This makes no sense to me and I don't understand the PPA's vehemence against it. The only way this thing flies if if there is a strong liklihood that revenue will be strong. If unlicensed sites can get access to US citizens, those opposing it will argue that the bill does nothing to guarantee revenue or protect citizens. I think the PPA should argue against it, but taking a stand that they won't support the bill without removing the provision seems shortsighted to me.

This

The 50% penalty will almost exclusivly come into play only in opt out states, since players in states that don't opt out will have plenty of choices to play on licensed sites.

So, the point is that you don't want players in the opt out states to be liable for the 50% deposit penalty since their only choice will be to play on unlicensed sites. It is also a principle thing - where else is a consumer liable for a penalty levied on a business for breaking the law?

Well, what happens when people think they are in an opt out state and start deluging their representatives with letters and calls saying to oppose the bill? Think that is good for getting legislation passed?

Like I've previously noted, this bill is designed for the benefit of Harrah's and MGM/Mirage. Why do you think Rich Garber, a lawyer and former executive with Party Gaming, left Party to become the President of Harrah's "new" Interactive Gaming Division?

The 50% deposit tax on players choosing to play on "unlicensed" sites is intended for the sole benefit of the big [domestic] land-based operators here in the United States. It's just another of the many provisions in the legislation designed to crush competition - especially offshore competion from existing sites. Gary Loveman, Harrah's CEO, could not have been any clearer as to what he thought of offshore poker sites during that television interview with CNBC's Maria Bartiromo. He called the sites, and I quote, "essentially illegal operators." Given Mr. Loveman's stated objections, does anybody really believe it's an "accident" that the 50 percent deposit tax [on unlicensed sites] managed to find its way into this bill? If the PPA was really "standing up for poker players" as they claim they are, do you think this 50 percent deposit tax would have gotten inserted into the bill in the first place?

As for the PPAs spurious assertion, "Look, we've got to get the bill passed first, then we can go back and fix it," the time to "fix" legislation is before it's passed - not after. Once a bill is passed and becomes law, it is monumentally more difficult to go back and try to get legislators to fix it. Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about: How many of you have heard of an abomination called the UIGEA? The PPA has been trying to "fix" that for the better part of the last four years. Another example: The just passed health care reform bill. Republicans and Tea Partiers are talking about "fixing" ObamaCare by repealing it. Good luck on that one. The time to try and "fix" a bill is before it passes - not after. Face the facts. Irrespective of what the PPA is telling you, once this monstrosity passes and becomes law, we're basically stuck with it. That's the simple reality of the sausage making process. Once legislation becomes law and is signed by the President, it takes a climbing-Mount-Everest type effort to get it changed.

One final point: If you think the juice that Harrah's puts on cash game tables and side games during the WSOP is bad, just wait until you see what they do with their virtual tables. With most of their competition eliminated, they won't need to worry about online players complaining about how the cash games used to be "only 5 percent rake when I played on Stars and Tilt." Frankly, they won't give a damn. Harrah's is operating under an enormous debt burden. They have private equity investors (Texas Pacific Group) and hedge fund investors that want them to start generating enormous profits. Mr. Loveman clearly indicated what he had in mind [for "legal" internet poker] during the CNBC interview when he stated that Harrah's anticipates "billions" in revenue from legalized internet poker.

This legislation (in its present form) has very little to do with "standing up for your right to play poker." This legislation is all about giving Harrah's and MGM/Mirage a virtual monopoly in the internet poker market here in the United States. That's it plain and simple.

Former DJ

There is one more thing, though. Opposing the bill in its entirety does not help us remove the provision. If you write "I oppose this bill" and nothing else, you HELP keep the 50% tax in. You have to tell them that you support the intent of the bill but oppose the 50% tax on players.

When lawmakers do the math, they look at vote totals, letter totals, etc. If they don't hear from us, they won't think, "well, that's because it's not friendly enough to players." Rather, they would think Americans don't support the right to play poker.

The strength of our seat at the table is directly proportional to the effort we put into it. If we fight hard, we get a seat at the head of the table (or at least close). If we don't, we are backbenchers. For us to be able get the concessions we want, we need to be strong.

i heard if this bill goes through taht minimum age to play online poker will be 21 (Im 19) and u gotta pay 2% tax and 6% to the state

is any of this true?

At some point it becomes too late to stop the bill, and since removing the 50% tax is close to or is our number one priority...well, at some point it needs to come out or we have to withdraw support.

For me, its going to be at the full House vote. I know the "Senate is where the details matter". but if this comes to a House vote with a 50% tax in it, Im writing in and calling in to vote no. At some point enough is enough.

For committee votes and for now, absolutely, support the concept and generate as much strength as possible.

21 yes, tax to the state and Feds through you no. If your state opts out, under the current bill, you owe 50% on your deposit to whatever sites you can still play on.

Yes (in the bill's current form), except the taxes are paid by the site, not you.

And, you will probably be 21 or close to it before the bill gets passed and implemented.

LeapFrog beat me to it.

The problem is in opt out states. In fact, my personal statement on this (the one to which LG referred) is actually specific to opt-out states. I'm glad PPA took it a step further, of course.

We don't want to pass a bill that implements a poker ban in opt-out states. If anti-poker types want a federal ban on poker in opt-out states, they should introduce their own bill.

Sorry TE, i knew that about the opt-out states but wasnt specific enough in my post even though I knew what you meant. Didnt mean to misrepresent your statement.

Since the biased moderating here won't even think of acting on something that doesn't go in line with their thinking I won't even report this. I am in no way racist because I don't agree with the KGC breaking laws and using their land as not only a tax dodge but a way to circumvent law and regulation. To hell with them. I would say the same thing if they were Italian, Chinese or what have you. I play cards with many Native Americans and I have a high regard for them since they chose to live by laws but I have no regard for anyone like FT, PS or any site or racial makeup of people that exploit their status and land to circumvent policy and then demand they are legalized once the US starts to move to produce legislation to legalize online poker. Nice try though.

I also love how you wish ill on people and also are given a free pass by the moderating crew here. Trust me I am not sterile if you want proof I can send you a semen sample. Though you would probably enjoy that.

Yes, we're saying OUR BILL should not penalize players in opt-out states who play on unlicensed sites.

I don't understand why you seem to think adding licensing somehow means we have to add bans. The NRA doesn't support gun bans. Why would we support poker bans? We fight FOR poker rights, not against them.

The tax bill has not been marked up yet. There has not yet been an opportunity to remove the tax penalty.

Coming from you, this rant is a huge compliment.

No problem. I'm 100% for eliminating it across the board, of course. I just want to stay clear on where the line in the sand is.

Of course, thats why its still time to support the bill.

You aren't very good at this conspiracy theory thing.

Why do I think Rich Gerber joined Harrah's? Because Harrah's would like to offer online poker. Harrah's is strongly on record as wanting online poker, so where's the smoking gun there? LOL at saying this is proof that the bill is tailored for Harrah's.

It seems you take little factoids and weave them into your delusions, as if that makes them true. That's how most conspiracy theorists works.

No. It was put in by lawmakers who hoped to have a response when asked the inevitable questions about enforcement.

There you go again. Now a trivial quote is your smoking gun? LOL at the thought process: Harrah's CEO says current sites are breaking the law; the bill has a penalty on unlicensed sites; therefore, the bill is written for Harrah's. Sorry, but that's not proof at all.

We don't write the bills. Congressmen do. All we can do is share our opinions on them.

Also, you're failing a key logic test here. The sites contribute to PPA. They also helped lobby for this bill in the House. They even asked their members to join PPA and to write to Congress in support of these bills.

Like the conspiracy theorists before you, you conveniently ignore real facts.

No one at PPA suggested that we pass a law and then fix it.

I think it's time for you to take your meds.

I thought the tea baggers were for freedom? Looks like they are nothing more than Conservative Christian Republicans who like to tell people what to do in their own home.

There is no reason what so ever for anybody to worried about this 50% tax clause and I think the government is perfectly within their rights to attach this into the bill. They have to enforce a way for people to not play on unlicensed sites. Furthermore, they will have a government website up that states all the legal operating sites. If you can't read and participate on a legal site. Then you should be at fault for your actions. If you are in an opt-out state, then why in the hell would you think the federal government would allow you to break the law and play on an unlicensed site. At that point you either do not play poker, you fight for your rights in your state and get the laws changed, or you moved to a different state. It's not that hard.

Its the PPA, not the PPAFPIOIS (For Players in Opt In States). We arent going to support a bill that starts banning online poker and introducing criminal penalties.

A compromise is to just have the penalty for players in opt-in states. If you want to participate in the licensing system, opt-in.

EDIT: Although it should be noted that sports bettors will heavily oppose a bill with this compromise, and with cause.

Not really

Does this mean we are gonna get to play on RNG's that are inspected by a government gaming board? Because these ones now that are tweaked to handicap the play for weak players are getting really old. I mean I understand the business model to build a player base doesnt work with a normal RNG but there has to be a better way.