Gordon Brown backs gambling tax reform to tackle child poverty
Reforms to gambling taxes could generate the £3.2 billion needed to scrap the two-child limit and benefit cap, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said.
The think tank said axing the policies could lift half a million children out of poverty and 'reverse years of rising hardship for low-income families'.
The two-child limit restricts child tax credit and universal credit (UC) to the first two children in most households, while the benefit cap sees the amount of benefits a household receives reduced to ensure claimants do not get more than the limit.
The Government is expected to publish a child poverty strategy in autumn, and a multitude of campaign groups have said it must contain a commitment to do away with the two-child limit.
The IPPR argued that, in the face of covering the costs of scrapping the policy, it feels 'fair' to ask the 'highly profitable' gambling industry to contribute more.
Echoing this, former prime minister Gordon Brown said: 'Thanks to IPPR's report, we now know that taxing gambling more fairly would fully fund the first crucial step in the war we must wage against child poverty: ending the two-child limit and lifting the benefit cap.
'There are many reasons why the highly profitable betting and gaming industry should pay a fairer share towards the cost of UK's unmet needs. Most important is that it would enable half a million children to be lifted out of poverty in this autumn's budget, and so help to build our country for the next generation.'
The IPPR suggested increasing taxes on online casinos from 21% to 50% and raising those on slots and gaming machines from 20% to 50%.
The organisation also proposed raising general betting duty on non-racing bets from 15% to 25% which it said would bring other sports in line with the rates paid by horseracing.
The IPPR said raising gambling taxes in the way they suggested would be unlikely to reduce overall government revenue.
Henry Parkes, principal economist and head of quantitative research at IPPR, said: 'The gambling industry is highly profitable, yet is exempt from paying VAT and often pays no corporation tax, with many online firms based offshore. It is also inescapable that gambling causes serious harm, especially in its most high-stakes forms.
'Set against a context of stark and rising levels of child poverty, it only feels fair to ask this industry to contribute a little more.'
But a spokesperson for the Betting and Gaming Council said they rejected the 'economically reckless, factually misleading' proposals which they insisted 'risk driving huge numbers to the growing, unsafe, unregulated gambling black market, which doesn't protect consumers and contributes zero tax'.
They added: 'Further tax rises, fresh off the back of Government reforms which cost the sector over a billion in lost revenue, would do more harm than good – for punters, jobs, growth and public finances.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Bank of England set to cut rate as UK economy weakens
The Bank of England is widely expected to cut its key interest rate Thursday, with policymakers mindful of US tariffs and their potential risks to an already-struggling UK economy. With the BoE likely to trim borrowing costs by a quarter point to 4.0 percent, focus will be on potential changes to the central bank's economic growth and inflation outlooks. "There are clear signs of (UK) economic deterioration, particularly stemming from the labour market," Victoria Scholar, head of investment at Interactive Investor, noted ahead of the latest rate call. "Yet policymakers must weigh this up against the risk of inflationary pressures particularly with rising food prices and international uncertainty around (US President Donald) Trump's tariffs and volatility in energy markets." Against this backdrop, analysts expect splits within the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee. Some argue that while the majority of the nine policymakers, including governor Andrew Bailey, will vote for a quarter-point cut, some are likely to demand an even larger reduction and others no change. A quarter-point cut Thursday would be the BoE's fifth such reduction since starting a trimming cycle in August 2024, emphasising its "gradual" approach to reducing rates. The BoE's main task is to keep Britain's annual inflation rate at 2.0 percent but the latest official data showed it had jumped unexpectedly to an 18-month high in June. The Consumer Prices Index increased to 3.6 percent as motor fuel and food prices stayed high. - Weak economy - Latest official figures also show that Britain's economy unexpectedly contracted for a second month running in May and UK unemployment is at a near four-year high of 4.7 percent. This is largely down to Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour government increasing a UK business tax from April, the same month that the country became subject to Trump's 10-percent baseline tariff on most goods. London and Washington reached an agreement in May to cut levies of more than 10 percent imposed by Trump on certain UK-made items imported by the United States, notably vehicles. Last month, the BoE warned in a report that tariff unpredictability and Middle East conflicts pose risks to UK financial stability. The US Federal Reserve last week kept interest rates unchanged, defying strong political pressure from Trump to slash borrowing costs in a bid to boost the world's biggest economy. Asked about US tariffs following the decision, Fed Chair Jerome Powell told a press conference: "We're still a ways away from seeing where things settle down." The European Central Bank is meanwhile widely expected to keep rates unchanged at its next meeting, with eurozone inflation around the ECB's two-percent target. But that could change, according to some economists, based on how Trump's tariffs affect the single-currency bloc. bcp/ajb/rl/tc Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Stephen A. Smith suggests support for federal investigation into WNBA for treatment of Caitlin Clark
Stephen A. Smith responded to a recent opinion piece by the Wall Street Journal that called for a government investigation into the WNBA for the controversial handling of physical plays against superstar Caitlin Clark. The Wall Street Journal piece titled "The WNBA and Caitlin Clark's Civil Rights" drew mixed reactions this week after it argued that Clark has been subject to a hostile workplace due to how referees have called physical plays against her dating back her rookie season in 2024. The piece called for a federal probe into "potential civil rights violations." Smith suggested support for a potential investigation. "I'm not here saying the case will be won by the government if it gets to the points. I'm saying they have a case, they have an argument," Smith said of the idea during an episode of his show on Tuesday. Smith also suggested President Donald Trump could use such an investigation to solidify support among his followers. "Do we doubt that at his discretion, at his disposal, if he finds this to be an issue that is politically expedient to him, that Trump won't use this to feed his base?" Smith said. "If [Clark] is seen to be physically getting abused on the basketball court in a way that is such a clear and flagrant discrepancy compared to what happens to others, that that man is not going to say something? "You don't think Catilin Clark could become an issue of national, potentially international, and definitely federal proportions?" Smith cited recent agreements by Columbia University and Harvard University with Trump's administration to settle alleged civil rights violations against Jewish students and employees as a comparison for a potential probe into the WNBA's treatment of Clark. "If the Trump administration can settle with Columbia for a $221 million settlement over what's taken place on a campus, you think you can definitively rule out what kind of noise could be made if the WNBA continues to allow this treatment of Caitlin Clark?" Smith said. Clark's teammate, Fever star Sophie Cunningham, has been one of the most vocal critics of the WNBA players and referees in the physical treatment of Clark and how it is handled. Cunningam revealed how her former team, the Phoenix Mercury, planned to play Clark during the phenom's rookie season in 2024. Cunningham played her first five seasons in Phoenix before leaving to join the Fever this past offseason. "You have seen players in our league try to, like, toughen up Caitlin… Even when I wasn't on her team, I know the talks that Phoenix had in the locker room, like, 'No, we're going to show her what the W really is,' and I get it to a certain extent, and every rookie coming into the league, that's how you're going to treat 'em, but there's just more for her," Cunningham said on her podcast last week. "And now being on her team and seeing it, I'm like, 'What are people doing?' Actually, it's just too much. It's too much. I'm over it, and if I think it's too much, it's probably too much." Cunningham was on the other side of the situation when she started a fight to defend Clark during a game against the Connecticut Sun earlier this season. Cunningham said that after the game, Clark exclaimed "finally!" in the locker room. "In the locker room, she goes, I think she's like, 'Finally!'" Cunningham said. "But I think it kind of had our team together as a whole. Everyone was like, 'We do have to protect eachother.'" The scuffle went down in Connecticut on June 17, when Cunningham committed a hard foul on Sun guard Jacy Sheldon. Sheldon poked Clark in the eye earlier in the game, and then fellow Sun player Marina Mabrey shoved Clark to the ground. Cunningham previously called out referees just days after the June 17 fight while speaking to reporters, for not protecting Clark, when she had to first address the fight publicly. "During that, it was just part of the game. I think the refs had a lot to do with that. It was a build-up for a couple years now of them just not protecting the star player of the WNBA," Cunningham said. "At the end of the day, I'm going to protect my teammates. That's what I do."
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
VA terminates key union contracts
The Department of Veterans Affairs is terminating collective bargaining agreements with several key government unions representing its employees. In an announcement Wednesday, the VA said the move is in response to an executive order President Donald Trump signed in March that nixed collective bargaining rights for many federal workers in the name of national security. The agency's decision comes after a federal appellate court lifted a lower court ban on the ending of union contracts on Friday, although the Trump administration previously issued guidance that agencies should not terminate any collective bargaining agreements until litigation challenging the order is over. 'Too often, unions that represent VA employees fight against the best interests of Veterans while protecting and rewarding bad workers,' VA Secretary Doug Collins said in a statement. 'We're making sure VA resources and employees are singularly focused on the job we were sent here to do: providing top-notch care and service to those who wore the uniform.' The VA said it notified five major unions that their contracts for 'bargaining-unit employees' were being terminated: the American Federation of Government Employees; the National Association of Government Employees; the National Federation of Federal Employees; the National Nurses Organizing Committee/National Nurses United; and the Service Employees International Union. Contracts covering the roughly 4,000 VA police officers, firefighters or security guards represented by those unions will remain in place, the agency said. The VA said the move will allow staff to 'spend more time with Veterans,' noting that in 2024, nearly 2,000 union employees 'spent more than 750,000 hours of work on taxpayer-funded union time.' Without those obligations, 'those hours can now be used to serve Veterans instead of union bosses,' the agency said. The move will also open up more physical space for veterans' needs, the VA said. 'More than 187,000 square feet of its office and clinical space is currently being used by union representatives free of charge,' the agency said, adding that it has 'cost VA millions of dollars in lost rent and expenses.' The agency also says labor contracts have restricted managers' ability to hire, promote and reward high performing employees and to hold poor performers accountable. The move was met with outrage by at least two of the top unions representing VA employees. AFGE, which represents 320,000 employees at the agency, said it is assessing its options to challenge Collins' move. 'Secretary Collins' decision to rip up the negotiated union contract for majority of its workforce is another clear example of retaliation against AFGE members for speaking out against the illegal, anti-worker, and anti-veteran policies of this administration,' AFGE National President Everett Kelley said in a statement. He noted that Collins' action is 'inconsistent' with Office of Personnel Management guidance instructing agencies to hold off on ending union agreements while the legal challenges played out. Those losing their representation by AFGE and several other unions include nurses, doctors, housekeepers, maintenance, food service workers, lawyers, mental health specialists, cemetery workers and others, according to AFGE. NNU, the largest union of registered nurses in the country, said the VA's announcement to terminate its contract and those of the other unions 'is an attack on those who dedicate their lives in the service of others.' 'We know this administration is hellbent on silencing nurses and other VA workers to steamroll the destruction of the VA,' the nurses' union said in a statement to CNN. 'It is because of VA nurses' ability to speak up about patient safety through our union that our nation's veterans receive the highest level of care.' NNU says it will 'continue to pursue legal action with our fellow unions.' The department's move comes just days after a federal appeals court in California lifted a lower court's preliminary injunction that had blocked several federal agencies from canceling certain union contracts. Trump's expansive executive order applies to more than 1 million federal workers across many agencies, including the departments of State, Defense, Justice and Health and Human Services. The order is aimed at stopping federal unions that have 'declared war on President Trump's agenda,' according to a White House fact sheet. It noted that the largest union – AFGE – has filed many grievances to 'block Trump policies.' 'President Trump refuses to let union obstruction interfere with his efforts to protect Americans and our national interests,' the fact sheet said. The two largest federal employee unions – AFGE and the National Treasury Employees Union – sued in separate courts, saying Trump was retaliating for their advocacy for their members and for federal services. The unions were initially successful in blocking the order in separate federal district courts, but they each lost on the appellate level. NNU, as well as other unions, joined AFGE in its lawsuit against the executive order.
