💸 Analysis of the Proposed Increase in Betting Tax
The proposed increase in taxes on the betting industry targets two main areas: operators (bookmakers, lotteries, and casinos) and punters (bettors). The policy aims to enhance government revenue, bring the sector under a “fairer” tax system, and promote responsible betting.
The proposed changes are significant and will likely have a dramatic impact on the entire ecosystem of the gambling sector.
1. Impact on Operators (Bookmakers, Lotteries, and Casinos)
| Current Tax | Proposed Tax (Final) | Key Change |
| 3% of Gross Revenues | 20% of Gross Revenues | Substantial 17 percentage point increase. |
| Subject to Corporate Income Tax (CIT) | Exempt from Corporate Income Tax | Shift to a Gross Revenue Tax regime. |
A. Revenue Generation and Tax Formalisation
-
Increased Tax Yield: The primary impact is a major boost in government revenue. The 20% Gross Revenue Tax (GRT) is a high rate compared to the former 3% and is applied to a broader tax base (all licensed operators).
-
Final Tax Structure: Treating the GRT as a final tax in lieu of Corporate Income Tax (CIT) simplifies compliance and closes potential loopholes. The government’s claim that this aligns with international best practice (where gambling operators are often taxed on revenue/turnover) is supported by comparisons with countries that levy GRT in the $15\%$ to $30\%$ range.
-
Curbing Under-declaration: Taxing gross revenue is less susceptible to manipulation than taxing profits (which can be lowered through expenses), addressing concerns about widespread under-declaration and profit-shifting.
B. Commercial Viability and Market Structure
-
Financial Strain: A 20% GRT on gross revenue (money staked minus winnings paid) is a very high effective tax rate. This puts significant financial strain on operators, especially those with lower profit margins or high operating costs.
-
Risk of Exit/Contraction: Smaller, less-capitalised operators may be pushed to the brink of collapse, leading to closures and job losses. The measure could consolidate the market around a few large, well-resourced players.
-
Worsening Odds: To absorb the 17-point tax increase, operators will likely pass the cost to the consumer by reducing the payout ratio (i.e., offering worse odds or lower returns to punters).
2. Impact on Punters and Responsible Betting
| Current Tax on Winnings | Proposed Tax on Winnings | Impact on Punters |
| 10% Withholding Tax | 25% Withholding Tax | A 150% increase in the tax on winnings. |
A. Deterrent Effect and Responsible Betting
-
Cost of Winnings: The jump from 10% to 25% drastically reduces the net payout for punters. For example, a US$100 win previously yielded US$90 net (after US$10 tax), but will now yield US$75 net (after US$25 tax).
-
Discouraging Participation: This significant reduction in the expected value of betting may act as a strong deterrent, especially for casual bettors or those who bet to supplement low income. In this regard, it supports the stated policy objective of promoting responsible betting by reducing the attractiveness of gambling.
B. Risk of Unregulated Activity
-
Shift to the Black Market: The most significant risk is that both operators and punters will shift their activities to unregulated, unlicensed, or offshore platforms to avoid the 25% tax on winnings and the operators’ higher GRT.
-
Loss of Revenue: This move to the black market would ultimately defeat the purpose of the policy, as the government would lose both control and the targeted tax revenue, while punters lose the consumer protection afforded by licensed operators.
-
Regressive Nature: Critics argue the tax is socially regressive, disproportionately affecting low-income individuals who view gambling as a potential source of relief or entertainment, rather than a luxury.
Conclusion
The increase in Betting Tax is a high-stakes fiscal intervention aimed at simultaneously boosting revenue and curbing what the government perceives as the social harm of excessive gambling.
While the tax reforms succeed in formalising the tax structure for operators and potentially raising significant short-term revenue, the punitive rates—particularly the 25% tax on punters’ winnings—create a strong incentive for the entire sector to shift towards unregulated channels. This unintended consequence could negate the revenue gains and undermine the goal of promoting responsible betting within a regulated framework.
The ultimate impact will depend on the price elasticity of demand for betting and the government’s capacity to enforce compliance and prevent the growth of the parallel, offshore market.
