Chancellor Rachel Reeves has refused to rule out putting up gambling taxes, after a thinktank said the move could raise £3.2bn for the Treasury and cover the cost of taking half a million children out of poverty.
Putting up taxes on online casinos and slot machines may generate enough extra revenue to enable the two-child benefit cap to be axed, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). The organisation added that there is “no other measure which provides comparable headline child poverty reduction per pound spent”.
Someone gambles online using a smartphone (Image: Getty)
Former PM Gordon Brown has backed the proposal, but the Betting and Gaming Council branded it “economically reckless” and could drive gamblers towards the black market. Ms Reeves did not dismiss taking on the proposals, telling broadcasters that a review into gambling taxes is in progress, and policies will be set out at the budget in the autumn.
Rachel Reeves (Image: Getty)
The IPPR argued in its report that Ms Reeves should hike levies on online casinos from 21% to 50%. It also advised raising those on slots and gaming machines from 20% to 50%, as well as increasing the taxes on non-racing bets from 15% to 25%. The last measure, it said, would bring other sports in line with the rates paid by horse racing.
If brought in, the move could raise £3.2bn for the Treasury, which would cover the cost of lifting the two-child benefit cap.
Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown supports the proposals (Image: Getty)
The cap first came in under the Conservative government in April 2017. It restricts universal credit and child tax credits to the first two children in any family, where the third or subsequent children are born after April 2017.
According to the IPPR’s analysis of data from the Department for Work and Pensions, 115,000 families are unable to claim benefits to cover raising their third and fourth children, with an average financial impact of £60 per week.
It is claimed the policy is keeping over 450,000 in poverty as it stands. That figure is expected to rise to 550,000 by the end of the decade, the IPPR adds.
The think tank says raising these taxes is unlikely to reduce overall revenue for the Exchequer because betting companies are likely to “seek to protect their bottom lines by worsening odds”, which means a “strong possibility of higher government revenue” than their forecasts expect.
Angela Rayner’s plan for votes at 16 rejected by most Brits
Angela Rayner, Deputy Prime Minister, on a school visit (Image: Getty Images)
Angela Rayner’s plan to give 16-year-olds the vote is opposed by the vast majority of Britons. Seven out of 10 people do not think these youngsters are ready to cast a vote in a general election, including half of their own parents.
Older people and those who voted for Reform UK last year are the most concerned that youngsters lack the maturity to play a role in deciding who runs the country. The More in Common polling found 52% of parents with children aged between 16 and 17 did not believe their children were ready for this decision.
These mothers and fathers said Nigel Farage’s Reform UK was as likely as Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour to win their teenager’s vote. While 14% expected their children would vote for either of these parties, 13% thought they would opt for the Green Party – and nearly one in four (24%) did not think they would take part in the election.
The polling will give Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch cause for concern. A mere 4% of parents expected their children would vote Conservative.
Just 24% of the public said 16-year-olds were mature enough to vote. This suggests scant support for Labour’s manifesto pledge to introduce votes at 16.
Deputy Prime Minister Ms Rayner confirmed last month that the voting age for general elections will be lowered from 18. People will be able to use bank cards as voter ID, so more citizens can take part.
Nearly nine out of 10 Reform voters (87%) oppose giving the vote to 16-year-olds, with just 11% saying the teenagers are mature enough. There was also strong opposition among people who voted Conservative (84%), Liberal Democrat (71%) and Ms Rayner’s Labour party (60%)
The move is even opposed by 58% of 18 to 24-year-olds.
Sixteen-year-olds have been granted the right to take part in elections to the Scottish and Welsh parliaments, each of which will have new members elected next year.
Supporters of a lower voting age hope it will boost turnout in the long run. However, then-prime minister Rishi Sunak last year accused Sir Keir of trying to “entrench his power” by backing the change.
A spokesperson for Ms Rayner’s Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government defended the move, saying: “Sixteen-year-olds already contribute to society by working, paying taxes and serving in the military, which is why we are giving them the right to vote on issues that affect them.
“Our once-in-a-generation changes will deliver a key manifesto commitment, build the foundations for young people to engage in our democracy over their lifetimes, and help to restore trust in politics through our Plan for Change.”
