Bitcoin Forum

A certain country has two major religions. This country can be broadly divided into the Southern and Northern zones. The religion of the people in the Southern zone permits gambling. So gambling activities are popular in this region and the government is making so much revenue through gambling taxes and licences. But the religion of the people on the Northern side forbids gambling. They have an agency that ensures strict enforcement of gambling restrictions. Gambling operations are more restricted than those of offenders, who can be imprisoned.

But during revenue sharing, the states in the Northern zone still benefit from the gambling taxes collected from the Southern region (since the revenue is collected by the Central government and shared with the states). Why would their religious beliefs command them to forbid gambling operations in their areas? But it doesn't prohibit them from collecting financial allocation realised from gambling taxes.

Is it just?

From all indications you are speaking about a secular national like Nigeria my country, and to say the facr not only gambling that suffer such segregated attacks from regional laws, even some goods and services that generates so much revenue to the federation are all banned and if intercepted, their will destroy it all of them.

Such products like Alcohols and etc are all among top revenue generating products, that are banned innthe Northern partbbe their revenue sharing get to North on monthly bases.

So i ask, if you say a things is against your religion, and is a sin why do you eat from the fruit of a sinful products, the people in the North shouldn't take revenue from those banned products and services.

Which country are you talking about? I do not believe this. If you mention the name of the country, I can make some findings about it. Or do you mean just as an instance but not what is happening in any country?

If it is the later that you mean, it is highly unfair, only people from the region that gambling is permitted should share the gambling revenue.

I don't like getting involved in religious matters because some people are extremists. They allow religion to cloud their sense of humanity. So I wouldn't mention the religion or country.. Maybe we should accept the example @Wiwo gave. At least Wiwo also gave you more examples about the regional imbalance in revenue sharing because of religious ideology.

It's a bit ridiculous that they ban gambling but still enjoy tax money from it. But that's how it is since the central government is the entity that has the authority to develop the country, so it is their responsibility to allocate funds evenly to the regions in the country. Regardless of whether it is a legal activity or an illegal activity, that is a subjective view, and the government does not see this, what is most important to them is how the incoming funds can be used to support development and maintain the country's economic stability.

According to what I found out just now, gambling betting shops are located in muslim states in Nigeria before and there is nothing they can do to it because gambling is regulated by the Nigeria federal government before. In 2024 gambling is regulated by the state government in Nigeria and no more federal government which makes the gambling activities to be fully banned in the Muslim states in Nigeria. But that means that the gambling revenue are going to the state and not the federal government. Am I wrong? I think Wiwo can talk more about this. If I have any inaccuracies about this, pardon me. I used AI and Google search for it.

Why didn't their religion deprive them from eating from a forbidden practice. Those in that region are only deceiving themselves because they're not practicing what their religion forbids but they only condemn it. When it's money, their religion allows them to eat from the forbidden fruit. I am glad that the new administration has stopped giving the Northern region revenues from businesses that is against their faith in order to help them be in full practice of their faith.

If I reflect on this and look for information, based on the beliefs of the northern region, it is clear that this is very contradictory to what they believe in, but if viewed from the perspective of economic equality, specifically from the perspective of the government's obligations, it can be considered fair given that the goal is that every region, regardless of their beliefs, still has the right to receive state revenue not just revenue from gambling. I'm trying to be neutral, as the revenue the Northern region receives could be a combination of various other sources.

So imo it depends on which perspective you want to view this from belief or economic equality?

They close their eyes and close their ears if they have received tax money in their country because they assume that the source of tax is not only the result of gambling tax but also from other taxes, although it does not rule out the possibility that gambling tax is the largest among other taxes, this can also be said to be hypocritical because I myself also experienced something like that in my environment, in my own country it actually prohibits gambling but some people still gamble through foreign sites including myself but my neighbors are not happy with what I do but one time when they needed to borrow money I gave them money they still accepted so it's as if they close their eyes when it comes to money regardless of the results, but cannot accept activities that they think are sinful.

A very delicate issue, especially if religion is involved, the concept seen as ignorant seems unfair, regardless of the country that adopts this policy.
But who has the competence to establish whether this adopted policy is correct or not?
Do you know the politicians' plans? Maybe they agreed on this without the citizens' knowledge, maybe it serves to maintain a geopolitical balance of the nation.
It's easy to throw away a judgment, but you need to know first the reason for this type of choice, obviously it's my point of view.

Before November 22, 2024, gambling taxes were in the Executive list. Which means it was collected solely by the federal government. But a Supreme Court judgement put gambling in the Residual list. But the federal government still benefits heavily from gambling because in January, it imposed the Federal excise duty tax and federal withholding tax on gambling platforms and gamblers. So we can assume that gambling taxation is in the Residual list the federal government still colllect tax even after the judgment that empowers the state government to take charge.

I don't know if such a country actually exists, but if the name of the country was mentioned, it would have been easier to discuss.
Although different countries of the world ban or regulate grambiling or Casino due to religious customs and traditions, if any country bans it, then the government is not supposed to get its revenue or it is inevitable. It would be a kind of double stand if they follow this policy.

That is one thing about human they will say something is evil but when it comes enjoying the benefits that comes with that they won't see it as a bad thing. But I wonder why the government of that country will decide to give some part of that country that kind of freedom. This isn't right, it appears as if the people in southern part of that country is being exploited. What the government is supposed to do is to come up with some shearing formula or better still give casino owner the licence and right to operate in that part of the country.

For the part of the country thats gambling and generating revenue for the country, what and what have they benefit from the government? If you are both talking about Nigeria then let's not hold anything back.

Have there ever be a time in Nigeria where the public are benefitting from the government? Common road construction they will use bad products and in a year there is pot hole everywhere, please don't let me loose my cool.

It would have been better if those who are generating revenue for the government are benefitting a lot, and let me tell you this, do you think the north will be able to take their eye off the benefits that comes from the revenue if truly the south are benefitting a lot?

My question is where are all the cakes? It's still all going to the government pocket rather than the generators of those revenue, this has always be the government of Nigeria.

It's just weird to here this kind of story. If the other side forbids gambling because of religion then for sure they are not going to accept anything for the other side because they know that it came from gambling.

But in any case that you portray it as something like they are accepting it, then there comes hypocrisy on the other side (if this is the point that you wanted to make).

Or as what we might call double standards in life.

Yeah, hyprocrite. That's the only best word to explain how greedy those who against Gambling but still accept it as a part of taxation income.

No doubt that these days i said many have become double standards. Sometimes, they against something that at the same time give them much benefit even for their society.  ;D ;D

My first thought is that accepting gambling revenue while prohibiting it is pure and simple hypocrisy, but after thinking about it a little more, I believe it is certainly an acceptable and almost commendable policy. If gambling is considered harmful and should not be encouraged, but rather limited as much as possible because it is considered damaging to society, the economy, and culture, while the revenues derived from it are beneficial because they could perhaps be reinvested in socially beneficial activities such as education, healthcare, and public housing, for example, I don't believe it is entirely wrong to act this way from the perspective of the social benefit such revenues can bring.

This is a gambling board and not politics and society. If you want to get intelligent responses to this question, take it to the Nigerian local board. We are only concerned about the gambling revenue allocation among these regions as mentioned in the original post.

I think they should change the rule of who will benefit from the gambling tax revenue to executives only (cities that allow it), and not the national. They are receiving money from gambling, although it is indirect. They must know that, and then maybe the people from the other part of the country who restrict it will be the ones to stop receiving the gambling tax.

Is it possible that they know about this? I mean, the government can keep it a secret and then maybe just tell them that it didn't come from gambling. Still, this is an internal government discussion, and if it's a democratic rule, the people can have a voice about it.

This is like an issue a state governor took the federal government in my country to court over, some states are against the public sales of alcohol, they have state laws against it while some don't have these restrictions but but when the revenue from the alcohol sale is being distributed the states way law against it gets way higher allocations than the states that actually generate this revenue, the issue there is that if you won't allow a particular line of business then you shouldn't be benefiting from that line of business especially when the cause is religious, I'm sure that if a religion is against gambling then that religion is also against money made from gambling so the people enforcing the law against gambling because of religion are hypocrites for not trying to stop revenue from such an unholy act from entering into their systems.

@fiatless you actually raised an interesting point here and it is something that many people talk about in my country, even if it is not loudly on the mainstream but yes, it is also a topic of discussion over the central here but if we are to be fair, the situation is not as simple as you said it.

Let's look at it this way, Nigeria as a country currently operates a federal system where all the revenues generated from the states whether it is from oil, VAT, customs or even gambling go into a central account before being shared to every state and once that money enters into that pool, it loses its identity either as gambling money or alcohol tax it just becomes a national revenue and it is treated like that.

So even if the Northern states do not permit gambling because of religious laws in those northern states which I don't think it is entirely all states in the north because some states at least I can mention for some north central, people still gamble openly in betting shops, etc. So I don't see this as any form of hypocrisy but basically how our nation's fiscal structure works, the fiscal structure is not religious or morally operated, it is built on the federation principles.

Just imagine if each region were to start to analyze the kind of revenue they identify as morally or religiously okay or not, the system would have already collapsed by now.

I'm wondering which country are you referring to OP. Anyway, I don't see any problems with that since they are only a one country and as a government you need to balance it, not because the Southern region is earning more, doesn't mean that the Northern region doesn't need to benefit it. I get your point that the money they've been using is a profit from gambling (I think mostly, not all) and it's hypocrisy to use it on their own people but government and religion is two different things and I think they government will not say that it came purely from gambling and I don't think they will ask where it came from.

So yeah, I think they know that it's not 100% came from gambling taxes and even if it is from gambling taxes there's not a thing they can do, the government will provide it to them and if they don't accept it, then they would collapse.

This is very bad and is unjust..
I think there should be a way to stop them from receiving the financial allocation that was raised through gambling taxes because they prohibit gambling. If they are receiving allocation it is assumed that they are also gambling supporting gambling irrespective that they don't permits their people to gamble and could even lead life imprisonment. There should be proper way to regulate the allocation that is coming from gambling so that they wouldn't be a beneficiary of it. 

If it’s about religious beliefs, that’s a tough one to answer.

Are the Southern and Northern zones you’re talking about following the same religion that forbids gambling? In Islam, for example, gambling is indeed prohibited.

But when money gets involved, people’s stance sometimes changes. It’s like they don’t want their own followers to gamble, but they’ll still allow others to do it. Similar to how some religions forbid eating pork, yet you’ll find people from the same faith owning stores that sell it. It really shows how beliefs can be interpreted differently depending on the situation.

Generally, when we talk about rules in Islam, which is the most common religion that forbids gambling as it's considered Haraam (forbidden), a person who follows Islam shouldn't gamble or use the money earned from gambling and spend it on themselves or others, because the money also falls under the same rule. Now based on this, I think the money earned from gambling or gambling taxes shouldn't be used by the government where the religious beliefs don't allow gambling, but maybe there is a different ruling or something in the religion that I'm unaware of.

If we talk from an ethical point of view, I don't think it's unethical because at the end of the day, it's the same country and only different regions or states, so the money collected from the government from any part of the country is for the whole country and all the regions in it, and no matter what region a certain region follows, they have all the rights on that money because it's collected by the same government.

That's an unfair way of sharing revenue, since the federation already knows that a certain part of the country doesn't allow gambling, and there is also a proper record of how much is generated from gambling. It will be nice if whatever revenue they are sending to the states which forbid gambling is not from what was gotten from gambling. Those states where the revenue came from should benefit from it more.

The entirety of the revenue generated by the government is not from gambling alone, and for that reason they cannot refuse revenue from the government even though they know that a percentage of it has gambling revenue in it.

That will be unwise because they have also contributed to that revenue through some other means.

I don't have clarity whether northern states in Nigeria, that operates sharia law collects direct allocation of gambling taxes but it seems that they indirectly collect gambling taxes where some general allocations are shared from the federal. I also know that public consumption of alcohol is prohibited in those states and I have heard of alcoholic beverages that are destroyed in those states and people complain that the should also reject allocations from what they ban. Religious differences is a sensitive matter and I'm very careful when I discuss about it but it is totally unfair if these states that bans gambling and alcohol collects a dime of the revenue from them.

I think no religion has mentioned gambling, but Islam has a direct prohibition on gambling. Just as people commit crimes and are punished for them, so too do many people gamble despite knowing that religion has strict prohibitions on gambling. Not only in African countries, but also in other countries, people are directly involved in gambling, although there are religious and legal prohibitions on gambling in those countries. In countries where gambling is a punishable crime, people in those countries keep their gambling secret because if their family or society knows about their gambling, they will not look at it well. However, in countries where there is no prohibition on gambling, people in those countries can easily discuss gambling with their family or people around them.

Well, it's absolutely not just at all because I presently live in this country you are talking about, it's no other country than Nigeria, and to be honest with you, it's very unfortunate that we find ourselves in this country being ruled but senseless people who are more tribalist than even those who form the tribes..

This injustice of inaccurate allocation sharing of funds realized from gambling taxes and casino licenses is not the only issue or problem we see, when we move to the oil sector, imagine that states that do not produce any oil at all still benefits more from the central or federal government when allocation of money made from oil is being shared, and sometimes I ask myself, who actually is deceiving who?
The states than ban gambling and yet gladly open their hands to receive money made from gambling taxes are only deceiving themselves.

What if what is happening is actually an attempt by the central government to control the development of gambling? I don’t look at it from a religious perspective, but at how the government regulates the gambling business to operate only in certain areas.
Regarding the use of money obtained from the gambling business, the central government certainly has the right to allocate it evenly for the benefit of its people. This becomes state revenue, not the wealth of a particular region.

Such a division can be seen on the basis of religion, where people of one region consider gambling religiously forbidden and people of another region consider gambling religiously sacred. However, if the central government wants to run the country, it has to provide benefits to both regions. Therefore, while collecting revenue from one region, it divides it equally between both regions. But I have never seen such a divided country where there are two types of laws for two regions where gambling is legal in one region and illegal in another.

This is a bit of a dilemma. The regulation should be strict. While prohibiting gambling, it shouldn't accept compensation for said gambling. This could be called inconsistent regulation.

However, I personally can't comment more broadly because we don't know the considerations and reasons behind this policy. Every country has its own regulations, and every region has its own.

It may want to sound unfair technically but logically you will see that revenues generated from both regions are remixed into the government as a revenue from the region, I do not think they will separate that generated from gambling from that generated from other sources, it may be indicated on their records but the funds themselves will not appeared so it will also be unfair that the money generated from the zone that prohibited gambling will be uses to fund the gambling side, except they are allowed to generate and fund themselves  I think it is only fair this way because both sites gets to benefit from each other.

The story is weird, indeed, because I can easily think in different countries with different official religions and, therefore, different legislations towards gambling, but different regulations in a same country is difficult for me to apprehend.

Fair or not, if rules go in connection with the feeling of the majority of the population, we can say that said rules are reasonable. But whether to call it fair (or just, like the OP said) ir not is an ethical attribution I don't dare to assess.

I understand your intentions, even though it's just a thought you've expressed in your post. You're asking why people who believe gambling is forbidden are still willing to accept gifts derived from the proceeds of gambling.
We need to re-examine tolerance, and understanding it can enlighten our minds, as your analogy of two regions within one country points to that.
The law of tolerance, as I understand it, is one but different, or "for me, my religion, for you, your religion." This way, national life will be peaceful.

Well, when tax is collected by government, do they have a different accounts that they put different tax that was collected from different industries or all the tax money goes into one account? Food industries, educational institutions, technology industries, petroleum industries, gambling industries, etc, when tax is being collected by all these people, government can note how much that was realized by these different industries but at the end of the day, the money goes into one account and the government decides the things to do with the money for the benefits of the country. So, every citizen of the country will definitely benefit from what ever the money was used for.

What if the northern part that doesn't permits gambling has a wide range of different resources that is generating a good revenue and paying big tax to the government, should the southern part never benefit from the tax too?

From my lay perspective, I believe it's unfair for the northern region to still receive a share of gambling revenue from the central government, which strongly opposes gambling there. This certainly goes against their beliefs but from the perspective of the government, which is responsible for the welfare of its people, it must fairly distribute state revenues evenly across all regions. Regardless of the source of revenue, once it reaches the central government, it becomes public money.

This is a question that only the central government of such nation can answer. It must have something to do with balancing the resources so that one region does not seem more developed and the other one impoverish. Well, but like I said it is left for the government to answer, and maybe how it has already been structured from inception.

It is not fair if you look at it from legal perspective because you should not benefit from what you don't labour for but since the country is still existing as one, then proceed that is accruing to the country should be regarded and seen as the resources of the country. This is unfortunately the situation in the Nigerian lopsided system. This does not only happen in gambling but their is nepotism all over the country.

However, I have also seen some people who claim to be Muslim and are also gambling. I don't know if they should be called "modern Muslim" or what? I don't don't know. Some inhibitions from the Muslim societies are not strictly adhered to unlike years back. Like smoking, alcohol and use of drugs.

I'm sure the Northern zone also has a revenue stream that the government collects and shares with the southern zone. When it comes to the country's revenue, it wil be shared among all the citizen of the country regardless of their culture, beliefs, and religion.

All the citizen of one country pays their taxes and all benefits from the taxes even if the other groups do not have contribution to the country yet, the government should never discriminate regardless of its culture, ethnicity or religion because if they do the other group will ask for separation because they are not getting the benefits that they deserve as a citizen of that country.

In one country under one (central) leadership there are two problems in gambling behavior, but tax revenues are still shared equally, wow this is difficult to answer, because South and North are still under the same leadership.

But in my personal opinion, the central government can make the North Zone law that gambling taxes are not shared in the profits, to be fair, I think the Northern region should accept it, if they insist on sharing the taxes in the Northern Zone it is the same as being hypocritical, they still receive the profits from gambling activitiesnot allowed.

The situation is the same as my country, gambling is illegal but online casinos operate and road taxes, the results are divided equally, which challenges gambling a lot, so how can such a situation be said to be fair, The central government remains optimistic that taxes and casinos operate secretly to appear fair, the pros and cons of the government cracking down on both.
Those who are pro online gambling see it as safe and those who are against it see that there is follow up, to appear fair.

If this is happening in the country where I think the op is referring to then you don't expect the right things to be done cause the country is not organized at all, first off, a state that forbids gambling is not supposed to benefit from anything that comes from gambling and if you think you want them to benefit from the revenues generated from gambling in other states because they are part of the nation then the allocations should not be equal. There are so many other things that needs to be addressed also if we should mention all of it the mineral resources and others but like I stated earlier the country is far from good organization.

The government is being hypocritical. Their religious beliefs shouldn’t be allowing them to collecting finances from gambling so if their reason for not allowing gambling then it’s hypocritical.
We know it’s not, but there is nothing to do because that is the government that you are stuck with.

I'm not surprised by this information, because here in my country more than 80% of the population are Christians, but even so, here in my country we can hardly find pork in supermarkets because, since they are supermarkets owned by Muslims, they don't sell pork. This shows how Muslims have serious mental problems; they want to impose their will on other people. Unfortunately, you see, since our country is Christian, we treat them well, we don't restrict them in any way. But in their case, they even prohibit people from passing near their mosque. Therefore, I'm not surprised by what is happening in that country.

Correct, was about replying him before I read a bit further down, In addition, the state government is more invested into ensuring that physical casinos comply to regional regulations, this is what gave the Northerners the right to fully ban physical betting shops in their regions, and not necessarily online gambling. Gambling is controlled by The National Lottery Regulatory Commission for both online and physical casinos Which still puts taxation of gambling in Nigeria as a strict concern of the federal government.

It would interest you that people from Northern parts of the country still patronize gambling online secretly which is still a valid argument as to why they should have a share and I think a better approach should be splitting the tax revenues into physical and online gambling revenues. They may partake in the sharing of the online revenue but not the physical ones, meaning that their allocations should always be smaller than that of southerners.

That’s why there should be a separation of power between state and the church especially on case like that the country has different religion. Forbidding gambling should be imposed by the church only to their members and not through the law that affects the whole country that is not part of their religion.

Although they are just belong to a single country therefore distribution of taxes should be equal to all citizens unless the northern part wants to have their own government.

I believe it’s still fair since taxes is not only come from gambling, the northern part surely contributes on other form of taxes.

It's morally unjust, but a broader perspective is needed if you want to truly analyze and make a fair assessment based on statistics on tax revenue contributors. Generally, tax funds for all sectors, including gambling, are collected by the central government and then allocated nationally through a revenue-sharing formula (of course, the government does this without any moral filter). If the northern zone turns out to be the largest contributor to tax revenue without gambling, this assessment could even be reversed. This is especially true if the southern zone also provides special allocations/facilities for casino patrons, such as addiction rehabilitation centers or other specific social institutions.

Because anything that give benefit to the government will be seen as legal, they have the laws to twist it.

Example, Bitcoin tainted with mixer or high illicit funds are illegal, but when the government seized the coins, the coins became clean and the government allowed to use the coins.

They consider gambling funds is when they gamble and withdraw the winnings, not from the other sources.

So, now, let me use an example to explain what you said.

If the southern Region forbid drinking of sachet water but only drinks bottle water, and the revenue which the bottle water industries in the South is generating is huge and the tax is also big.

But the Northern region permits drinking of sachet water and the water industries there is generating 5x amount of revenue and paying 5x the amount of tax that the South has generated and paid, you are saying the government should just split the tax revenue amount the northern state right?

Now, here's the real question:  If northern region has 10 states  and the southern region  has 15 state but the South is generating a very small revenue while North is generating 5x of what the South are generating, let the government keep the revenue of the South in the South and that of the North in the North? Note: there are some other things that southern region might forbid but northern didn't forbid ehat they only forbid is this gambling and upon that, they are still generating more tax than southern.

How is it then one united country if things are done just to favour one region more? Simply because the other region forbids a particular thing which is against their religion, that doesn't mean they are not also being productive in other things that is generating heavy revenue and them paying heavy tax too.

Aside from gambling, those states which generate gambling revenue also have other things which they offer to help generate revenue internally. I also consider it unjust if they share everything equally with all benefactors.

Their are ways of handling things if they really want to make things better and better still they can ask all states where gambling is legal to consider all the gambling taxes as state internally generated fund and should decide how to spend it and not for it to get into national account where everyone will have share of it.

I think this situation is a bit complicated. On the one hand people in the northern regions consider gambling a sin according to their religious beliefs, so they want to keep it banned in their area. This is right from their moral and social point of view but on the other hand when they are taking a share of the revenue that comes from the same source, it seems a bit hypocritical. Because the money they are taking is basically coming from the work that they consider wrong according to their religion. In my opinion if a region considers a source of income to be morally wrong then at least they should separate themselves from that particular part of the income. This will make their position more honest and firm. Otherwise it creates a conflict where principles and practical benefits conflict with each other.

This is the right approach. The national budget should be the one that is slashed down due to their no contribution from gambling tax.

I believe there’s a regional and national budget on every country because this is how works here in my country. The regional budget should be from the partial taxes of the region revenue alone while national budget is from the consolidation of all taxes in the country.

Lesser regional taxes from no gambling should reflect on their regional funds.

The internal revenue that is generated in a country comes from an accumulation of things some of which are in line with some set of peoples believe system and at the same time might not align well with other peoples believe system. at the end, from the generated revenue, social amenities are built that are collectively used by the public regardless of their believe system.

they will join in enjoying the revenue because of the believe that it was not out rightly generated from gambling.

This is a serious issue but to me if they are not gambling but collecting taxes and making use of the money for what ever that means,they are gambling indirectly,which is not good ,is the system of government that make things look like that ,since they don't gamble they are not supposed to touch the so called money at all ,their religion should have void touching or making use of the money,this is pure injustice and their is nothing anybody can do about this ,this should be look into the matter,is just exactly when one part of the country and religion only provides president while the other side provide nothing,this just an example of this you said ,is a big matter that should be addressed generally.

If their religion forbids gambling, it should also forbid what comes out of it as revenue.

This is exactly the answer to what we humans have created into the system to manipulate and have every other thing under our control, which is not Just Btw. Religion is a scam that was created to do more evil, just under the premise of a "god", which is not even the true God!
They all claim to practice communism, but they duck away every benefits in their pockets and send their children abroad to escape the disaster that they've created.

In my opinion it is not fair, actually.
If they can against gambling, to the extent they are willing to imprison gamblers and those who are involved with the business, then they should not take the fruits of the gambling industry either. That is not consistent with their religion whatsoever.

It reminds me the case of some priest who talking very badly about gambling and betting in general, saying it was a product of the devil to separate and confront human beings against one another, but at the same time he was okey by a followers donating money to him which was obtain through good luck in gambling.

There is a simple word for such behavior: it is called hypocrisy.

Those in the north of your country (i assume you are talking about Nigeria), should not get a dime from gambling revenue taxes at all.

A country is a complicated structure and it tries to be inclusive, that is why it is still being one when they are demographically divided into two different cultures following people. I don't see anything wrong as long it's still a country because states and it's governmentsare  allowed to have it's own restrictions, depending on their beliefs and how much tax is collected in the the whole and how much it is shared with non-gambling sites would be interesting to come into futher conclusion.

Okay... I think I've had enough.  Putting out all these restrictions is not enough, so they had to prohibit people from passing near their mosque? I mean, does that even make any sense? If their activity don't disrupt your mood of worship, everyone else should have an equal rights to do whatever they want Without an obstruction.
In my country, we make out a sperate space for them to create their homes and build their mosque, so it doesn't affect anyone else. Religion has never united any nation, it has only torn them apart and we can all see what's happening in our society, even today.

Government regulations prohibit gambling, but they don't care about the revenue generated by it. The most important thing is the tax revenue that must be paid by all forms of gambling, whether legal or illegal. This is unfair. However, when many users become more involved in gambling, the government will take firm action against illegal forms of gambling, but still benefit from the tax revenue.

Gambling is welcome in both Christian and Muslim religion here in my country and there is no such thing as gambling banned in any state thatbi can mentioned right now, but the truth about vats is that the federal government take such revenues and then disburse them back to the states, so if a state have a gambling banned their may be exempted frim the revenues allocations from gambling houses ot casinos running within their jurisdictions.

Then you can say that they are hypocrites, there are many cases in this regard, and the most common word among the political world is that they condemn every activity that is prohibited in their culture but not with the money, it's always like that in this world, no one is completely clean.

They shouldn't receive money from the tax if they prohibit it in their area, but who cares when money talks?

When it comes to gambling IGR (Internal Generating Revenue), i believed it should be a state responsible top handle that from their respective constituencies and not for the federal government to decides on such, allocations for States are mostly from the Federal Government Purse and the same they also earn from the main source of income to the country, which i don't expect that gambling should be part, we are talking of petroleum, agricultural products and other exported raw materials that they generate income from, while their allocation is basically on the capacity of each states in terms of population and their own IGR.

As far as I know, every individual or race are entitled to their own beliefs, if the northern part of that country have unanimously agreed that gambling activities should be prohibited within their jurisdictions to the point that the government of the country have accepted it and enacted it as a law, the. It’s also left for the government to decide how the revenues gotten from gambling should be splitter amongst the state, besides it’s still one country, certain laws could be active in some areas of a country but that doesn’t mean revenues should also be limited to certain regions too, revenues should be for the whole country, whether a certain area contributes to generate that revenue or not.

You are bringing such good arguments to the table that we can actually see in our countries. After thinking it over, I did not come to one right solution, but somehow I understand it and will share it with you. They are applying the theory or concept of well-being for humans. When you are working for human well being, a state does not care about the source but rather about the target and how effectively they can approach it. Since the federal government is collecting the money, they purify it by spending it on the right things. One more thing, just as the southern part supports the northern part, the northern part may also support the southern part in some other projects where they don't have access. So my thought is that if the federal government is collecting, then it is not necessary for the southern part to think about whether it is good or not.

That is the kind of government that they have, I think it's a democratic country that you're describing and it's normal for the national government to distribute the revenues that they have from gambling in the southern part for the northern part even if they despise gambling. Religions play some cultures in the government and they are respecting it. We shouldn't only look at how they are contributing to these regions where in fact that they are also contributing for some other sources that the religious people or regions does for the entire country.

Most countries revenue sharing have a uniform patten and for that reason everything get splitted based on the revenue sharing formula on ground, this is why we see that even those countries that have banned on those things are the highest earners from the federation revenue allocation.

In my country we have a northern state where alcohol is banned and it product's get destroyed by the natives guides, but when federation revenue get shared their still get rhe highest share of the revenue due to their population amd other factors that make them to get fair share all the time.

Not everything is fair, the world is like that, things don't please everyone, in a way that displeases you, pleases people who think gambling is the work of the devil, anyway, the world is like that, nations are like that, society is like that, we have to adapt to the environment in which we choose to live, there's not much we can do about it.

Prohibiting gambling on principle while profiting from its proceeds may seem inconsistent. However, in centralized systems, I believe such contradictions are common. While religions that prohibit gambling often do so for ethical reasons, they consider gambling to foster greed, addiction, family breakdown, and exploitation. But the reality is that government funds are not categorized as gambling money, but rather as general funds, making it impossible for religion to know their origin. Therefore, they separate the source from the use of the funds.

In my country, gambling is regulated and taxed by the state government I think just because of Muslims in the northern part requested for it because they do not want betting shops to be in their states, they succeeded and the federal does not do that anymore but left for the states to do it. Although, we are only deceiving ourselves because it is still very easy in my country to access online gambling sites in any states of the country without anyone knowing.

But the federal government still collects excise duties and withholding tax from gambling companies. The state government collect taxes but the central government also collect some.

But some comments in this thread enlightened me. One of them is that the Northern region might be contributing financially in other areas. Since the revenue is centrally shared, every state should benefit from it.

Actually, the OP did not mention which country he is talking about here, he mentioned the northern region and the southern region without mentioning it correctly. Actually, nothing can be considered about gambling by considering this world as the northern region and the southern region, but if he had mentioned a country and considering that country, he had mentioned the northern region and the southern region or the countries located north or south of that country, then a lot could have been considered. However, whether gambling is legal or illegal in a country depends on the government of that country. If the government of a country legalizes gambling, that is its personal matter and if it makes it illegal, that is its personal matter, but here the people must accept it and act accordingly.

You can not get direct answer to this question but what you have to understand is that whatever revenue made from the gambling goes to the federation account which will be used for public budget. I don't think if it is provable that the revenues made from the gambling is being shared amongst the two jurisdictions.
Infact, government will not even tell you where they allocates the budgets from the gambling revenues. So I will suggest you don't have to trouble yourself over who benefits and who does not benefit it.
Just keep focus and enjoy your gambling life if you love gambling and residing in the Southerner side where gambling is permitted but I understand there is bias in the system.

Actually, every religion has different beliefs and at the same time different customs. And I have seen in my little knowledge that almost all religions of the world have been told to stay away from gambling. Now, some religions practice the customs of their religion and some people do not and this does not mean that those who do not practice the customs of their religion will insult their religion or speak in a derogatory manner.
And that's why I think these things should be kept separate.
This is totally illogical thoughts,,,There is a vast difference between the fresh fruit given by GOD and the fruit juice that is processed by dissolving that fresh fruit and using various types of chemical alcohols. Now my point is that if the people of the southern states or the local government do not want to give the revenue of all these products to the people of the northern states, then they can request their nominated MPs or organize a movement. Throwing mud separately on this will only increase the toxicity.

They are nation so, if the other side doesn't like gambling and the local leaders there are prohibiting gambling, that's fine if they are also consuming the gambling taxes. That's what taxes are for and that's for the benefits of the locals and other areas where it can be used. The revenue is spread across the nation and it's not only to those areas where they have prohibited gambling. We need to understand that there are countries that are like that and it's not a problem for us if they do that because, that's how the government functions for the best that it can be.

I don't think there is anything wrong with this, and it is perfectly acceptable. It cannot be said that this is unfair. It must be understood that each region has its own autonomy and rules that are in line with the cultural values and beliefs of the majority of its people. When a region prohibits gambling, it is a form of respect for the moral and social principles of the local community.As for the central government's tax revenue, it should also be noted that the taxes collected by the state are not limited to one sector (gambling), but come from various sectors, where the central government collects taxes collectively from each region and then redistributes them to all regions in accordance with national policy. So, when the northern region receives a share of national income, it does not mean that they directly enjoy the proceeds from gambling, but rather it is part of the state financial distribution mechanism that applies to all regions.So this is not hypocrisy, but rather a consequence of the national financial system, which is designed to promote equity in every region without regard to religious or cultural differences.

I think the best balance would be for gambling in a given country to be controlled, but not to the extent that it generates taxes that would go toward local amenities or social needs, especially for those in need of basic necessities like food, healthcare, or assistance for families with children. Furthermore, gambling shouldn't be made too easy, otherwise young people might start losing huge amounts of money, which would impact their future lives, including their birth rate. Therefore, it's essential to carefully consider all the nuances of gambling regulation and taxation.

Something similar to what the op stated happens in my country. I must say, it is not only gambling these people condemn and prohibit and it doesn't make it just that they are sharing in the benefits of what they condemn and even go as far as destroying in their own region. What makes it even more unjust is that no gambling related business is allowed to exist there, remember not just gambling alone. That's hypocrisy.

It would have been fair if they allow these businesses exist but with some restrictions that suits their religious practice. If they don't patronize the business, it's fine, but visitors can do so.

It goes back to the community and I think that a government that has this kind of setup really does well. They have rules that they're not allowing minors on it and mostly, the legal age is an important priority before they allow to enter a casino premise.

Well, that's what religion could play a part in those areas that they are not allowing to have a gambling establishment. While the government understands and respects that, I agree to you that if they are also taking advantage of the tax benefits, they should allow it there for maximizing it but with strict restrictions on whom they're going to allow to enter.

This is what we call hypocrisy. They should believe in what they want to and keep to their moral no matter what. Money shouldn't be the only time, deep religious believe should change from their fate.

In our world today, this is exactly how it happens and it should be amended. Well I have come tot he point where I dont let anyone's believe get to me. I have my own conviction and I stick to it.

Good point, if you frobid something, ordinarily you're not suppose to partake from any proceed that comea from what you are against, I respect everyone religion and individual believe after all this things didn't start today so why will anyone talk against any religion in the first although that is just a point but one thing that won't be nice is sharing revenue to those places that don't welcome gambling, if government does that, it will be cheating to other states that allows gambling in their regions, however, just know this, if it a country like mine whose allocation is been shared by the federal government, does regions will partake in the revenue gotten from gambling because the government at the center who is to share this revenue may not specify where any of the regions the got the revenues from gambling.

Judging based on the indications you've made, it is only right to rip where you've sown. There is no way you prohibit something and you expect to get rewards from it.

 Gambling in this case, the country in question is being partial in their distribution of revenue. You can't criticize something and eat from it, that's unjust and unreasonable.

It's okay not to accept the act of gambling based on certain religion, but sticking to that and not partaking from what comes out it justifies such belief.

Sometimes it’s not “just luck”, strategy and timing matter more than people think. Even with randomness, consistent bankroll discipline and knowing when to walk away make a difference over time.

Do you think most players lose because of bad odds or bad control?

To me, this is hypocrisy. Since gambling isn't allowed, they shouldn't accept the money from gambling taxes either. It's contradictory; it would be better for the country if they allowed gambling and collected more taxes, since they don't care about accepting this money.

This question is fair, and it does looks inconsistent. If any area's moral or religious stance refuses gambling, then benefiting from the proceeds from federal revenue sharing seems contradictory.
Notwithstanding, the justification mostly given is that as soon as money has entered the central pool, it has been considered national revenue, not tied to a particular means. From the standpoint of governance, every state is entitled to it own share. Yet morally, it is difficult to separate the source from the benefit. So though it could be justified legally, it is questionable ethically, mostly when the same worth used to put an end to gambling is not applied when accepting its profits.

Because the government never discriminate against its people and treats every citizen fairly, whether they pay their taxes or not, every country has a constitution that mentions protecting its people and upholding fairness, so every tax or revenue generated by the government should be distributed equally to all of its people because they are all one inland and have faith in the government, regardless of diversity of religion or culture.

I think it is difficult to say whether the whole thing is fair or unfair. Religiously, the people of the northern region are doing the right thing they have banned gambling according to their faith. But the state economy does not run on religion tax collection is for everyone. On the one hand they are following the rules of religion by banning gambling and on the other hand, they are taking a share of the taxes from the same gambling because it is related to the national economy. So, I think that even if they benefit indirectly from that money it does not violate their religion. In real life faith and economy never go in the same direction so, this may be an attempt at balance.

Government knows how they rationed the allocation given to each states under them, they have their own metrics used in determining what percentage each should be entitled to receive, they are not doing thks for the first time, so they should know that to him which more is given, much is also expected, this is very common about the ideology of live regarding proportions to the rate of distribution on allocation.

Kinda hypocritical to me. They forbid gambling, yet they don’t forbid using funds from gambling revenue. I think the government should use what they only get from the southern side. It’s just fair, since the southern side generates the most revenue, so it’s normal that they should get most, if not all, of it. The northern side shouldn’t accept anything from the government that comes from gambling revenue if they’re really devoted to their belief.

Yes, it is very contradictory when rejecting gambling because of one's religious beliefs but still receiving profits from it. However from a fiscal perspective, it is still fair for them to receive benefits from gambling taxes, and usually national income will go to the state treasury and become public money, but to understand this issue, we need to examine valid data on whether the government distributes national income equally among all states for example, on a 50-50 basis and whether each state contributes the same regional revenue to the central government. If so, then it would be fair for the northern states to benefit from the gambling tax revenue generated in the southern states, because it is also possible that the northern states have other sources of income that are equal in value to the southern states' contribution through gambling taxes.

This your ways of opinion is very wrong, it's obvious you are pointing all fingers to Nigeria.

You are wrong about this, there is gambling in the northern part of Nigerian but not as popular to other regions simply because of religion and modesty, it's forbid but people gamble on their phone, anything can be done on internet and as long as you are a citizen of this country, you are allow to do anything you like, Sharia law stop at offline, it doesn't goes to people phone and be checking what you do with your private life, they don't have physical casino like other places and generally physical casino are rare in Nigeria.

Another thing you are wrong is about to the tax system, I was expecting you to use Alcohol as this has been the most controversial discussion most, gambling is not even wider discussion for this tax issue. The new tax system has completely made it hard for people that doesn't contribute to tax earn from other places.

Check the new tax system, it's now review and pass. If you are state A, state B and state C, the FAC allocation will depend on what you are generating. If you are not giving government revenue from gambling, you will not earn money from gambling, if the government isn't making money as tax from you from alcohol, you will not take home any FAC allocation from the government so as to balance the system, do your research because this is misleading in the new tax system.

It is advisable that before you quote an original post that has up to five pages of responses, you should have gone through the entire thread. This is because there might be some adjustments, clarification and others. I am also a Nigerian and have no intention of portraying our great nation in a negative light. All I wanted was a simple discussion.

You are aware that Sharia law prohibits gambling, and you cannot claim that this will affect the revenue generated from these states. You claim is that people can still gamble online which is true.. But our point of discussion is not about access to gambling platforms, but revenue generated. You would agree that brick-and-mortar casinos generate the highest gambling revenue in Nigeria.

The tax issue has been dealt with in the previous post. Let me quote it.


Please tell me where I misled the people.

Justice (or other religious motives) take a backseat when it comes to money. It's nothing personal, it's just business. :)

If we look at the situation you described logically, if the northern zone (which opposes gambling due to religious beliefs) accepts money from industry and gambling taxes from the southern region, then the northern part of the country is violating its own requirements and prohibitions (gambling). This is a clear contradiction on their part.

There are only two options:
- stop accepting money from taxes on activities prohibited in their region.
- stop prohibiting the activities from which they receive taxes.

It is not unusual for a country to have dual policies, and we have seen in the past that there are two types of policies based on religion. In the past, when the British High Commissioner divided India and Pakistan, he did so on the basis of a dualistic policy. If two types of religious people live in a country, in the north and the south, then based on the two types of religious people, two policies can be formulated, making gambling legal in one region and illegal in the other. However, the amount of revenue generated from one region can be divided equally between the two regions, and this is also natural.

I think this would heavily depend upon the religion on how they view gambling strictly.

While there may be religions that prohibit gambling, its strict implementation of that rule somehow can be circumvented by others. Additionally, there are also some people who still gamble despite being prohibited by their religion.

Going back to the question, in a country, there has to be a separation of the church and state. In the Philippines, it is enshrined in our Constitution that the separation of the two (2) shall be inviolable. This means that we respect each and other's practices given that they do not impair one another.

To answer your question OP, if the Northern Zone still collects revenue from the taxes that came from the Southern region that permits gambling, then you could say that it's a circumvention and a technicality that can spark discussion.

Personally, I find it unjustified that the Northern Region prohibits the act of gambling, yet they gain benefit from the very same act that they prohibit.

The government respects its citizens' religious beliefs and maintains a separation of state and religion, so it cannot interfere with their religious affairs. If a certain religious group forbids gambling, the state should respect that.

When it comes to allocation, it's the government's duty to distribute its wealth equally, as they are voted to do that, uphold the constitution of fairness.
Every region of a country has wealth or industry that the government can tax, so they should not restrict or isolate any one area; if they do, that region will ask for separation due to neglect.

I think this is a situation of  disunity among the two religion thereby resulting to different zones, what is needed to be in check is if they are being ruled by 1 body, that's if both the nrithwrn and southern zones are under one jurisdiction of government that's would determine the roots of the division among this two religions.The wrong patterns of execution of gambling is basically depended on the government self interest in that particular region that's favouring one part and affecting the other.

I don't know, maybe in this story the most striking thing is that it's the same region split in two.
Because if we look at other states and take the use of cannabis as an example where in some European countries it is tolerated, in others it is practically illegal, those who legalize it benefit economically (see Holland).
Let's say that thanks to the prohibitionism of other countries, Holland created its fortune by legalizing Cannabis.
So in this story the thing that sounds bad is that we are talking about the same state, with opposing ideals and religions, on the one hand prohibitionism and on the other they legalize gambling.
How do you determine if it's right and wrong?

If every type of state revenue had to be separated and reallocated back to the same region to appear fair, I’m certain that, in the end, such a country would eventually split into two nations.
Just imagine what people in the northern zone would say to those in the southern region if, for instance, they had a gold mine. Logically, I think that also seems unfair. In many countries, tax distribution is generally allocated based on needs, population, and geographic location of the region.
I don’t mean to lecture anyone, but I think the following link might help broaden our understanding for everyone here in this forum : https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781138783225/ch001.xml

The issue of banning gambling from any area for moral or religious reasons is very complex and contradictory because it is completely unreasonable to take advantage of the money gained from gambling, which they consider haram or lowly. When the same people on the one hand refuse to admit to an act, and on the other hand do not stop secretly enjoying the profits derived from it, then the whole thing can be nothing but hypocrisy.

Do one thing, either stick to your faith or accept that no matter where the money comes from, it is part of the national economy, and it is for everyone. In my opinion, this is a political advantage given the form of faith and religion, because if religion was the main thing for them, not money, then they would never forget their moral debates when distributing money, haha.