The Coming of the Totalisator
NVMr. Churchill taxed credit betting and race- course betting it was universally understood that he was experimenting. Nobody supposed that the taxation would remain as it was. He made himself responsible for a system of trial by error, and those who are interested in the subject are already feeling their way towards the next stage. This is the explanation of the debate in the House of Lords on Thursday, May 19th, when Lord Newton moved the second reading of his Betting Bill, the purpose of which is to bring street betting under control.
The fact must be faced that a great many people who approve on principle of the taxation of betting shrink from taxing street betting by what appears to be the only possible means--the setting up of betting offices licensed by the State. It is said that the bringing into existence of an apparatus of betting which does not now exist would be a definite invitation to the passer-by to bet ; and that the State, though it is justified in taxing a luxury that is already legal, would certainly not be justified in making more betting legal in order to tax it. When Mr. Churchill introduced his betting taxation he was evidently impressed by that argument and it accounted for his leaving street betting alone. No one can deny, however, that the present state of things is anomalous. Street betting has appreciably increased for the very obvious reason that it escapes all taxation. It will be remembered that the chairman of the Select Committee which inquired into the taxation of betting was personally in favour of the creation of ready-money betting offices, not at all because he was indifferent to the moral side of the problem, but because he believed that strict control was the only conceivable way of keeping within measurable dimensions what could not be actually abolished.
And there are other anomalies. It was shown in the House of Lords debate that rogues who had been warned off the Turf had not found it difficult to become licensed as bookmakers. All they had to do, apparently, was to apply for a licence and to pay their money. Thus the Board of Customs and Excise has unwittingly undone some of the work of the Stewards of the Jockey CNN who always do their best to keep swindlers off the courses.
Although the spokesmen for the Government did not encourage Lord Newton, his skeleton Bill was accepted for the sake of its principle on a free vote by 44 to 23. In fine, some change in the law has been brought nearer, and in these circumstances it is worth while to point out that Lord Plymouth announced that the Government intend seriously to consider the use of the Totalisator. We are very glad to hear it, for we are convinced that the Totalisator is much the most efficient and the fairest way of taxation, if not for all betting, at all events fo a very large part of it.
The first advantage of the Totalisator is that it giv,' perfectly fair odds, whereas bookmakers' odds or arbitrary and do not err in favour of the public. The. second point is that the Totalisator provides an unfailing automatic method of collecting the tax. The third point is that racing as a sport would profit from a regular contribution out of the proceeds of the Totalisator. The bookmakers hardly contribute at all. The latest form of Totalisator has reached a high form of perfection. It has gone a long way beyond the Pari-Mutuel with which visitors to Paris are familiar. It is worked by electricity and is as unerring in its arithmetic as a cash register. A witness who gave evidence before the Select Committee said that at Randwick in Australia he had seen 300,000 bets registered by the Totalisator in one day, and he added that payment was generally made within five minutes of the _last signal. This is ver/ different from the rather prolonged operations of the Pari-Mtduel.
In a recent article in the Times it was stated that the tendency of the Totalisator is to discourage large bets. As each bet is added to the total stake on a particular horse the following of that horse increases as the rumour spreads that it is " a good thing." The result in some cases is that when the favourite wins the winners do not even get the amount of their stakes back. Many experts think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, could draw twenty or thirty millions a year from the Totalisator.
Evidently there is a great deal to be said for the Totalisator and practically nothing against it. Luxuries ought to be taxed. Betting is the greatest and most notorious luxury of our day. It cannot be abolished. Therefore it ought to be taxed, and, being taxed, it ought to be taxed in the most scientific way.
Previous page
