Point of Consumption Tax - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Point of Consumption Tax - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Point of Consumption Tax  (Read 2240 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4053
« 2018-Jun-03, 07:33 PM Reply #25 »


....... few would understand much of this interstate manipulation of fees and levies

The next things that should happen are that the 'now dead' Queensland and South Australian racing industries are merged with NSW and Victoria respectively.

It is time for rubbish to be put in the bin.

Looking ahead if RVL and the Victorian government do not soon get the message about the need for fundamental reforms to precluded inflation of race-field sizes, the national industry will soon be based in NSW -- and its little general will be Knighted!


Online arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2455
« 2018-Jun-03, 08:06 PM Reply #26 »
We from the 'Land of the Pineapple', do not wish to amalgamate with Victoria . .  :bleh:

For one thing, their fields are oversized and chock-a-block with uncompetitive runners and . .

Secondly, their whole industry is badly in need of some fundamental reforms

Online Jeunes

  • VIP Club
  • Group 2
  • User 296
  • Posts: 2279
« 2018-Jun-03, 09:21 PM Reply #27 »
I don’t understand the complaints regarding the consumption tax?

The tab pays tax too etc and they have a heavier overhead than the corporates.

The corporates seem to take the cream, pay minimal tax and if UK racing is an example of what life would be like without taxing the corporates, I would be all for it.

At the end of the day if you are a recreational $10 punter, you may lose a few $ but it is still better than having a vastly reduced product range to bet on.

Online arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2455
« 2018-Jun-04, 07:02 AM Reply #28 »
Most of the complaints are from the corporates themselves . . as they would

It is not a tax on their turnover, but rather a tax on their profit with a threshold

Why is it that overseas companies expect to do business in Oz, make huge profits in Oz, and pay no tax in Oz . . or anywhere else either for that matter

It won't happen, but, if the various state governments stood solid and applied the same % in every jurisdiction, we would not see leverage and blackmail applied by the corps; and the smoke will still go up the chimney, just the same

Please correct me if I'm wrong

Offline Bubbasmith

  • Group 1
  • User 197
  • Posts: 7427
« 2018-Jun-04, 09:47 AM Reply #29 »
I don’t understand the complaints regarding the consumption tax?

The tab pays tax too etc and they have a heavier overhead than the corporates.

The corporates seem to take the cream, pay minimal tax and if UK racing is an example of what life would be like without taxing the corporates, I would be all for it.

At the end of the day if you are a recreational $10 punter, you may lose a few $ but it is still better than having a vastly reduced product range to bet on.

So if the corporates are forced out of the game, punters, who may bet a little more than $10 recreational punters, will have little option to bet on the TAB, where all dividends are rounded down to the lower 10 cent and a select few "premium punters" are given kickbacks to the disadvantage of ALL punters. If the TAB has heavier overheads they, like all businesses facing competition, should cut back on some of those overheads.
The monopoly, enshrined in legislation, that only the TAB can operate on street corners, arcades, pubs etc plays into their heavier overheads.With on-line punting now a major source of revenue could the TAB downsize some of its off course venues to cut back on overheads ?   
What the TAB wants more meetings to bet on ?  :lol:   :lol:
« Last Edit: 2018-Jun-04, 09:50 AM by Bubbasmith »

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4053
« 2018-Jun-04, 10:00 AM Reply #30 »

Corporates -- go away

The corporates are not adding anything to the industry -- just taking and corrupting the business-- they should be shut down and sent home.

Roundings , now impossible to remove, are 'owned' by Tabcorp -- but the takeout from win and place pools, which belong to the industry,  could be reduced to better balance the 'book' and the 'dividends'.


Offline Atreus

  • class1
  • User 2352
  • Posts: 14
« 2018-Jun-04, 06:22 PM Reply #31 »
The NSW and Victorian governments main source of revenue over the last few years has been stamp duty from property transactions.  Stamp duty revenue has boomed during this time.  But it is falling now in NSW with Victoria likely to soon follow.  These state governments will need new revenue streams to fill their coffers and this POC tax is perfect timing for them.  I cannot see them giving much back to Racing NSW or Racing Victoria so that 100K benchmark races can become 150K benchmark races.  Instead all or most of the money will go into consolidated revenue

Offline Bubbasmith

  • Group 1
  • User 197
  • Posts: 7427
« 2018-Jun-04, 07:54 PM Reply #32 »
Somewhat similar to David Copperfield, the illusionist, now the Racing Industry sees it, now they don't. Who can trust any politician over fiscal matters ?

Online arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2455
« 2018-Jun-04, 08:19 PM Reply #33 »
Who can trust any politician over fiscal matters ?

This is exactly the corps are based in the NT . .

The politicians can't even trust each other

"I am, you are, we're ALL Australian . . " . . . . BULL$HIT  :beer:

Offline Bubbasmith

  • Group 1
  • User 197
  • Posts: 7427
« 2018-Jun-04, 08:25 PM Reply #34 »
To state governments punters, like landlords, are ATMs for governments..neither can escape state-based  tax increases.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4053
« 2018-Jun-04, 10:18 PM Reply #35 »


...... one national tote ...... no rebates ........no bookmakers not on course .........and no corporates.

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 24847
« 2018-Jun-05, 12:28 PM Reply #36 »

...... one national tote ...... no rebates ........no bookmakers not on course .........and no corporates.

No bookmakers on course  :lol:
Another idiotic Mair brain fart

Offline Bubbasmith

  • Group 1
  • User 197
  • Posts: 7427
« 2018-Jun-05, 03:26 PM Reply #37 »
WOD, I think he means no bookies off course, only on course.

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 24847
« 2018-Jun-05, 04:59 PM Reply #38 »
Who knows what he means mate. Apparently no chicks are allowed on course either :no:
« Last Edit: 2018-Jun-06, 07:58 AM by wily ole dog »

Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 19302
« 2018-Jun-06, 07:47 AM Reply #39 »
The NSW and Victorian governments main source of revenue over the last few years has been stamp duty from property transactions.  Stamp duty revenue has boomed during this time.  But it is falling now in NSW with Victoria likely to soon follow.  These state governments will need new revenue streams to fill their coffers and this POC tax is perfect timing for them.  I cannot see them giving much back to Racing NSW or Racing Victoria so that 100K benchmark races can become 150K benchmark races.  Instead all or most of the money will go into consolidated revenue

That is true of the states where there has been a boom in property prices. But that should also apply to Queensland as well but somehow their recent governments have put the state into a spiral of debt.

Racing Victoria have always had good advocacy when it comes to governments deciding how to allocate funds for the industry. NSW has improved significantly over the past few years with the emergence of Peter V'Landy's as the industry's chief advocate (for all the negative stuff written about the guy - invariably from interstate writers - he has been the best racing administrator the country has ever seen and NSW racing is the beneficiary).

I would be surprised if NSW and Victorian racing did not see a lot of the POC tax. Other states? Not so sure. Cannot imagine SA putting much back into their racing industry. They are already receiving generous subsidies from Victoria because the RVL owned racing.com were so desperate to have SA racing included in their content.

And here we are getting on the the glaring problem with the Australian racing model - a problem that is rarely discussed because it is obscured by NSW vs. Victoria "my dick is bigger than your dick" competitions.

The new model of wagering that includes corporate bookmakers seems to be benefiting the two largest states at the expense of the other states.

Given that a POC tax will benefit the racing industries of states where the population is largest, and the two largest states have good advocacy within government, this tax will only add to the imbalance that is emerging.

Is there an easy answer? Probably not.

Offline carey

  • Listed
  • User 2519
  • Posts: 273
« 2018-Jun-06, 03:49 PM Reply #40 »
Who knows what he means mate. Apparently no chicks are allowed on course either :no:

i know you have an aversion to the guy, but when you are wrong you should admit it.
it's obvious what he said, and you read it wrong.

Offline carey

  • Listed
  • User 2519
  • Posts: 273
« 2018-Jun-06, 03:51 PM Reply #41 »

...... one national tote ...... no rebates ........no bookmakers not on course .........and no corporates.

you should be careful what you wish for.

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6132
« 2018-Jun-06, 04:56 PM Reply #42 »
Looks like I need to remind some that Tabcorp's Rake is ~50% higher than Corporates'. Hence 99+% of punters are better off with Corporates.

And in fact that explains why Tabcorp continues to lose Turnover to them.

And why it pushed for this insane new Charge.

Rest assured that over 100% of this Tax will be passed onto punters.

Except for the very richest ones who are in cahoots with Tabcorp.

Rakes should have dropped because it costs ~zero to process a bet, versus the significant costs in producing a ticket in days of yore.

Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 19302
« 2018-Jun-06, 05:55 PM Reply #43 »
Looks like I need to remind some that Tabcorp's Rake is ~50% higher than Corporates'. Hence 99+% of punters are better off with Corporates.

And in fact that explains why Tabcorp continues to lose Turnover to them.

And why it pushed for this insane new Charge.

Rest assured that over 100% of this Tax will be passed onto punters.

Except for the very richest ones who are in cahoots with Tabcorp.

Rakes should have dropped because it costs ~zero to process a bet, versus the significant costs in producing a ticket in days of yore.

How do you measure what the comparative rake is?

I cannot see 50% comparitive benefit of corps over tabs.

In fact did you get them the wrong way around because it actually looks like tab is 50% better than corps.

I grabbed two screen shots which had corporate fixed vs. TAB before the 5th in WA.


Corp Odds Percentage TAB Odds Percentage
1 $8.00 12.50% $6.90 14.49%
2 $8.50 11.76% $12.90 7.75%
3 $9.50 10.53% $12.00 8.33%
4 $3.60 27.78% $5.70 17.54%
5 $3.30 30.30% $3.00 33.33%
6 SCR


7 $13.00 7.69% $5.30 18.87%
8 $8.50 11.76% $15.30 6.54%
9 $6.50 15.38% $8.90 11.24%

TOTAL 127.71%
118.10%






Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6132
« 2018-Jun-06, 06:04 PM Reply #44 »
The Rake is reported in financial or KPI reports.

I have mentioned that here quite often.

And I am not surprised by the tone of your post.


Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 19302
« 2018-Jun-06, 06:38 PM Reply #45 »
The Rake is reported in financial or KPI reports.

I have mentioned that here quite often.

And I am not surprised by the tone of your post.

But when you say the rake is ~50% higher for TAB over corporates how are you calculating the corporate rake?

Do they include everything like racefields in their reporting? Or is that left off to give the impression that they are better than TABs? Or, and is likely, that the accounting methods of TAB and Corporates are polls apart and we are comparing fish with dancing polar bears here.

The real maths is in comparing the percentages which are on public display and you cannot lie with numbers

I have shown concrete evidence of an example where your statement does not hold true.

And I sincerely apologize for any "perceived tone" in my post. My posts are as pure as the driven snow to the point of being innocently naive  :angel:

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6132
« 2018-Jun-06, 06:45 PM Reply #46 »
I already answered the question.

If you can't find the Rake in those reports it's your problem.

No one should bother with your screenshots. They prove nothing.

Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 19302
« 2018-Jun-06, 06:58 PM Reply #47 »

No one should bother with your screenshots. They prove nothing.

I actually think that they prove something can be found to discredit your statement that the corporate bookies rake is ~50% better than TAB.

Back to the source of your data........

Are you saying that you read the accounts of TAB and all the corporate bookmakers, and you arrived at a figure of ~50% corporates over TAB?

Furthermore, are you suggesting that if anyone wants to corroborate your figures, they have to look at the financial reports of all corporate bookmakers operating in Australia, as well as TABCorp. Ltd, and arrive at a quantified value that represents the comparative rake between the parimutuel license holder and their corporate competitors?

Haven't you got a simple calculation written down somewhere like (Ladbrokes 7.5%, Paddy 8%, Crown 7% = 7.5% average vs TAB with 11.25% means corporates are 50% higher than TAB).

Can't you even give us these crumbs?

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4053
« 2018-Jun-06, 08:13 PM Reply #48 »

Corporates are parasites

I see no evidence of corporate bookmakers delivering more than (very) marginally better payouts than TABs.

As well they misuse their right to close the accounts of punters that win.

TABs cannot do that in their pari-mutuel pool operations -- but they offer an incredible advantage to syndicate bettors taking rebates.

If the ACCC is exploring the possibilities of 'cartel like' arrangements, I would be investigating RVL.

There is no need for an explicit rorting agreement: the judicial challenge is about showing how established industry (mal)practices are 'odds on' to benefit a small group of players with a mutual interest in taking advantage of most consumers.

...................as I see it, the case is there to be prosecuted. 


 

Online Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 14542
« 2018-Jun-13, 09:41 AM Reply #49 »
CM report on the State budget last night POCT

Fears point of consumption tax may prove untimely hurdle for wagering
TRENTON AKERS
 
THE State Government will forge ahead with plans to slug the wagering industry more than $350 million in a move that could see global giants move their products interstate.
The State Budget yesterday revealed Treasurer Jackie Trad would ignore pleas from the racing and wagering industry to implement a point of consumption tax at 8 per cent instead of a “ludicrous” 15 per cent. The budget also revealed the scope of the tax would be widened to include all wagering operators, not just those who offer online services.
Racing industry leaders Victoria have implemented a similar tax at 8 per cent with NSW to reveal their amount as early as today.
Ladbrokes Australia CEO Jason Scott said the tax would see the wagering giant pull sponsorship and promotions from Queensland products, throwing the Government’s ambitious projections into doubt with turnover expected to dive as a result.
“We have been supportive of Queensland and the Queensland racing industry for some time now,” he said.
“In Queensland we employ 360 staff, sponsor the Brisbane Broncos and sponsored the Brisbane Bullets last season. We will redirect our marketing spend and make Queensland racing less of a priority.”
The government, however, left open the door for funds from the tax to flow back into the industry with the budget revealing Racing Queensland could receive compensation.
Initially projected to pull in just $30 million a year, the point of consumption tax is expected to net $71 million in the upcoming financial year after its implementation on October 1. It is then projected to jump to between $96 million and $101 million over the following three years.ENDS

Ladbrokes pay for the form guides in the CM maybe they'll pull that and there'll be no sponsor and it'll fold. :whistle:


Giddy Up :beer:





BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap