Im all for free enterirpise, but do you want us to end up like the US, where corporations are pretty much taking control of everything and dictating the US way of life, all the while exploiting every single negative aspect of human life just to make a few bucks? As you’ve already pointed out, the government already dictates how much alcohol I can buy in a pub, for instance. The problem is that it’s easier to prove someone is pissed off their face, over someone who’s spent way too much money at the pokies. Cashless systems would at least force someone to have a break or step away if time or spending limits are mandated.
Yes it’s a slippery slope, but it’s also a massive problem when it comes to gambling and there’s too many nefarious players and too many industries that are 100% dependent and exploitive of the regular populace.
In terms of your other points, the government is looking at restricting limits on food based on a sugar tax. The same way they’ve done it on tobacco and to a certain extent alcohol (even though the alcohol one has nothing to do with recouping costs on healthcare). They’ve already done it with sports cars by having to pay a higher tax rate when purchasing and I 100% agree that the same should apply to those massive oversized small-dick implying utes that are driving around everywhere.
Pokies in canberra wont accept a 50 or 100 note, i think other states cap it at $1 a spin.
Wont stop a poor gran or her pension losing what little she has but its a start.
And get rid of the fucking advertising is an easy one.
Id also place noise limits on any machines, reduce visible signs on streets so they cant be heard across the road like some sirens call to drown a lost sailor.
Dozens of things that could be done to chip away at the problem, and also make the city and bars a nicer place to be, before you even have to touch something like a mandatory cashless card
Cashless cards though are also designed to stop criminal organisations laundering money through the pokies… Not sure you could do anything to stop them unless you went cashless. Problem is that the clubs are loving the laundering because they get shittonnes of money going through
Yeah I think if you just proposed banning pokies there would be an easy majority.
We can make a day of it. Bring them all to one location and let the Army & Airforce have some fun by blowing the fuck out of it. Even the navy could lob a couple of missiles their way. PPV broadcast to cover the costs and we can all enjoy it and society would be improved.
Sorry about the delay in responding, I’ve had a bit on this week.
Preventing someone from spending what they have is completely different to imposing a tax though. A tax doesn’t prevent someone from buying something, it’s just a deterrent. You can still spend as much as you want on sugar or sportscars and send yourself broke doing it, the Government isn’t setting a limit on your spending.
Look at what has happened with tobacco. The Government has increased the tax on it so much that it has created a huge black market for the product. Rival gangs are now going around fire bombing shops, innocent people are getting caught up in the violence (residents that live above the shops) and the Government is taking in less and less excise every week as people source the cheaper, illegal alternative.
Problem gamblers are going to gamble. If they can’t play the pokies because they’ve maxed out their cashless card they’ll transfer money to someone else and they’ll play on their behalf. They can also just walk into the sports bar and play Keno or bet on the TAB until they lose the lot.
Also, how would you set the limit? Going on a percentage of someone’s income would not work as everyone has a different set of financial circumstances even if they earn roughly the same amount each week.
I work full time, I’m single and have no kids, I rent and do not have any debt. I have a much higher level of expendable income then someone who does the same job, has a couple of kids and is paying off a mortgage or a car.
Am I limited to gambling what they can afford or can they gamble what I can afford?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m firmly in the no pokies in pubs camp. My local sold theirs around 12 months ago and I haven’t heard a single person complain apart from those patrons the pub is better off without. Anyone who thinks that a pub with pokies is better than one without is wrong.
It’s just not going to happen though. The Pubs and Clubs lobby are far too powerful and donate far too much money to both sides of politics for their to be any meaningful action taken. There’s also the huge loss in revenue that the Government will have to try and find a replacement for.
The problem with that approach, you see it with the corporate bookmakers, is that the business will then pass that cost onto the punter.
The Government upped the tax the bookies had to pay and they subsequently lowered their liabilities. The odds are skinnier and they’re taking more of the pool but people are still increasing the amount that they bet with them, they’re just essentially paying more.
Pubs will just wind the pokies in which will see those using them lose even more money. At the moment they are legally required to Return to the Player (RTP) no less than 85% of the money wagered over the life of the machine. Depending on how many machines a venue has, the higher they make that percentage.
If a pub has 30 machines then they’re more than likely setting them around the 90-92% mark because they want the player to feel as though they’re winning more often. Clubs will go as high as 95% as they can carry many more machines.
If the pub only has a handful of machines then they’re more likely going to be paying out around 87%.
If you increase the tax that the pub or club has to pay then they’re going to wind those percentages back towards the 85% mark so the gamblers will be losing more and quicker.
I thought the idea was that people set their own limit? So if you’re on a pension, you know you can only afford maybe $100. But the barrister can set $10,000. The way it protects you is that you are forced to stop where your rational considered mind thinks you need to, and don’t then keep chasing the win that’s just around the corner to get yourself in real strife?
Gambling is different to the sugar taxes etc because of the ridiculously addictive nature of it, and the fact that everything about them is designed to get you to keep playing. More analogous to cigarettes than sugar.
My view (formed when Andrew Wilkie was pushing for mandatory pre-commitment schemes) is that a gambler should basically be free to choose how much to lose, but they make it in advance and don’t just make the call when they’re in the mania.
If you walk into the pub and say " willing to lose $1k", you’re a dickhead but that’s your choice. It’s the person who unconsciously chooses to lose $1k that I worry for, and we should protect them from machines designed to fleece them.
Pre-commitment schemes give people ensure that they are given the time and information to make a considered choice.
The card only scheme should have the same carve out as the pre-commitment scheme - if you want to play a penny machine, go for it. But you need to register for high intensity machines, and you should get a monthly statement to tell you how you went. That feature you got three weeks ago won’t seem so amazing if you’re still $800 underwater for the month.