1% of disposable income goes to gambling – Too Much or Normal?

[AbuBhakar]

It’s a disposable income and just 1% which means they are gambling within the range of acceptable expenses for gambling.

Gambling is for entertainment purposes and dedicating small percentage of income to it is not that bad if the person doing it is enjoying or having fun on gambling.

It’s huge since it’s the total expenses of the country but it’s normal per individual expenses.

[alegotardo]

In Sweden, the gambling regulator reported that almost 1% of disposable income went to gambling in 2024, about €2.5B total. Most of it came from online casinos and betting. Disposable income BTW is ( salary - taxes + benefits).

For comparison:

Australia – often cited as the highest per capita gambling spend, closer to 3–4% of disposable income in some year
UK – sits roughly around 0.7–0.9%, depending on the measure
Philippines – it's hard to measure because of offshore/illegal markets... ( not well regulated)

This 1% may seem be small, but in reality... I think that on national scale it is huge. It has a huge economic and social impact because we are still talk about billions being spent at something that no generates return for players other than entertainment.

But you know what I think? The problem is not even this overall number but rather the inequality within it... many people spend only a few euros or dollars at gambling, but a large portion also have serious gambling problems and spend a big more... they spend an amount that's quite disproportionate to average and this greatly distorts the perception of what should be a "normal" number.

So, I do not know... but I think the important thing isnt the overall percentage, but rather how this spending is distributed within the "protection" mechanisms that exist to raise awareness, reduce harm, provide treatment to addicts, and others

[Pandu Geddon]

Allocating 1% of income is still normal, and I think it is still safe for a worker's life. However, I still believe that more gamblers allocate a larger amount for their gambling. It would be better if more gamblers had other sources of income besides their main income from work. Their living needs would remain secure, and they could still plan for savings or investments that are not disrupted by their gambling activities.

[CryptoYar]

It is very clear how big role gambling plays in different countries. Numbers from Sweden are especially noticeable. 1% might seem small but it adds up to €2.5 billion from people spending money showing how important online gambling business is there. Comparison with other countries is also very helpful. It shows that Sweden spending is high but it is not on same level as country like Australia. You are also right that it is hard to get good information from places with much of illegal gambling. This data is good is showing gambling is big part of fun and financial habits in many places.

[Oshosondy]

Allocating 1% of income is still normal, and I think it is still safe for a worker's life. However, I still believe that more gamblers allocate a larger amount for their gambling.

This does not mean there are no addicts in the country. Also if they spend more on gambling, as long as the gambling sites in the countries are the ones that is used for the estimation, it is still good part of the countries economy even if people spend more in the country. But I am not sure if only the gambling sites in the country is used for the estimate. But more importantly, we should know that this is not what a single person is spending but all citizens spending and the amount they are earning are collectively used to make the calculations. So we can not say it is too less or too much.

[rdluffy]

Here in Brazil, I'm sure that percentage is higher, hehehe

Our fiat currency is the real (BRL), and assuming a salary of 5,000, which is above average, betting “only” 50 brl is not much
I can't measure it correctly, obviously, but I would say I wouldn't be surprised if it were 5%, for example

1 USD = 5.30 BRL for comparison

[Dunamisx]

In Sweden, the gambling regulator reported that almost 1% of disposable income went to gambling in 2024, about €2.5B total. Most of it came from online casinos and betting. Disposable income BTW is ( salary - taxes + benefits).

For comparison:

Australia – often cited as the highest per capita gambling spend, closer to 3–4% of disposable income in some year
UK – sits roughly around 0.7–0.9%, depending on the measure
Philippines – it's hard to measure because of offshore/illegal markets... ( not well regulated)

Now that we know that there are gambling regulators specifically in Sweden, where are this funds being transferred to, is it the government pause or they were being remitted back to the gambling platforms, because i know that these funds cannot go back to the gamblers pocket for sure, while it was said that about 1% which does not specifies on whether it is the exact rate or something to close to, so i may not threat on all these are valid stats, because there is nothing o prove their accuracy.

[Lannakosa]

In Sweden, the gambling regulator reported that almost 1% of disposable income went to gambling in 2024, about €2.5B total. Most of it came from online casinos and betting. Disposable income BTW is ( salary - taxes + benefits).

For comparison:

Australia – often cited as the highest per capita gambling spend, closer to 3–4% of disposable income in some year
UK – sits roughly around 0.7–0.9%, depending on the measure
Philippines – it's hard to measure because of offshore/illegal markets... ( not well regulated)

I think it's perfectly acceptable, I'd just keep in mind that there could be different sources of income, primary income, secondary income, or income. So, I'd take a value of no more than 1% of the primary income, not the total. I think that would be quite sufficient and wouldn't affect your budget if you were to lose it all every month. Although, I think that scenario would be bad, because if I were to lose my entire deposit every time, I'd consider stopping gambling and just buying Bitcoin with the money.

[Agbamoni]

1% is the recommend and most preferred percentage of discretionary income that should go into gambling. Although, most persons use more.

To whether it is too much or normal might depend on the actual income and what we as individual sees as too much. An actual income of $1 million, means a discretionary income of $10k into gambling might be seen as too much for someone who have an actual incomes less than $10k in a month.

[YOSHIE]

1% of disposable income goes to gambling – Too Much or Normal?

1% is allocated to gamble, in my understanding it can be done, but it depends on the country where we live, of course getting/salary produced by individuals in one country is different and also the value of the existing currency.

Maybe in Europe, the US, Australia 1% of income is allocated for enough gambling, but not in Asia, only a few countries are high in the value of Fiat currencies such as Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, but other countries can be said 1% is too low, For example the Philippines on average revenue there PHP 44,000 to PHP 60,000 or $ 300, so if cut 1% only $ 3 is allocated for gambling, very low, so 1% depends on the area and the value of KUR Fiat, Indonesia, Vietnam, India, Thailand and so on are almost the same, but specifically for Asia 10% suitable at least $ 30 for gambling from income.

[Hewlet]

1% of disposable income goes to gambling – Too Much or Normal?

To answer your question directly, 1% going into gambling is a moderate amount that any average income earner can let go of without feeling any bad even if he looses that amount in the process. the reality is that quite an handful of gambler use way more than 4% of their earnings for gambling and still do not consider it a big deal. the rate that is high will be when it is going towards those range of 10% as it is the case with most addicted gambler. the average gambler do not even pay attention to how much that is going into their gambling they just follow their urge and most times go above what can be looked at as disposable income.

[Justbillywitt]

I strongly believe that this is normal, because to me 1% is not that high for a country population to gamble with. I consider it to be normal as people have to gamble and they can't gamble for free. I would have considered it to be too much if it was around 5%-10%. If the people of Sweden think it's too much they should compare theirs and that of other countries that their citizens are gambling with more higher percentages of disposable income.

[Obim34]

1% is the recommend and most preferred percentage of discretionary income that should go into gambling. Although, most persons use more.

1% isn't a substantial amount to be spent in gambling, it is too little, and only someone who is well disciplined can keep it within that range. For instance, the minimum wage of 70K NGN with a 1% discretionary income for gambling is 770 NGN, it is not a huge amount but if multiplied against the population of gamblers, it becomes a large significant figure.

[Slow death]

In my opinion, this is a normal number, considering that we're talking about only 1%, not 10% or 30%. Having less than this number would be very difficult. It would be the same as banning gambling and the government putting some kind of chip in the eyes of the entire population to ensure that no one gambled. That's why I consider it a normal number, even good. There are countries where the numbers are much higher, and I don't see the government creating panic.

In my opinion, the most important thing is that governments always maintain dialogue with casino owners and all the platforms that casinos use for advertising, so that they reach an agreement in which they always post clear and visible warnings warning people to gamble in moderation, to only gamble with amounts they can afford to lose, and to never look at gambling as a source of income.

[robelneo]

In Sweden, the gambling regulator reported that almost 1% of disposable income went to gambling in 2024, about €2.5B total. Most of it came from online casinos and betting. Disposable income BTW is ( salary - taxes + benefits).

For comparison:

Australia – often cited as the highest per capita gambling spend, closer to 3–4% of disposable income in some year
UK – sits roughly around 0.7–0.9%, depending on the measure
Philippines – it's hard to measure because of offshore/illegal markets... ( not well regulated)

I think it's normal and average if we compare it to Australia I'm more interested in the Philippines because, since the start of the year, gambling expenditure has been an issue.
If there is a study on this, I will not be surprised if it exceeds Australia because gambling is so rampant here that the government loses control, and there are mafias organizing legal gambling; now, gambling connects to corrupt officials with their ghost projects.

[Alphakilo]

In Sweden, the gambling regulator reported that almost 1% of disposable income went to gambling in 2024, about €2.5B total. Most of it came from online casinos and betting. Disposable income BTW is ( salary - taxes + benefits).

For comparison:

Australia – often cited as the highest per capita gambling spend, closer to 3–4% of disposable income in some year
UK – sits roughly around 0.7–0.9%, depending on the measure
Philippines – it's hard to measure because of offshore/illegal markets... ( not well regulated)

I think it's normal and average if we compare it to Australia I'm more interested in the Philippines because, since the start of the year, gambling expenditure has been an issue.
If there is a study on this, I will not be surprised if it exceeds Australia because gambling is so rampant here that the government loses control, and there are mafias organizing legal gambling; now, gambling connects to corrupt officials with their ghost projects.

I think it's quite normal for almost about 1% of disposable income to go to gambling because while it's still a new and thriving endeavor for many countries, a country like Australia, Brazil even the Philippines have a long gambling history and have even gone as far as taxing gambling wins up to about 15% because of the rising gambling addiction problems.

Still, the problem of gambling cannot be totally eradicated and that's why 1% even looks good because it shows there are more more persons who don't spend a dime on gambling because they don't gamble at all or gamble responsibly.

The knowledge of budgeting is good when it comes to managing gambling resources and as such, gambling funds should only come from one's entertainment budget, which is about 30% for wants as against 50% for important needs and 20% for savings.

Only gamble with what you can afford to lose.

[Fiatless]

1% isn't a substantial amount to be spent in gambling, it is too little, and only someone who is well disciplined can keep it within that range. For instance, the minimum wage of 70K NGN with a 1% discretionary income for gambling is 770 NGN, it is not a huge amount but if multiplied against the population of gamblers, it becomes a large significant figure.

OP is not referring to 1% of total income, but rather disposable income. So the amount will be lower than your calculations. We would have to determine the discretionary income of gamblers in Sweden to get the rate. I also think that the data is not alarming as in the case of other countries. Even 1% of total income is also okay for me.  

[₿itcoin]

Hmm, this is Sweden's revenue, most of which comes from online casinos. Your data suggests that if you take the total "spendable" money of all Swedes in a year, about one krona out of every hundred goes back into gambling.

On the other hand, in Australia, people can gamble freely, more than Sweden, but they lose billions every year in gambling because their regulation system is not good. When you look at the billions of annual losses and the loss per person, it is easy to imagine that Australia is one of the heaviest gambling markets in the world. But they are losing huge revenues due to the lack of a proper regulatory body. Speaking of the Philippines, you may know that POGO/offshore is banned there, people use many illegal casinos.

So it can be said that this percentage of disposable income reveals different things in different reports and different countries measure it differently, many countries include illegal/foreign gambling and many exclude it. So it would be wrong to take these numbers as gospel. whatever, this 1% is normal,, gambling is far important to people compared to what people actually have to spend.

[Wapfika]

1% isn't a substantial amount to be spent in gambling, it is too little, and only someone who is well disciplined can keep it within that range. For instance, the minimum wage of 70K NGN with a 1% discretionary income for gambling is 770 NGN, it is not a huge amount but if multiplied against the population of gamblers, it becomes a large significant figure.

OP is not referring to 1% of total income, but rather disposable income. So the amount will be lower than your calculations. We would have to determine the discretionary income of gamblers in Sweden to get the rate. I also think that the data is not alarming as in the case of other countries. Even 1% of total income is also okay for me.  

I believe his point is 1% is already a low percentage even if it’s total or disposable income. You are talking about much lower percentage while he is describing the higher percentage than your example as already too small to be concerned on using in gambling purposes.

I agree on that part since 1% is already can be considered as proper bankroll management.

Personally I do use disposable income greater than 1% most of the time.

[xenomorfo]

In Sweden, the gambling regulator reported that almost 1% of disposable income went to gambling in 2024, about ?2.5B total. Most of it came from online casinos and betting. Disposable income BTW is ( salary - taxes + benefits).

For comparison:

Australia ? often cited as the highest per capita gambling spend, closer to 3?4% of disposable income in some year
UK ? sits roughly around 0.7?0.9%, depending on the measure
Philippines ? it's hard to measure because of offshore/illegal markets... ( not well regulated)

I don't understand why the state should tell me how much of my money to use, what does it matter to them?
Even now, if you want to withdraw money from your bank account, you have to ask permission. Are we crazy? You might as well keep it in a safe deposit box.