As Parliament prepares to examine in detail the next tax bill, expected in 2026, one measure is already provoking heated debate: the planned sharp rise in gambling tax. The centrist D66 party is calling for an immediate freeze, arguing that the increase could be counterproductive, costly and dangerous for gamblers.
D66 sounds the alarm
During the first day of discussions, MP Henk-Jan Oosterhuis, a D66 figure, called on the government to abandon for the time being the increase in gaming tax, which is due to rise to 37.8% from 1ᵉʳ January 2026. He believes that the data currently available in no way justifies such an increase.
In his view, the previous increase, which was supposed to generate significantly higher tax revenues, did not produce the results announced: the expected additional revenues never materialised. He also points out that a tax that is too high drives players to illegal platforms, where no security rules are applied.
Several elected representatives share this concern. Pieter Grinwis MP, for example, points out that a tax can become counter-productive once it exceeds a break-even point: raising it too much would cause revenue to fall rather than rise.
In other words: taxing more does not guarantee earning more.
Oosterhuis adds: before imposing a new increase, we need to analyse the real impact of the previous one. In his view, it is no longer reasonable to make decisions without reliable data and independent evaluation.
Legal operators unite
Companies in the gambling sector, including physical casinos, licensed platforms and official lotteries, have published a joint document calling for the increase to be suspended.
They put forward several arguments:
- Revenue from the tax has been well below forecasts, with an estimated deficit of €263 million for the current year.
- A report by the regulatory authority points out that a rate that is too high risks reducing overall revenues and weakening the legal offer.
- The Cour des Comptes has criticised the tax authorities for failing to measure the effectiveness of these repeated increases.
According to these players, excessive taxation would encourage gamblers to turn to illegal sites, which are impossible to control and totally lacking in addiction prevention mechanisms.
Oosterhuis: “As far as the tax on gambling is concerned, I’m a bit worried that this will lead to a transfer to the illegal circuit, which would not lead to a reduction in betting, but to a reduction in supervision and tax revenue. I think we would then all be moving away from the policy objective.”
D66’s request to freeze the increase in gaming tax highlights a crucial question: can taxation alone provide a framework for such a sensitive sector? The final decision could have a lasting impact not only on the gambling industry, but also on the national strategy for prevention, funding and regulation.