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, 02:07 PM   #776
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
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.
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.
YoureToast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:17 PM   #777
nuts busted
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 349
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by YoureToast View Post
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
nuts busted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:21 PM   #778
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,583
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by YoureToast View Post
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.
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?
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:22 PM   #779
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by YoureToast View Post
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.
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?
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:23 PM   #780
Former DJ
old hand
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Southern USA
Posts: 1,316
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.
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
Former DJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:29 PM   #781
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.
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.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:31 PM   #782
_MAGiC_
banned
 
_MAGiC_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Grindin
Posts: 860
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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?
_MAGiC_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:34 PM   #783
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:35 PM   #784
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by _MAGiC_ View Post
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?
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.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:35 PM   #785
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,583
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by _MAGiC_ View Post
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?
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.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:36 PM   #786
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 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.
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.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:37 PM   #787
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:38 PM   #788
banonlinepoker
banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,338
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
......
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.

Last edited by Rich Muny; 07-29-2010 at 03:54 PM. Reason: Deleted personal attack
banonlinepoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:38 PM   #789
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 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, we're saying OUR BILL should not penalize players in opt-out states who play on unlicensed sites.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:42 PM   #790
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 YoureToast View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by Rich Muny; 07-29-2010 at 03:25 PM. Reason: typo
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:43 PM   #791
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 LetsGambool View Post
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.
The tax bill has not been marked up yet. There has not yet been an opportunity to remove the tax penalty.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:44 PM   #792
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by banonlinepoker View Post
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.
Coming from you, this rant is a huge compliment.

Last edited by Rich Muny; 07-29-2010 at 03:54 PM. Reason: Edited quoted text only
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:45 PM   #793
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 LetsGambool View Post
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.
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.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:47 PM   #794
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
The tax bill has not been marked up yet. There has not yet been an opportunity to remove the tax penalty.
Of course, thats why its still time to support the bill.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:59 PM   #795
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 Former DJ View Post
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?
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.

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

Quote:
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?
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.

Quote:
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?
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.

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

Quote:
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.
I think it's time for you to take your meds.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 03:00 PM   #796
Teasin Brown
stranger
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 14
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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.
Teasin Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 03:03 PM   #797
pokurz
adept
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 913
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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.
pokurz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 03:06 PM   #798
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by pokurz View Post
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.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 03:07 PM   #799
wufwugy
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,162
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggger5x View Post
Is this possible??
Not really
wufwugy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 03:12 PM   #800
Hem is for nits
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 135
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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.
Hem is for nits 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 04:38 AM.


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