Casino Levy to be raised after Elections?

[spotter542]

1,000,000 X $100 = $10,000,000 already sio sio in their pockets.
Still not enough to keep their f**king mouth shut.
What more they want ?

 

[SneeringTree]

1,000,000 X $100 = $10,000,000 already sio sio in their pockets.
Still not enough to keep their f**king mouth shut.
What more they want ?

Not good with numbers?

 

[spotter542]

Not good with numbers?

Yeah. Failed miserably at mathematics in skool :p

 

[Ramseth]

Be thankful that they're not charging 7% GST on the levy to make it S$107 for single entry and S$2,140 for annual pass.

 

[spotter542]

Be thankful that they're not charging 7% GST on the levy to make it S$107 for single entry and S$2,140 for annual pass.

Think our SPG gahment must employ a great talent like you to slog for them

 

[cheepshootjuan]

I hope they do away with the levy. Singaporeans who want to gamble away their life savings should be allowed to do so. They have a right to do whatever they want with their own money.

many didn't know that we can use our credit cards to gamble in genting. they charged u M$30 for any amount u wanna withdraw. no question ask. just flash your card and state how much u need.

i m now saddled with credit cards loans debts. but i very clever. i use one visa card to pay for another card's debt. so whenever there is a new credit card promo, u bet i would apply for one. got free gifts some more. i need it badly to pay for the other credit card which is used to pay for the lst one loan which i lost in genting.

 

[SneeringTree]

many didn't know that we can use our credit cards to gamble in genting. they charged u M$30 for any amount u wanna withdraw. no question ask. just flash your card and state how much u need.

i m now saddled with credit cards loans debts. but i very clever. i use one visa card to pay for another card's debt. so whenever there is a new credit card promo, u bet i would apply for one. got free gifts some more. i need it badly to pay for the other credit card which is used to pay for the lst one loan which i lost in genting.

You are "clever"??? I hope you are being sacarstic here.

 

[Ramseth]

That's not a clever thing to do. If you can get credit cards, I'm sure you can also get overdraft credit lines. Use your ATM card to withdraw from credit line at an ATM machine, charge is RM 5 to RM 10 only. Furthermore, overdrafts charge interests about half of credit cards if you rollover.

many didn't know that we can use our credit cards to gamble in genting. they charged u M$30 for any amount u wanna withdraw. no question ask. just flash your card and state how much u need.

i m now saddled with credit cards loans debts. but i very clever. i use one visa card to pay for another card's debt. so whenever there is a new credit card promo, u bet i would apply for one. got free gifts some more. i need it badly to pay for the other credit card which is used to pay for the lst one loan which i lost in genting.

 

[aurvandil]

If you've followed the casino debates before the IRs were built, you might recall Vivi Bala, when presenting the casino levy scheme, unequivocally promised that the levy shall not be removed under any circusmstance. Therefore, political, in order for the levy to be removed, it has to be either Vivi Bala is also removed from MCYS or he cooks up some silly excuses like underestimation and LHL covers his back again.

Sometime you really have to wonder about VV...

First the YOG and now this ....

When Minister Balakrishnan was formulating the policy to deter problem gambling, he had a whole team of scholars, consultants, experts etc.

Somehow he came up with a policy which has clearly failed to deter Singaporeans but ended up generating a huge amount of $$$ for the PAP government.

 

[Screwball]

I believe it is one million non-unique visits. In other words, most Singaporeans who visit the casinos would have visited them multiple times.

Where got so many local visitors?
Everyday I am seeing more foreigners than locals when I am on duty there.
Unless they are also including the PRs and work permit holders too.
The ah tiongs are oredi outnumbering the other visitors 2 to 1.

 

[silverfox@]

If you read the casino gambling thread, I have been actually been eagarly waiting for the levy to be removed.

Based on the statistics released by the Minister, it is obvious that the levy is not working. We should therefore explore alternatives to control problem gambling.

A good alternative would be for Singaporeans to furnish their CPF/income tax details when they apply for their casino card. The process would be similar to applying for a credit card.

Based on this CPF/income tax details, the person can then be allocated an amount which the person can lose in 1 month (e.g. 10% of monthly income). Once this amount has been reached, the person can then be barred from entering the casino until the next month.

If we apply a system like this, we can effectively address problem gambling and even remove the levy so that all Singaporeans can go in and enjoy the casinos in moderation.

1. Got levy already people complain too little, no levy how to shut these people's mouth?

2. Ban singaporeans, this one will not go down happy with investors neither those who go casinos.

Actually the problem lies in impulse n irresponsible gambling. NCPG already have hotline for people to nominate their family members if they deem them as those with problem gambling? Still not enough? Like that means either the family members don't care for this family member or they cannot be bothered.

What are we targeting actually? Until now I don't understand is the report says having 1 million visits from Singaporeans is making who unhappy? The government is unhappy, people who are unhappy with having a casino in Singapore or people who don't like Singaporeans from entering casino?

Actually for us who have been paying levy, with or without levy doesn't make a difference, we also do not mind the levy goes to government coffers. In fact with a levy, we don't get to see people going into casino for fun just to crowd around play $5-$10.

How do we want the levy to really work to its effect? Only 100 singaporeans able to go to casino daily? $5000 daily levy?

 

[Screwball]

I think it is fairly obvious that the levy is generating a lot of government revenue but not having the desired impact of detering Singaporeans from gambling.

I am hearing from my bosses the government is not happy our casino is drawing gamblers money away from singapore pools.
Their takings have going down very much oredi after the IRs opened.

 

[myfoot123]

Last time many people were against having two casinos in Singapore but PAP never listened. Now they started to panick when everything is showing sign of side effect. Just like LKY admitted PAP do make wrong policies in the past but he never specifically state which one he made mistake.

 

[silverfox@]

Bro silverfox, there an entrance fee to enter Turfclub lah, of course beri cheap compare to the casino. As for jackpot, most clubs charge non member entrance fee too. according to a colleague who bowl at civil service club, it cost $50 just to play one arm bandit there.
As for the levy, it basically useless as a deterence. If a person want to gamble, he/she can go to great length just to gamble. I strongly believe the anti-gambling commision/agency is not doing singaporean any favour.

If those anti gambling ppl really visit these premises, they can see it only a small number of ppl who really need help in their gambling habit. It these ppl that need to be ban from entering casino/turfclub/singpool outlets/jackpot club etc etc... and not ordinary citizen who in control of themselves.

So govt better ask themselves, is the levy a mean to collect extra revenue or really use as a deterence which seriously is not working as many bros here had proof that serious punters will pay the $2000 for a year entrance fee as the $2000 is just chickenfeed to them.

paiseh, I meant the turf club booths in public where we buy horse bets. but have to agree with you that turf club got entrance and also the clubs got membership fees.

The last part on collecting extra revenue, I agree with you that govt wants extra revenue. $2000 yearly levy will not deter serious punters. But the question here is not serious punters, but those impulsive and irresponsible punters.

Smoking causes death, cancer, increase cigarette tax and levy, people still smoke. Why no one suggest banning cigarettes altogether?

Come to think of it, by looking at the statement above shows that having such a decision will make any politician look stupid if they make such a decision. :p

 

[Tan Kim Kim]

Until now I don't understand is the report says having 1 million visits from Singaporeans is making who unhappy? The government is unhappy, people who are unhappy with having a casino in Singapore or people who don't like Singaporeans from entering casino?

GMS unhappy loh, when Sinkies happy he not happy, when sinkies unhappy he happy cos can gain some votes

 

[silverfox@]

The other day 2nd Chance Mohammad Salleh said he banned his top management and executives from going casino.

I read this I want to laugh. Why? What is the ethnic group for most of their management and executives. In the 1st place, their religion do not allow gambling. Ban or no ban also same:o

 

[aurvandil]

1. Got levy already people complain too little, no levy how to shut these people's mouth? ?

Many of the people who are concerned about the social problems of the casinos want effective policies which can deter problem gambling.

THe current levy system is FAILING to deter problem gambling. The only thing which it is good for is collecting lots of $$$.

The example I have quoted where you use the casino card to limit how much Singaporeans can gamble is a possible policy alternative.

If we can have a policy where we control problem gambling while at the same time allow all Singareans to enjoy the casinos in moderation, then we should scrap the levy system and implement this policy.

 

[Ramseth]

GMS unhappy loh, when Sinkies happy he not happy, when sinkies unhappy he happy cos can gain some votes

As an Econs. Hons. Cpt. Goh should understand that the economic consideration of taxation is price elasticity. Can the government afford to tax the goods or services out of a certain level of demand affordability? The political consideration is social consequence and control of supply to keep it at an administratively manageable level and socially tolerance level. Otherwise, if something is deemed so undesirable and intolerable, just outlaw it, e.g. narcotics.

It's alright, economically, socially and morally logical to tax rich people more in order to help poor people. However, is it alright to make smart and responsible pay more to deter silly and irresponsible people?

 

[silverfox@]

What is Levy?
The entry levy is a policy enacted by the Singapore Government to signal that gambling is an expense, it is not a way to make a living, and to deter impulse gambling. Resorts World supports measures to promote responsible gambling.

If the purpose is to deter yet you have statistics which show that more than 1 million Singaporeans visited in 7 months, then it seems quite obvious that the levy is not having the desired deterence effect.

Deterring impulse gambling doesn't mean >1 million visits by Singaporeans are not deterring impulse gamblers.

I hope that everyone do not associate impulsive gamblers with normal gamblers.

If this figure is low, a lot of people will say "You see, have levy is so stupid, no one wants to go 2 IRs."

If this figure is 1 million, people start to say "the levy does not have desired deterrence effect."

So let me ask what is the desired deterrence effect everyone is looking at?

 

[silverfox@]

Many of the people who are concerned about the social problems of the casinos want effective policies which can deter problem gambling.

THe current levy system is FAILING to deter problem gambling. The only thing which it is good for is collecting lots of $$$.

The example I have quoted where you use the casino card to limit how much Singaporeans can gamble is a possible policy alternative.

If we can have a policy where we control problem gambling while at the same time allow all Singareans to enjoy the casinos in moderation, then we should scrap the levy system and implement this policy.

I get what you mean, but I do not agree that the govt should control us that much like kids, as to how we want to spend our money. Unless we are living in a communist country. If My money is the govt's money, that I got nothing to say.

Levy goes to help the country's coffers. If the levy I paid goes to charities or old aged home, seriously I don't mind, at least I did my part to help the country. :p