I think we're in pretty good shape to get the next bill through, the problem is getting it into committee for a hearing, mark-up/vote and getting the 50% tax clause removed

Sorry, didnt mean to imply that you had tax issues, your Neteller posts just gave me the thought for my post.

Consider how bipartisan the vote on HR2267 was and you can quickly surmise that it's not as simple as counting D's and R's.

After perusing the "Which States are likely to Opt out" prediction thread and comparing the states that are considered likely to opt out with the list of Ways and Means Committee Members I see that quite a few of the Members are from those states. Only one factor among many but worth mentioning.

Dread

Michael of NJ

Your post tells us zero about the ability to remove the 50% tax, which was written in by Dems.

We will get a bill out of committee if we get a vote with near certainty IMO, but we need changes

IMHO...

We cannot sit back...though congress will be preparing for its August swoon...Now is the time to get mobilized...We need to make the companion bill a priority to get it to committee and out on to a floor vote...We need to mobilize all our resources...The PPA will need to strategize on the best way to do this...I will continue to focus on this in any of my posts in the next month...I believe we have better than a 25% chance to get this passed this year and it is imperative to attempt to do so as Frank's dems could certainly lose seats this midterm election...I believe our chances stand @ 30-35% @ the most of gaining a passage...This litiny of posts by so many members shows the far-reaching arms of the PPA...So many like myself are sitting by the computer waiting for instructions and waiting to follow through...If there was any doubt as to its stout membership up to this point all concerns must now be mitigated...I await the command from my esteemed leadership of TE, Director Pappas, and all involved in our quest including Imega Chairman Joe Imega, SSGI spokesperson, Michael Waxman and leadership on the hill such as Chairman Frank, Mr. McDermott, Senator Menendez and yes HARRY REID...Have we forgotten about good old Harry??? We are within reach...I am so proud of the PPA, TE, Skall, PX and all others...I am moved considering their dedication...Let us do it now...I yield back awaiting further instructions from our leadership group...We won't let u down just as we know u won't let us down...The PPA has buit a strong army behind it...Let us go to work for you and be with us to the very end till we see this thing through...I know that we will be getting explicit instructions in the coming days...And I look forward to it...

Michael of NJ

I'm ok, I just won't be putting any money on Neteller.

I really don't think the DOJ could use this info legally against anyone in the US. Their aim was at gaming sites.

I haven't really read through the entire thread, but does this mean things looks pretty grim for those under 21? I mean I want online poker legalized, but not if I cannot play.

It is without a question that if/when the bill turns into law, you will not be able to play until your 21.

agree with ivey10k. Let's keep the momentum going!

Wait... 50% tax clause?

And second, what does this mean:

"Amendment by Mr. Campbell, no. 8, was AGREED TO, as modified, by voice vote."

Does this mean sites must be operated in the US? Or did they modify it to something else? (what is it?)

Excellent point, why didnt this come up for amendments PPA guys? This is why we need sperate rules for poker only sites. In my oppinion if your 18 you should be able to play online poker. I assume that 18 year olds may still be able to play in the poker rooms such as PS and FT (if they get licensed). Could a PPA member talk about the ages in the poker only sites, will it be 18 or 21?

Here's my attempt at figuring out the ways + means committee. Grades are from the PPA's thing here:

Democrats

Sander M. Levin, MI-12 Acting Chairman - ?
Charles B. Rangel, NY-15 - A (He's going through some ethics crap right now. Not sure how relevant that will be.)
Fortney Pete Stark, CA-13 - ?
Jim McDermott, WA-07 - A
John Lewis, GA-05 - B
Richard E. Neal, MA-02 - ?
John S. Tanner, TN-08 - ?
Xavier Becerra, CA-31 - B
Lloyd Doggett, TX-25 - ?
Earl Pomeroy, ND - ?
Mike Thompson, CA-01 - A
John B. Larson, CT-01 - A
Earl Blumenauer, OR-03 - A
Ron Kind, WI-03 - ?
Bill Pascrell Jr., NJ-08 - A
Shelley Berkley, NV-01 - A+
Joseph Crowley, NY-07 - A
Chris Van Hollen, MD-08 - ?
Kendrick Meek, FL-17 - B
Allyson Y. Schwartz, PA-13 - ?
Artur Davis, AL-07 - ?
Danny K. Davis, IL-07 - B
Bob Etheridge, NC-02 - ?
Linda T. Sanchez, CA-39 - A
Brian Higgins, NY-27 - ?
John A. Yarmuth, KY-03 - B

Totals for dems: 1 A+, 8 A's, 5 B's, and 12 unknown out of 26.

Republicans:

Dave Camp, MI-04 Ranking Member - ?
Wally Herger, CA-02 - F
Sam Johnson, TX-03 - ?
Kevin Brady, TX-08 - ?
Paul Ryan, WI-01 - ?
Eric Cantor, VA-07 - ?
John Linder, GA-07 - C
Devin Nunes, CA-21 - ?
Pat Tiberi, OH-12 - ?
Ginny Brown-Waite, FL-05 - D
Geoff Davis, KY-04 - C
Dave G. Reichert, WA-08 - ?
Charles W. Boustany Jr., LA-07 - ?
Dean Heller, NV-02 - A
Peter J. Roskam, IL-06 - D

Totals for Reps- 1 A, 2 C's, 2 D's, 1 F and 9 unknown out of 15.

Totals: 1 A+, 9 A's, 5 B's, 2 C's, 2 D's, 1 F, and 21 unknown.

If we assume that B or better votes for us and C, D, and F vote against us, then we have 15 ayes and 5 nays with 12 unknown dems and 9 unknown reps. If all unknowns voted, we'd only need 6 unknown votes, so seems like we have a really good chance.

Would certainly be nice to know more about the chairman and ranking member, since presumably lots of the unknowns will vote with them.

It's cool. It seemed a lot of people were thinking I did so I did a little overboard reply to clear it up. I think I went to far, sorry about that.

glgl

Ugh, I'm just outside of Tiberi's area

Note: these points are discussed in more detail by myself and others in this other thread:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...2267-a-840228/
As the bill stands now, all licensed sites will be restricted to accepting only 21 year olds and above. This might yet get changed for poker-only sites, to be according to state laws instead. But most likely it will just stay at 21.

The taxation bill contains a clause that deposits are taxed at 50% at unlicensed sites. The provisions makes both the site and the player liable for this tax. This is definitely in the PPA's crosshairs, to at least eliminate the player liability for this penalty tax.

Sites will have to locate their operations for their US players in the U.S. My other thread on the markup gives details on what each amendment means.
You'll be 21 or close to it by the time this bill is passed and implemented.

Something in the range of one to three years is my guess. Besides the time to get a bill all the way through to passage into law, there is also the following period for development of the regulations and then implementation (including setting up of operations in the US by the sites). However, eligible sites will probably be allowed to operate as if they are licensed in the US once the bill is passed, during the development and implementation stages.

Unless you're a pro on a downswing and find yourself short on funds for the month (and poker pros being flush or bust on any given month isn't exactly uncommon). In that case you're taking away that person's ability to earn.


But if you truly feel that this amendment is OK, then you would not have a problem also stating that people who are delinquent in their child support cannot invest in the stock market -- right?


FWIW, I don't have any crotch droppings, but I think we shouldn't be too happy supporting erosions of freedom in any form.

If you owe child support the government is going to get hold of your money very easily. If they aren't garnishing wages, they are charging insane interest on past due support making it effectively impossible to invest money in the market and come out ahead.

This amendment is ok because we have to make concessions to get this bill passed. If we don't give up little "freedoms" like this we might as well give up on the bill.

Unless the language about player liability for a 50% tax is eliminated, I will write my Congressman and Senators urging them to oppose this bill, and will recommend that all of my friends do the same. If this is implemented it will be much, much worse than the status quo.

As far as the 50% tax on deposits at unlicensed sites.

If you are choosing to play on an unlicensed site you are choosing to pay the extra tax.

If you are in an opt out state then your political pressure should be at the state level to opt-in and not directed at blocking this bill.

Here's my prediction.....................

We won't get all the way through the process this year, but we will get a positive house vote.

The Dems will lose the House in November.

Barney will realize that this legislation may be doomed in the next congress and will do exactly what Frist did and tack it onto some must pass legislation that they deal with during the lame duck session of Congress.

Turnaround is fair play.

Ship it.

I'm wondering about the amendment that denies licenses to companies who have been "operating illegally".
We all know that Stars and Tilt have been behind this bill; but do any of the more knowledgeable people here think that Stars and Tilt could have been UNAWARE that this amendment was gonna be introduced?
Perhaps they did know about it and are still confident enough that they will be able to get a license.
Or could it be that this amendment was created for the Harrah's, etc. lobby and that it was designed to shut out the already established Tilt, Stars...

1. How can the Government possibly place on the consumer (i.e., player) the legal burden for determining what sites are licensed and what sites aren't? It's ridiculous on its face, and opens up potential tax evasion charges to unknowing depositors.

2. No one knows exactly how the licensing process will work. What I am pretty certain of is that there will be pressure from special interests to include/exclude certain sites. Unless licensing is more or less a perfunctory process (assuming certain basic financial and security standards are met by the sites), there will be perfectly legitimate sites that are not licensed. In any case, it's my decision where I choose to deposit my money.

3. If the unlicensed sites are illegal, how can they tax deposits to them? It would be like enacting a sales tax on crack cocaine purchases.

Is this possible??

I don't post alot on here, but want to share some thoughts regarding this Bill.

The bipartisan support is GREAT, and i think this bill has a very good chance of making it through the House and the Senate. Even the Republicans are starting to realize that without this bill, no one will stop the underground unliscensed poker rooms from operating.

FTP and Stars will not be aloud in. HOWEVER, I have spent the last 8 years in the poker industry and for others in this industry we all understand that while it seems like a big indsutry it really is small. Only few companies like FTP and Stars, and Party and some in Europe really understand have the setup to get going. Look at what Harrah's did by hiring Mitch Garber. They are saying we don't have anything setup for online poker, but when U.S. allows liscenses Harrah's will most likely buy Party and use their software.

For players the software is going to be the same, just the names are going to change. The people behind the companies, owners, directors, etc, will all be now in the states working for these new companies.

No one has a better setup and would be ready to go more than FTP, Stars, and Party so they are going to be bought out, or sold to a U.S. company but employees will most likely stay the same.

And yes Paypal is giong to be the main processor, and who knows maybe NETeller might come back. They setlled with DOJ and are in a position to come back once it's legalized. Remember the good ole days when their were online wallets and you could move money back and forth so easily...well those days would come right back to us. And we all know PayPal is ready to go on that front.

This is all good news and when this bill moves to the next step in the law making process we all need to write our congressman and senators, because this is VERY GOOD for the indsutry.

Sorry sportsbooks, you will never have a chance...so give it up!