The Betting and Gaming Council has come out swinging against proposals to double the machine games duty, labelling the idea as economically damaging and poorly thought through. The Social Market Foundation’s call to raise MGD from 20% to 40% would, according to the BGC, threaten jobs, close venues, and ultimately hand the initiative to illegal operators.

The SMF’s Argument

The Social Market Foundation made a straightforward case: gaming taxes should reflect the social harm these activities create. Since the broader tax rises in the Autumn Budget hit other sectors, the SMF argued it made sense to align machine games duty accordingly. On paper, there’s a consistency argument there.

BGC’s Counter

The council fundamentally rejects this premise. A doubling of MGD, they argue, isn’t proportionate and lacks proper evidence to support it. More importantly, the real world consequences would be severe.

Bingo clubs, betting shops, casinos, and working men’s clubs across the country rely on gaming machines as revenue generators. Push the duty too high and venues close. Jobs disappear. High streets weaken. And the illegal gambling market, which pays nothing and offers no consumer protection, grows stronger.

The Numbers Game

The BGC’s argument here carries weight. The regulated gaming sector supports around 109,000 jobs and contributes billions to the UK economy. These aren’t massive corporate profits we’re talking about in most cases; they’re operating margins for independent operators trying to keep venues viable in tough trading conditions.

The SMF’s report, according to the BGC, never actually quantified what a doubling of duty would cost in venue closures or redundancies. That’s a glaring omission if you’re proposing a significant tax rise. Polling cited by the BGC even suggests most Brits oppose further gaming tax hikes.

Where This Lands

Tax policy does need to be evidence-led and proportionate. The BGC’s position isn’t unreasonable. But this debate will likely continue, with campaigners arguing that if gambling genuinely causes social harm, taxes should reflect that. The council’s challenge is making that economic case stick without looking like they’re defending the indefensible.

What the team thinks

Philippa Ashworth says:

While the BGC’s concerns about venue closures deserve serious consideration, the article glosses over a critical nuance: a graduated duty increase, rather than the blunt 40% jump the SMF proposes, could actually serve both regulatory and economic interests by giving operators time to adjust margins without triggering the mass exodus Hartley warns of. The real story here isn’t whether machines duty should rise, but whether policymakers will have the sophistication to design a tax reform that doesn’t simply shift revenue from licensed operators to grey-market competitors, and the industry needs to be part of that conversation, not just opposing it from the sidelines.