herman Miller Chairs at a £1000 a piece for EVERY civil servant in MOD Main Building (approximately 3600)
Shall we bring the NHS computer systems into the argument as well? (its not a linked as they like to tell us but a number of different systems as chosen by each local health authority ) Or the office move in Cheltenham that was quoted a budget of 30-50 million then spent over 300 Million???

not angry about it at all honest

 

[Sp!ke]

Who really wants these damn casino's anyway? I think if you had a show of hands, its not going to be a majority.

Gambling can quickly become an addiction and wrecks lives. The odds are stacked against the punter and only a fool will blow their money in this fashion. IMO, casino's are little more than legitimised robbery for the poor and expensive entertainment for the very rich. The government clearly think there are enough brit fools to line both the casino owners pockets and the governments. It seems they dont care how many children they starve in the process.

On the plus side, the only good thing about casino's is the 24hr drinking facilities that they provide.

 

[Alfie]

don't forget Maggie wanted to rob the poor with poll tax so all the well offs would be even better off

Well there you are, hit me with it

Utter rubbish. The Poll tax was near universally accepted by all as a far fairer system than the rating system as since when has the size of someones house had anything to do with A) their burden on society and b). their ability to pay. The reason that the poll tax was dropped was purely because a bunch of lazy, ultra left wing whinging spongers held a few riots and the government got scared it would lose the next election.

This government has proved itself to be just as corrupt as all the others in terms of their moral stance. Witness how many have been found in compromising situations either financial (Mr Mandelson) and sexual (Mr N Brown - clapham common) plus all those who ditched their families when they came to power (R Cook, D Blunkett). There are many others. But what this government is really good at is taking money from everyone, the poor included. Now that really is an achievment to be proud of isnt it - not.

This government will stoop at nothing to raise money. The casino's are just another one of their schemes. Yet another one is the fact that I cannot buy a TFT screen at the moment with a DVI input. Because, the government want to tax them like a TV as they hook up to a freeview box. Nothing is safe from Gordons greedy mitts.

As it was said in 1979, Labour isnt working.

 

[Alfie]

I’m not trying to protect the poor. I just can't stand hypocrisy, and watching these tossers continually steal money out of consumer circulation, just so that the MOD can tell us that we need to make cuts in the armed forces, and screw the Black Watch while buying Herman Miller Chairs at a £1000 a piece for EVERY civil servant in MOD Main Building (approximately 3600)
Shall we bring the NHS computer systems into the argument as well? (its not a linked as they like to tell us but a number of different systems as chosen by each local health authority ) Or the office move in Cheltenham that was quoted a budget of 30-50 million then spent over 300 Million???

not angry about it at all honest

Agreed. Lets not forget also the 300 PWC/IBM consultants that the government employed at circa £1500 per day to manage the move of DVLA recently. I have it on very good authority (one of the consultants themselves) that there were 300 per day on this for months.

 

[peterchurch]

don't forget Maggie wanted to rob the poor with poll tax so all the well offs would be even better off

Whats is wrong with that? Why should I have to pay to support an underclass that has grown up expecting to be fed off the social while doing feckall for the country in return? I have a family and a future to finance of my own thanks very much...

 

[Satch]

Well I'll set myself up for it, what a load of bulls**t I have just read from what appears to be a bunch of right wing do gooders Just because the casino is there, does not necessarilly mean that people will spend all their money gambling. The pubs have been there for centuries, we are not all alchoholics (hic), It maybe you do not like to see others enjoy themselves, maybe we should al be moaners as well, don't forget Maggie wanted to rob the poor with poll tax so all the well offs would be even better off

Well there you are, hit me with it

I do not care if they allow the building of 40+ mega Casinos or 400+ mega pleasure domes. It is ultimately up to the individual to make an informed choice.

What I object to is a Big Government that is both hugely wasteful and obsessed with control. Any system which attempts to micro manage on the grand scale but is led by politicians who have actually never run anything other than an election campaign is doomed to failure. How often do we see examples of more and more resources being soaked up in order to fulfill paper targets, pander to "wishes of Ministers", wasted on grandiose social engineering projects or generate headline grabbing "initiatives" that fail to deliver on the ground?

In order to fund that monster Gordon Brown has to grab more and more tax revenue. Actually all he needs are projected revenues so he can make his BS Revenue versus Spending plans add up before the election. (That also explains why there are increasing numbers of "Anti-Avoidance" measures in each Budget: there is a projection of further Revenues attached to each one but they somehow never deliver, so you need more and more)

To encourage and promote Casinos on social grounds when the true motivation is to enrich the Treasury is just one more example of deception, although of the very worst and most cynical kind.

It will have an impact and it is blindingly obvious that tends to fall more heavily on some of the more disadvantged and vulnerable members of society. Yes, it is a matter of choice and individual free will but hollow laughter greets that one as I seem to recall that this Government does not have a particularly good track record in being hands off concerning our freedoms and individual liberties.

And it wants to decide what is good for us. Which now seems to include actively promoting gambiling activities which generate more taxes.

As ever, the more money a stupid Government has the more harm it can do.

 

[Alfie]

Whats is wrong with that? Why should I have to pay to support an underclass that has grown up expecting to be fed off the social while doing feckall for the country in return? I have a family and a future to finance of my own thanks very much...

A bit hard even for me that one!

There are those in our society who genuinely need help and we should help them. However, there are an awful lot of lazy, freeloading, spongers who sit around all day waiting to be handed a good deal in life. If they dont get it, they go down the DHSS. These are the people who ruin things for all of us.

I've had occasion before to employ people some of whom were long term unemployed. I thought I would give a break to someone who might need it. What did I get in the interviews? 'I'm only here because the social told me to come ' These people dont want to work they are quite happy living off the state. Casinos will provide them with another avenue to explore their spending skills. whilst they might not have as money money for their cigarettes and lottery tickets, Gordon wont care because however they spend their money it will come back to him one way or another.

 

[andy_k]

Yet another one is the fact that I cannot buy a TFT screen at the moment with a DVI input. Because, the government want to tax them like a TV as they hook up to a freeview box. Nothing is safe from Gordons greedy mitts.

A quick call to simply computers or Samsung would offer a whole range of TFT monitors with DVI inputs - I know I've got two of them!!!

http://www.simply.co.uk/kelkoo/98270/VS/simply_computers/index.htm

perhaps the rest of the information being shared in this thread should be treated as equally accurate.

Andy

 

[Satch]

I've had occasion before to employ people some of whom were long term unemployed. I thought I would give a break to someone who might need it. What did I get in the interviews? 'I'm only here because the social told me to come ' These people dont want to work they are quite happy living off the state.

Oh yes. Seen that a few times and it is very depressing. Even more so is the absolute failure of the well intentioned system which has encouraged this.

We really do have some places in this country with a second or third generation of unemployables and elective non-workers: they just do not have the desire nor the mindset to work and near zero aspirations beyond the next state handout.

The Working Family Tax Credits are another but less extreme example: a hugely elaborate selective wealth redistribution system which could be done away with by lowering taxes in general terms but makes people depend on state handouts. (It has been suggested by the Tories this might be to do with encouraging people to keep voting Labour. Surely not.)

At a time when even Germany and France have begun to realise their Social Welfare paradises are unworkable, unaffordable and job destructive we just press on with more social engineering.

If you really want to depress someone this Christmas but them this:


http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...2_11_2/202-5465485-9095844&tag=amazon0e9db-21

"A striking aspect of this book is that the author shows that many of the issues were correctly diagnosed and addressed by the great nineteenth century social reformers, only to have their basic lessons disregarded or forgotten in the twentieth century. Truly those who are ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it. Importantly, Mr Bartholomew does not merely criticize the welfare state, he persuasively shows that Britain was once and could be again a dynamic compassionate and civil society sustained by and reinforcing a healthy morality in the private sector. The government is the problem, not the solution. "

 

[peterchurch]

A bit hard even for me that one!

There are those in our society who genuinely need help and we should help them. However, there are an awful lot of lazy, freeloading, spongers who sit around all day waiting to be handed a good deal in life. If they dont get it, they go down the DHSS. These are the people who ruin things for all of us.

I came from a comprehensive education (bit of a joke that as I left school with bugger all qualifications) I went to night school (self financed got some qualifications) and spent the next 10 years working hard. Now I work for myself and do very nicely thank you. If my work dries up tomorrow there will be no one there to help me out, and pay my mortgage etc. My Partner and our two children are not entitled to a penny from the state despite the fact that she was an independent woman when she gave up work to look after them. The state assumes that I am going to feed them despite not having any legal rights as a father ( I don't want any money out of the state by the way I don't need it.) When my parents get old and need residential care they will be forced to sell their home to pay for it. (Something that they would wish to leave to their grandchildren, their right in my opinion they worked all their life to buy it ) despite the fact that they never had a day out of work in their entire life (how much tax and national insurance???) and when I retire I am told that there will be no state pension (except for Civil Servants and Politicians ) so what exactly am I bothering to pay taxes for ?

 

[Alfie]

A quick call to simply computers or Samsung would offer a whole range of TFT monitors with DVI inputs - I know I've got two of them!!!

http://www.simply.co.uk/kelkoo/98270/VS/simply_computers/index.htm

perhaps the rest of the information being shared in this thread should be treated as equally accurate.

Andy

I've come across you before and you were just as insulting then. There is no need to be so offensive.

Originally Posted by Alfie

I deal direct with manufacturers (Sony and Iiyama) I dont deal with resellers as I enjoy a good discount structure. Both manufacturers have given me the information regarding the government quite independantly.

 

[Benzowner]

Utter rubbish. The Poll tax was near universally accepted by all as a far fairer system than the rating system as since when has the size of someones house had anything to do with A) their burden on society and b). their ability to pay. The reason that the poll tax was dropped was purely because a bunch of lazy, ultra left wing whinging spongers held a few riots and the government got scared it would lose the next election.

Don't forget, the government of the day increased VAT from 15% to 17.5% to cover the underpayment of the poll tax, a 16.6% increase that everyone had to pay. I would also dispute that the poll tax was universally accepted, or else the VAT would not have been increased to cover it. The size of someones house has plenty to do with it, or why else would there be a banding system on the current council tax, which was the replacement of poll tax introduced by the same government.

This one I am not so sure on, but I beleive that government also introduced business rates on us, which has to be paid whether or not businesses make a profit. We do not get any services provided by the local authority, no bins emptied, nothing and yet I am expected to pay over £3000.00 per annum on top of my rent to run my business. rock on tommy

 

[Satch]

A quick call to simply computers or Samsung would offer a whole range of TFT monitors with DVI inputs - I know I've got two of them!!!

http://www.simply.co.uk/kelkoo/98270/VS/simply_computers/index.htm

perhaps the rest of the information being shared in this thread should be treated as equally accurate.

Andy

Alfie is still correct. Read about this a couple of weeks back and was amazed then. Comes down (again) to the torrents of legislation this damn Government keeps churning out without listening to anyone and so much of it that few notice the sly bits that get stuck in.

If you are a "Television Dealer" you have to notify the names & addresses of all the punters who buy "sets" off of you. The problem are the ill considered definitions below that blur the distinction of TV set versus a Monitor but do not let a DVI equipped Monitor fall into the carve out of "computer equipment". Great, eh?

IT resellers who know what is going on (and a lot do not) would not want to be ****d with registering as a "Television Dealer" just because they sell DVI enabled sets.

Oh yes, and the Licensing Detection service is outsourced now so like traffic wardens they get paid by results in order to generate more revenues. They cannot easily detect a TFT so want to catch them all at source, hence another vast database of DVi equipped displays is being created.

It is this sort of thing which gets a lot of people worried (and rightly so) because like so much these days it is not an Act of Parliament so just gets pushed out by the department concerned.

Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 692
The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004

Meaning of "television dealer"

10. In Part 1 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967, "television dealer" means a person who by way of trade or business -

(a) sells television sets by retail;

(b) lets such sets on hire or hire-purchase;

(c) arranges for such sets to be sold or let as aforesaid by another television dealer; or

(d) holds himself out as willing to engage in any of the foregoing activities.


Meaning of "television set"

11. - (1) In Part 1 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967, "television set" means any apparatus which (either alone or in association with other apparatus) is capable of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service but is not computer apparatus.

(2) In this regulation, "computer apparatus" means apparatus which -

(a) is designed or adapted to be used (either alone or in association with other apparatus) for storing or processing data, but not for doing so in connection with the reception by means of wireless telegraphy of television programme services; and

(b) is not offered for sale or letting as apparatus for use (either alone or in association with other apparatus) primarily for or in connection with the reception (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) of such services;

and "processing" includes displaying.


Tessa Jowell
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport