Cliff Williams, Contributor
"THE MODERNISATION process is an example of Government operating at its best responding to a changing competitive environment, consulting those involved, implementing a new policy, and evaluating delivery. Reform of betting tax is a big success story which shows what can be achieved when Government and business address the challenge of change and the need to improve competitiveness."
Speaking in an interview published in the Racing Post this is the conclusion of John Healey, Britain's Economic Secretary at the Treasury, in giving an overview of the operation of a system of Gross Profits Tax (GPT) on Betting in the two years since its implementation in the country's gaming industry.
Prior to that there was a serious threat to the country's revenue take from its gaming industry as there was significant market penetration by internet-based companies and off-shore operators and the Government needed to respond.
In October 2001 when Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, took the decision that all duties and levies on gaming should be replaced by a fifteen per cent GPT, there was a forecast by Customs and Excise officials that there would have been a fallout in Government revenue but nothing of the sort has materialised.
BETTING TURNOVER HAS GROWN
In fact, betting turnover has grown by 82 per cent, 2000 new employment opportunities have been created and there can be no doubt that this is due in no small measure to the change in the tax regime. Simply put, the need for punters to patronise unlicensed operators virtually became unnecessary when the betting taxes were removed.
For nearly a decade going back to the Danny Melville-led Caymanas Track Ltd. Board there has been something of a concerted effort to convince the Government of Jamaica that a similar approach to gaming levies cannot be anything other than a positive development to drive growth in the industry. Melville's effort to get the Government to understand the concept "less means more" was not even taken seriously in my view. It has been demonstrated, not only in the United Kingdom, but in several other racing jurisdictions particularly in North America, that less onerous tax regimes produce greater volumes of betting leading to more revenues for governments.
Against this background, I am at a loss to determine what informs the thinking of the authorities to resist this recommendation with the kind of stubbornness seen over so many years. Maybe there is a feeling in those entrusted with political responsibility that the implementation of such a regime here will have a different outcome from what has been experienced in the developed world.
