MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1502958263

Bet on It: The Taxation of Online Gambling

2008· article· en· W1502958263 on OpenAlexaffabout
Benjamin Alarie, Alex Ingelman

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasualRevenuePopularityTax revenueBusinessPublic economicsLegitimacyEconomicsAdvertisingPolitical sciencePoliticsLawFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internet use has grown dramatically in Canada in recent years. This trend has joined with the increasing popularity and social legitimacy in Canada of gambling to produce an environment that is particularly receptive to the growth of online gambling. Online gambling sites compete with gambling options provided by provincial governments. This is problematic. Casual gambling gains are not subject to income tax at the federal or provincial level. This has been acceptable historically because subjecting casual gambling gains to income tax is administratively difficult and provincial governments have been earning considerable and growing revenues in an indirect way by being the regulators and providers of most Canadian gambling opportunities. However, to the extent that Canadians (and tourists from the United States and elsewhere) are now beginning to substitute online gambling with foreign entities for gambling facilities controlled by the provinces, this indirect revenue will be lost. The primary implication of the proliferation of foreign gambling websites is therefore that Canadian provincial governments will be sacrificing gambling revenues.
\n
\nCanadian policymakers should respond to this challenge by asking and answering two fundamental questions. First, should net gambling gains be made subject to income tax? Second, how should online gambling be regulated? With regard to the first question, so long as an effective response is mounted to the issues raised by the second question, net gambling gains need not be taxed. Given widespread tastes for gambling and the possibilities presented by emerging technologies, prohibition is not likely to be a stable long-term approach. As the early 20th century experiences with the attempted prohibition of alcohol demonstrated, attempts to prohibit online gambling are apt to be costly to enforce and relatively ineffective. Two more promising routes to preserve government revenues from gambling include (i) following the example set by the United Kingdom in fashioning a new regulatory approach for gambling more generally (this would require the cooperation of the federal government); and (ii) within the existing legal framework at the federal level, provinces individually or collectively could operate one or more competing online gambling sites.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)Same topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207