Is it just?

[Rockson1]

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.

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.

[Sammye3]

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.

[rakebit]

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?

[r_victory]

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.

[WhoYouCantKill]

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.

[aioc]

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?

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.

[Royal Cap]

Is it just?

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.

[Dunamisx]

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.

[Shinpako09]

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.

[ashmodeus]

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.

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.

[Cookdata]

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 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.

[Fiatless]

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.

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.

Please tell me where I misled the people.

[m2017]

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.

[HelliumZ]

Is it just?

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.

[qwertyup23]

<..snip..>
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 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.

[robelneo]

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.

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.

[Oluwa-btc]

 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 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.

[giammangiato]

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.

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?

[Tomcasper]

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?

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

[₿itcoin]

Is it just?

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.