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 07-29-2010, 01:50 PM   #401
ThisKid$Tough
old hand
 
ThisKid$Tough's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rocky Mountain High
Posts: 1,817
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwansolo View Post
i just want the same capability as investors and corporations who can do the same thing. i don't even know what you were trying to say in this response.
if we accept that:

(we have to pay tax on winnings)

---this necessarily implies--->

(some arbitrary truncation of time in which we calculate taxible winnings)

This arbitrary truncation of time, in an extreme case, could be considered per hand. This would be like taking 20% rake per hand for tax purposes. The problems with this are obvious, and stem from the fact that we have losing hands.

The arbitrary truncation of time could be by "session." There are clear problems with this since a "session" is undefined. What if i get up to go get dinner and leave my chips at the table? When i come back am i in a new session or the same one? What if i pick my chips up and go have dinner, then come back after and buy in for the same amount? Does the answer to the same/different session question change?

We could truncate time as monthly or quarterly. Im sure you would want to carry forward losses in this case because losing months or quarters are relitively common, and I'd agree with you in this case... But we cant carry forward losses ad infinitum and have the system make sense. To allow that would basically be allowing a player to just pay tax on his lifetime winnings on his death bed.

A year truncation with no carrying forward of losses is appropreate, because winning professionals shouldnt have losing years. Any argument against this is an argument against taxing gambling winnings at all, which is a wet dream, but has a ton of problems.
ThisKid$Tough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:52 PM   #402
varsity629
adept
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UES, NY
Posts: 850
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmbt0ne View Post
There is no way Congressmen even know what rakeback is, let alone give a **** about it.

They don't force all credit card companies to offer airline points programs or all grocery stores to offer membership rewards cards.
Unfortunately, Grocery Stores do not turn you down for reward cards and airlines offer frequent flyer miles and membership rewards to those who qualify for them...however from my understanding they do not turn down certain people who qualify because at one point 7 years ago they had a different frequent flyer program.

The issue might not come up now, but I suspect at some point, it will, as they will want to know just how much people get from bonuses and rakeback, and whether or not that will applied towards taxes owed.
varsity629 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:57 PM   #403
kwansolo
old hand
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,985
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisKid$Tough View Post
if we accept that:

(we have to pay tax on winnings)

---this necessarily implies--->

(some arbitrary truncation of time in which we calculate taxible winnings)

This arbitrary truncation of time, in an extreme case, could be considered per hand. This would be like taking 20% rake per hand for tax purposes. The problems with this are obvious, and stem from the fact that we have losing hands.

The arbitrary truncation of time could be by "session." There are clear problems with this since a "session" is undefined. What if i get up to go get dinner and leave my chips at the table? When i come back am i in a new session or the same one? What if i pick my chips up and go have dinner, then come back after and buy in for the same amount? Does the answer to the same/different session question change?

We could truncate time as monthly or quarterly. Im sure you would want to carry forward losses in this case because losing months or quarters are relitively common, and I'd agree with you in this case... But we cant carry forward losses ad infinitum and have the system make sense. To allow that would basically be allowing a player to just pay tax on his lifetime winnings on his death bed.

A year truncation with no carrying forward of losses is appropreate, because winning professionals shouldnt have losing years. Any argument against this is an argument against taxing gambling winnings at all, which is a wet dream, but has a ton of problems.
exactly. and i'm not saying we need an arbitrary number, but whatever that number is for investors / corporations, (probably just investors if this number is not the same).

an example would be winning 100k in 2008, having like 110k in your stars account, and then losing 90k on jan 1 2009. oops.
kwansolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:02 PM   #404
Dima2000123
veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,494
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahSD View Post
Jeez.. a lot of you just want any reason to complain. When you can't find one, you just bring up unrelated **** or make **** up. We're talking about a federal bill that will license and regulate online poker and a bunch of you are going "But I don't wanna pay my income tax!" or "Don't touch my rakeback!" or "But my state taxes are unfair!"

Sometimes good things happen. Sorry if that doesn't jive with your world view.
It's a very legitimate concern if the supposedly good thing would actually wind up making things much worse. As France shows us, legalized regulated poker can be worse for the players than unregulated illegal poker.
Dima2000123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:11 PM   #405
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)

Quote:
Originally Posted by varsity629 View Post
however from my understanding they do not turn down certain people who qualify because at one point 7 years ago they had a different frequent flyer program.

The issue might not come up now, but I suspect at some point, it will, as they will want to know just how much people get from bonuses and rakeback, and whether or not that will applied towards taxes owed.
we have a winner ladies and gentlemen
shipontilt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:16 PM   #406
Mordan
grinder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 625
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dima2000123 View Post
It's a very legitimate concern if the supposedly good thing would actually wind up making things much worse. As France shows us, legalized regulated poker can be worse for the players than unregulated illegal poker.
this line of thinking is so thoughtless its painful to read....

1. If you have convinced yourself that you are better without regulation, than you are fooling yourself. If you think things will stay the same forever as status quo you are fooling yourself. If you think poker is better off w/o 70% of the worldwide market (the US Fish) playing your are drastically fooling yourself.

2. Comparing us to France is logically ****ing hilarious. You do realize that France makes up less than 10% of the marketplace, and we make up 70% right? If you understand that then you would realize how ridiculous it is to insinuate that we would have the same outcome. The rake is high in France because the player pool is small obviously. Even if the same exact thing happened in the US, the US would allow competition between cardrooms which would bring down rake, along with Rake not even starting high because the player pool in our country is so much bigger.

Noah is dead on in his post, you guys aren't using your head, your complaining for no reason, with no logical basis. Use your head and quit rationalizing your situation to fit your worries.

Also would like to add about Rakeback....do you guys not pay your taxes on Rakeback or something? Everything I am reading is making it sound like no, if you don't, you guys need to get your act together. Its part of your income, and if your not claiming it your avoiding it. I assume though thats another reason why alot of you are scared of regulation.
Mordan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:30 PM   #407
Lit
centurion
 
Lit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 190
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quad_me's View Post
Cliffs if US market opens up:

a) PS and FTP don't get allowed in and it will be a mad scramble for top spot, party's merge probably has them sitting pretty to sweep the fish back.

b) PS and FTP get allowed in and rape the market with advertising and a new era of internet poker begins.

c) US only site, aka USA once again ****s over the entire rest of the world.

I don't understand how people could possibly think US legalization of poker is a bad thing. The gaming industry is a massive money maker, and while FTP and PS have been dominating the market place, they can't compete or hold a candle to the likes of: MGM, Wynn, or even companies like yahoo. If poker is legalized, what is to preclude these companies, or any others, to get in on the action? Absolutely nothing. And along w/those companies dumping mass money in marketing, comes a tidal wave of casual/recreational players, that are otherwise oblivious to online poker.

The legalization of poker would probably eclipse the previous 'poker boom', to the extent that in the past poker was never truly legalized; it was a complete gray area in the law. With the legalization of online poker, we would probably see multi billion dollar businesses get in on the action, and w/that more money for advertising than FTP and PS could possibly put up combined.

Even if rake was double what it currently is - which is such a fallacious notion, because the free market place and thus competition would drive companies to offer more incentives for players to come to their sites - it wouldn't matter because the amount of recreational players coming to the tables would surpass anything online poker has seen to date.

What do we have now: even players at 50NL games are CR/DC members running poker tracker while they play. The legalization of online poker would be the best thing that ever happened to the game, and would create a gold rush that would make the money made in the past golden era look like government cheese hand outs.
Lit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:52 PM   #408
ThisKid$Tough
old hand
 
ThisKid$Tough's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rocky Mountain High
Posts: 1,817
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwansolo View Post
an example would be winning 100k in 2008, having like 110k in your stars account, and then losing 90k on jan 1 2009. oops.
such a horrible example.

the solution to this is lock up 15K in some safe interest bearing account. BR is now 95K.

If you lose 90K the next day, theres no fair tax system that will save you from your own stupidity. BTW, our current tax system allows you to now make 90K in 2009 with zero tax liability (assuming youre filing as a pro).

these Dec 31, Jan 1 truncations of time are so ****ing ******ed.
ThisKid$Tough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:53 PM   #409
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 What? View Post
Are states opting out a concern for you?
Yes. That's a very legitimate concern, IMHO.

Edit: As I understand it, the PPA's trying their best to make sure that players in opt-out states don't have it so bad. And of course the PPA will fight to keep states from opting out. Unfortunately the opt-out stuff is mostly in a separate bill (and of course the actual act of opting out isn't coming any time soon), so we sorta have to handle the issues separately even though they're clearly related.
NoahSD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:57 PM   #410
fluffysheap
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 224
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuisance View Post
the fish and recreational players will simply stop playing after there first tax notification letter.
What is this about "tax bills" and "tax letters" and whatnot

Minnesota and the other problem states don't have a network of spies that secretly gathers information on all your poker playing.

Recreational players will not bother to pay tax on their winnings in the same way they don't pay income tax when they sell their old stuff on ebay or pay sales tax when they buy something from an out of state retailer. The law says what it says but back in the real world it isn't going to matter to rec players.

If you're playing for actual profit you probably just can't live in those states if they don't have an exemption for pros (or you don't qualify for some reason). But that doesn't matter to the fish.

If somehow the law ends up written in such a way that winnings are withheld according to some patchwork of state laws then things will become pretty tough for recreational players in those states, but more likely the law will just ignore state tax issues entirely and recreational players will do whatever they do.
fluffysheap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 03:01 PM   #411
Bruut99
veteran
 
Bruut99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,819
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Any cliffs for european guys like me? thank you!
Bruut99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 03:07 PM   #412
Dima2000123
veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,494
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordan View Post
this line of thinking is so thoughtless its painful to read....

1. If you have convinced yourself that you are better without regulation, than you are fooling yourself. If you think things will stay the same forever as status quo you are fooling yourself. If you think poker is better off w/o 70% of the worldwide market (the US Fish) playing your are drastically fooling yourself.
I did not convince myself of that at all, but it would be dumb to not be concerned about the possibility of regulation being worse than lack of regulation. There are dozens of ways you can effectively outlaw poker by "regulating" it, intentionally or unintentionally. The only people being unthoughtful are those who do not see it as a possibility. Status quo is not guaranteed, but the worst case scenario with or without regulation is the same: death of online poker.
Quote:
2. Comparing us to France is logically ****ing hilarious. You do realize that France makes up less than 10% of the marketplace, and we make up 70% right? If you understand that then you would realize how ridiculous it is to insinuate that we would have the same outcome. The rake is high in France because the player pool is small obviously. Even if the same exact thing happened in the US, the US would allow competition between cardrooms which would bring down rake, along with Rake not even starting high because the player pool in our country is so much bigger.
Are you aware of the concept of "example"? The point of such an example that I provided is that there is a possibility of making things worse with regulation.
Quote:
Noah is dead on in his post, you guys aren't using your head, your complaining for no reason, with no logical basis. Use your head and quit rationalizing your situation to fit your worries.
With all due respect, which is none at all, you're the one posting nothing but rude dribble. I'm not the one putting worth a theory that a market share beyond a certain point makes poker immune from onerous regulation.
Dima2000123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 03:10 PM   #413
Dima2000123
veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,494
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by fluffysheap View Post
What is this about "tax bills" and "tax letters" and whatnot

Minnesota and the other problem states don't have a network of spies that secretly gathers information on all your poker playing.

Recreational players will not bother to pay tax on their winnings in the same way they don't pay income tax when they sell their old stuff on ebay or pay sales tax when they buy something from an out of state retailer. The law says what it says but back in the real world it isn't going to matter to rec players.

If you're playing for actual profit you probably just can't live in those states if they don't have an exemption for pros (or you don't qualify for some reason). But that doesn't matter to the fish.

If somehow the law ends up written in such a way that winnings are withheld according to some patchwork of state laws then things will become pretty tough for recreational players in those states, but more likely the law will just ignore state tax issues entirely and recreational players will do whatever they do.
You are assuming that regulated poker sites would not be required to report your winnings, however defined, to IRS. That to me is an extremely optimistic assumption, almost irrationally so.
Dima2000123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 03:46 PM   #414
kmd107
old hand
 
kmd107's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,250
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lit View Post
I don't understand how people could possibly think US legalization of poker is a bad thing. The gaming industry is a massive money maker, and while FTP and PS have been dominating the market place, they can't compete or hold a candle to the likes of: MGM, Wynn, or even companies like yahoo. If poker is legalized, what is to preclude these companies, or any others, to get in on the action? Absolutely nothing. And along w/those companies dumping mass money in marketing, comes a tidal wave of casual/recreational players, that are otherwise oblivious to online poker.

The legalization of poker would probably eclipse the previous 'poker boom', to the extent that in the past poker was never truly legalized; it was a complete gray area in the law. With the legalization of online poker, we would probably see multi billion dollar businesses get in on the action, and w/that more money for advertising than FTP and PS could possibly put up combined.

Even if rake was double what it currently is - which is such a fallacious notion, because the free market place and thus competition would drive companies to offer more incentives for players to come to their sites - it wouldn't matter because the amount of recreational players coming to the tables would surpass anything online poker has seen to date.

What do we have now: even players at 50NL games are CR/DC members running poker tracker while they play. The legalization of online poker would be the best thing that ever happened to the game, and would create a gold rush that would make the money made in the past golden era look like government cheese hand outs.
Not sure this is reality but sounds great
kmd107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:01 PM   #415
oscar1020
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 843
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phleggm View Post
No love for KEVMATH who did most of the heavy lifting early in this thread?
kevmath is awesome. he does so much on this site and doesnt get nearly enough credit
oscar1020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:13 PM   #416
unlucky4me
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Alabama
Posts: 4,060
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (markup on HR 2267 now!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black label View Post
The gentleman from Alabama seems to think poker sites are paying people to blog against him.
I've sent that sorry mother ****er so many letters and emails saying I'll do everything I can to make sure he never gets elected to any office again the FBI is probably watching me right now
unlucky4me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:28 PM   #417
unlucky4me
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Alabama
Posts: 4,060
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

I wonder if they could set up something where X amount of any pot is held out for a tax, the way a slot machine jackpot is taxed by the state you win it in
unlucky4me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:51 PM   #418
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)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordan View Post
this line of thinking is so thoughtless its painful to read....

1. If you have convinced yourself that you are better without regulation, than you are fooling yourself. If you think things will stay the same forever as status quo you are fooling yourself. If you think poker is better off w/o 70% of the worldwide market (the US Fish) playing your are drastically fooling yourself.

2. Comparing us to France is logically ****ing hilarious. You do realize that France makes up less than 10% of the marketplace, and we make up 70% right? If you understand that then you would realize how ridiculous it is to insinuate that we would have the same outcome. The rake is high in France because the player pool is small obviously. Even if the same exact thing happened in the US, the US would allow competition between cardrooms which would bring down rake, along with Rake not even starting high because the player pool in our country is so much bigger.

Noah is dead on in his post, you guys aren't using your head, your complaining for no reason, with no logical basis. Use your head and quit rationalizing your situation to fit your worries.

Also would like to add about Rakeback....do you guys not pay your taxes on Rakeback or something? Everything I am reading is making it sound like no, if you don't, you guys need to get your act together. Its part of your income, and if your not claiming it your avoiding it. I assume though thats another reason why alot of you are scared of regulation.
This is a great post. Well said Mordan.
aces_full1963 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 05:35 PM   #419
wuwut666
journeyman
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 241
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Pretty sure I saw these 2 questions but no answers yet so I'll ask again:

- If all the voting steps go according to plan, how long until the final president signing? 1-2 years? If he does end up signing, how long would it take for the whole thing to get started? Another year? So like 2-3 years total before we could see anything different?

- How would this affect players from canada or europe? Could they play on the regulated US sites? If the answer is yes I imagine they would also be taxed?
wuwut666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 05:36 PM   #420
_MAGiC_
banned
 
_MAGiC_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Grindin
Posts: 860
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

how long will it take for this to pass (if it passes).

Im 19 right now and if it passes you have to be 21 to play, so wondering on how long it would take to pass through?
_MAGiC_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 05:45 PM   #421
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)

Quote:
Originally Posted by _MAGiC_ View Post
how long will it take for this to pass (if it passes).

Im 19 right now and if it passes you have to be 21 to play, so wondering on how long it would take to pass through?

it really could range from about 2 months to 2 years to never.
shipontilt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 07:16 PM   #422
mmbt0ne
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mmbt0ne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Coach Bud Bandwagon
Posts: 22,077
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by varsity629 View Post
Unfortunately, Grocery Stores do not turn you down for reward cards and airlines offer frequent flyer miles and membership rewards to those who qualify for them...however from my understanding they do not turn down certain people who qualify because at one point 7 years ago they had a different frequent flyer program.

The issue might not come up now, but I suspect at some point, it will, as they will want to know just how much people get from bonuses and rakeback, and whether or not that will applied towards taxes owed.
In my experience, rakeback is through the affiliates though not the poker site. Poker sites already offer identical rewards (FTP Points, Stars VIP Points, etc) to everybody. It would be like telling airlines to charge the same amount for a ticket through travel agents as selling directly.
mmbt0ne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 07:56 PM   #423
Phleggm
adept
 
Phleggm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,036
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahSD View Post
Yes. That's a very legitimate concern, IMHO.

Edit: As I understand it, the PPA's trying their best to make sure that players in opt-out states don't have it so bad. And of course the PPA will fight to keep states from opting out. Unfortunately the opt-out stuff is mostly in a separate bill (and of course the actual act of opting out isn't coming any time soon), so we sorta have to handle the issues separately even though they're clearly related.
Once states figure out how to add a state surcharge to the Federal tax rate on online poker, they will decide not to opt out.
Phleggm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 08:00 PM   #424
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)

Eat it BJ Nemeth...

jk but you were wrong buddy
Mr. Perfect is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 08:21 PM   #425
Project1044
newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 47
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by _MAGiC_ View Post
how long will it take for this to pass (if it passes).

Im 19 right now and if it passes you have to be 21 to play, so wondering on how long it would take to pass through?
Hard to tell at this point.

It got through committee, but the house floor leaders could refuse to schedule a vote on it or just basically put it on the back burner for awhile.

This is also a bill I don't see getting through the Senate without some form of conference committee, as there will invariably be edits and amendments.

If they really wanted to move on something like this, it could prob get done in 4-6 months, but this is not the type of legislation that either party will really want to move on.

The best hope for something like this will be the "lame-duck" session of congress from Election Day to January, and I don't even think it could get done then.

There are a ton of hurdles left, this is really just hurdle number 4 of about 15, but it's a significant hurdle nonetheless.
Project1044 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 01:29 PM.


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