Your Input Please Videoslots: Lower RTP for UK, Sweden, Germany & Others

[Kroffe]

Maybe (especially in Sweden where they like to see less people gambling and reduce harms by these regulations like ban bonuses etc..) one reason to take tax from GGR is make gambling less tempting by stopping players to make any "extra" deposit what wasn't planned but just because casino sent out nice promotion.

Also in UK promotions need to follow quite strict guidelines by ASA (?) or who ever, offers shouldn't create any urgency to make you deposit now or it's too late.. For some players these kind of promotions what players like as getting something extra, are one way to spend over their means when surprise email in your inbox trigger you to make "just one deposit" more even you didn't plan for it before next week.

Yeah, thats absolutely the reason for the bonus-ban.
I have not seen any numbers, but im guessing its probably a pretty effective move to stop those spur of the moment deposits that can happen when you get an email or text with a decent offer.

Still prefer it how it was before the regulation.
Sure, i may cashout more often now that all my deposits are raw money, but my playtime has been reduced since i cant take any bonuses. And if you have a shitty month, the gambling-budget goes flying out the window waaay faster.
Overall i spend the same amount of money, but get less playtime.
Booo!

 

[mack341]

I remembered this debate about the 18% Swedish tax being on net or gross profit.
Had another look and :

"You have to pay gambling tax on the proceeds for each taxation period, i.e. the difference between all stakes you have received and the total payouts you have made over the period. "

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

That clears it in the most official way. It is a 18% tax on gross revenue like every other country.
A totally unreasonable and completely harmful taxation for the players.

Of course by now VS has lowered the RTP for all countries ..........

It states on that link, under 'what are payouts':

A payout is the value you as a gaming company or your representative pays to the gamblers by making a deposit into their gambling accounts or similar. The value may consist of both cash and other assets. A payout can also be a repayment of a stake in the event a game is cancelled or a bonus payment into the gambling account.


so does that mean things like cashback based on losses could still be added into the payouts calculation, prior to the tax being applied?

 

[Kroffe]

It states on that link, under 'what are payouts':

A payout is the value you as a gaming company or your representative pays to the gamblers by making a deposit into their gambling accounts or similar. The value may consist of both cash and other assets. A payout can also be a repayment of a stake in the event a game is cancelled or a bonus payment into the gambling account.


so does that mean things like cashback based on losses could still be added into the payouts calculation, prior to the tax being applied?

Heh, like we are allowed cashback on losses.
(i wish we were tho)

 

[mack341]

My reading of the situation is possibly if they don't apply the tax at that point, the gross revenue stage, with the clever accounting that offshore gambling firms could use, there might not be much revenue left to tax. Similar to the big coffee chains in the uk, they pay hardly any corporation tax as far as I understand as the revenue is routed to other parts of the business in lower tax regions

eg starbucks in 2012

The Seattle-based group, with a market capitalization of $40 billion, is the second-largest restaurant or cafe chain globally after McDonald’s. Accounts filed by its UK subsidiary show that since it opened in the UK in 1998 the company has racked up over 3 billion pounds ($4.8 billion) in coffee sales, and opened 735 outlets but paid only 8.6 million pounds in income taxes, largely due because the taxman disallowed some deductions.

Over the past three years, Starbucks has reported no profit, and paid no income tax, on sales of 1.2 billion pounds in the UK.

 

[nikantw]

My reading of the situation is possibly if they don't apply the tax at that point, the gross revenue stage, with the clever accounting that offshore gambling firms could use, there might not be much revenue left to tax. ....

It wouldn't exactly take a genius to figure out a case of clever accounting. Just a simple 5min look in their books would be enough.

Or do a little research to see that the net income is hardly over 20% GGR in any online casino. That means that if you want to only tax net profit you can't ask for more than 6% GGR. No sir, they know very well what they are doing.

 

[Slottery]

Idea there could be that there's no need to help casinos to get more deposits by giving them possibility to claim these bonus costs off from revenue they pay taxes when it would be NGR (net gaming revenue) which like mentioned above could make other arrangements possible as well to show revenue much smaller when all costs are taken off from that number.

Maybe gambling is little different area of business that governments are not seeing growth of industry very good like some other industries which are creating more jobs and other good values for countries but more as place where people are spending their money and which is not giving much in return so there's maybe that so much interest for governments to support this industry growth like there are in many other ones which are generating more wellbeing in jobs, taxes etc..

 

[nikantw]

.....Maybe gambling is little different ...

That is exactly why the government shouldn't try to make a profit like in any other business (or much more than any other business). Because gambling is different. Because bigger profit means more damage and more addiction. In the case of gambling the "profit" must be players having fun without any addiction or great financial loss.

 

[Slottery]

That is exactly why the government shouldn't thry to make a profit like in any other business (or much more than any other business). Because gambling is different. Because bigger profit means more damage and more addiction. In the case of gambling the "profit" must be players having fun without any addiction or great financial loss.

Not sure how these governments are thinking when they set these taxes and regulations, taxing companies from GGR and not NGR like in many other businesses is kind of signal that they don't support that much of growth of business and companies making big profits from it like they could increase their profits if some costs of business could be deducted from taxable revenue.

Maybe gambling is seen bit like cigarettes, alcohol, unhealthy food etc.. which are things existing, people are consuming them but there's no real need to grow these industries which have negative effects for people health and wellbeing. So they exist, are stricly regulated and government is taking their share as taxes, but growth of industry is not seen to be great benefit for society so let set tax to high as possible and let them operate as there always is that demand. It's researched and learnt in practice that if you start to set your tax percent higher than now (20% is understood to be latest cut off point when flaws to irregulated gambling will start to be that big that regulations are just making things worse), people play somewhere under offshore providers where nothing is controlled and only governments get back are gambling related harms.

In my opinion is fair for governments to set these taxes instead of let gambling companies make all the money while governments are ones who need to take part of dealing with harms.

 

[nikantw]

Not sure how these governments are thinking when they set these taxes and regulations, taxing companies from GGR and not NGR like in many other businesses is kind of signal that they don't support that much of growth of business and companies making big profits from it like they could increase their profits if some costs of business could be deducted from taxable revenue.

Maybe gambling is seen bit like cigarettes, alcohol, unhealthy food etc.. which are things existing, people are consuming them but there's no real need to grow these industries which have negative effects for people health and wellbeing. So they exist, are stricly regulated and government is taking their share as taxes, but growth of industry is not seen to be great benefit for society so let set tax to high as possible and let them operate as there always is that demand. It's researched and learnt in practice that if you start to set your tax percent higher than now (20% is understood to be latest cut off point when flaws to irregulated gambling will start to be that big that regulations are just making things worse), people play somewhere under offshore providers where nothing is controlled and only governments get back are gambling related harms.

In my opinion is fair for governments to set these taxes instead of let gambling companies make all the money while governments are ones who need to take part of dealing with harms.

Don't get me wrong, I say nobody should get big profit. I support high RTP limits together with low tax on NGR, even RTP 97% minimum!

I understand the comparison with cigarettes or alcohol but there is a big difference. The damage from a cigarette is the same with the tax, when gambling becomes even 20* times more dangerous because of the tax!

* not in UK or Sweden but there are places in the world with games at 60% RTP

 

[Slottery]

Don't get me wrong I don't really have much of opinion here as my understanding these taxations and this size of decisions are very limited. Just writing what trying to think reasons for something could be.

There for sure can be better than current solution and actions like regulating RTP:s and some other factors could make much better packet in total. Question in these is just do governments who are regulating these, have enough expertise knowledge of industry and enough will to make much effort to optimze things if they think this for now is enough what we have already done.

For sure it's the easiest (and not the best) route chosen for now to just make flat 18% tax from GGR and case closed without any further research which would take more effort.

 

[mack341]

I can see both positions, as a player I'd like the least amount of tax to be taken from the revenue and instead redirected to the players. It's not good online players have been use to playing 96+% rtp games and then the games have their rtp suddenly lowered by 2%, it's only bearable because other casinos haven't followed suit.

I miss the bonus deposits that use to be offered to existing, regular customers, it means I have to deposit more to have the same game time as before.

On the other hand society has to pick up the pieces regarding the social/healthcare costs of gambling addiction, and I doubt, £ for £, the industry employs as many people as other's do, [partly why the coffee shop's tax avoidance is probably tolerated because of the staff numbers they employ in the shops and through the supply chain].

I think we'd need to see how much profit the big firms are still making even with this tax in place, to see whether there isn't room for the casinos to be less greedy and give the players a bit more back.

 

[Slottery]

Not sure if any companies are publishing numbers per market so can be hard to see how they are performing in certain countries which are regulated or no. Total numbers for big listed companies are awailable, Q3 results published not long time ago. Many are referring to Sweden changes and decreased profits since regulations took place beginning of the year.

One difference in gambling industry compare to for example coffeeshops is that many of them are running their operations in other countries and not employing that many people in Sweden, UK or any specific countries, many are almost fully based in Malta or other locations so they don't create that many jobs which country in question would benefit economically.

Not sure how UK big companies are all operating, do they have their operations like support, payments and other functions or do they have them in other countries becuse it's just cheaper and only relationship to UK is some office with some managers/directors.

 

[samdog21]

big time change in rtp at vs. but when you do win you don't get trophies like you used on the 4th go around on vikingruinfeild 5 trophies done not 1 spin on wheel of jackpots crazy. so I don't start new three? iam at 20xp like for a very fucking long time it says 180147.6 on 20xp does that mean I still need 30k xp points ty.

 

[goatwack]

♫ Oh, the times they are a-changin' ♫ ♪

Doo do, doo do

 

[EkJR]

Yep you're right
@CasinoLuck_Eric any comments?

Colin: can i check if you charge fees on deposits please?

Chris: yes that is correct 2.5%

Colin: is that on every method, skrill and other ewallets?

Chris: ewallets are not charged no

Colin: so just on cards? Thats illegal in the UK

Chris: we are not in the UK Colin sorry

Colin: I am though so it is illegal for you to charge a card surcharge to UK customers

Chris: we are governed by the UKGC and this is in the T&C's of the site Colin

Colin: where exactly in the T&C's please as I couldn't find it anywhere

Chris: your fins them at the bottom of the main page of the site

Colin: yes I did, and I searched them for deposit and couldn't find any mention of deposit fees

Chris: 7.3 You understand that all financial account transactions will be handled by Us, or third party electronic payment processors and/or financial institutions on Our behalf and checks on financial account transactions shall be done to prevent money laundering. To the extent that they do not conflict with the terms of this Agreement, You agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of such third party electronic payment processors and/or financial institutions. We reserve the right to run credit checks with third parties using the information submitted to Us by You through the opening of the Player Account or by any other means.

Colin: that doesn't mention a deposit fee anywhere?

Colin: so despite you saying its in the terms and conditions, it actually isn't? Are you based within the EU?

Colin:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Colin: When you pay for something in the EU using your credit or debit card, traders and banks cannot charge you an extra fee – also known as "surcharging" – just for using a particular card. This rule applies to all card purchases (in shops and online) made within your home country or in another EU country.

Chris: Colin, i am not a legal rep for the company i'm sorry i can not open your links to EU laws etc. if you wish to complain about our T&C's please email the manager on care@casinoluck.com

Colin: where are you actually based?

Chris: We, Aspire Global are based in Malta

They still charge £2.50 or so on Mr Play per transaction. It's actually scandalous. Wonder if there is also a withdrawal fee?

 

[GameRoom]

I lost over £700 in like 1 day doing bets £0.50 on @Team.Videoslots and I think i am moving on another casino Rizik or Casumo Videoslot is very good casino problem is I keep losing big time on lower bets and very hard to land bonus