Veikkaus is needed to keep gambling under control
@ 5:30 am 
I almost missed this one, perhaps because I’m not a gambler. The European Commission is threatening to force Veikkaus, Finland’s state-owned gambling racket, to accept competitors from private industry. Finland’s response:
“…the monopoly is necessary in order to keep gambling under control.â€Â
Ha! Ha! Ha! I can’t stop laughing about this one, because I’ve only ever heard this type of rationale here in formerly isolated Finland. They’ll say anything to keep a protectionism scheme going for as long as possible.
And anything to extort more money from us. I think they used the same excuse for Alko, Finland’s overpriced, state-owned alcohol racket. That is, Alko is needed to keep alcoholism under control! Ha! Ha! Ha!
As I slowly regain my composure, I’m once again reminded of how Finland’s over-taxed economy conflicts with today’s economic realities. Once Veikkaus is either dissolved or privatized, stock shareholders in other countries will receive profit dividends from Finnish gambling.
One might think that profit dividends could stay here in Finland. But, unfortunately Finnish over-taxation discourages private investment. Too bad.
On the bright side, Finland can take solace in knowing that its gambling profits will fund some other country’s Opera, Healthcare, Education……….
It’s nice to be a charitable welfare state, isn’t it?
Man this really kills me
“…the monopoly is necessary in order to keep gambling under control.â€Â
and your follow up
” …Alko is needed to keep alcoholism under control ”
is sadly enough how some politicans are selling the idea to the people in Finland …to make them believe that it is the system ancourages them to gamble/drink unresponsibly NOT solely that is somehting under everyone’s control.
Long live the nanny state !
Comment by uncle sam — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 7:25 am
We can do the same thing as in the U.S. where private companies and mobs benefit from gambling by stopping the monopoly, or we can allow RAY to continue and distribute the mooney to charity organizations. I choose RAY. If we allow other companies to involve themselves, internationa criminal organizations are going to get involved and thats not good for anyone, that would mean money would flow outwards out of Finland in to the pockets of some select people. Do we want something like las vegas in Finland, I don’t.
Comment by saku — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 7:42 am
Because Unibet and so on consistently offer better odds (i.e. you have a greater chance of winning) you will lose _more_ money betting with them than you will betting with Veikaus, whose odds suck. Yeeeah, right. Newsflash for the Finnish government: if all odds are better, you are more likely to win relatively more (i.e. lose relatively less) on every euro you bet.
Comment by Fredrik Gustafsson — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 8:57 am
Kristian, the “high-tax” statement in every single post and comment has really become tiring. It also seems rather self-serving when its relevance is rather remote to the topic. Sure, tax is involved in everything that has to do with money, but repeating it every time just dilutes the real points that should be made on the state’s monopoly on gambling and alcohol.
Comment by David — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 9:13 am
“I choose RAY. If we allow other companies to involve themselves, internationa criminal organizations are going to get involved and thats not good for anyone, that would mean money would flow outwards out of Finland in to the pockets of some select people. Do we want something like las vegas in Finland, I don’t.” -saku
Where are your statistics that illegal gambling does not occur in Finland?
Comment by RAVE THE DAVE — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 9:50 am
Ha! Ha! Ha! I can’t stop laughing about this one, because I’ve only ever heard this type of rationale here in formerly isolated Finland.
So, your theory is that because about every western EU country has had - and many still do - a state monopoly in gambling that has to prove that .. err … it’s a Finnish peculiarity?
Why not check facts? I mean, you’re constantly wrong about, well, almost everything. I mean, there are a lot of things that could be better in Finland, but you manage to ruin every argument with … this attitude that you don’t have to check facts because you “know” that Finland is this strange outhouse museum.
Here are the arguments by the way (not that I’d expect you to read them):
* The raising of funds for socially useful projects was not on its own an acceptable justification for such a restriction, because of its economic character.
* The protection of consumers from fraud was an acceptable public interest objective, but only if the national court established that they were not sufficiently protected by the rules applicable to the foreign bookmakers.
* It was permissible to restrict the provision of betting services on social policy grounds, in order to counter its harmful moral and financial effects.
* The restriction must be proportional to the aim that is to be achieved and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that object.
Probably Finland - as well as Germany, Italy and all the rest - will have to give up the monopoly but not all restrictions.
Comment by Tomi — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 11:05 am
@#5: I don’t know if there is any illegal gambling right now in Finland, but we will have gambling that is run by criminal organizations if we remove gambling monopoly. The profits from gambling run by private companies would not benefit Finland at all, all it would do is lessen the money charities get from RAY and make finnish euros flow away from Finland, thats a fact you can’t dispute. That money made by individuals on gambling wouldn’t benefit Finland at all.
Comment by saku — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 11:59 am
As most of gambling in the world now happens on the internet, I do not think Finland even has a gambling monopoly anymore. If you are not satisfied to the service provided by Veikkaus, RAY or Fintoto, just log on to any gambling website. It is not illegal -as it is in the United States, that bastion of economic freedom- and the winnings cashed in from EU based companies are tax free as per Union regulations. Internet access is very easy to come by, even for free nowadays: no need to spend your gambling euros for buying a computer. If people are stupid enough to play Veikkaus games when there are better paying foreign companies available, well that is their problem.
The only thing in which Veikkaus etc. have a monopoly is having actual betting offices in Finland. As far as liberalisation goes, I say sure, let anyone open gambling establishments in Finland as long as they will contribute the same amount of their profits to Finnish charities etc. or pay the commensurate amount in taxes. A level playing field for all, what?
Comment by Drakon — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
I never thought I would ever says this..but Phil…please hurry back and boot Kristian and his one theme post off this blog..
At least you have some variation on the way you slag off Finns/Finland and Finnish…He only has one drum and one line of music and it has stuck…click click click..TAX TAX TAX:::::.
Comment by Karhu — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
I would not want to see Veikkaus or RAY demolished. After all, even if I lose playing their games, at least I know the money stays in Finland and goes more or less to charity. Have some foreign gambling companies here and the money goes outside. Not exactly a good way of keeping wealth in Finland, eh?
Comment by Kez0nat0r — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
Drakon:
It is not illegal -as it is in the United States
It’s not illegal in most states either. You can gamble in most states if the service provider still accepts your money (many don’t) and you can transfer it to them somehow.
Comment by mh — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
mh, my mistake: that notorious H.R. 4411, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, that would make it illegal for US credit card companies and financial institutions to send money to foreign gaming sites, is not signed into a law yet, but has to go through Senate first.
It is the future implications of this bill that has driven so many European and Caribbean etc. gambling companies from the US market. If accepted, it will indeed make gambling on foreign websites illegal, at least if you try to do it by depositing money by using a US-based bank etc.
Comment by Drakon — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
4. “the “high-tax†statement in every single post and comment has really become tiring.”
9. “boot Kristian and his one theme post off this blog..”
Absolutely, it’s time to remove the scratched record.
Comment by pi — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
I suppose there are government agencies that monitor the monies that Veikkaus and RAY take in?
And how do they decide where the money should go? I seem to recall several months back the decision taken by RAY to stop funding for the MediHeli helicopter ambulance… ostensibly threatening many lives.
Meanwhile, they continue to fund weekend getaways for prisoners to have congugal visits with their wives at hotels and restaurants.
Who really decides who gets what money?
And, are all those fruit machines really playing “by the rules?” What are the rules, besides that you have to be 15 years old to play them, anyway? Does RAY have any reliable statistics for the rate of winning/losing on those machines, like the Veikkaus does for scratch cards and lotto odds?
Comment by DAVE THE RAVE — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Opponents of Cristiano Ronaldo, the Manchester United and Portugal striker famed for his stepover dribbling, describe him as a “one-trick pony”. I think it’s a rather suitable epithet here.
Comment by kylmä totuus — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
David: “Kristian, the “high-tax†statement in every single post and comment has really become tiring. It also seems rather self-serving when its relevance is rather remote to the topic.”
Actually, I see it as being very relevant. Please let me explain…
Notice, in the article, I’m not debating whether Veikkaus is socially beneficial to Finland; no doubt it provides needed funding for arts, healthcare, education, etc. Nor am I discussing whether its moral vs. immoral; I have no idea whether it’s moral or not. I’m not even discussing whether or not it’s a good idea to privatize gambling. I couldn’t care less about these aspects, but you are free to discuss them all you wish.
My point is that apparently the European Commission will FORCE gambling into the private sphere. We are not the ones to decide this issue. However, we CAN decide how to channel the EC’s decision’s consequences in OUR favor.
The only way I can determine is by changing tax rates to encourage more private investment here in Finland. That way, gambling profits that flow out of Finland will be offset by money that flows inward due to our investment holdings.
That’s how I see “today’s economic realities.” Is there anything that I’m neglecting to consider?
Comment by Kristian — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
I like the Finnish gambling laws. The profits go to Charity and there’s not U.S style goons and thugs running the shows. Keep this system!
Comment by Nokia Guru — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
By the way, I do agree that I used the word ‘tax’ too many times. Sorry for the tedium. Maybe I should edit the post later? My concern is that when someone finds this in google, they’ll understand the consequences of EC’s decissions more clearly, in relation to our financial condition here in Finland.
Comment by Kristian — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Let’s face it. You have a choice between Ladbrokes giving you back 90 cents for every euro you give them, or you have Veikkaus giving you back 80 cents (your mileage will vary). In the case of Ladbrokes, the 10 cents goes to the shareholders, who spend their dividend income as they see fit. In the case of Veikkaus and RAY, the 20 cents goes - as a form of supplementary and voluntary taxation if you want to call it that - to various socially worthy bodies and services. In both cases, you are effectively pissing your money up against a wall, and having varying amounts of it splash back on your trousers. Were the sums reversed, and were you getting more back from Veikkaus, I very much doubt whether those who describe Veikkaus as a “racket” (including the disingenuous “methinks the blogger doth protest too much” Kristian) would be making much noise. And if Kristian DID drag this subject up with his incessant moaning about taxation and the flight of capital, he’d be sharply whacked.
Where this subject does get interesting is in the dichotomy between a country preaching that it needs something like Veikkaus “to combat or ameliorate the evils of gambling”, when at the same time Veikkaus is not apparently confined by the same laws as cover, someone like Alko, say, on advertising its products to the public at large. Alko running large TV commercials urging us all to buy a Saturday bottle of Kossu? I don’t think so. But Veikkaus seems not to be similarly constrained (see the “economic character” reference in #6 above). This is part of the EU beef of course - you can’t have it both ways.
Comment by kylmä totuus — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
Ahem…
http://virtual.finland.fi/stt/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=15336&group=General
Comment by Karhu — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
Kristian is right on.. Finland is a very good country and stupid tax laws is what are preventing this country from moving forwards… (eg of dumb taxation in Finland)
1. VAT on top of the 30% car tax. Supposedly you have already paid VAT when the car was bought. Clearly illegal
2. Veikkaus monopoly. Allegations that this prevents illegal gambling are laughable
3. Alko monopoly. Another joke.
4. Inheritance tax. Give me a break
The latest is that now some “pundits” are saying that lowering the tax on food items may be a bad thing because the savings may not be passed onto the consumer. After all they claim that there is not problem now, so why do it… Great logic guys, never mind that Sweden did the same thing several years ago and more than 75% of the savings were passed to the consumer. But hey… logic need not apply in Finland
Comment by uncle sam — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
As far as liberalisation goes, I say sure, let anyone open gambling establishments in Finland as long as they will contribute the same amount of their profits to Finnish charities etc. or pay the commensurate amount in taxes.
Exactly. Now the real underlying “problem” as with TEOSTO and other such monopolies is that their top-heavy management would loose these nice government mandate shelter jobs for politicians.
Comment by Hank W. — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
High taxes are another protectionist measure. If they tax the population directly and indirectlt to the hilt they can’t afford to buy imported goodies. Instead, Finns ahve to consume the output of the Finnish public sector
Phil, Alko will not be bought by a foreign company because the Finnish government wouldn’t dream of selling it to a foreign company. The same goes for veikkaus. The Finnish government will continue to enjoy the monopoly profits from both organisations.
Finns lose out big time from protectionism and their cartelised economy.
High prices
poor choice
poor quality
Don’t criticise them, feel sorry for them instead. But what are you still doing living there?
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
The crime here is taxing/getting revenue from one item, in this case gambling, and then using the proceeds to fund something completely unrelated, charities, etc. (OK, funding gambling addiction programs is related.)
This has to be the most inefficient way of funding programs. There is no donor evaluation of the programs requesting the money so that that should not continue are funded anyway only some behind the scenes evaluation to see if the program meets certain requirements, not if the people want to pay for those kinds of charities. Many probably would not exist if they have to sell themselves to the donors. Who buys stuff that they don’t want?
The Government has high taxes in order to support the Social Welfare state. This action basically says those other items are outside what is considered Social Welfare but through the control of gambling revenue, they can provide these ‘extras’ in order to make the people feel good about the system. Not to mention that most gambling is not much more than a stupidity tax which is paid mostly by those least able to afford it.
Comment by Fred Fry — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
To those of you that think the Veikkaus monopoly (if it is) keeps the crime away, maybe you should read the papers or follow the news. At least Finnish football with it’s corruption and betting is big business abroad, nothing veikkaus can do about that. Thnk you internet.
As for the odds, I agree that they are poor by international standards but as in the last paragraph, thank you interenet. If however the Finnish government had tried to prevent players from gambling online, then and only then would I have a problem. Up to now and no doubt in the future, they will continue to operate under a sysytem that provides the best of both worlds, private or State, under the headline of free choice. It’s just a pity they don’t do this in regards to a few more old monopolies here.
BTW, the problem is to so with the fact that while Veikkaus is free to advertise, they are preventing competitors from doing so on the basis of not wanting to encourage gambling, something their own advertising might be seen to do
Comment by Punter — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
Nany state story
New Nanny law in Virginia: No real cut down trees in a house for Christmas unles the house has a sprinkler system. You know the result, many venders now out of business, for a new Nanny law.
SO; A radio guy calls up the Bill writer, a young man who is a firefighter to congratulate him:
Firefighter: Hello
Radio: This is Radio station in Norfork calling on the new fire bill, congradulations
Firefighter: Thanks
Radio; can I ask you some questions
Firefighter: Sure
Radio: How many home fires in Virginia in the last year from burning trees?
Firefighter: Uh, none
Radio: How many home fires in Virginia in the last 2 years from burning trees?
Firefighter: Uh, none
Radio: How many home fires in Virginia in the last 5 years from burning trees?
Firefighter: Uh, none
Radio: How many home fires in Virginia ever from burning trees?
Firefighter: Uh, none
Now the poor radio host was upset, and asked:
WHY??????????
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/AV/tree_fire.mov
I wish the above flambéd tree was in the radio host’s living room.
Radio hosts are assholes.
Comment by DAVE THE RAVE — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
I do right now prefer to see Veikkaus in charge, rather than some private companies who will do even more than Veikkaus does to get people out and spend their hard earned money.
This doesn’t to me go along the same lines with taxation - this is rather something in the group with drugs.
I understand that there are a lot of people who want to make money on people’s gambling problems but I wouldn’t be against private gambling companies if they weren’t allowed to advertise and their business was extremely transparent and open for anyone who wanted to “dig” in their numbers. And if the number of people with gambling problems in a “privatized gambling”-Finland would be higher compared to a “Veikkaus”-Finland then I think that the whole project should be shut down and closed.
Comment by Mikael — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
#26: ‘WHY??????????’
Just curious: did the firefighter reply to that?
Comment by aet75 — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 10:59 pm
@28 “…who will do even more than Veikkaus does to get people out and spend their hard earned money.”
Have you been living in another planet ? Veikkaus advertises heavily both in TV and magazines to get people out and spend their money.
The state should not be in the business of controlling what people do and how they should behave. For that go to North Korea.
Comment by uncle bill — Fri, Mar 23rd, 2007 @ 11:10 pm
Fredrik Gustavsson:
“Because Unibet and so on consistently offer better odds (i.e. you have a greater chance of winning) you will lose _more_ money betting with them than you will betting with Veikaus, whose odds suck. Yeeeah, right. Newsflash for the Finnish government: if all odds are better, you are more likely to win relatively more (i.e. lose relatively less) on every euro you bet.”
If Veikkaus
a) pays salaries to their FINNISH employees
b) redistribute their profits to the FINNISH society
YOU, if you’re a professional gambler, may be worse off, but everybody else benefits.
Even if Veikkaus might be inefficient (or whatever you libertarians might complain about), it’s inefficient in FINLAND. Thus, it’s potential inefficiency (since innefficiency generates costs, and costs cause money to be used - right - in FINLAND) still benefits the finnish society. Unlike Unibet, where the profits will NOT re-enter the finnish economy (at least not directly).
It’s as simple as that.
Why do you people think those gangsters in Chicago in the 30’s killed each other over - not only the booze mnarket - but gambling as well. Because if you have monopoly, then you have more profit. If Veikkaus has monopoly, and is state owned, it sure as hell benfits FINLAND more than Unibet ever does. Some lucky winners may lose some, but society in GENERAL WINS.
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Mar 24th, 2007 @ 12:02 am
pi:
“Absolutely, it’s time to remove the scratched record.”
Agreed.
I could have predicted his themes in advance.
The “autovero ultimate rip-off”, “the FANTASTIC SWISS health-care, as compared to the crap finnish”, “The ‘high’ finnish taxes resulting in a loss of wealth” etc. These themes Kristian has babbled about endlessly even before he became THE GUEST BLOGGER.
But - one has to keep in mind, that Kristian, is really “Kristian from Espoo” - Espoo being the town whose inhabitants mistook the eduskunta election for a presidential election. Under these parameters, it’s easy to understand that he sounds like a “scratched record”.
Now, Phil is also from Espoo, but seems - at least a bit - more varied in his (mostly fairly naive) attacks on the welfare state.
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Mar 24th, 2007 @ 12:36 am
Fred Fry:
“The crime here is taxing/getting revenue from one item, in this case gambling, and then using the proceeds to fund something completely unrelated, charities, etc. (OK, funding gambling addiction programs is related.)”
THE CRIME?????
Where is THE CRIME? Which LAW - except your imaginary ones - is VEIKKAUS/anyone else breaking?
You libertarians and your imaginary LAWS are really something.
Just FYI, taxes or costs aren’t earmarked in Finland.
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Mar 24th, 2007 @ 12:55 am
Here’s an idea: Since we’ll likely be forced to go private regardless, we should build casinos here in Helsinki and reinvent ourselves as the gabling mecca of the Baltic.
Jobs, economic activity, revenues to fund the opera, etc.
Naturally, we can’t escape the reality of needing to reform our tax system. Otherwise, only foreigners (i.e. those who live abroad) will be able to own them.
Comment by Kristian — Sat, Mar 24th, 2007 @ 2:22 am
Thomas:
YOU, if you’re a professional gambler, may be worse off, but everybody else benefits.
You don’t have to be a professional gambler to be a winning player in poker. There are a number of amateur internet poker players who make a small profit.
Comment by mh — Sat, Mar 24th, 2007 @ 2:45 am
“Just curious: did the firefighter reply to that?”
he had no answer, I was driving on the road, and was amazed this guy would admit to what he did.
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Sat, Mar 24th, 2007 @ 3:09 am
Huh
“I wish the above flambéd tree was in the radio host’s living room.
Radio hosts are assholes.
Comment by DAVE THE RAVE”
Dave, the radio guy was just trying to congratulate the do gooder. For what he originally thought was a good idea.
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Sat, Mar 24th, 2007 @ 3:13 am
@33 Thomas:
“Which LAW - except your imaginary ones - is VEIKKAUS/anyone else breaking?”
1.Veikkaus is allowed to market its services extensively through private retailers, while other gaming operators ARE NOT allowed to promote themselves.
2.Veikkaus DOES NOT meet the definition of a non-profit charitable organisation, because of its marketing, and the ambitious business goals
There you are … Happy now ?
Comment by uncle sam — Sat, Mar 24th, 2007 @ 7:53 am
Thanks uncle sam, saved me typing it. As for Kristian’s point about becomming the gambling Mecca of the Baltics, I’ve long held the view that we should climb down from our moral highground and develop just such a place. With our proximity to Russia and Estonia, both places that enjoy “a gamble” I think a truely international casino and “entertainment centre” complete with the trimmings would make a fortune here. Kotka would be ideal with a new purpose built airport and harbour facilities to handle the foreign “players. Think of the money that would flow on for the investors and all of that newly found tax revenue for the welfare state.
Only problem is that we in Finland are so much better than our neighbours and would never put ourselves down to their level, to clean money. That’s why there is no corruption here and………… Well we know how it ends.
Comment by Punter — Sat, Mar 24th, 2007 @ 8:24 am
“we should build casinos here in Helsinki and reinvent ourselves as the gabling mecca of the Baltic.” -kristian
Gambling is a scourge. There is a reason people outlawed it throughout history. Besides, the chances of Finland becoming the mecca of something like that when we are surrounded by much cheaper and petentially more devious neighbors (ie. the actual Baltic countries).
Comment by RAVE THE DAVE — Sat, Mar 24th, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
Uncle Bill: Have you been living in another planet ? Veikkaus advertises heavily both in TV and magazines to get people out and spend their money.
The state should not be in the business of controlling what people do and how they should behave. For that go to North Korea.
And do you expect that to get any better with private companies dominating the gambling scene?
I don’t think that gambling has anything to do with the normal economical sphere - in a normal economical sphere there is a seller and a buyer who interact in business, the seller tries to improve his products and prices while the buyer tries to find the best products, resulting in improving of the market and also in the standard of living among people. In gambling, however, there is no seller nor buyer - there are just people who try to suck out as much money of the other as possible. It’s just a market ruled by immoral people and very often make those who lose desperate, which then makes them lose even more. Gambling doesn’t improve the society and the economical flow isn’t needed as those who gamble would do better things for themselves and the general economy by paying their debts or investing the money in shares or in estate
Comment by MIkael — Sat, Mar 24th, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
I think that Fintoto and RAY also advertises, but not as much as Veikkaus.
At least Fintoto monopoly has a reasoning behind it: The money is used on prices in horse races and thus goes directly to people living from horses. Without that money it would be economically impossible to own, train and breed horses, so there would be no horse races in Finland. I think that Fintotos monopoly is the only possible solution, and it is fair towards the little entrepreneurs in the business.
Comment by henry — Sat, Mar 24th, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
“Without that money it would be economically impossible to own, train and breed horses” and “I think that Fintotos monopoly is the only possible solution”
Henry,
What makes it impossible in Finland where it is possible in other countries? Since other countries do not fund this ‘hobby’, maybe there is another way, but the reason why this is uneconomical is probably related to regulations. If that is the case, fixing the law is another solution.
Or maybe, this type of activity should not be funded/done in Finland. It is hardly a sport of the people.
Comment by Fred Fry — Sat, Mar 24th, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
Fred,
The horse racing industry is funded by taxes or licence fees on betting in both the United States and the United Kingdom. But in these countries it is a much bigger industry than in Finland and the potential nationwise audience is several times larger. So is the revenue from any gambling taxes. Also, both countries give out government grants for racing and horse breeding, which of course are two interconnected fields.
“It is hardly a sport of the people.”
Exactly, this is a marginal sport, even in the Finnish context. Only a small amount of people are interested in it. If Finland had to fund horse racing by taxes on private gambling companies, those taxes would probably have to be punitively high: the local gambling market is small and very few people outside of the country are interested in Finnish races. Fintoto pays out more to Finnish horse racing than private companies could affort to and make a reasonable profit. Therefore the basically no-profit-monopoly is justified. What, in the end, is wrong with the bettors footing the bill for a sport they enjoy?
“but the reason why this is uneconomical is probably related to regulations.”
Henry above told you that horse racing in Finland is currently only possible BECAUSE of government regulations, not in spite of them. This is an interesting knee jerk reaction on your part: if something is uneconomical, it just has to be so because of the bad, interfering government. This is prejudice, pure and simple. It is a bit like claiming that pineapple farming would certainly be profitable in Lapland, if it wasn’t for the suppressive farming policies of the Finnish government and/or the European Union. Local conditions, too, are an important determinant and they vary a lot.
Comment by Drakon — Sat, Mar 24th, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
Honest Asif (your odds-on favourite in Karachi since 1966) sez:
What with the goings on in Jamaica, thems CEOs of those barstid monoperly betting companies is going to be browning their trarsers right about now, since all the parlmentarians in Gemrany and Eyetaly and Funland and whatnot, they’s going to be DEAD KEEN to do the EU’s bidding and smash the windows of pro-tecshun-ism and let in the clean, wholesome air of international betting companies like mine quicker than you can say “Bob Woolmer’s vomit”. Don’t you reckon? Stands to reason, dunnit? It’s a bigger certainty than Liverpool against Wimbledon in the 1988 Cup Final, right?
By the way, a lickle birdie gave me a tip that the fix is in for tonight’s big match in the ‘Oly Land. I could tell you what the fix is, but then I’d have to take four grand off you for the privilege and probably get one of the lads to strangle you after. Business is business, innit?
http://footballisfixed.blogspot.com/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032400256.html
P.S. Veikkaus is offering 4.40 on Israel and Laddiebrokes only 4.00, nudge-nudge, wink-wink.
Comment by Ficksett, Cheetham & Welch — Sat, Mar 24th, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
Uncle Sam:
“There you are … Happy now ?”
No.
You didn’t answer the question. You just answered questions in your own head. I’m not interested in those answers. I’m interested in the answer to MY QUESTION.
GET IT?
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Mar 24th, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
Thanks Drakon,
“It is a bit like claiming that pineapple farming would certainly be profitable in Lapland, if it wasn’t for the suppressive farming policies of the Finnish government and/or the European Union. Local conditions, too, are an important determinant and they vary a lot.”
No, common sense dictates that you don’t grow pineapples in Finland. What else does that apply to?
Comment by Fred Fry — Sat, Mar 24th, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
Kristian:
“Naturally, we can’t escape the reality of needing to reform our tax system.”
Naturally we’ll keep hearing your complaints about taxation. Naturally, it will be based on unsubstantited claims. Naturally it will be claiming to be connected to REALITY, whilst it truly is connected only to your feverish espoonian mind.
But here’s the truth. Unlike the PARADISE (Switzerland) our taxes cannot be changed according to your tax-paradise wishes. We cannot invite Toni Räikkönen to become a tax-paradise inhabitant, gambling in your tax-haven casinos. The EU doesn’t allow this. Grow up, and get a fucking life will you.
Switzerland will have their tax-haven revised sooner or later. I wouldn’t want to live in their parasite country. And unlike you, I don’t think PARADISE is eternal. It’s just a matter of time, and the swiss will be in pain.
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Mar 24th, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
Fred Fry:
“No, common sense dictates that you don’t grow pineapples in Finland. What else does that apply to?”
Most of the libertarian ideals?
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Mar 24th, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
Kristian:
“As I slowly regain my composure”
Try to regain the little sanity - if any - you might have had. While you’re at it.
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Mar 24th, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
DARFUR UPDATE:
“At least 450,000 people have died from disease and violence in the conflict, and more than 2.5 million — around half the area’s entire population — have fled to vast displacement camps whose numbers continue to swell.”
And Finland sent their troups to be Human Shields for Iran.
Go figure that mindset. It is about OIL right?
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Sat, Mar 24th, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
Winter:
““At least 450,000 people have died from disease and violence in the conflict, and more than 2.5 million  around half the area’s entire population  have fled to vast displacement camps whose numbers continue to swell.â€Â
And Finland sent their troups to be Human Shields for Iran.
Go figure that mindset. It is about OIL right? ”
At least 600000 have died as a result of your IDIOT presidents actions in Iraq. And the US simply continues this slaughter. Yet, IDIOTs from the US continue accusing finns for a disaster going on in Sudan.
Even if the Sudan situation is heartbreaking, I’m NOT, like in NEVER, NO FUCKING WAY, going to admit I’m responsible. You US morons are probably more likely culprits. Once again.
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Mar 24th, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
“more likely” - Thomas
Were you on the debating team in junior high?
Comment by RAVE THE DAVE — Sat, Mar 24th, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
And winter, go put that broken light bulb back in your arse or something.
Comment by RAVE THE DAVE — Sat, Mar 24th, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
DAVE:
“Were you on the debating team in junior high?”
Not that I know of. In fact I never went to school in the US.
Comment by Thomas — Sun, Mar 25th, 2007 @ 12:27 am
Uh Sudan, the UN asked the USA to go. We declined, said F%$k no to Kofi Annan.
So you may be right, we are to blame. At least we did not become “Human Shields” for Iran with our troups.
By the way did Kofi even bother to ask you? No? Well that explains it, he was not going to even waste his time asking.
Which brings up the question? Why ask the USA?
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Sun, Mar 25th, 2007 @ 12:36 am
Comment by majava — Sun, Mar 25th, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
http://4.hzcheporn.info x http://4.ebrxpornooox.info x
Comment by Nbkvqmi — Fri, Jun 15th, 2007 @ 6:13 pm