Mass Casinos will fail if the $600 thing isn't changed....
Especially when NH Casinos are introduced to the mix as well.

This will get changed... I wouldn't worry about it too much.

The Mass Gaming Commission today unanimously approved a memo to the Legislature advocating an amendment to this law. The full text of the memo is here:

http://massgaming.com/wp-content/upl...et-1-29-14.pdf

I don't pretend to fully understand it, but I believe it's recommending the adoption of federal guidelines, which seem to require withholding over $1200 for slots, $1500 for Keno games, and $5000 for poker tournaments. For other games it appears to be winnings that are greater than $600 AND greater than 300x the wager. I'd be grateful if someone better suited to interpret this than I am could read it over and confirm / correct what I believe.

The $600 figure is likely a misreading of the old rule at racetracks that if a $2 bet returned $600+ the customer had to fill out tax forms.

I was more about 300:1 payoff than $600. If you bet $200 on a 3:1 shot and collected $800, you didn't have to fill out a 1099-G.

FWIW the >$600 triggers a tax form also already applies in Massachusetts to lottery wins, including scratch tickets.

HEY MA LAW MAKERS ! GUESS WHAT ILL GO TO FOXWOODS IF THATS THE CASE SUCK MY NUT!

in terms of Everett or Revere.... HMMMM I VOTE EVERETT. **** Mohegan. They don't give a **** about poker. Does anyone play there currently? My understanding is that its filled w collusion OR just ****ty in general and you go there if foxwoods kicks you out. Based on that alone and the fact that a waterfront casino will cater more to shoppers and people being entertained ( probably better for MA economy) I vote Everett Wynn. Degen poker players will get better treatment there and hopefully a bigger poker room. Im just talking out of my ass but generally that is how I feel.

Why are you personally so upset about the $600 threshold?

Because it will kill poker as we know it? You can't have a poker room without poker players, and you can't have players with that silliness.

http://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/m...g#.Uu7GvfldWSo

Steve Wynn now opposed to online gaming.

This does not bode well for getting online Poker in Massachusetts if he wins his Casino bid.

interesting to say the least. Makes me worried, guess I gotta pull for Mohegan Sun. Although I can't see Wynn against it if his company stands to gain a huge market share in MA. They are clearly losing elsewhere and their rivals are at the forefront of the industry. Too bad Caesars couldn't have gotten the bid. WSOP Circuits, and WSOP.com would have been amazing. Guess I have to change my vote to Mohegan.

But more than just MA getting internet gambling we need a company that will actively want to share player pools with another state and another larger player pool (which is why I wanted Caesars).

Who knows what will happen when push comes to shove.

If at the high roller pit, if someone is playing a $1,000 a hand, every hand he wins technically he would have to fill out a form. So he wins hand, fills out form, owes the state 5% or $50. Next hand he loses 1,000, putting hi even, except he owes the state $50.

It's would be crazier in poker. Pot looks to be over $600. No only would dealer have to count it to get exact amount to know how much in taxes owed, after figuring out how much winning player put into pot. If pot is 900 and he put in 320 it would not be taxed, If pot is 740 and he put in $139 he would owe tax.

You think that might not be a problem? Plus how long would it take to fill out tax form, would floor have to supervise and sign each form?

There's no way they do this, it's completely impractical. They must have a method in mind. And he wouldn't still owe the state $50, as he can deduct the $1k loss against the win.

Wait, isn't the $600 threshold on 300-1 shot payoffs?

It is for federal and still is for federal, but not for the state of MA, that is what has changed. Right now it you go to Suffolk Downs and bet 1 ticket $700 to win on and even money shot, if you win you need to fill out a state tax form

$20 exacta that pays $63,20,, get back $632, state tax form

That is the problem!!!!!

and Lattimer, that is the problem with state tax gambling laws, Federally you can deduct gambling loses vs gambling winnings, NOT state loses against wins, at least not in MA

WAAF if that's the case then.

I don't know what that means, except:

We Are All ****ed. It's used most often in political discussions, though using it in New England I can see the confusion

Sent from my SCH-I545 using 2+2 Forums

**** snow

I'll take it! It's too cold to snow here (Minneapolis). I keep checking the five-day forecast, hoping for some relief from these subzero temps, and it never comes. We just routinely plunge to -10 and -20 every night since Christmas, highs getting barely above zero.** When it does get to the 20's, it feels WARM. I wear long underwear and long-sleeved undershirts day and night, and I work INDOORS!

Worst of all, this is my first winter in my new body, the downside to losing weight is that it feels like I'm no longer wearing my 200-lb blanket. I'm. Just. Freezing. All the damn time.

** = Those are temps, not wind chills.

I'll take that over snow all day.

I'll take shoveling powder at single digit F temps like the last couple of storms over shoveling that wet cement yesterday even though it was above freezing.

Yea that Vortex thing we had over here was miserable, and I used to work full-time in a sub-zero warehouse. Congrats on the ************!

Anyway how did the room fare yesterday? Was anybody there?

What are the chances the anti-casino people in Massachusetts could get their question on the November ballot ?

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion...erendum_battle

IMO the chances are poor.
In Massachusetts, the legislature is charged with the task of setting laws, taxes and deciding within its borders what is legal and what is not legal- as long as it squares with the United States and its constitution. Since the US allows each state to decide its own gaming matters, and Massachusetts has a representative style of governance, the real way to end potential casino gaming would be to elect representatives that are casino opponents.
Didn't happen, and now the anti-casino forces are attempting an end-run around the legislature by petitioning for a constitutional amendment to strip the decision making from the legislature and hand it back to the people in this instance.
Never a good idea.
Coakley has decided, correctly, that the corporations that applied have acted lawfully, spent money merely to apply for a license, and spent millions more in presentation and preparation costs. To remove this ability to do so after the fact, without making them whole, would be a rights violation. So, an old talking point from past years revisits us- "Corporations are people too" (USA vs.Citizens United), and at least in this instance, the rights of the gaming corporations, who acted in the best of faith, would be violated.
To have a constitutional ballot initiative on this would be farcical, and somewhat upsetting to a legislative process that in many ways has been the model for many other states. (at least since 1776).

I spoke with my state rep a few weeks ago about this. He stated that it is unlikely to even get on the ballot. If it does, it won't have any impact on the companies who are already involved in the process set out, but there is a long shot that it could potentially impact future considerations if it does pass. So, if either license is not awarded and the process starts all over, this ballot initiative could prevent the process from starting over, or from additional licenses being granted in the future.
Again, it is highly unlikely that this can legally be put on the ballot, but stranger things have happened in the MA legal world.
Also, polls show that this would have almost no shot of passing were it to actually make the ballot.