The midland journal. (Rising Sun, Md.) 1885-1947, 1932-12-30

Figures supplied by Maryland
Racing Commission.
These figures show that 61.2% of
the money bet is used to purchase fifty,
ten, and five dollar tickets, as against
$3.50 used to purchase two dollar
tickets, and 1880 is used for pur-
chase fifty and ten dollar tickets. It
is, of course, not true that only big
bettors purchase the higher priced
tickets, but they undoubtedly do pur-
chase most Of them, and the foregoing
figures would seem fairly to justify a
claim that the big bettors supply at
least forty per cent of the total money
bet. And with four tracks outside of
Maryland deducting from the Pari-
Mutuel pools from $40 to about go
less than would Maryland under the
proposed new tax, it seems reasonable
to conclude that many big bettors
would forsake the Maryland tracks.
5. It is no doubt true that the casual
bettor would not be much influenced by
the increased tax on the Pari-M utuels,
but I think there are number of
habitual small bettors who would be
influenced, and regardless of how
stringent the laws might be made re-
garding bookmakers, the imposition of
15.49o tax on Pari- Mutuel bets would
probably decrease the number of small
bettors by driving some of them to the
bookmakers. At the present time
bookmakers pay track odds and only
pay these up to certain point, but if
15.4@o were being taken from the Pari-
Mutuels on every race, think it en-
tirely possible that the bookmakers
would devise plan to give more at
tractive odds than the tracks give, and,
of course, this would result disastrous
ly for the tracks.
6. The majority report of the Com
mission indicates in one or two places
that the proposed 1919 tax would only
be on winnings, but actually the 1919
tax is not only on the winnings but is
also on the amount bet by the holders
of the winning tickets. For example,
if A bets $500 on a race, and his horse
wins and pays $1,000, his actual win
nings are $500. But, the 1919 tax on
the $1,000 paid him would be $1.00, so
that instead of being 1919 tax on
his winnings, it would actually be a
20@o tax. If the odds were shorter
this would increase, and in fact, the
tax could amount to more than the
winnings. For example, if man bets
$500 on horse which wins and pays
1920, the 1910 tax on the winning
ticket would amount to 22c, which is
more than the zoe won, and in no case
can it be figured that the tax is not
more than 1920 on winnings because
So oil 10C[ %hn actual univ
nings, plus 1919 of the amount origin
ally paid by the bettor for his winning
ticket.
z. The 1919 tax is only to be on the
winning tickets, and it is argued that
=! Su!6ed o. losrqo 4ou pInoM sIsuu!M
1t is true that the tax is only on win
ming tickets so far as each individual
race is concerned, though, as shown
above, the tax may exceed the actual
winnings. However, as a practical
matter, the general run of bettors do
not figure their winnings on any par
ticular race, but figure their winnings
or losses by the day, and many bettors
at the tracks bet on all or nearly all of
the seven daily races. This may not
apply to the professionals or big bet
tors, but it certainly does to the gen.
eral run If people who go to the
| tracks, and if this 1870 on winning
tickets is applied to the results OF
seven races. even the most inexperi-
enced bettor would soon find that his
chances of ultimately winning were
very remote. For example, suppose q
man bets $1,000 on each of seven races
and let us futher suppose that he gets
4 back $4,000 on his first bet, and loses
| the remaining six races. He has Their
ret . total Of $1,000. and under the