Is it just?

[Fiatless]

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?

[Wiwo]

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.

[_act_]

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.

[Fiatless]

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.

[retreat]

-snip-
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?

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.

[_act_]

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.

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.

[Frankolala]

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.

[MArsland]

Is it just?

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?

[wakier]

-snip-
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?

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.

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.

[giammangiato]

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.

[Fiatless]

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.

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.

Federal Excise Duty: In January 2025, the 5% excise duty on all gaming services was introduced, which will apply to all operators, irrespective of whether they are licensed by the state.
Federal Withholding Tax (WHT): Nigeria now takes 5% WHT on all player wins by residents of the country.

[abaeze]

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?

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.

[Proty]

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?

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.

[Crypt0Gore]

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.

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.

[btc_angela]

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.

[X-ray]

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.  

[hopenotlate]

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.

[Fiatless]

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.

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.

[danherbias07]

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.

[ZeroVinsonN]

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?

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.