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, 11:03 AM   #751
yerick27
newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Costa Rica
Posts: 35
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Sportbooks will survive the same way they have been doing it latelly working with agents having their offices out of USA, will partypoker be allow to be back ?
yerick27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 11:18 AM   #752
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)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggger5x View Post
Is this possible??
Why wouldn't it be? It's how UIGEA got passed.
antneye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 11:23 AM   #753
stanley644
stranger
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Will non-US players be allowed to play at these new regulated sites?
stanley644 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 11:41 AM   #754
Zenzor
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,366
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

28,000 views ITT. imagine if we had 28,000 letters to congress ;o
Zenzor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 11:55 AM   #755
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 Zenzor View Post
28,000 views ITT. imagine if we had 28,000 letters to congress ;o
probably 4,000 of these are my views.
sluggger5x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 12:18 PM   #756
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by deucesevenoffsuit View Post
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.
TE has personally said he will not support a bill with that clause in there and I would expect the PPA to withdraw support if it is not removed. I take them at their word as this is clearly not a player friendly option.

Totally agree with you. If that's not eliminated I would go meet personally with my reps and explain that I am a poker player and will vote against them in future elections if they vote yes.

I worry about this clause too as it is the number 1 thing we need to change, but am cautiously optimistic that A) we can remove it and B) the PPA walks from the bill otherwise.

Just cant see a good organization that has done right by its players selling out its membership like that, and I do think its a good organization.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 12:18 PM   #757
HemiDog
newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Would this bill (and McDermott's bill) impact the online horse racing market or are they still covered under their old laws? If these bills do affect them, don't you think they will oppose this legislation since it will add more restrictions and taxes on them? I assume we need them on our side, isn't their lobby much wealthier than the PPA?
HemiDog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 12:20 PM   #758
GodSmackJack
old hand
 
GodSmackJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The Ocean State
Posts: 1,904
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Called mine this morning, her staff didn't even know what HR 2267 was..when I asked them what her position was on the bill they told me they couldn't comment. This is the same Rep. That doesn't answer the emails that I send via the PPA template emails on the subject.
GodSmackJack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 12:27 PM   #759
JPDarnell
newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 33
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Does anyone know where I can find out who voted for and against HR 2267 in yesterdays vote?

Thanks.
JPDarnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 12:47 PM   #760
w33ktight
Pooh-Bah
 
w33ktight's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,320
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

too bad it's too little too late and online poker is already dead
w33ktight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:01 PM   #761
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by deucesevenoffsuit View Post
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.
Yes, PPA opposes all player penalties. I have been quite adamant about this, especially within PPA. PPA put out a press release demanding its exclusion (it's not part of the Frank bill, so it didn't come up in yesterday's discussion).

IMO, this provision was tossed in as an afterthought to answer a question some will ask on what is being done to deter play on unlicensed sites. It's a foolish proposal in many ways.

Winning players won't have much liability at all, while losing players likely won't pay it (and probably won't even know about it -- it's not like this will be its own line on the 1040 tax form). Furthermore, the IRS wouldn't know when winning players made their rare deposits. Most winning players would have net deposits of $0, as winning players withdraw more than they deposit (by definition). Furthermore, this proposal would erode compliance with payment of other taxes. Those owing it could just decide they should keep quiet about the whole online poker thing altogether.

So, when directed at the players, the proposal fails as an enforcement mechanism. Things like this also alienate the player base, costing backers of the legislation key support. Adding even tougher enforcement mechanisms to this bill could possibly turn it into a ban on poker in opt-out states. Well, why would poker players from those states fight to ban poker in their home states? If anti-poker types wish to ban poker, let them pass their own legislation.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:08 PM   #762
kwansolo
old hand
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,985
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Yes, PPA opposes all player penalties. I have been quite adamant about this, especially within PPA. PPA put out a press release demanding its exclusion (it's not part of the Frank bill, so it didn't come up in yesterday's discussion).

IMO, this provision was tossed in as an afterthought to answer a question some will ask on what is being done to deter play on unlicensed sites. It's a foolish proposal in many ways.

Winning players won't have much liability at all, while losing players likely won't pay it (and probably won't even know about it -- it's not like this will be its own line on the 1040 tax form). Furthermore, the IRS wouldn't know when winning players made their rare deposits. Most winning players would have net deposits of $0, as winning players withdraw more than they deposit (by definition). Furthermore, this proposal would erode compliance with payment of other taxes. Those owing it could just decide they should keep quiet about the whole online poker thing altogether.

So, when directed at the players, the proposal fails as an enforcement mechanism. Things like this also alienate the player base, costing backers of the legislation key support. Adding even tougher enforcement mechanisms to this bill could possibly turn it into a ban on poker in opt-out states. Well, why would poker players from those states fight to ban poker in their home states? If anti-poker types wish to ban poker, let them pass their own legislation.
sorry if i missed this in one of the threads, but what happens with player transfers (do they count as a deposit, or something else)?
kwansolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:10 PM   #763
nuts busted
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 349
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

I'm still not understanding the outrage over the 50% tax for deposits to unlicensed sites under the McDermott bill. Maybe someone can help me understand my logic fail?

First of all, most informed opinion is of the belief that Stars and tilt will get licensed. But even if they don't, it seems likely the market is going to filled with a ton of new sites that are licensed, giving us numerous options. At this point, why would one WANT to play at an unlicensed site. It seems to be Stars and Tilt will just fade away, with or without the 50% tax.

The other point I'd make is that without some sort of penalty for not being licensed, the motivation to become licensed is undermined.

Someone help me here.
nuts busted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:11 PM   #764
LeapFrog
Pooh-Bah
 
LeapFrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rosetta Stoned
Posts: 5,538
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuts busted View Post
I'm still not understanding the outrage over the 50% tax for deposits to unlicensed sites under the McDermott bill. Maybe someone can help me understand my logic fail?

First of all, most informed opinion is of the belief that Stars and tilt will get licensed. But even if they don't, it seems likely the market is going to filled with a ton of new sites that are licensed, giving us numerous options. At this point, why would one WANT to play at an unlicensed site. It seems to be Stars and Tilt will just fade away, with or without the 50% tax.

The other point I'd make is that without some sort of penalty for not being licensed, the motivation to become licensed is undermined.

Someone help me here.
well, what are you going to do if you are in an opt-out state?
LeapFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:16 PM   #765
pianospike
adept
 
pianospike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: california
Posts: 1,081
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog View Post
well, what are you going to do if you are in an opt-out state?
I believe it has been stated repeatedly that we are going to push hard for the penalty to be removed or, at a minimum, to only apply to states that do not opt-out.
pianospike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:19 PM   #766
LeapFrog
Pooh-Bah
 
LeapFrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rosetta Stoned
Posts: 5,538
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by pianospike View Post
I belive it has been stated repeatedly that we are going to push hard for the penalty to be removed or, at a minimum, to only apply to states that do not opt-out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuts busted View Post
First of all, most informed opinion is of the belief that Stars and tilt will get licensed. But even if they don't, it seems likely the market is going to filled with a ton of new sites that are licensed, giving us numerous options. At this point, why would one WANT to play at an unlicensed site. It seems to be Stars and Tilt will just fade away, with or without the 50% tax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog View Post
well, what are you going to do if you are in an opt-out state?
.
LeapFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:32 PM   #767
YoureToast
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 3,582
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by pianospike View Post
I believe it has been stated repeatedly that we are going to push hard for the penalty to be removed or, at a minimum, to only apply to states that do not opt-out.
If a state opts-out, are you saying you should be able to play on a non-licensed site? I also don't understand this issue. I must be missing something.
YoureToast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:36 PM   #768
nuts busted
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 349
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog View Post
well, what are you going to do if you are in an opt-out state?
Presumably by opting out, a state is saying they don't want poker in their state. So I guess to answer your question, I'd live by their laws or move.
nuts busted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:37 PM   #769
nuts busted
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 349
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by YoureToast View Post
If a state opts-out, are you saying you should be able to play on a non-licensed site? I also don't understand this issue. I must be missing something.
I think this is where the common sense breaks down. I believe he's implying he wants to play, even if his state tells him he can't.
nuts busted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:38 PM   #770
TheRock69
journeyman
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 326
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

I can't beleive people are worried about stars and ftp if this passes. Who cares about them if this passes. There will be so many sites popping up that will be regulated. These sites will have to compete somehow so probably lower rake or other essentives. When is the last time stars/ftp lowered rake? Also all the regulated sites will share a database full of cheaters which will be way better security then sites have now. Be nice have a cheater doing time in jail rather than getting a refund and kicked off one site etc.
TheRock69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:40 PM   #771
banonlinepoker
banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,338
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Ha, I had the exact same thought. We're moving towards a bill he himself would write. That is not a good thing
LOLOLOLOLOL I love it, you guys still want your cake and to eat it well not going to happen. You want legalized poker this is the bill. FT and PS should go under and will probably find a way to have Lederer go begging to the Government. Probably will have to pay a steep fine and or change the name of the site but something will get worked out. You can't just thumb your nose at paying taxes and obeying laws and expect the US Gov to kow tow to you.

Quote:
This one really worries me...No doubt about it...They could still have int'l rooms or player pools but what really troubles me is the infrastructure investment that would be required by a internet poker room...What u may see here is B2B which takes U.S. customers and then filters them to the int'l player pool.
Who cares? You have any idea how much these people have made and how much they dodged paying taxes? Howard and his ilk can more than afford to move location and if he wants to compete he better start making planes to move and tell the Offshore people and Indians goodbye.

Quote:
the us-facing poker sites believe they are not breaking any laws, nor have they been convicted of breaking any laws
So OJ was not convicted of killing his wife, your telling me he didn't do it? The PPA really needs to stop the propaganda and start fighting for the players and not Howard Lederer and Phil Gordon. Who gives a flying rat turd if FT and PS are denied a license? They broke the law, they dodged paying taxes and now they demand to be catered to? This is hogwash. If you want to fight this by trying to get a loophole or petition congress to let them get a license if they pay a huge fine etc so be it but don't tell me your going to fight for them to just be handed a license because you feel they did nothing wrong because they line your pockets.

Quote:
I don't understand the undying allegiance to Tilt and Stars
Money and the dillusion that they would be able to stay offshore and be legalized.



I wonder how those Indians up in Toronto are taking this news LOLOL
banonlinepoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:50 PM   #772
craigmarq
old hand
 
craigmarq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Had dem pocket 77s
Posts: 1,545
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by banonlinepoker View Post
LOLOLOLOLOL I love it, you guys still want your cake and to eat it well not going to happen. You want legalized poker this is the bill. FT and PS should go under and will probably find a way to have Lederer go begging to the Government. Probably will have to pay a steep fine and or change the name of the site but something will get worked out. You can't just thumb your nose at paying taxes and obeying laws and expect the US Gov to kow tow to you.



Who cares? You have any idea how much these people have made and how much they dodged paying taxes? Howard and his ilk can more than afford to move location and if he wants to compete he better start making planes to move and tell the Offshore people and Indians goodbye.



So OJ was not convicted of killing his wife, your telling me he didn't do it? The PPA really needs to stop the propaganda and start fighting for the players and not Howard Lederer and Phil Gordon. Who gives a flying rat turd if FT and PS are denied a license? They broke the law, they dodged paying taxes and now they demand to be catered to? This is hogwash. If you want to fight this by trying to get a loophole or petition congress to let them get a license if they pay a huge fine etc so be it but don't tell me your going to fight for them to just be handed a license because you feel they did nothing wrong because they line your pockets.



Money and the dillusion that they would be able to stay offshore and be legalized.



I wonder how those Indians up in Toronto are taking this news LOLOL
You're pretty delusional dude. Its pretty obvious you have no idea what you're talking about from a legal standpoint. Cool rant though.
craigmarq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:51 PM   #773
pianospike
adept
 
pianospike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: california
Posts: 1,081
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by YoureToast View Post
If a state opts-out, are you saying you should be able to play on a non-licensed site? I also don't understand this issue. I must be missing something.
Yes. If a state opts out then the federal law should not impose a penalty on players within those opt-out states for playing on unlicensed sites.

If the state itself wants to criminalize and/or penalize online poker playing in statute, that is their prerogative, but the federal legislation shouldn't do their dirty work for them.
pianospike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:59 PM   #774
Kowalski
Pooh-Bah
 
Kowalski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Live free or die
Posts: 5,338
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Just want to thank everyone in the PPA.
Kowalski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:05 PM   #775
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)

How can we get more interviews like this on Foxnews and CNN??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ade_T96b6dA


I think getting the word out to big news sources is the best way to raise public knowledge, and by doing a quick google news search of this bill, you can see that the kettle is hot right now people to start thinking about regulated online poker.

I'd hate to see the issue water down in the coming months for people who generally haven't given it much attention for the last 4 years.
sluggger5x 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 04:32 AM.


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