If Betting Were Taxed Like Cigarettes - A Health Levy on Every Stake - Would You Still Bet?

[TaffyTipster]

Never thought about it that way.

When Conor was in therapy.

Who paid for that?

 

[DublinDegen]

irish public health system covered most of it...

so... everyone did...

 

[CoachTony_Bets]

That's the answer to the policy question right there.

Not theoretical. Actual.

Conor's therapy. Funded by taxes. Addiction created by an industry that contributed nothing to the cost.

 

[ParlayPrincess_88]

I never think about this stuff from a policy perspective.

But that's actually not fair is it.

The bookmakers made money from Conor and everyone like him.

The public paid for what came after.

 

[DublinDegen]

it's fine... i'm fine with it honestly...

that's what public health systems are for...

but yeah when you put it that way...

 

[ThePuntingProf]

The question of whether I would still bet is simple: yes, though with reduced volume at current margins, I have a genuine edge that a 10% levy would not entirely eliminate given my stake levels and selectivity, but the more interesting question the framing produces is whether I have ever honestly accounted for the external costs of my betting in any calculation I have made, the answer is no, I have tracked every penny of profit and loss for thirty years and have never included a line for what my betting has cost the health system in stress-related consultations, what it has cost in services I have used during difficult periods, what it cost Margaret in worry she absorbed without complaint, the levy would be a formal acknowledgment of costs that already exist and are already being paid, just not by me, I find that genuinely difficult to sit with.

 

[TaffyTipster]

Prof "costs that already exist and are already being paid, just not by me."

That's the sentence.

 

[SharpEddie47]

The externality made personal.

We track our own costs obsessively.

We've never tracked what we've externalized onto others.

Partners. Health systems. Friends who've absorbed the stress of being around us during bad periods.

That's a spreadsheet nobody maintains.

 

[FadeThePublic]

The levy is interesting because it tries to internalize those costs.

Make the bettor pay for what the bettor creates.

Standard economic solution to an externality.

We all said we'd still bet.

But would we bet with less resentment? Knowing the cost was going somewhere useful?

 

[TaffyTipster]

Honestly yes a bit.

If I knew a portion of my losses was funding addiction services I'd feel marginally less bad about losing.

Which is probably what the policy designers intend.

 

[ParlayPrincess_88]

That's interesting.

Like carbon offsets for betting.

Still doing the damage but at least funding something to address it.

 

[noviCore]

I probably still would but I’d be more selective. If every stake had an extra levy it would naturally push people toward fewer bets and better spots instead of constant action. In a way that might actually improve discipline.

 

[Klaus]

The offset framing deserves scrutiny.

Carbon offsets are criticized for allowing guilt-free continuation of harmful behavior.

The bet levy might function similarly.

"I pay the levy so I'm contributing" as psychological permission to continue without examining the behavior itself.

 

[FadeThePublic]

Klaus correct.

The levy might be the worst outcome for individual behavior change while being the best outcome for public funding.

It solves the policy problem while removing pressure on the personal problem.

 

[CoachTony_Bets]

Good point.

The cigarette tax didn't make smokers feel better about smoking. It just raised money.

A bet levy would probably do the same. Raise money. Not change much at individual level.

Because the people who'd change their behavior based on price were probably going to change it anyway.

The ones who wouldn't: already in Conor's territory.

 

[DublinDegen]

yeah the tax wouldn't have stopped me at my worst...

nothing financial would have...

which is sort of the definition of the problem...