G7 taxation proposals vs zero-10

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

5 hours ago, Banker said:

Problem gambling is a big issue, why do you think fob machines in bookies were reduced to £2 from £200, credit cards banned from use on gambling sites, increasing demands for gambling advertising to be banned etc. Plenty of families lives been ruined by gambling addiction.

You haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about as usual 

The reduction to 2 quid a spin made very little difference.  The average stake per spin wasn't really over that.  Think about it for a minute.

[Anyone]

2 hours ago, Banker said:

Howard & Alf have spoken!

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=62213&headline=Island faces economic shake-up after G7 decision on corporate tax&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2021

It’s going to be a tough one. Zero / ten is clearly and always has been tax abusive. But it won’t bankrupt us as it’s a long time since tax was the main reason to be here. Calm down guys it’ll be fine.

 

[finlo]

2 minutes ago, Anyone said:

It’s going to be a tough one. Zero / ten is clearly and always has been tax abusive. But it won’t bankrupt us as it’s a long time since tax was the main reason to be here. Calm down guys it’ll be fine.

 

Just out of interest why are they here then?

[NoTail]

2 minutes ago, Anyone said:

It’s going to be a tough one. Zero / ten is clearly and always has been tax abusive. But it won’t bankrupt us as it’s a long time since tax was the main reason to be here. Calm down guys it’ll be fine.

 

Tax is about the only reason to be here

[Banker]

9 hours ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

The reduction to 2 quid a spin made very little difference.  The average stake per spin wasn't really over that.  Think about it for a minute.

Bollocks!! It made a massive difference to the bookies who were bleating about it constantly as profits massively reduced, it also made a huge difference to problem gamblers who couldn’t lose weeks pay in minutes.

Why do you think legislation was passed, you don’t know what you’re talking about as usual!

Heres a link showing fob income halved in a year as a result plus less police incidents. Please think before you post!!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/14/curbs-on-fobt-stakes-fuel-fewer-police-callouts-to-bookmakers

Edited June 6, 2021 by Banker

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

1 hour ago, Banker said:

Bollocks!! It made a massive difference to the bookies who were bleating about it constantly as profits massively reduced, it also made a huge difference to problem gamblers who couldn’t lose weeks pay in minutes.

Why do you think legislation was passed, you don’t know what you’re talking about as usual!

Heres a link showing fob income halved in a year as a result plus less police incidents. Please think before you post!!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/14/curbs-on-fobt-stakes-fuel-fewer-police-callouts-to-bookmakers

That's not how it is working in reality.

Problem gamblers are still losing their weeks pay. Just takes them slightly longer.

Also, the actual reason the bookies made a huge fuss over it wasn't so much about the impact on profits.  It was more about putting up a fight because the real concern would be online.  It shouldn't have escaped.your attention thay whilst you can't wax more than 2 quid a spin in a shop you can wax what you like per spin online.

As always, the legislation itself won't suddenly rid the world of problem gamblers.   Addicts will be addicts.  And the low level average addict punter is paid a few hundred quid a week and rarely staking more then 2 quid a spin.  

[Dave Hedgehog]

It will be interesting to see which companies can be bothered even offering services to small places like here if they have to go to the bother of calculating a tax base and completing whatever is needed to submit a return.

[pongo]

2 hours ago, Dave Hedgehog said:

It will be interesting to see which companies can be bothered even offering services to small places like here if they have to go to the bother of calculating a tax base and completing whatever is needed to submit a return.

That's a very interesting point and possibly a significant concern for companies here which depend upon services bought elsewhere. 

Apart from the IOM joining the UK, can you see any potential solution to this? Some kind of reciprocal arrangement perhaps - where for goods and services the IOM was treated as being the same as the UK (kind of like how it effectively works with VAT)? 

[John Wright]

5 minutes ago, pongo said:

That's a very interesting point and possibly a significant concern for companies here which depend upon services bought elsewhere. 

Apart from the IOM joining the UK, can you see any potential solution to this? Some kind of reciprocal arrangement perhaps - where for goods and services the IOM was treated as being the same as the UK (kind of like how it effectively works with VAT)? 

 

2 hours ago, Dave Hedgehog said:

It will be interesting to see which companies can be bothered even offering services to small places like here if they have to go to the bother of calculating a tax base and completing whatever is needed to submit a return.

Or there’s a separate agreement with UK covering corporation tax and we get a percentage based on notional consumption. We do that already for customs duty and VAT. We could then get rid of Tesco Tax.

[pongo]

Everyone should ask the candidate MHKs about issues like this.

G7 is the only big issue this election. Possibly the biggest issue ever.

Edited June 6, 2021 by pongo

[John Wright]

2 minutes ago, pongo said:

Everyone should ask the candidate MHKs about issues like this.

G7 is the only big issue this election. Possibly the biggest issue ever.

It’s an issue. It’s a long way down the road. Some G7 countries may have issues getting it through their legislatures. G20 may not agree, or propose  changes. Then OECD. The legislative changes will take a very long time, even if it gets through all that.

[pongo]

3 minutes ago, John Wright said:

It’s an issue. It’s a long way down the road. Some G7 countries may have issues getting it through their legislatures. G20 may not agree, or propose  changes. Then OECD. The legislative changes will take a very long time, even if it gets through all that.

Let's hope that, one way or the other, there is very little delay. The uncertainty this creates is one of the associated issues and has the potential to undermine investment. Especially in a small place like this which is potentially more affected.

So it's a big issue immediately.

Edited June 6, 2021 by pongo

[Andy Onchan]

2 minutes ago, pongo said:

Let's hope that, one way or the other, there is very little delay. The uncertainty this creates is one of the associated issues and has the potential to undermine investment. Especially in a small place like this which is potentially more affected.

So it's a big issue immediately.

I'd say 2030 before anything is agreed, if at all.

[Derek Flint]

9 minutes ago, John Wright said:

It’s an issue. It’s a long way down the road. Some G7 countries may have issues getting it through their legislatures. G20 may not agree, or propose  changes. Then OECD. The legislative changes will take a very long time, even if it gets through all that.

But there is a need to start planning now.

there was likely a need to start planning ten years ago, to be honest

[John Wright]

7 minutes ago, pongo said:

Let's hope that, one way or the other, there is very little delay. The uncertainty this creates is one of the associated issues and has the potential to undermine investment. Especially in a small place like this which is potentially more affected.

So it's a big issue immediately.

The problem is that until we know exactly what the rest of the world legislates it’s hard to respond. As ever the devil will be in the detail both in effect and response.