Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

News, Views, and Gossip For poker news, views, and gossip

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-28-2010, 04:13 PM   #251
Kevmath
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: @Kevmath
Posts: 28,213
Here's the roll call of yeas and nays:

http://financialservices.house.gov/M...oll%20call.pdf

The text of amendments considered should appear at:

http://financialservices.house.gov/H...px?NewsID=1340 shortly.

Last edited by Kevmath; 07-28-2010 at 04:24 PM.
Kevmath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 04:21 PM   #252
Lady Arcadia
enthusiast
 
Lady Arcadia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 97
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Huzzah! Thank you Kevmath, your summaries were very helpful!

P.S. I hate that I'm from MN and represented by that insane piece of trash.
Lady Arcadia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 04:22 PM   #253
Onyx
old hand
 
Onyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: sitting in a tin-can
Posts: 1,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahSD View Post
IANAL but I think that even if Stars and FTP get counted in the ban, they'd still be able to sell/rent their brand and software to someone else.
Of course they will, or copy/paste their model into a new shell company. They will still be around, albeit with maybe a bracket or a comma somewhere. The really exciting part of this legislation, is that if the industry is seen as "legal" in the US if/when this bill passes other major players that had been put off by the state of limbo will enter the market, improving the product offered to us, the consumers, although obv costs would be imposed on them, so it may not get noticeably cheaper, but it will certainly get noticeably better imo. So glass half full I reckon.
Onyx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 04:23 PM   #254
PrimogenitoX
banned
 
PrimogenitoX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: 500BBs deep
Posts: 2,859
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by HC28 View Post
So can we still play at Stars and Tilt?
Nope. Stars and FTP are now closed. Try Eurolinx!
PrimogenitoX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 04:26 PM   #255
herebigfishy
banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,136
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

If we loose FT and Pokerstars, does that mean that we also loose UB? Partypoker is going to take over the USA when it comes to online poker!
herebigfishy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 04:38 PM   #256
Alizona
temp-banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 3,022
How can this bill be a good thing if the talk seems to be Stars getting shut out of the American market?

I've tried Full Tilt and Cake and Bodog and that SpadeEye (er, SpadeClub?) piece of crap. THEY ALL SUCK. I played on Party Poker when they were still here... meh.

Poker Stars is far and away the best site IMO and if they get closed down here I am done with online. F this bull**** and America's ******ed politicians and laws.

Last edited by Alizona; 07-28-2010 at 04:44 PM.
Alizona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 04:43 PM   #257
NoahSD
Is Right
 
NoahSD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,865
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alizona View Post
How can this bill be a good thing if the talk seems to be Stars getting shut out of the American market?

I've tried Full Tilt and Cake and Bodog and that SpadeEye piece of crap. THEY ALL SUCK. I played on Party Poker when they were still here... meh.

Poker Stars is far and away the best site IMO and if they get closed down here I am done with online. F this bull**** and America's ******ed politicians and laws.
Stars, FTP, and the PPA all *think* though they're not sure that the provision that people are freaking out about doesn't apply to them. If it does apply to them, it's very likely that they'll just sell their software (and maybe even their brand name and support staff etc.) to some "other" company so they'll still basically exist, possibly with a new name. If even that isn't allowed, then there will still be something like harrahspoker.com which will likely be way better than the current incarnation of stars anyway.
NoahSD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 04:45 PM   #258
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 and other bills 10am ET Wednesday

Quote:
Originally Posted by unlucky4me View Post
Yes but there is or was an opt out clause where each state could decide if they wanted to allow it. I'll be sunk then in the great progressive state of Alabama
The opt out does not make poker unlawful in opt out states. Rather, licensed sites simply won't serve players in those states. One assumes other sites would fill that void.

There is currently a deposit tax in the companion tax bill, but PPA is fighting to remove player liability for that. We even issued a press release demanding this, so our position is crystal clear.

Also, keep in mind that Congress isn't going to ignore this issue. It's not like we can defeat this bill and go on forever with the status quo. There really is no scenario where we keep the status quo for decades to come.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 04:46 PM   #259
aces_full1963
veteran
 
aces_full1963's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,972
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

I don't think Stars and FT will be going anywhere. They have not done anything illegal.
aces_full1963 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 04:46 PM   #260
dfbuzzbeater
old hand
 
dfbuzzbeater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Chitown
Posts: 1,510
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevmath View Post
Here's the roll call of yeas and nays:

http://financialservices.house.gov/M...oll%20call.pdf

The text of amendments considered should appear at:

http://financialservices.house.gov/H...px?NewsID=1340 shortly.
LOL how do you do that???? So sick.

Both my reps voted yea.

Interesting that Sherman wasn't present for the vote. He had alot of good input when they were debating the amendments....
dfbuzzbeater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 04:47 PM   #261
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (markup on HR 2267 now!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dprociak View Post
1st amendment looks like it will not license current poker sites....oh no
The sites contend that they have violated no U.S. laws, so they believe they do not fall into that exclusion.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 04:48 PM   #262
NoahSD
Is Right
 
NoahSD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,865
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 and other bills 10am ET Wednesday

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
There is currently a deposit tax in the companion tax bill, but PPA is fighting to remove player liability for that. We even issued a press release demanding this, so our position is crystal clear.
Can you clarify what it means for players to not be liable for this tax? Do you want a ban in the bill for deposit fees or something? Otherwise sites could just "pay the tax themselves" and charge an equivalent "deposit fee".
NoahSD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 04:49 PM   #263
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (markup on HR 2267 now!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMGWTFups View Post
these sites are paying bloggers to do charachter assasination LOL
He was referring to my article, at http://biggovernment.com/rmuny/2010/...et-for-the-gop.

LOL at getting paid to do it (I wasn't), as if no one would otherwise complain about his actions in this area.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 04:49 PM   #264
Alizona
temp-banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 3,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahSD View Post
Stars, FTP, and the PPA all *think* though they're not sure that the provision that people are freaking out about doesn't apply to them. If it does apply to them, it's very likely that they'll just sell their software (and maybe even their brand name and support staff etc.) to some "other" company so they'll still basically exist, possibly with a new name. If even that isn't allowed, then there will still be something like harrahspoker.com which will likely be way better than the current incarnation of stars anyway.
Great... so we'll get yet another layer on the online shell game onion? That's helpful to us.

And count me as someone who thinks b&m casino involvement in online poker and immediately taking over (thanks to our lobbyist-sucking political pigs at the trough giving them an inside track) is not only unfair but AWFUL for the players.

Whatever, I've been moving from online to live anyway over time... but I'm lucky enough to have casinos with pokerrooms nearby. Most don't have that luxury.
Alizona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 04:49 PM   #265
xmykro
adept
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,068
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alizona View Post
How can this bill be a good thing if the talk seems to be Stars getting shut out of the American market?

I've tried Full Tilt and Cake and Bodog and that SpadeEye (er, SpadeClub?) piece of crap. THEY ALL SUCK. I played on Party Poker when they were still here... meh.

Poker Stars is far and away the best site IMO and if they get closed down here I am done with online. F this bull**** and America's ******ed politicians and laws.
The first amendment is only for sites that have intentionally broken internet gaming laws. Only Party Poker has plead guilty to breaking any law. Pokerstars and Fulltilt haven't been charged with anything.
xmykro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 04:53 PM   #266
nuisance
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
nuisance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Of Heaven, North of Hell
Posts: 11,644
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

My Rep voted Ayes.

I don't play online anymore anyway. We now have poker rooms in PA and thats my preferred platform anyway.

Just wait till everyone in the U.S starts getting taxed 50%. I think that will be the downfall of online poker if anything.

No I didn't read the article, so I don't know what there plans for taxing it is, so I could be wrong.
nuisance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 04:57 PM   #267
NoahSD
Is Right
 
NoahSD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,865
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alizona View Post
Great... so we'll get yet another layer on the online shell game onion? That's helpful to us.

And count me as someone who thinks b&m casino involvement in online poker and immediately taking over (thanks to our lobbyist-sucking political pigs at the trough giving them an inside track) is not only unfair but AWFUL for the players.

Whatever, I've been moving from online to live anyway over time... but I'm lucky enough to have casinos with pokerrooms nearby. Most don't have that luxury.
I dunno what you're arguing here.

I guess the shell game thing would be slightly annoying, and I understand a general hatred for Harrah's et al for doing various things that suck.But this entire thing isn't meant to be a situation where you get exactly what you want. It's meant as an alternative to the current situation that's better for everybody.

The two big things that this bill does are:

1) Explicitly making internet gambling legal. This means no more sketchy payment processors and sketchy offshore companies. No more being slightly worried that one day you'll get taken to court for playing poker online. And much larger player pools thanks to lots of people who currently think it's illegal learning that it's not.

2) Regulating This Stuff. So, yes, Stars and FTP may play some sort of shell game to get into the market, but then they'll be licensed and regulated by the US government which will mean lots more transparency than we've had up until now. It also means that we'll have recourse when we feel we've been wronged by the sites or other players or payment processors. THIS IS HUGE.
NoahSD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 04:58 PM   #268
NoahSD
Is Right
 
NoahSD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,865
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuisance View Post
My Rep voted Ayes.

I don't play online anymore anyway. We now have poker rooms in PA and thats my preferred platform anyway.

Just wait till everyone in the U.S starts getting taxed 50%. I think that will be the downfall of online poker if anything.

No I didn't read the article, so I don't know what there plans for taxing it is, so I could be wrong.
You're wrong. The 50% thing is a tax on unlicensed sites and I think the PPA is still pushing to get rid of it. The goal is to get sites licensed, in which case there will likely be a 2% tax on deposits, which doesn't seem like a huge deal, right?
NoahSD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:00 PM   #269
anakedcowboy
journeyman
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 235
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

If you guys ever think that you can't make a difference, my republican rep Kenny Marchant of Texas had previously written me a letter that he was against it, but would look into it further. After a long response from me and several letters and phone calls from other voters here in his district, he voted for the bill.

You HAVE to get out there and call your reps. If you support them, they will support you. It does make a huge difference.
anakedcowboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:00 PM   #270
nuisance
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
nuisance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Of Heaven, North of Hell
Posts: 11,644
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

2% tax on deposits doesn't seem to bad. But what happens if say a micro player withdraws $50 are the going to get a 1040-G for that $50 now?

Or is it going to be the standard $600 min?
nuisance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:02 PM   #271
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (markup on HR 2267 now!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by repulse View Post
I'm with you, and the PPA has suggested that, in the Senate at least, a version of this that treats only poker might have a better chance than one that treats all gambling. It seems to be a distinct possibility going forward.
This.

Also, today's awesome bipartisan margin will help drive the Senate effort.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:03 PM   #272
NoahSD
Is Right
 
NoahSD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,865
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuisance View Post
2% tax on deposits doesn't seem to bad. But what happens if say a micro player withdraws $50 are the going to get a 1040-G for that $50 now?

Or is it going to be the standard $600 min?
I have no clue but you should pay your taxes regardless.
NoahSD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:03 PM   #273
Mr. Perfect
enthusiast
 
Mr. Perfect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 53
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Any mention of possible taxing?

Last edited by Mr. Perfect; 07-28-2010 at 05:04 PM. Reason: nevermind just read above
Mr. Perfect is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:04 PM   #274
NoahSD
Is Right
 
NoahSD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,865
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by anakedcowboy View Post
If you guys ever think that you can't make a difference, my republican rep Kenny Marchant of Texas had previously written me a letter that he was against it, but would look into it further. After a long response from me and several letters and phone calls from other voters here in his district, he voted for the bill.

You HAVE to get out there and call your reps. If you support them, they will support you. It does make a huge difference.
Awesome.
NoahSD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:07 PM   #275
nuisance
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
nuisance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Of Heaven, North of Hell
Posts: 11,644
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahSD View Post
I have no clue but you should pay your taxes regardless.
Obviously but I can guarantee you that 95% of recreational players are not paying taxes on small-mid sized withdrawals. And if people are now going to get a 1040-G there is a chance they wont deposit anyway.

The real question is.

Whats there plan for taxing people's withdrawals? And how will the go about making sure the sites give everyone there 1040-G?

No I am not condoning avoiding paying your taxes.
nuisance is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive