Skall, the "tax" is the same for gaming as any other business in a state.

There is a splt profit as partnership between the two where the gaming interests get a majority of the gross in many states.

Of course the AGA favors the bill, I-Poker providers have to only give up less than half of what casinos traditionally pay states AND they get to limit states ability to offer games in competition with B&M casinos.

Sadly states ONLY allow gambling for the money under the guise of job creation and development.

Do you REALLY think states would even consider OPTING-IN to a system that is taking $$$$ away from their B&M while returning less than 25% - 30%?

If you were a businessman would you?

OBG

OBG, the B&M interests want online poker only. They know it increases business.

Its online slots and online video poker that scares them, table games too.

And there are plenty of states with little or no B&M presence to worry about.

Opting into a fed poker system is easier than creating a state poker system, especially a cross border state poker system.

Skallagrim

You mean like the many cross border mulitisate lottery games?

I KNOW B&M only want i-poker, that is what my post stated, they want to keep the states out of everything.

OBG

I think absent a guiding federal structure, cross border mult-state poker is going to be a lot more complicated than cross border mult-state lotteries.

If federal law isn't passed there will be two or more states wanting interstate deals; Nevada dealing poker only and another providing poker, slots, keno, bingo. Each will be wooing other states with tax money.

Under that scenerio Nevada loses to the other states with more gambling options and potential tax revenue.

It has been reported both Nevada and Delaware are in talks with other states already.

ONLY Nevada is in favor of the federal bill since other states would be locked out initially.

That IMO though (compacting) may be the only federal legislation states are going to want clarified NEXT year.

FYI, Delaware and a few others already link some type of multi-state B&M slot game.

OBG

Some basic online poker economics are lacking in this favorite strawman argument of Federalists:

The historic hold by online poker operations has been around 40% of deposits, the other 60% goes to cashouts.

Apparently, the Federalist strawman argument is that lotteries are holding around 40% of purchases, ..... while the rest of the money goes to cashing winning tickets ?

So what ?

So what if an operator, whether a private party, a lottery, a casino or whomever drops about 40% of deposits.
This overly dramatic "40%,OMG !!!" canard seems like more hand-wringing/posturing, than like a real argument based on historic performance of the business of online poker.

Out of the 40% held of deposits, a poker business historically paid all its expenses, for marketing, software, transactions et cetera...... a 40% hold for poker leverages nicely as fixed costs are covered and marginal costs shrink with volume.

The real "tax" problem is R/K adding on a 2% federal tax and a 12% State payout, without any requirement that those parasites actually provide a gaming environment at all. (At least a State would be able to negotiate with prospective providers to get a deal, that negotiation might even be, gasp, competitive and allow someone like PStars back into the US markets in some areas.)

Yes, reminds me of a time a decade or more ago I was involved in a local dispute over raising parking mete rates or making them free.

City council was raising them, I arrainged headline news with the local paper, PARKING RATE GOING UP 40 PERCENT!

Talk about an outcry, LOL, it was only 10 cents, from 15 up to 25 cents per hour.

We compromised, the rates went up but the large city lot off Main Ave became a FREE PARKING lot.

FYI I was on the downtown merchants board and president of the downtown historic district at the time.

Neat story with nothing to do with I-Poker but your 40% brought that back to me.

OBG

Not to derail this thread, but when exactly does the lame duck start? Or is it already in session?

It's about half way through. It ends on Jan 3.

Session started like a week after the election(I think). I tried to pull up the schedule for you, but it brought be to the mobile site.

Try house.gov/senate.gov > Schedule

For sure, they are in session now.

I would definitely take this as a positive development, a very very positive development.

speaking of tilting, the goofballs typing signatures in this forum is pretty tilting

does our stupied gov not realize they can make a lot of money from online poker in the USA oh and stupied republicans............

TY,TY.

The government could also make a ton of money from eliminating tax deductions or cutting defense by a few percent. Just because something generates revenue doesn't mean that the government will do it or will have incentives to do it or even that it's a good idea. And anyway in terms of the overall budget, the revenue generated from regulating poker is likely to be quite insignificant.


I do agree with this part though

who cares the guy just shows up at the tribe to get himself paid. he was probably telling them romney was going to be president 2 months ago.

level?

They can make money from legalizing marijuana as well, but they don't like giving adults access to fun things unless someone lines their pockets.