"BGC and SMF dispute the proposal to increase the tax on machine games."

The Social Market Foundation and the Betting and Gaming Council hold different views on whether the government, or a possibly new Prime Minister, should increase Machine Games Duty. The SMF, having considered this idea for some time, argues that the most harmful machines, known as Category B, need to be appropriately taxed and that an adjustment to the rate is long overdue.

The Machine Games Duty, introduced in 2013, was not initially set at a level that accounts for the higher economic, social, and fiscal harms linked with machine gaming compared to other land-based gambling, according to the SMF in a six-point statement advocating for a tax increase. The SMF also highlighted that despite the harm caused by Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMs), their presence has notably increased in socially deprived areas, exacerbating the issue and calling for immediate intervention. There are six times more Adult Gaming Centres (AGCs) in the most deprived areas compared to the least deprived ones, based on population. This suggests a higher demand for these gaming products in economically challenged and financially struggling communities. The SMF backed its viewpoint with an estimated cost of £2.33 billion associated with these machines, which includes £669 million spent on welfare, housing, health payments, and crime. Meanwhile, the BGC has countered, emphasizing that the gaming sector supports approximately 109,000 jobs and contributes billions to the UK economy, a common argument from the trade group.

Doubling the Machine Games Duty wouldn't actually protect communities. Instead, it would lead to venue closures, job losses, and weaker high streets, while only benefiting the growing illegal gambling market that pays no taxes, offers nothing to local communities, and lacks consumer protections present in the regulated sector, according to the BGC. They criticized the SMF report for not estimating the costs associated with closing venues and the related job losses, as well as the broader impact on communities. Additionally, the BGC highlighted what they saw as a contradiction in the report, noting that the SMF claimed most people across demographics and political lines still opposed raising taxes. However, the SMF argued that closing these venues could create new high street opportunities. They explained that £1 million in consumer spending on retail or food typically generates a £600,000 tax windfall, compared to £500,000, without contributing to gambling issues.