New Beginning

[Roll_With_It_Russ]

i disagree .

fair enough if your putting money over the back all day, but if your taking out more than your putting in then no.it's the punters who are paying to fill it up who are contributing.

it makes no difference who wins and who loses, the person who turns over more and wins more... in the end spends more in the system, be it on holidays, food, cars whatever... if a average wage worker earns £25k a year, the max they can spend in the system is circa £19.5k a year... no more that is it, unless they take on debt.

Now take a gambler, turns over £40k a month, makes £5k a month profit, they have 60k to spend in the system, plus they revenue they have created upon a seven figure turnover in a year.

Now to state the non tax payer does not contribute is compleate rubbish, everything they buy has VAT on it, ever bet they place creates tax revenue. If you play a fruitmachine all day you would create more tax than the average worker would in a week.

The whole whine when people moan about non tax payers, in the sense the tax payer thinks they contribute to society in some massive way over a non taxpayer is a compleate mis conception... once the money is extracted via tax is can't flow through the system and create more tax revenue futher down they system.

Its why even families that earn £100k a year can claim child benefit and the tax credits system is absolutley crazy in that it give a bigger income than working... simply because pumping this money in keeps the system going.

[Ruler of The World]

Yes I see the whole turnover point but for God's sake these are just meaningless figures that are not affecting anyone out on the streets general life! What difference does it make to the masses whether or not the local fruity player drops £100 to the back of the fruit or has to go round on it loads to get the result he ends up getting? The only people these figures you speak of mean something to are the statistics nerds they hire to sort out how business is going long term high up within the company. We are all just minor parts of the statistics being gathered, individually we mean nothing.

[Roll_With_It_Russ]

Yes I see the whole turnover point but for God's sake these are just meaningless figures that are not affecting anyone out on the streets general life! What difference does it make to the masses whether or not the local fruity player drops £100 to the back of the fruit or has to go round on it loads to get the result he ends up getting? The only people these figures you speak of mean something to are the statistics nerds they hire to sort out how business is going long term high up within the company. We are all just minor parts of the statistics being gathered, individually we mean nothing.

nope but it make a big difference if the player wins a few hundred and spends it on local goods and sevices.

[Ruler of The World]

So when I bought £280 worth of Euromillions tickets 1 week, I changed the national figures so much that I was more than a tiny singularly insignificant statistic? Get real!!!

[redlinesman]

Roll with it Russ - the money would be staying in the system anyway unless you're saying we buy a lot of cokes and petrol which is quite frankly ridiculous. It's a bit like saying a millionaire businessman should pay no income tax or national insurance because he pays a stack of VAT on luxury goods and holidays.

[Roll_With_It_Russ]

So when I bought £280 worth of Euromillions tickets 1 week, I changed the national figures so much that I was more than a tiny singularly insignificant statistic? Get real!!!

no because its unlikely you would show a profit over time, we are not talking about games of chance.

if you won however, then spent the money in the system, that would be far more beneficial than if someone one and did nothing but sit on the money.

[Roll_With_It_Russ]

Roll with it Russ - the money would be staying in the system anyway unless you're saying we buy a lot of cokes and petrol which is quite frankly ridiculous. It's a bit like saying a millionaire businessman should pay no income tax or national insurance because he pays a stack of VAT on luxury goods and holidays.

well a millionaire businessman could choose to load his business with debt so it does not make a profit and therefore pay not tax on profits.

if everyone gambled and lost, the money would have a large percentage converted to tax, extracted out of the system before it is spent again... if a winner does not regamble the money, which would create tax, any moeny extracted this way could be respent without tax extraction, leaving a greater % filtering through the system at every stage.

[Ruler of The World]

How has it got to this????????????????

The fact is you're trying to say something that's a load of bollocks! Even if 1 player stops completely, there are enough players out there to just be earning that bit more to cover what the 1 who stopped is no longer earning. It won't send the economy bust and won't vastly affect anything (except, perhaps, that individual's life).

I'm afraid you're trying to give us more importance to the economy of a vast land with a vast amount of people than we deserve.

[Roll_With_It_Russ]

Since there seems to be a few of you stuggling with the concept, this is a example I can give...

If you increase VAT it does not mean it equate to a larger VAT revenue as a proportion, since the % extraction has been increased frther down the line because more VAT has been extracted along the way, there is then less money spent on goods and services.

Its why the economy runs on borrowing and pumpong money in at the top.

[Roll_With_It_Russ]

How has it got to this????????????????

The fact is you're trying to say something that's a load of bollocks! Even if 1 player stops completely, there are enough players out there to just be earning that bit more to cover what the 1 who stoped is no longer earning.

I'm afraid you're trying to give us more importance than we deserve.

I think you compleaty miss the point, that its about what is contributed to society... gambling or no gambling.

I think your some how thinking in nominal terms and that for winners there has to be losers.

[Ruler of The World]

Nope, I don't believe in the balancing out of losers and winners at all - that has nothing to do with this. I am struggling to understand what you're on about COMPLETELY now! We're not talking about VAT increases here - why not try making your point with relevant examples/comparisons which we can all relate to rather than pretending to be the new Chancellor of The Exchequer!?

[redlinesman]

Roll With it Russ - you're diverting away from the point now and are talking about VAT systems. Let's keep it simple, if I earn 150k this year and my next door neighbour earns 150k as Finance director how am I contributing anywhere near what he is to the public purse? And don't say because I buy lots of cokes and spend all my wages in shops.

[Ruler of The World]

Roll With it Russ - you're diverting away from the point now and are talking about VAT systems. Let's keep it simple, if I earn 150k this year and my next door neighbour earns 150k as Finance director how am I contributing anywhere near what he is to the public purse? And don't say because I buy lots of cokes and spend all my wages in shops.

LOL, brilliantly put!

[Roll_With_It_Russ]

Roll With it Russ - you're diverting away from the point now and are talking about VAT systems. Let's keep it simple, if I earn 150k this year and my next door neighbour earns 150k as Finance director how am I contributing anywhere near what he is to the public purse? And don't say because I buy lots of cokes and spend all my wages in shops.

The finance director has to pay tax, if they take the max PAYE they are left with... 90k to spend, they will pay 53k in income tax and 6k NI contributions... they can now only spend 90k in the system.

You can spend £150k in the system.

Now the finance director has used their time and been paid a wage, your money has been derived from gambling, that is turning over the sum of money more than once?

So finanance director spend £90k on Vat applicable services, you spend £150k... VAT is 13400 and 22500... the recipents of some of the money will then pay income tax before they spend on goods and services and pay more VAT.

So the Finance director, though putting in a large amount of tax, can not put as much into the system as a non tax payer, simply because they then have less money to spend... all this filters down it eventually becomes nothing and is all extracted via tax, but if you don't take the lump out at the beginning far more tax will be paid over the life cycle of the seed money.

[Ruler of The World]

The finance director has to pay tax, if they take the max PAYE they are left with... 90k to spend, they will pay 53k in income tax and 6k NI contributions... they can now only spend 90k in the system.

You can spend £150k in the system.

Now the finance director has used their time and been paid a wage, your money has been derived from gambling, that is turning over the sum of money more than once?

So finanance director spend £90k on Vat applicable services, you spend £150k... VAT is 13400 and 22500... the recipents of some of the money will then pay income tax before they spend on goods and services and pay more VAT.

So the Finance director, though putting in a large amount of tax, can not put as much into the system as a non tax payer, simply because they then have less money to spend... all this filters down it eventually becomes nothing and is all extracted via tax, but if you don't take the lump out at the beginning far more tax will be paid over the life cycle of the seed money.

That's all great, well explained and all...

but what is your POINT? How does it relate to the thread?