TOPICS OF THE DAY
A TAX ON BETTING: A NEW SUGGESTION
MR. CHURCHILL'S answer to the deputation which visited him on December 22nd, in order to advocate a tax on betting, was neither encouraging nor discouraging. He explained that no Government could " contemplate any step whir:h might lead to an increase in betting," but when he went on to promise_ that he would "examine impartially the question in all its aspects " he showed that he had not really made up his mind that taxation would encourage betting in any class. We cannot help thinking that if Mr. Churchill would carefully re-read, or perhaps read for the first time, the Report of the Com- mittee of 1923, he would be convinced that in no circum- stances would a tax increase betting.
It is the duty of those who have come to the conclusion that there is much to be gained and nothing to be lost morally by a tax on betting persistently to argue their case and not to let the matter rest till the Govern- ment have considered it more carefully than they appear yet to have done. Judging from Mr. Churchill's statement about the risk of increasing betting and from the discussions which have occurred in various news- papers, we think it is fair to say that the issue has become far more moral than financial. The opinion which Sir Henry Cautley- expressed in 1923, that it was practicable to tax betting, has not been challenged. The real point is whether, under the peculiar conditions of betting in this country, the machinery of taxing could be set up without incidentally offering some incentive or provocation to bet which does not now exist. Let us look at the question wholly with a view to meeting this difficulty.
Many of those who are strongly in favour of taxation admit that methods which work satisfactorily enough in the Dominions would not do here: In Australia and New Zealand, for instance, it is comparatively easy to use the totalisator, because the population is small and the race-courses are few. Theoretically the bookmaking business is forbidden there, but in practice bookmakers carry on their business and nobody seems to mind very 'Mich. In this country, however, there -are so 'many race- courses that the totalisator system, as the sole means of taxation, would hardly be possible. That is why we have always suggested that the totalisator, if it were introduced here, might be accompanied by a parallel but distinct form of taxation by means of a stamp duty on book- makers' transactions.
This brings us to the crux of the problem, which is the generally admitted necessity for the Government to license a considerable number of betting offices or houses. Only in this way could the countless number of little bookmakers who accept bets in small sums from wage- earners be brought under control, and only in this way could an end be put to illegal street betting. The imagina- tion of the opponents of taxation has got vividly to work upon these betting houses, and we are told that such State departments proclaiming themselves by their names and signs, if not by actual advertisement, would positively invite passers-by to walk in and bet. Men would be drawn in, it is said, who would not otherwise have gone to the trouble of searching out a bookmaker. We do not ourselves believe in the truth of this picture, plausibly though it is painted.. Betting has long been rampant in all classes, and it grows instead of decreasing.. The new generation of girls who have joined the army of clerks, accountants and secretaries are now among the most inveterate gamblers. Thousands of ways of placing a bet are ready to hand, and we find it impossible to believe that if the bookmakers were concentrated instead of running about to find their clients, betting would be in- creased. The only difference would be that the bettors would have to go to the bookmakers instead of waiting till the small bookmakers come to them. The small book- maker does not fail to follow up a known gambler. If, then, the incentive to bet became no greater than it is now the only result of taxing betting would be to softie extent to discourage it, because the wage-earner's gains from a successful bet would be less. The sad thing to our mind is that the out-and-out opponents of taxation propose to do nothing but continue to exhort. They sacrifice the people and the revenue on the altar of a phrase—" No recognition." Unfortunately those who set the worst example in excessive gambling are the least amenable to moral exhortations. Those who buy every racing sheet in the hope of discovering a " cert. " are, we imagine, irregular in their attendance at places of moral instruction. The time has come for the nation in its own interest to take control of betting just as it has taken control of drink. In the early stages no doubt legislation would be experimental, but we should learn as we went along as we did in drink legislation.
Let us, however, assume, in order to simplify our problem and to make the way clear for _ a suggestion, that the picture drawn by the out-and-out opponents of taxation is true. Let us take it for granted that recog- nized betting offices would provide a temptation to bet. We suggest that, to begin with at all events, there should be no such houses. It has been estimated that three- quarters of the money value of all the bets made in this country is made either through substantial bookmakers who already have offices or on the race-courses themselves. Why should not a beginning be made by taxing bets made in those offices that already exist and on the race- courses ? This would involve no change in our customs or in anything that strikes the eye.
It may be said that this would be falsely to discriminate and not wholly to control. In a sense it would. As a concession to the out-and-outers the street bookmakers (who do not bring their trade within the law by receiving their communications at an office by post or telegram or telephone) would escape taxation. At least it cannot be pretended that this would involve. any injurious class diatinction. We never heard of poor persons "Objecting to a tax, which they themselves escaped, being placed upon the richer classes. The betting laws would not have to be altered in any way.
Surely the out-and-outers could hardly object to a method which creates no enticing new machinery but which taxes, and therefore presumably discourages, the betting that is already firmly rooted. It cannot be too often repeated that betting cannot be suppressed. No responsible person that we know of proposes that there should be prohibition—for such legislation would as- suredly bring the law into contempt.
We hope that when Parliament meets again somebody will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Govern- ment as a whole whether their tentative moral objections could really hold good against such taxation as we have suggested on three-quarters of the turnover of the present betting business. We should regret letting the street bookmaker escape, for he does a great deal of harm ; but it is really important to make a beginning soniehow or other with control.
As for Mr. Churchill, is he really indifferent to a new source of revenue which he sorely needs and which, as we have shown, would do nothing positive to shock the sus- ceptibilities of those who sincerely dislike the taxation of betting on principle?
Previous page
