House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22) - Page 14 - Poker News

2DMB2LIV · 07-28-2010, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominic

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...

thrasher789 · 07-28-2010, 09:05 PM

havn't seen yet what the timeline on implementation is?

People_Mover · 07-28-2010, 09:05 PM

Wrote my rep and she didn't even vote

RGC2005 · 07-28-2010, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thrasher789

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.

Skallagrim · 07-28-2010, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RGC2005

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

funkyj · 07-28-2010, 09:59 PM

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?

prescottburgess · 07-28-2010, 10:04 PM

i just hope the tax isn't so big that it diminishes a poker player's edge

**Rich Muny** · 07-28-2010, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beanie

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** · 07-28-2010, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkyj

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.

J0FF4 · 07-28-2010, 10:18 PM

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?

**Rich Muny** · 07-28-2010, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xmykro

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** · 07-28-2010, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billbam

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.

NurseShark · 07-28-2010, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Perfect

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!!

nachunja · 07-28-2010, 10:36 PM

How long you think this whole process will take

BradleyT · 07-28-2010, 10:39 PM

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

0bullmarket0 · 07-28-2010, 11:54 PM

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

I read through the whole thread but dont quite understand.

As armas · 07-29-2010, 12:03 AM

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

0bullmarket0 · 07-29-2010, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 0bullmarket0

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?

shipontilt · 07-29-2010, 12:24 AM

FWIW, I agree with an earlier poster that rakeback would be as good as gone.

anakedcowboy · 07-29-2010, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 0bullmarket0

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?

0bullmarket0 · 07-29-2010, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anakedcowboy

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.

Lucky LITE · 07-29-2010, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by As armas

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!

Drifter84 · 07-29-2010, 01:20 AM

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...

Lucky LITE · 07-29-2010, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alizona

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 · 07-29-2010, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

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??