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, 08:22 PM   #426
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 boobies4me View Post
When it's all said and done, if online poker is legalized/regulate,d it will not be profitable for online players I'm guessing due to what will probably be unreasonable tax code as well as hefty raking. If it is profitable though it's very doubtful it will be more profitable than it currently is now.
Why phrase your fears as fact? Fears ≠ facts.

I believe the reality is very different. The more we stand up for ourselves, the stronger our seat at the table. When we don't, we get bills like UIGEA (and they pass the House by margins like 317-93).

If we stop standing up for ourselves now, the NFL, FoF, B&M casinos, and others will align and pass a real ban. Sorry, but no one on the bill wants a system where offshore sites are allowed in the market but U.S. based ones are not. It will change. I recommend we fight together and push this toward what we want.

Fortunately, the legislation does not provide for unreasonable taxes. In fact, the taxes are reasonable. Sites are not predicting substantial changes in rake, if at all. I suspect competition will keep it where it is now.

With that, we'll see an influx of U.S. players who are turned off by the current sites out of unfounded fear of rigging, dislike for the fact that they are offshore, or other issues.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 09:49 PM   #427
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)

OK I need this to pass so I can deposit. I haven't played online in months and now my card that previously got accepted is no longer accepted.
nuisance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 11:03 PM   #428
RolloTomasi
veteran
 
RolloTomasi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bovada
Posts: 3,086
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

with Legislation passing through Congress hopefully the DOJ will cool their jets on UIEGA enforcement
RolloTomasi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 08:33 AM   #429
boobies4me
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,233
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skallagrim View Post
Excuse me? What you are saying here is that Poker is unbeatable under some interpretations of some state tax codes NOW.

Unfortunately, Federal law can't change state tax codes. So this has nothing to do with passing or not passing a federal law.

Skallagrim
Difference is, in online poker right now the IRS won't have exact documentation of your sessions so you aren't forced to actually comply in a completely ******ed manner which also leaves some ambiguity. On a poker site though where the IRS is shipped records of "sessions" as sitting down and leaving tables, however, won't be too hard to program an auto-red flag for anyone who doesn't report the gross winnings matching the site.

This will make it a lot easier for the IRS to enforce it as well as make it a lot more defined. They don't have an easy method for identifying people who aren't reporting in the ******ed manner they're supposed to but they will on a site that's shipping the info to them. But yeah, sure, this isn't a problem created through trying to get legalization but it's certainly potential collateral damage that people might not be aware of.

Not to mention the states with even more ******ed tax laws that don't allow deductions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidDream View Post
details?

this doesnt affect ppl who file as a pro tho does it?
Just potentially affects their bottomline.

Quote:
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.
Blanket statements like this are naive and ignorant. Regulation does not automatically mean better by any means since it's very much dependent on a wide range of factors -- which are the factors some of us are interested in discussing. Sure, if you naively assume that regulation will be super favorable to the players then of course, all of us are cheering that on. You talk though as if regulation automatically has to mean better. It doesn't.

Last edited by boobies4me; 07-30-2010 at 08:41 AM.
boobies4me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 09:20 AM   #430
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 boobies4me View Post
Difference is, in online poker right now the IRS won't have exact documentation of your sessions so you aren't forced to actually comply in a completely ******ed manner which also leaves some ambiguity. On a poker site though where the IRS is shipped records of "sessions" as sitting down and leaving tables, however, won't be too hard to program an auto-red flag for anyone who doesn't report the gross winnings matching the site.

This will make it a lot easier for the IRS to enforce it as well as make it a lot more defined. They don't have an easy method for identifying people who aren't reporting in the ******ed manner they're supposed to but they will on a site that's shipping the info to them. But yeah, sure, this isn't a problem created through trying to get legalization but it's certainly potential collateral damage that people might not be aware of.

Not to mention the states with even more ******ed tax laws that don't allow deductions.
Any Federal bill that finally passes is going to require the sites to report net wins/losses, that's certain. But, as is the case in the current Senate bill, I fully expect that final bill to also state that you are only required to report as income your net win for the year and attach the form from the site to your return. If your a net loser, no tax consequences at all.

The casual players (like myself) will have no problem with that and it will even make record keeping a little easier for the professional players (whose tax situation otherwise will not change).

There is really no reason whatsoever to fear regulation with respect to Federal taxes (unless you just want to keep cheating on your taxes).

If those handful of states that do not allow for deducting gambling losses against gambling wins try and use the site info to make folks pay on every reported win, that will indeed be horrible. So horrible that I doubt it will last one legislative year as it will be seen by everyone as obviously and grossly unfair. There may even be legal challenges available (especially with respect to poker). But again, changing such a situation has to be done at the state level.

Skallagrim
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 09:52 AM   #431
Todd Terry
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 16,301
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skallagrim View Post
Any Federal bill that finally passes is going to require the sites to report net wins/losses, that's certain. But, as is the case in the current Senate bill, I fully expect that final bill to also state that you are only required to report as income your net win for the year and attach the form from the site to your return. If your a net loser, no tax consequences at all.

The casual players (like myself) will have no problem with that and it will even make record keeping a little easier for the professional players (whose tax situation otherwise will not change).

There is really no reason whatsoever to fear regulation with respect to Federal taxes (unless you just want to keep cheating on your taxes).

If those handful of states that do not allow for deducting gambling losses against gambling wins try and use the site info to make folks pay on every reported win, that will indeed be horrible. So horrible that I doubt it will last one legislative year as it will be seen by everyone as obviously and grossly unfair. There may even be legal challenges available (especially with respect to poker). But again, changing such a situation has to be done at the state level.

Skallagrim
If there was a provision allowing netting of winnings and losses for purposes of federal income taxes, would it be possible (politically and constitutionally) for the federal bill to contain language that prohibits states from levying income taxes on anything other than net online gambling winnings?
Todd Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 10:14 AM   #432
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 Todd Terry View Post
If there was a provision allowing netting of winnings and losses for purposes of federal income taxes, would it be possible (politically and constitutionally) for the federal bill to contain language that prohibits states from levying income taxes on anything other than net online gambling winnings?
It is pretty well accepted that so long as a state does not violate a specific provision of the Constitution (like "Equal Protection" by taxing blacks more than whites, for an extreme example) States are able to set their state tax policy as they see fit. I do not think the Feds can mandate how states tax gambling.

It would be possible for the Feds to link the state revenue (for those that do not opt-out) to a fair state tax code for gambling. And there was some hint of this too in the Senate bill (that opt-in states must accept the site reports).

Expanding this, if possible, is a great idea, Todd. Thanks.

As a practical matter though most states realize the unfairness of not allowing the offsetting of losses against wins. Anti-gambling states, those that will likely opt-out anyway, have these provisions specifically to discourage gambling. The last state to switch from anti-gambling to allowing casinos (Ohio) specifically amended its tax law in the same bill that allowed the casinos. In Massachusetts, where the casino bills are still pending, the same change is in both pending bills. My guess is this would be the case with any state that opts-in, and there is not much the Feds can do to influence states that opt-out.

Also there are some creative ideas floating around the legal community as to how to challenge the state laws that forbid deducting losses against wins, but so far I am aware of no court cases establishing a good principle in this area.

Skallagrim
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 06:56 PM   #433
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 nuisance View Post
OK I need this to pass so I can deposit. I haven't played online in months and now my card that previously got accepted is no longer accepted.
Toddle on down the road to Walmart and send a Moneygram to your preferred site. Call the site and they will gladly forward the address to which they want you to send the money.

The G will not eff with Walmart.
Phleggm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 03:28 AM   #434
G-Code
old hand
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,315
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

what happens if the bill goes through? will usa then hit the same as italy and france?
G-Code is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 03:34 AM   #435
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 G-Code View Post
what happens if the bill goes through? will usa then hit the same as italy and france?
No. The taxation is nothing like what France and Italy saw.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 06:19 AM   #436
G-Code
old hand
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,315
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

ty!
G-Code is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 06:25 AM   #437
Octavian_C
grinder
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oregon
Posts: 504
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuisance View Post
Thats because Ron Paul is the man.

+1
Octavian_C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 06:27 AM   #438
unemployed101
journeyman
 
unemployed101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: LV
Posts: 227
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

I've been following this thread for a few days now but I must have missed it. What exactly happens if your state Opts Out? Being a vegas resident, I guess NV would be one which would, but I don't recall reading what that would entail.

All in all, it seems like a great thing for poker.
unemployed101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 12:41 AM   #439
boobies4me
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,233
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
But, as is the case in the current Senate bill, I fully expect that final bill to also state that you are only required to report as income your net win for the year and attach the form from the site to your return
Yeah, if we're going to just be optimistic that our politicians will be sensible then sure, this would obviously be great. All I was doing was pointing out though that it's certainly very realistic for this not to happen. In which case, if it doesn't happen, it could suck bad since the tax code in it's current form makes no sense and has big consequences to the recreational player.

Quote:
There is really no reason whatsoever to fear regulation with respect to Federal taxes (unless you just want to keep cheating on your taxes).
Has nothing to do with cheating taxes, has to do with above reasons.
boobies4me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 08:28 AM   #440
RolloTomasi
veteran
 
RolloTomasi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bovada
Posts: 3,086
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Fox & Friends just did a news story/debate about the Law legalizing internet gambling but they got some gambling junkie to defend our side rather than a PPA rep
RolloTomasi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 10:13 AM   #441
dub poker
centurion
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 170
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

So when are (US) players going to be able to deposit with credit cards again?
dub poker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 11:58 AM   #442
repulse
veteran
 
repulse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 3,070
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dub poker View Post
So when are (US) players going to be able to deposit with credit cards again?
Not in the foreseeable future. If this bill becomes law, credit cards won't be allowed. Debit cards and presumably stuff like Paypal would work perfectly though.
repulse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 04:24 PM   #443
dub poker
centurion
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 170
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

ty. How much longer until it gets passed?
dub poker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 04:53 PM   #444
Kevmath
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: @Kevmath
Posts: 28,213
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by RolloTomasi View Post
Fox & Friends just did a news story/debate about the Law legalizing internet gambling but they got some gambling junkie to defend our side rather than a PPA rep
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4299712/c...ternet-betting

The anti-gambling guy was the father of the Lehigh student who robbed a bank.

Last edited by Kevmath; 08-01-2010 at 05:06 PM. Reason: oops, thanks TE
Kevmath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 05:09 PM   #445
repulse
veteran
 
repulse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 3,070
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevmath View Post
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4299712/c...ternet-betting

The anti-gambling guy was the father of the Lehigh student who robbed a bank.
Interesting choice of panelists for each side. I guess all the other networks locked up all the policy analysts.

Hogan Sr. says in the interview that the [poker?*] business model is based off of taking advantage of people's weaknesses. Only possible interpretation I can see is that he thinks wanting to play poker is a weakness. Or that he doesn't understand poker or its business model at all, but you think one would take the trouble to learn after what his son went through.


* Hogan Jr. only played poker IIRC, so I think this is the implication
repulse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 05:12 PM   #446
pineapple888
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Logistics Expert
Posts: 13,112
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevmath View Post
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4299712/c...ternet-betting

The anti-gambling guy was the father of the Lehigh student who robbed a bank.
Nice. Given a choice between

a.) his father and
b.) Internet poker sites

as the reason his kid was a ****-up, his father chose Internet poker sites.

Solid, "fair and balanced" reporting by Fox.
pineapple888 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 05:38 PM   #447
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 dub poker View Post
ty. How much longer until it gets passed?
19 months and 15 days.
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 12:23 PM.


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