• Flax@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    20 days ago

    I support banning it. And it’s advertising, too. Maybe impose some form of daily limit on in-person gambling as well.

    • DrCake@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      20 days ago

      The advertising is a massive one. If you were trying to recover from a gambling addiction, you wouldn’t be able to watch any sport on TV. Every advert, especially late at night, is about betting.

      • Flax@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 days ago

        Exactly. One of my Chinese friends had a big culture shock when they saw a gambling advert lol. They said it should be illegal and I found myself agreeing with them.

    • Anivia@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      20 days ago

      Trying to ban online gambling will just result in people switching to illegal gambling sites. At least the legal ones can be regulated

    • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 days ago

      Why stop at online. The amount of pensioners and vulnerable people wasting their money on horses and fruit machines is pretty depressing.

      On the one hand, I strongly believe in personal freedom (as long as you’re only harming yourself) and if people want to spend their money, that way it should be up to them. On the other hand, some people are vulnerable and need to be protected from themselves.

      • Flax@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        20 days ago

        But they’re spending their kids’ inheritance. I can see the innocence in putting a few quid against your mates betting on horses. But capitalised rigged gambling is just immoral

        • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          20 days ago

          This. When only one side of the bet can lose. It is not gambling but rigged capitalism.

          When an industry manages to remove all the risk from investment. While offering little to the society they inhabit.

          High taxation to help return their cost to society. Seems a bare minimum charge.

          • Flax@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            20 days ago

            At least with the likes of a lottery the odds are obvious and “only one person winning each month”, etc. A fruit machine programmed to only win once a month isn’t.

        • Anivia@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          20 days ago

          But they’re spending their kids’ inheritance

          How incredibly entitled can you be?

          • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            19 days ago

            I think it’s a fair point just not well made.

            To paraphrase my first reply, to each their own, if someone truly enjoys gambling, they’ll find a way to do it, legal or not.

            However, there is a lot of good that money could be doing, whether it is used to help your kids or anything else like that, rather than it being hoovered up by fat cat CEOs and people that hold shares in gambling businesses.

      • Flax@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        It’s a predatory market. The only people who benefit are pigs who rig the games.

      • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        To be honest, yes they do

        If the government provides a safety net for those with no money, it’s reasonable for them to ban leading causes of losing money, like gambling, to save money for those who are just unfortunate

        If the government provides healthcare, it’s reasonable for them to ban leading causes of ill health, like smoking, to save capacity for those with less avoidable illnesses or injuries

      • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        19 days ago

        How about extremely addicting activities that do nothing but increase the wealth of already wealthy people and drive people who need money into increasing (up to and including absurd) levels of debt isn’t a good thing for society. So get rid of it or put in sensible guardrails.

        You can have gambling without money being at stake. It’s just as “fun” and doesn’t ruin anyone’s lives anymore than anything else that’s addicting.

  • kbal@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    20 days ago

    One half of Britons support increasing tax on the other half.

  • GreatAlbatross@feddit.ukM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    20 days ago

    IIRC, the reason it wasn’t previously taxed, is that it would have opened up writing off gambling losses against tax.
    Don’t quote me, obv.
    So maybe it would need a lot of other tax law changing at the same time, to not end up encouraging people accidentally the other way.