Inequality in Britain

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Am surprised that lottery/gambolling (sic) aren't taxed. Hardly a necessity, and the winnings are tax-free too.

edited for complete antonym crisis.

[Ladymuck]

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Am surprised that lottery/gambolling (sic) aren't

> taxed. Hardly a luxury, and the winnings are

> tax-free too.

sssshhhhhhhh...

*looks over shoulder to ensure PGC's observation is out of George Osbourne's earshot*

[Huguenot]

It's interesting isn't it?

The lottery is straightforward - it's considered a charity.

However, gambling's another story...

Until 2001 it was 9%. However, when t'interweb started taking off big time in the late nineties all the bookies realised that they could combine this with call centers to ship their entire business to overseas tax havens. So first Victor Chandler, and then Ladbrokes and Coral upped sticks to Gibraltar and started looting the UK gambling market.

This was a massive problem for UK Plc. not only was the govt missing out on the betting tax, but also the corporation tax as well.

The govt could have banned offshore betting, but would have had a massive public backlash on their hands.

So a deal was struck, and in March 2001 bettting tax was abolished on the proviso that all of these missing businesses would return to the UK and pay corporation tax.

Gambling rose by around 40% after the abolitition of betting tax, and as a consequence the total tax take (from corp tax) was higher than the combined taxes received before the restructure of the market.

Everyone won!

[Ladymuck]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Can you imagine what the additional hardship for

> the poor, weak, ill, old, etc will be like if the

> country goes bust LadyM?

Actually, I can't...doesn't bear thinking about.

[Ladymuck]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> However, gambling's another story...

>

> ...Everyone won!

Hmmmm, not so sure about that.

[Huguenot]

I meant from the tax revenue perspective Ladymuck ;-)

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

So that's why Paddy Power is taking over Southwark!

[Ladymuck]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I meant from the tax revenue perspective Ladymuck

> ;-)

Oh well that's alright then...

We have a nation of addicted gamblers and are, as a result, costing the NHS a fortune...yes...all is fine and dandy. But the Treasury's coffers are being topped up, so we've got our priorities right.

*grits teeth*

[????]

We are not becoming a nation of addicted gamblers LadyM...you are sounding suspiciously like the Daily Mail. The reality is, like alcohol and to a lesser degree drugs, most people can participate without becoming an 'addict' but a small minority can't, and they get all the Daily Mail like headlines.

[Ladymuck]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We are not becoming a nation of addicted gamblers

> LadyM...

Not my words Quids...

>you are sounding suspiciously like the

> Daily Mail.

Oh no, no, no...it was the The Independent...

The Daily Mail indeed!

*spies Quids momentarily leaving Paddy Power to purchase his Lottery Ticket from the sweet shop next door*

[Ladymuck]

You'll be comparing me with Melanie Phillips next!(6)

[????]

You'll never catch me doing the Lottery, Fruit Machines or Roulette LadyM, I'm a proper gambler...I just lose all my money on the horses

[Ladymuck]

I'm a ?1 a week Lottery hopeful, myself.

But seriously, I remember once reading that gambling was linked to poverty. What I cannot recall is whether it was the fact that someone was poor which made them more likely to turn to the bookies, or rather that people with reasonable incomes became poor as a result of the lure of gambling.

*tosses Quids a couple of shillings*

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Interesting fact: some sufferers of Parkinson's Disease turn into inveterate gamblers. Can't remember the science behind it though.

[DJKillaQueen]

The experience of many of those that work with problem gamblers and addicts etc says that addiction to anything is not defined by affluence. Certainly alcoholism is recognised as an illness and the same with drugs too although with drugs exposure to others using drugs is also a factor. The papers will always report of the estate where 'dealers' are rife for example but they don't tell you that the media, the city, and middle-classes are the biggest users of cocaine. In fact in respect to drugs, affluence only determines the type of drugs used predominently, not the frequency.

Gambling is cultural too. The chinese for example love to gamble and people can only gamble with what they have so those with most money will gamble most. Gambling seems to be more about the thrill of winning than the win itself too for most gamblers. Sure there will be a minority that 'need' money and think gambling will get them there but usually when someone has a gambling problem it is an addiction to the risk and thrill. Most people though see it as a bit of fun and never play with more than they can afford to lose. Vegas depends on people like that.

It does interest me that we still see gambling as some kind of bad thing, after all, every time you buy any investment, a house, shares, an antique you are gambling that the value will go up. Conversely, we know that some people will misuse alcohol, but wre don't ban it, we know that some drivers will drive wrecklessly but we don't ban cars - so for me, the idea of prohibiting anything because a minority (of those using it) are wreckless is always a bit much.

[Ladymuck]

We have friends from the Philippines who say that they (the filipinos) are "nuts" over gambling. Apparently it is very very common over there. It is also an extremely poor country.

[DJKillaQueen]

Exactly....and the far east is far more susperstitious too, believes more in luck etc so maybe there's a connection. And you don't need a lot of money to have fun gambling. Take the Grand National for example. Millions of people put on bets of 50p and so on. You are never going to get rich with that kind of bet, so it's totally about the thrill.

[Ladymuck]

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Interesting fact: some sufferers of Parkinson's

> Disease turn into inveterate gamblers. Can't

> remember the science behind it though.

Simply had to look this up. Found this. Apparently it's to do with their medication.

[Ladymuck]

As many of you will know, Theresa May's appointment as Equalities Minister has been heavily criticised by gay rights' activists on the basis that previous votes cast by her are not consistent with those of someone in the position of Equalities Minister. Many have called for her resignation/removal from office.

The Equalities Minister (also Home Secretary) yesterday stated on BBC Question Time that she has now changed her stance on gay adoption.

So, should we accept that she has genuinely seen the light and allow her to maintain her position as Equalities Minister, or should she resign/be dismissed?

The "Sack New Homophobic Equality Minister" petition on Facebook lists close to 70,000 members and the "Sack Theresa" website contains almost 30,000 signatures.

[DJKillaQueen]

Well it's a question of whether she can be believed or not I guess and of course se has to say she has changed her view because otherwise her views would be incompatable with her job. What matters are the policies she puts into practise. At the first sign of hypocrasy, may the hammer fall swiftly.

[Ladymuck]

I must admit that I wasn't convinced by her statement on Question Time that she had changed her mind...didn't strike me as genuine.

She's a well-educated, erudite woman and has been in politics for many years now - in prestigious positions too. What has made her change her mind? Did she not understand the situation in the first place? Was she mistaken? She needs, at the very least to give an explanation for her previous voting record on gay rights and the reason(s) for the change of heart if she is to convince the protesting public that her latest statement is not just about maintaining her role as Equalities Minister.

[Huguenot]

I think it's a bit of a poor show to fire someone for their personal convictions.

I've sat round many boardroom tables where the consensus didn't meet my own beliefs, but part of the brief is that you deliver according to the consensus. Otherwise you have anarchy and achieve nothing.

Theresa May could well be a dinosaur, but you don't judge a person by their thoughts, but by their delivery. Let the lady do her job. (I think there's some Nietzsche in that)

Many of the petitioners are attempting to prejudge Theresa in a way that would be illegal if you tried it in a job interview.

[DJKillaQueen]

I agree with you both. We don't fire a teacher because they have personal views that we don't want children to hear.....as long as they stick to teaching the curriculum in an impartial way of course.

I think there is a grey area though with those who are in a position to shape policy....because inevitably their views on things will play some part. Having said that, if Therasa May wanted to change the law in any respect she'd have to get it through parliament and before she could do that it would have to be adopted as party policy. In that respect I think the gay community are safe from losing any of the rightly given equalities put into law by New Labour.

On the other hand, given the deplorable attitude of the last Conservative government towards gay people (reinforced by equally deplorable laws like clause 28) I can totally understand why a minister who in recent memory held opposing views could be untrustworthy. I think she should at least explain what made her change her mind because in my experience, those with negative views on sexuality are usually emotively entrenched in those views and beyond reason. On Question Time she did't explain why she'd change her mind after all.

[Ladymuck]

Oh dear, oh dear.

BECTA is going to be scrapped. Whilst I acknowledge that cuts, cuts and more cuts are realistically unavoidable (nay - necessary) if we have any chance of getting out of this financial quagmire, it pains me to see that education is going to be affected in this way. Whilst abandoning BECTA may be viewed as desirable in terms of helping to reduce the deficit, it certainly is not going to promote this "fairness" which both parties were so vociferous about immediately prior to the election.

A quality education is absolutely crucial for a more equal and thus fairer society. It plays a critical role in determining an individual?s position in the employment market and life generally. This means that it is probably one of the most important factors in achieving a fairer Britain.

I am exceedingly disappointed. In fact, in my opinion, it's terrible news for the poorest.

[MitchK]

What an absurd over-reaction. It's just another pointless Quango. Shutting it down doesn't mean they're sacking teachers or closing schools.