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”.
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.
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.
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.