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, 09:02 PM   #326
2DMB2LIV
adept
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,011
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominic View Post
I didn't find answers to these questions:

1) if a state opts out, how would they enforce the 50% tax on unlicensed sites?

2) once this bill becomes law, how does the state/Feds stop unlicensed sites from carrying on as they do now? How will they stop me from playing on any online poker site I want that's available to me now?
Guess you'll find out when it happens. Wouldn't try anything too crazy though, if i were you.

It would suck to grind 8 hours a day for 6 monts just to have your funds seized at the end of the year...
2DMB2LIV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 09:05 PM   #327
thrasher789
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
thrasher789's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Indy
Posts: 6,505
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

havn't seen yet what the timeline on implementation is?
thrasher789 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 09:05 PM   #328
People_Mover
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,185
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (markup on HR 2267 now!)

Wrote my rep and she didn't even vote
People_Mover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 09:21 PM   #329
RGC2005
adept
 
RGC2005's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Louisville, Kentucky
Posts: 888
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrasher789 View Post
havn't seen yet what the timeline on implementation is?
It just passed a committee vote and has several major hurdles before anything is law. Don't go counting your chips just yet.
RGC2005 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 09:40 PM   #330
Skallagrim
PPA Board Member/LSN Dir
 
Skallagrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: It's a PPA post only if so stated
Posts: 6,713
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by RGC2005 View Post
It just passed a committee vote and has several major hurdles before anything is law. Don't go counting your chips just yet.
You are of course absolutely right RGC2005. But I am reminded of a saying by the physicist Neils Bohr: The opposite of a little truth is false, the oppsite of a great truth is also true.

This is a day for us to celebrate, at least a little.

4 years ago at about this same time the House of Representatives voted 3-1 in favor of a law banning all online gaming, a bill far worse than the UIGEA that became law through Frist's well-known Senate manipulation of the same year.

In 4 years (really 2 and 1/2 - the period since the PPA was reorganized) we poker players have gone from being nobody on Capitol Hill to being the primary grass-roots force that just got an actual online legalization bill passed by a major House Committee.

I'll have a drink to that!

And tomorrow I'll remember that we still have a long, long way to go.

Skallagrim
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 09:59 PM   #331
funkyj
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
funkyj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: working without a 27b/6
Posts: 6,416
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by some article
Amendment 1 (Congressman Brad Sherman, Calif.): Sites that have intentionally broken Internet gaming laws cannot get a license to conduct business in the United States. This will likely affect larger online poker sites such as PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and the old Ultimate Bet, all of whom allowed players from the U.S. to play on their site after the UIGEA went into effect. Amendment is taken to a voice vote, where representatives are asked to motion whether they are in favor or against the amendment. Amendment passes by voice vote.
Ignore the intentionally (if that is a problem) ... doesn't this seem like an odd (unconstitutional?) law?

E.g. like passing a law saying "any company that has ever broken law X can never do business in the USA again". E.g. "let X be commit the crime of bribery anywhere in the world" (common practice in many foreign jurisdictions). Would such a law be constitutional?
funkyj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 10:04 PM   #332
prescottburgess
grinder
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 672
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

i just hope the tax isn't so big that it diminishes a poker player's edge
prescottburgess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 10:07 PM   #333
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 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by beanie View Post
I probably would agree that rakeback would be gone as there would be little need for it. That said most sites are going to an "in house" model in the first place which has similar to the same benefits. While this bill if passed would create another mini-boom the sites that will do well won't take that for granted this time (in my opinion). It's pretty obvious that PokerStars got a big jump on everyone and I think you can expect the more savvy operators to emulate their programs (which are pretty close to rakeback).

Remember that there will be a lot more competition, this in theory should be very good for the consumer. What we may lose slightly in rakeback we should gain in casual players. So I don't think the rakeback issue is something that should derail this for anyone on the fence.
I suspect the same -- more incentive programs and less need for affiliates. My point was that it won't go away because of taxation.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 10:14 PM   #334
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 funkyj View Post
nice -- reposted to my FB.
Thanks! Glad you liked it. I appreciate the FB post.

Quote:
Likewise, Bachus is not all that interested in preventing problem gambling, he is interested in trying to force people to live what he believes is the one true moral lifestyle. In his eyes, non-problem gambling is just as bad and needs to be prevented.
Definitely.

Quote:
Alternatively, you might claim Bachus is just a mercenary (I don't know -- I doubt it but it is possible) in which case the above applies to the constituency that is pulling the strings.
I think he's really personally opposed to this.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 10:18 PM   #335
J0FF4
adept
 
J0FF4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 745
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Read through this thread, but can't make up if this bill will allow euro players.
Or will the US be cut off like france and italy?
J0FF4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 10:27 PM   #336
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 xmykro View Post
Now that I read the amendment. I think they did violate some State laws.

excerpt:

"not committed an intentional felony violation of Federal or State internet gambling laws; and
has used due diligence to prevent any U.S. person from placing a bet on an internet site in violation of Federal or State gambling laws"

Online poker is a class C felony in the state of Washington
No site has operations based in Washington state. It's not at all clear that Washington state has jurisdiction over actions of sites based in other nations. Even if the U.S. is not willing to concede this point, it's not clear that Washington state has a right to regulate interstate commerce, either. If the bill passes as it stands now, we can expect the current sites to apply for licenses and to make their cases.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 10:30 PM   #337
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 billbam View Post
It is my understanding that any poker site that accepted funds from a U.S. based bank while the UEGIA (SP??) was in affect has committed a crime. At least that is what I thought I hear on the resent 2+2 Pokercast.
UIGEA only applies if the underlying conduct violates other laws. The sites have legal opinions that they do not. In accordance with UIGEA, sites have made this opinion available to financial institutions.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 10:31 PM   #338
NurseShark
adept
 
NurseShark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: 2+2 land
Posts: 969
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Perfect View Post
I don't see how US market regulation would have any effect on poker companies accepting funds from other sovereign nations provided poker is not expressly illegal there.
Please be the case

Please let me be able to play on Pokerstars.us or HarrahStars etc

Good luck with all these changes guys!!
NurseShark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 10:36 PM   #339
nachunja
veteran
 
nachunja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,379
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

How long you think this whole process will take
nachunja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 10:39 PM   #340
BradleyT
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
BradleyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 9,423
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Is there a nice thank you letter we can send to our district Aye voter?

Last edited by BradleyT; 07-28-2010 at 10:41 PM. Reason: 5* IMO
BradleyT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:54 PM   #341
0bullmarket0
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 332
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

What dose this mean for players from Australia? Dose this change anything?

I read through the whole thread but dont quite understand.
0bullmarket0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 12:03 AM   #342
As armas
grinder
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 548
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

A great TY to Engineer, Skall, Papas, and the PPA. Great work! The politics of this is pure gold. The leader of the tea party caucus, Ms. Bachmann, doesn't think you at home should have the choice to play online poker. You don't deserve that option in life as you do the best you can to pursue happiness. The governement needs to protect you from yourself. That is the America she believes in. Next time you see her railing against gangster government, about how the government is out of control and gutting your freedom, REMEMBER THIS VOTE. Talk is cheap biitch. The republican party does not believe in personal freedom, 18 nays to 7 yays. That big gubment democrat party does, 34 yays to 4 nays.

/end rant speaking the truth
As armas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 12:16 AM   #343
0bullmarket0
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 332
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 0bullmarket0 View Post
What dose this mean for players from Australia? Dose this change anything?

I read through the whole thread but dont quite understand.
Dose somone have an answer please?

Do Countries outside of the US have to start paying tax on their winnings?

What dose this mean for Aus players?
0bullmarket0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 12:24 AM   #344
shipontilt
self-banned
 
shipontilt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: I think I'm Sam Hurd.. Larry Hoover
Posts: 12,211
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

FWIW, I agree with an earlier poster that rakeback would be as good as gone.
shipontilt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 12:27 AM   #345
anakedcowboy
journeyman
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 235
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 0bullmarket0 View Post
Dose somone have an answer please?

Do Countries outside of the US have to start paying tax on their winnings?

What dose this mean for Aus players?
why would a US law change your australian tax laws?
anakedcowboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 12:36 AM   #346
0bullmarket0
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 332
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by anakedcowboy View Post
why would a US law change your australian tax laws?
I dont know. I am just wigging out thinking this changes somthing for players in Aus.
0bullmarket0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:15 AM   #347
Lucky LITE
old hand
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,383
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by As armas View Post
A great TY to Engineer, Skall, Papas, and the PPA. Great work! The politics of this is pure gold. The leader of the tea party caucus, Ms. Bachmann, doesn't think you at home should have the choice to play online poker. You don't deserve that option in life as you do the best you can to pursue happiness. The governement needs to protect you from yourself. That is the America she believes in. Next time you see her railing against gangster government, about how the government is out of control and gutting your freedom, REMEMBER THIS VOTE. Talk is cheap biitch. The republican party does not believe in personal freedom, 18 nays to 7 yays. That big gubment democrat party does, 34 yays to 4 nays.

/end rant speaking the truth
Sing it!
Lucky LITE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:20 AM   #348
Drifter84
journeyman
 
Drifter84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 387
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

ive read through that thread but i still dont get it...

will pokerstars/fulltilt be banned??
what does this mean for us euro-players? can we still play with u americans?
why do some people say goodbye to rakeback??

very confused now...
Drifter84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:32 AM   #349
Lucky LITE
old hand
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,383
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alizona View Post

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.
I agree with this. In my experience casinos are ruthless with the way they rape the players. Just look at the wsop as an example with their $900+100 BS and tbh that's pretty lax compared to what a lot of casinos do.
Lucky LITE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:40 AM   #350
Lucky LITE
old hand
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,383
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post

We have a poker-only bill in the Senate.
I haven't heard anything about this, any info on it? Estimates for chance it passes or a summary of it??
Lucky LITE 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 01:32 PM.


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