Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Legislation for Poker & Income Taxes for Poker Players Discussions of various poker-related laws and steps players can take to push for better laws.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-29-2010, 01:23 AM   #726
dabomb75
veteran
 
dabomb75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dreaming of being an FPP Pro
Posts: 2,343
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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
dabomb75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:29 AM   #727
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverAnAce View Post
Read the post again:
The "I paid my taxes if thats what you mean" part.

Don't worry about me. I'm good, I paid my taxes, I even put PokerStars as the place I won the money, lol. They never said a word back about it. I live in Alabama and I put PokerStars on my state taxes too. I warn others to pay their taxes. I have hand histories, tourney histories, excel log and PokerStars playing history audits to back me up. I even made copies of my tax forms that I sent in when I paid my taxes. I have the cashed checks showing I paid my taxes. So if anyone still thinks I didn't pay my taxes please re-read this post till you see the part where I paid my taxes.

LetsGambool, I agree with you that those who have not paid their taxes should be getting cleaned up. But even the ones who have, might not have filed correctly. There is so much bad info that gets passed around about taxes. Many players file wrong or don't have the info to back up what they filed. I hope taxes get easier with the licensing of the sites.

glgl
Sorry, didnt mean to imply that you had tax issues, your Neteller posts just gave me the thought for my post.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:33 AM   #728
DreadAgent
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Out there
Posts: 71
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivey10k View Post
Excellent observation and EV work...+1...Not that we should rest on our laurels...but I am curious as to if any1 vehemently disputes ur analysis here???Anyone??? It would b a good debate...

Michael of NJ
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
DreadAgent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:34 AM   #729
ivey10k
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 472
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dabomb75 View Post
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
Quote:
This should provide u w/ some insight...

Originally Posted by Icebeast26
Just previewed the members of the Committee on Ways & Means for the upcoming bill........

Looks pretty favorable for us w/ 26 Democrats vs 15 Republicans on the committee and also a Democratic Chair. I'm not a Democrat, but it seems that our results are more favorable when they hold the votes.

This makes us 60-40 fav's going to the flop, right?
Michael of NJ
ivey10k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:43 AM   #730
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivey10k View Post
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
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:48 AM   #731
ivey10k
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 472
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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
ivey10k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:55 AM   #732
RiverAnAce
old hand
 
RiverAnAce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Poker rights daily action thread
Posts: 1,227
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivey10k View Post
They never came after me...And I had a substantial roll in my neteller...Hope u r doing okay...

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.
RiverAnAce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:03 AM   #733
54-
banned
 
54-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UCLA
Posts: 876
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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.
54- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:09 AM   #734
pokurz
adept
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 913
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54- View Post
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.
pokurz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:09 AM   #735
dabomb75
veteran
 
dabomb75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dreaming of being an FPP Pro
Posts: 2,343
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

agree with ivey10k. Let's keep the momentum going!
dabomb75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:17 AM   #736
Swingin
old hand
 
Swingin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,254
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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?)
Swingin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:21 AM   #737
bsktbllkng237
centurion
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 190
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54- View Post
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.
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?
bsktbllkng237 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:21 AM   #738
NoahSD
Is Right
 
NoahSD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,865
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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.
NoahSD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:37 AM   #739
RiverAnAce
old hand
 
RiverAnAce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Poker rights daily action thread
Posts: 1,227
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
Sorry, didnt mean to imply that you had tax issues, your Neteller posts just gave me the thought for my post.
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
RiverAnAce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 03:10 AM   #740
udbrky
Formerly known as udbrky
 
udbrky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: avoiding responsibility
Posts: 28,869
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Ugh, I'm just outside of Tiberi's area
udbrky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 06:02 AM   #741
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,583
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Note: these points are discussed in more detail by myself and others in this other thread:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...2267-a-840228/

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsktbllkng237 View Post
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?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swingin View Post
Wait... 50% tax clause?
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.

Quote:
"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?)
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 54- View Post
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.
You'll be 21 or close to it by the time this bill is passed and implemented.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjp View Post
I have been reading a few different sites and apologize if this has been covered, but when would should we expect to see this make a difference? When would we see licensed sites and poker advertisement from licensed companies assuring fish that things are fair and legit etc (as they already are)? Anyone have an educated guesstimate.
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.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 06:58 AM   #742
feint06
adept
 
feint06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: far norcal
Posts: 969
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge View Post
but the gist of it was to change the amendment to one that required the sites to prevent people from playing if the sites were first notified that someone has a delinquent support obligation.

as amended, it is probably a good thing.
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.
feint06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 07:43 AM   #743
recondite7
old hand
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Austin Texas
Posts: 1,970
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by feint06 View Post
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.
recondite7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 08:10 AM   #744
deucesevenoffsuit
grinder
 
deucesevenoffsuit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 447
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu View Post
Note: these points are discussed in more detail by myself and others in this other thread:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...2267-a-840228/




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.


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.
deucesevenoffsuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 09:06 AM   #745
Merkle
centurion
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 112
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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.
Merkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 09:19 AM   #746
antneye
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
antneye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Fighting for my right to play poker
Posts: 6,881
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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.
antneye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 09:43 AM   #747
Dave2020
newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 28
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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...
Dave2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 09:51 AM   #748
deucesevenoffsuit
grinder
 
deucesevenoffsuit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 447
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merkle View Post
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.
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.
deucesevenoffsuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 10:34 AM   #749
sluggger5x
John Connor of poker
 
sluggger5x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Fight for Poker Rights Action Thred
Posts: 5,592
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by antneye View Post
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.
Is this possible??
sluggger5x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 10:36 AM   #750
slsmagicc
centurion
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 135
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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!
slsmagicc 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 04:27 AM.


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