How Rachel Reeves will RUIN British horse racing for millions of fans in her desperation to increase taxes
In the Budget this year, we are going to see record tax rises — and among the ideas in the Treasury is a new Racing Tax.
3
3
3
Horseracing is the second-largest spectator sport, with five million people watching every year across 59 courses.
It generates £4.1billion for the economy and backs 85,000 jobs.
We have the best horses, the best trainers and four of the top ten races in the world.
It supports rural communities and towns all over Britain, including West Suffolk, home to the Newmarket racecourses, which I'm proud to represent in Parliament.
But the Racing Tax will put this British success story in grave danger.
Right now, bookies pay a 15 per cent tax rate on racing, but Labour's plan to combine all online gambling taxes into a single rate could increase it to 21 per cent.
'Mindless free-for-all'
Because racing is also subject to the Betting Levy, ministers would put racing at a competitive disadvantage against the most addictive kinds of online gaming.
It could mean £330million of lost revenue for racing in just the first five years, and put 2,752 jobs at risk in the first year.
This would lead to higher prices and less racing because of lost income.
This proves Labour doesn't understand racing at all.
Punters who follow the horses, on the whole, tend to be more selective and use their knowledge, judgment and skills when placing their bets at the bookies, on the course or online.
British Horse Racing to Strike for the First Time: Industry Unites Against Betting Tax Hike
Plus there are only so many races that you can put money on.
But online gambling is a mindless free-for-all and incredibly addictive.
There is simply no reason why horseracing should be treated in the same way.
Yet, in the desperation to increase taxes, racing — and millions of racing fans — will suffer.
Some assume racing has the cash to spare, but this is not true at all.
While the industry is very valuable to the economy, its profit margins are tight for breeders and trainers.
They invest a lot, but don't always see a return.
We are already at risk of falling behind global competitors — such as France — because we are breeding fewer thoroughbred horses.
But our racing industry isn't taking this lying down.
On September 10, the day before the St Leger festival at Doncaster, no races will take place in Britain.
The four ra c e meetings at Lingfield Park, Carlisle, Uttoxeter and Kempton Park will be cancelled.
The industry is taking a financial hit to prove its point.
Usually, races are only cancelled because of awful weather, equine virus outbreaks or national crises.
But the whole industry, from owners to trainers to jockeys, is standing together to protest against Labour's plans.
It will be the first time in the sport's modern history that the industry will voluntarily refuse to hold races.
Together, they will head to Westminster and make their voices heard.
Everyone in the industry knows the financing of horseracing needs reform.
Australia and France give horseracing a lot more government support through direct funding or betting taxes than us.
Private investors have deeper pockets in the USA and Japan.
Prize money is more modest in Britain — which means races in places like the Middle East might become more appealing to owners and trainers than races at home.
But the industry keeps getting punished.
No progress has been made on reforming the Horserace Betting Levy, which provides a third of the industry's income.
'Nobody has any fun'
Affordability checks have been introduced for anyone betting more than £150 on racing within 30 days, driving customers away and costing £3billion in lost turnover in just two years.
Labour ministers keep offering us warm words, but fail to deliver.
The Racing Tax is the last straw.
Opposing Labour's tax plans does not mean we don't want change.
The Horserace Betting Levy can be improved by applying it to bookies' total turnover rather than just their profits.
It could cover bets placed on overseas races so long as the bookies are based in Britain.
The rate could be raised above ten per cent.
This would be done to the benefit of the industry and punters alike.
There is also more the sport can do to modernise and increase revenue.
But the Racing Tax is classic Labour — faceless bureaucrats interfering with people's lives, undermining a successful industry and making sure nobody has any fun.
They just don't understand how the economy works, which is why they are killing it with more tax and regulation.
We should all stand with horseracing to protect this vital but endangered industry.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
Reeves' ‘mansion tax' would stall home sales and fuel exodus of super-rich, experts warn
Property experts have warned that Rachel Reeves ' plans to levy a so-called 'mansion tax' on high-value properties would stall housing sales and add to the exodus of the super-rich from the UK. Mortgage brokers and financial planners have rounded on the chancellor after reports she is considering hitting the owners of expensive properties when they sell to plug a £40bn hole in the public purse. The mooted plans would see higher-rate taxpayers pay 24 per cent of any gain in the value of their home, while basic rate taxpayers would be hit with an 18 per cent levy. Currently, capital gains tax is not paid on the sale of primary residences. Proposals being considered for the autumn budget, the private residence relief would end for properties above a certain threshold, sources told The Times. The threshold is said to still be under consideration, but a £1.5 million starting point would hit around 120,000 homeowners who are higher-rate taxpayers with capital gains tax bills of £199,973. Financial adviser Scott Gallacher, director at Rowley Turton, said a level of £1.5m would prevent most older homeowners, particularly those who bought properties in the 80s and 90s, from selling houses. He added that the plans would 'kill off the upper end of the property market' and be difficult to implement. Mr Gallacher said: 'It would be insane if it creates a cliff edge in that properties over £1.5m are subject to Capital Gains Tax on the entire gain, as properties sold at £1.49m would incur no CGT whereas £1.5m might be a six-figure bill. If it's only on gains above £1.5m, then the CGT raised would be minimal, as potentially you'd be exempting six or even seven-figure gains.' He added: 'Homeowners, especially older ones, who perhaps bought their houses in the 1970s or 1980s, would be daft to sell and incur a huge CGT liability. Instead they would be incentivised to hold on to the home until they die and pay no CGT.' Meanwhile Simon Gerrard, chairman of Martyn Gerrard Estate Agents, warned the plans would leave families who bought homes in London more than a decade ago facing 'eye-watering' tax bills. 'Meanwhile, those who are actually wealthy know how to bypass these moves and won't pay it,' he said. He told The Independent: 'After the deadline passes people will simply not sell their homes. The property market above the threshold will die until Labour are voted out and the policy is repealed under a more sensible government.' Laith Khalaf, head of investment analysis at AJ Bell, said the tax-free nature of primary residences is 'deeply embedded in the psyche of homeowners'. He warned: 'A mansion tax set at high level would naturally cause people to worry it was just the thin end of the wedge, and the next time the government needs a bit of money they could just lower the threshold. 'It would also be an impediment to mobility in the housing market, as those with properties which might fall foul of the tax would be inclined to sit on them for longer, leaving a log jam in the housing ladder below them.' And critics warned the tax change would add to the reported exodus of super-rich individuals fleeing Britain. 'I can see a lot of families in London being caught with this higher tax bill, and it may push more wealthy tax contributors to exodus the UK, which is already a problem following the Chancellor 's last budget,' said Stephen Perkins, managing director of Yellow Brick Mortgages. The Treasury was asked to comment.
The Guardian
6 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Ministers line up plan to run Liberty Steel's South Yorkshire plants in administration
Ministers have lined up special managers to run Liberty Steel's South Yorkshire operations if they are put into administration, according to a dramatic revelation at London's high court. The development suggests the government is ready to step in immediately to secure the continued operations of the Speciality Steel UK (SSUK), which employs 1,450 people at the group's operations at an electric arc furnace in Rotherham and another plant in Stocksbridge, both in South Yorkshire. Creditors to SSUK are seeking a compulsory winding up order, the high court heard on Wednesday. The company asked to adjourn the hearing to buy time to try to agree a 'pre-pack' administration that would allow its owner, the metals tycoon Sanjeev Gupta, to keep control of the insolvent company. Counsel representing the creditors showed the judge a letter from the Department for Business and Trade detailing that the government had said its official receiver was ready to carry out a sales process if the company entered administration. The insolvency and companies court judge Sally Barber said she was minded to give two weeks of extra time to decide what the consequences of each course would be. However, after a short pause, the creditors' counsel then disclosed that lawyers for the government were present in the court. The barrister said he had just been informed that an application for the appointment of a special manager to carry out the administration had already been prepared in draft form. The court is expected to grant a short adjournment to give the parties time to provide evidence to the court of what will happen in either case. Judge Barber said: 'In the absence of some certainty there is too much at stake for the court to shoot blind. 'Any government decision would be subject to a formal ministerial decision, and no such decision has been made.' Gupta has been scrambling to find new financing for his businesses since the collapse in 2021 of Greensill Capital, which had lent the Gupta Family Group (GFG) Alliance about $4.5bn (£3.3bn). Administrators for Greensill are trying to recover that money on behalf of creditors, including the investment bank Citibank. The winding up petition was originally brought by an equipment supplier in October, but SSUK had been granted several adjournments to give it more time to pursue negotiations for new investment, and then after it paid the debt to the lead claimant. The Greensill administrators stepped into the supplier's place. Fundraising efforts have been complicated by an investigation into GFG Alliance by the UK's Serious Fraud Office for suspected fraud, fraudulent trading and money laundering. At the same time, the steel industry has been hit by the turmoil caused by the coronavirus pandemic, followed by a glut of metal produced by Chinese companies. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion SSUK usually supplies aerospace and defence companies such as Rolls-Royce and Airbus. However, workers in South Yorkshire have dealt with years of uncertainty, as work as the plants has wound down. SSUK lost £340m in four years, according to figures revealed during the court process. The Rotherham plant and a similar operation in Motherwell, Scotland, have not produced any steel for about a year, because of a lack of working capital to buy materials. However, workers's salaries have continued to be paid. The Guardian last month revealed that the UK government was considering options to step in should SSUK fall into liquidation. It would be the second government intervention in the steel industry this year, after it took control of British Steel's Scunthorpe plant, fearing that its Chinese owners would let the blast furnaces cool beyond repair. Gupta had hoped to prepare a plan to buy the company back out of insolvency, with consultancy Begbies Traynor preparing a so-called pre-pack administration which would allow the company to reduce its debts. The creditors opposed the plan, arguing they would prefer a sale via a government-controlled liquidation. Court documents suggested that previous efforts in 2022 to sell part of the SSUK operations to an unnamed venture capital fund or a 'Chinese conglomerate' came to nothing.
The Independent
35 minutes ago
- The Independent
Increased betting tax would be a hurdle that horse racing may not overcome
The Treasury is currently consulting over plans to replace the existing structure of online gambling duties, which is comprised of three bands, to a catch-all Remote Betting and Gaming Duty. At present, there is a 15 per cent duty, but there are grave concerns that the government-induced changes could see it brought into line with the rate of tax on games of chance, such as online casino and slot machines, which is six per cent higher. Economic analysis commissioned by the British Horseracing Authority showed that the sport could lose £66m in income through the levy, media rights and sponsorship because bookmakers would be likely to respond by offering inferior-value prices and reduce budgets for such things as marketing and advertising. Horse racing is a sport that is part of the very fabric of British culture. Its two codes, Flat and National Hunt have been supported by monarchs and other royals for centuries. It also courted Sir Keir Starmer, who last September became the first serving Prime Minister since Sir Winston Churchill to attend the St Leger. Now, similar to one of the PM's current political allies, it has had a change of heart and is taking a more combative approach. Racing draws in more spectators annually than every other sport in the nation, except football. It provides jobs for more than 85,000 people. If betting tax levied on the sport is raised, it's been estimated that 2,752 of those jobs will be lost in the first year alone, and this could become an ever-decreasing cycle. As a show of strength and to underline the gravity of their concerns, the whole of the industry has committed to a one-day strike on 10 September, when racing is scheduled to take place at Carlisle, Kempton Park, Lingfield Park and Uttoxeter. For an industry that has so often taken a 'softly, softly' approach to such matters and wanted to keep respective governments onside, it's akin to throwing away the painstakingly prepared form book and, instead, tossing a coin. Will the 'heads' count in the sport be forced to reduce or will ministers turn 'tails' and elect to preserve the status quo? James Hutchinson, the managing director at Ripon racecourse, is clear on why the sport is right to take such action: 'It's important that we get across this message that the current proposals for this betting duty tax will have an enormous effect on British racing and the income into British racing and therefore the amount of money that it raises in terms of levy and the return therefore to racecourses and the return of prize money to owners and trainers. 'From our point of view as a small independent racecourse, we need to be seen to be a strong industry that can support all of its constituent parts and this potential change is going to put many of those at risk and that's not something we want to see. 'I'm in support of the action that's being taken because by doing so we will hopefully be getting across and extremely strong message to government that we feel very strongly about this and the industry is prepared to go to those sort of lengths to show what it means and the effect it could have if the changes take place.' 'I don't think there's any other sporting industry that could be as dramatically affected by the sort of change that the government is proposing.' James Hutchinson, managing director at Ripon racecourse Isn't this, however, racing people expecting the sport to be treated as a special case purely because of its history? Hutchinson disagrees. 'I don't think it's necessarily a special case other than the fact that it has huge heritage. It's been an important part of the culture and the colour of the nation. 'Over five million people go racing every year and to introduce this huge increase could have a major negative impact on the industry. It could effect the amount of racing, the amount of people going racing and it would be a huge loss to the country. 'I don't think there's any other sporting industry that could be as dramatically affected by the sort of change that the government is proposing.' Those involved in the sport are clear about the financial damage that could be inflicted and are similarly unified in their action, although all four tracks that miss out on racing on that date have been offered an alternative fixture on the calendar by the BHA, by way of compensation for those individual events. The government must act in the best interests of a sport that has given the nation great service since before there was a Prime Minister. It should get this enquiry overturned before the provisional result stands, scrap any plans to increase its tax burden and leave this piece of the fabric of our society unfrayed.
