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

[Agbamoni]

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.

Anyone with an actual income of 70K NGN should neither gamble or investor. He/she should work on their finances and ways to grow whatever thing they are doing. It will be stupid to gamble or invest with such amount.

1% is practically the best amount. Gamble shouldn't be something your prioritize over other things. It is not a means of living so it shouldn't be taking more discretionary income from you, when you have better things to do with money.

[maydna]

If 1% is the total, then I guess for every person who gambles, spend very little on gambling. That is because I don't know the right amount they use and how many people play gambling. Comparing to Australia, that percentage is still low so it will not be a big problem for Sweden about its citizens who gamble.

1% is high for the UK but still not too high. That could mean Swedish people can control their gambling habits and not put themselves in danger. But we don't know the situation in the country so we could just guess.

1% is enough for playing gambling. You don't spend too much money just to enjoy gambling.

[Gost ms]

How much % someone should gamble with for gambling should depend entirely on their financial situation. For example, if a person's expenses are more than their income every month, then if that person gambles, he will be in debt. So first, you have to take care of your financial situation. If a person gambles with 7% of his income depending on his financial situation, there will be no problem. But you have to take care that he does not become addicted to gambling. If a person becomes addicted to gambling, it will be very bad for him. When a person becomes addicted to gambling, he does not care about whether he is losing his money or making a profit. Many people have become bankrupt due to gambling addiction, so do not get addicted to gambling and look at it as a game.

[junder]

I don't think setting aside 1% of my income is that much, in fact, it's quite sufficient, and I don't mind doing it. Perhaps a normal limit for gambling is 1%-5%.
The point is, we should only gamble with funds we can afford. Never gamble beyond our means, because if we do, it's no longer healthy gambling.
Furthermore, casinos will still profit even if they only gamble with 1% of their income, because in a country with a large income, there are just as many people interested in gambling.

[Darker45]

For me, that's far from too much. That's a good figure. And considering the standard of living in Sweden, I guess that's not a portion that makes one sacrifice other aspects of life for the sake of gambling. On a national scale, although it's still in billions, it doesn't sound alarming to me.

Compared to the situation in my country, that's certainly an ideal scenario. Here, even the bottom poor could sacrifice basic needs for the sake of gambling. Gambling in my country is an uncontrollable pandemic.

[xenomorfo]

Read a book for a change instead of shitposting here. When you ruin your life and become an addict you start creating problems for other people and often directly for the state. The state benefits a lot if its population its physically and mentally healthy.

First of all, let's stay calm, i don't write shit, i write the truth, the state has no interest in people, they don't care, we are just numbers for them, otherwise instead of spending money on weapons they would spend it on schools and healthcare
Setting a limit for us and none for them seems very inconsistent to me.

[Muba20]

Spending 1% of one's income on gambling is certainly not a lot. This will depend on the income of the gambler. If someone has a high income, it is very easy to spend 1%, while for those whose income is very low, it is difficult to spend 1%. If the financial situation is good, sometimes spending more than1% is not a problem, I think. There are some gamblers who do not have enough money to meet their family's expenses. If they spend a little money somewhere, their family will have financial problems. For such gamblers, 1% is often a big amount and if it is more than that, gambling can be too much problem for them.

[swogerino]

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 that 1% of any salary which can be considered disposable income is a small amount to be going to gamble, even if your salary is 10.000 EUR it means that 1% is just 100 EUR and it does not affect badly the person. Now if get into consideration the fact that the total amount of money is 2.5 billion we need to know the population and we can get an average, if the average is a high number than it means that the country is in a good financial health. For me the higher such number the better the country financially and I don't know why many countries do not use this indicator to gaudge their economy.

[Russlenat]

Spending 1% of one's income on gambling is certainly not a lot. This will depend on the income of the gambler. If someone has a high income, it is very easy to spend 1%, while for those whose income is very low, it is difficult to spend 1%. If the financial situation is good, sometimes spending more than1% is not a problem, I think. There are some gamblers who do not have enough money to meet their family's expenses. If they spend a little money somewhere, their family will have financial problems. For such gamblers, 1% is often a big amount and if it is more than that, gambling can be too much problem for them.

Here in the Philippines we don’t really do that, that’s way too safe. Some people here even spend more than 100% of their income, that’s why they end up buried in debt. In countries where it’s managed well, gambling is really treated as fun, and it’s well regulated so it stays at a controllable level. Win-win, gamblers enjoy, the government earns revenue, and addiction doesn’t get out of hand.

Unlike here in the Philippines, and I can attest to this, where regulation is weak and the problems are more obvious.

[danherbias07]

That tells how much growth the gambling industry has gone through after the creation of online casinos and is continuing to happen until now.

IMO, this is not yet over. It could grow to 2 percent or more in the said country in the first sentence. I think the problem is how they will manage to control this. Or is that a very low percentage that they will let it continue?
I mean, they are also receiving taxes from the gambling platforms if they are regulated. I bet they are because they have the numbers to tell it.

[purple_sparkles]

Spending 1% of one's income on gambling is certainly not a lot. This will depend on the income of the gambler. If someone has a high income, it is very easy to spend 1%, while for those whose income is very low, it is difficult to spend 1%. If the financial situation is good, sometimes spending more than1% is not a problem, I think. There are some gamblers who do not have enough money to meet their family's expenses. If they spend a little money somewhere, their family will have financial problems. For such gamblers, 1% is often a big amount and if it is more than that, gambling can be too much problem for them.

Here in the Philippines we don’t really do that, that’s way too safe. Some people here even spend more than 100% of their income, that’s why they end up buried in debt. In countries where it’s managed well, gambling is really treated as fun, and it’s well regulated so it stays at a controllable level. Win-win, gamblers enjoy, the government earns revenue, and addiction doesn’t get out of hand.

Unlike here in the Philippines, and I can attest to this, where regulation is weak and the problems are more obvious.

In countries with weak economies, gambling is more widespread and tends to have a more harmful nature, since people’s incomes are low and the amounts they spend on gambling are disproportionately high for them. For example, the same amount of money in a country with a high standard of living and income, and in a country with a low standard of living and small income, will look very different. Spending 1% of a $4,000 income might be enough for a good game, while 1% of a $100 income would barely feel like you played at all.

[Yaunfitda]

Spending 1% of one's income on gambling is certainly not a lot. This will depend on the income of the gambler. If someone has a high income, it is very easy to spend 1%, while for those whose income is very low, it is difficult to spend 1%. If the financial situation is good, sometimes spending more than1% is not a problem, I think. There are some gamblers who do not have enough money to meet their family's expenses. If they spend a little money somewhere, their family will have financial problems. For such gamblers, 1% is often a big amount and if it is more than that, gambling can be too much problem for them.

Here in the Philippines we don’t really do that, that’s way too safe. Some people here even spend more than 100% of their income, that’s why they end up buried in debt. In countries where it’s managed well, gambling is really treated as fun, and it’s well regulated so it stays at a controllable level. Win-win, gamblers enjoy, the government earns revenue, and addiction doesn’t get out of hand.

Unlike here in the Philippines, and I can attest to this, where regulation is weak and the problems are more obvious.

That is really gambling there, I mean it could have been part of your society to play and gamble as the influence of major countries has been ingrain in the country. Plus the weak economy and that's why most people will prefer to gamble be legal or illegal. And I think there might be just few like winning the lottery who have change their lives for the better. So it's up to the country itself, if the economy is strong and there are jobs everywhere, and only few are poor then gambling might not be predominant. But in countries that struggles, maybe the solution for them is to gamble all their money away in hope that they can make it double.

[JeffBrad12]

Well, the population number is important.

1% of disposable income goes to gambling is a good percentage, if we're talking about per each gambler.

But, if the 1% of disposable income from Sweden goes to gambling, someone could gamble 100% of their disposable income, 100% of their monthly salary, while other people gamble 0.01% of disposable income, and they might even not a gambler at all.Ag

Agreed. Not all of people were gambling and last time i remember only around 5% or less of total population in sweden were gamblers. If we're also taking the average wages in sweden, which was around 4500 usd, 1% only cost them $45, not a lot of money. I don't think it's such a burden, and importantly the sweden gambling revenue was increasing too. So i still see it as a win win.

[Nwada001]

1% is pretty small, i could at least take 5-8% from my income for gambling and that won't be a problem, it won't affect any thing as i'm not something who gamble regularly. Bit to those who gamble more often this is good decision and discipline to start with for self-controls.

Individually that number is a fair one. I mean, if someone can be responsible enough to gamble with just less than 5% of their total earned income, that's something to be proud of, but in this statistic it's not always that accurate. Sometimes there are those in the list who don't even make a single bet, and those irresponsible gamblers' data are the ones that sum up the whole thing, which is now divided per earner and not based on how many individual gamblers there are in a month.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

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.

Yes, I thought so too, the money is big because it's a compliment of all the gamblers in that country, although some persons must have gone out of their way to overstake but overall, the 1% general calculations is not too much for all. Other countries could have more numbers than that and the difference could be because of the large number of gamblers in that country.

[iv4n]

Approximate net salary per month (USD) in Australia, Sweden, and the UK is around $3k... In the Philippines, it is around $400... Since OP mentioned these four countries in his post.

Very few gamblers actually keep track of how much money they spend on gambling. The smarter ones only spend what they can afford to lose... Sometimes it's a bit more, sometimes less, I guess it depends on all other "life circumstances".  And there are always people without any control...

[Obim34]

Anyone with an actual income of 70K NGN should neither gamble or investor. He/she should work on their finances and ways to grow whatever thing they are doing. It will be stupid to gamble or invest with such amount.

1% is practically the best amount. Gamble shouldn't be something your prioritize over other things. It is not a means of living so it shouldn't be taking more discretionary income from you, when you have better things to do with money.

A gambler who is honest, will tell you that 1% is little to spare from your income, it is modest but never accurate for gamblers. Practically, 1% of 100K is 1k, logically almost all gambler spends about 5%-10% of their income in gambling, if the truth is being accepted.

After receiving your salary or income, the first obligation to fulfill is covering your expenses, someone with lesser bills can spare out little amount even from a minimum wage to gamble, it doesn't make you irresponsible, if the bills are answered with some savings then why not spare moderately to gamble on your favorite sport, IMO.

[Findingnemo]

Anyone with an actual income of 70K NGN should neither gamble or investor. He/she should work on their finances and ways to grow whatever thing they are doing. It will be stupid to gamble or invest with such amount.

1% is practically the best amount. Gamble shouldn't be something your prioritize over other things. It is not a means of living so it shouldn't be taking more discretionary income from you, when you have better things to do with money.

A gambler who is honest, will tell you that 1% is little to spare from your income, it is modest but never accurate for gamblers. Practically, 1% of 100K is 1k, logically almost all gambler spends about 5%-10% of their income in gambling, if the truth is being accepted.

After receiving your salary or income, the first obligation to fulfill is covering your expenses, someone with lesser bills can spare out little amount even from a minimum wage to gamble, it doesn't make you irresponsible, if the bills are answered with some savings then why not spare moderately to gamble on your favorite sport, IMO.

For someone who is making 100K a year/month 5K is not a problem but for someone who is making 400 dollars a month may not be able to survive even with 1% and since we all need to realize that gambling is luxury spending not a necessaity for survival and please be informed if someone wants to take that chance.

[Fiatless]

Yes, I thought so too, the money is big because it's a compliment of all the gamblers in that country, although some persons must have gone out of their way to overstake but overall, the 1% general calculations is not too much for all. Other countries could have more numbers than that and the difference could be because of the large number of gamblers in that country.

If this data is correct, it shows that Sweden has a high number of responsible gamblers. I know people around who gamble with more than 20% of their income. 1% of my income of people's income could be easily spent on game or movie subscriptions.

Therefore, spending 1% of your income on an activity that might bring gains is not bad. 

[Satofan44]

First of all, let's stay calm, i don't write shit, i write the truth, the state has no interest in people, they don't care, we are just numbers for them, otherwise instead of spending money on weapons they would spend it on schools and healthcare
Setting a limit for us and none for them seems very inconsistent to me.

Of course you are writing shit, you empty brained mongrel. Why would the state ban anything if they didn't care? Your chickpea sized brain is unable to comprehend that the word "care" can have several different meanings besides the traditional emotional meaning. Entities can care about things due to economic reasons. Why would they ban any dangerous activity if they didn't care about the consequences of said behavior?   Smoking cigarettes is being phased out not because somebody gives a damn whether you die or not, but because it is a net negative on the GDP of a country. The money gained from the consumption is less than the money caused from the negative effects of this behavior.

Approximate net salary per month (USD) in Australia, Sweden, and the UK is around $3k... In the Philippines, it is around $400... Since OP mentioned these four countries in his post.

Very few gamblers actually keep track of how much money they spend on gambling. The smarter ones only spend what they can afford to lose... Sometimes it's a bit more, sometimes less, I guess it depends on all other "life circumstances".  And there are always people without any control...

This is an example that proves that relative spending matters and absolute one does not. Someone spending $100 a month in the Philippines is much more addicted and making a bigger mistake than someone spending $300 a month in Sweden.