Im a little confused, some people say its a bad thing others say its good

can some1 make a pros and cons list of this bill being passed plz

I sent Tiberi a letter in regards to online poker a year or so ago and received a positive response from him. I don't see him voting against us.

please take this to one of the the Internet Poker "poker is rigged" threads

Trust me, Harrah's RNG will be rigged against you as well.

lol

so wait are we gonna have sites just for US players? Places where we arent playing against russian nits and chinese rake grinders?

I for one am all about sharing a site with just my fellow Americans

And are you also saying that NO bill is better than a bill with the current provision in tact?

You may be alone in that sentiment, because I'm pretty sure that nearly everyone here would prefer to have a worldwide player pool.

I dont think you notice that the only players giving action are US players. The rest of these Russians and Chinese are grinding out electric bill money. Everyone keeps saying the games are dying and thats why. It all started happening when their countries entered the arena.

The current legislative session is nearing its end. This bill has a LONG way to go before becoming law. Congress breaks in August and most members are more concerned w/campaigning at this time.

I assume there is well less than a 10% chance this will be passed this legislative session. Quite possibly less than 1%.

Would someone knowledgeable here disagree w/these #'s?

All this means to me is that when I cash out, the IRS takes it's chunk right then and there.


And I don't see any of these clowns trying to make the tax code fair for gambling winnings.

Great interview.

I mean is any consideration being taken in to the fact that of they take too much money from the games it wont be profitable to play anymore and it will die?

Though you are correct the answer to his question is yes we will get real gaming regulation like the casinos in Nevada are subject to.

Oh bull, do you travel to play live all over the world? A US based site for US players will do just fine don't worry.

Don't forget this bill is a jobs bill too. I think the DNC would love nothing more than to pass anything that puts Americans to work and use as a tool to get Obama re-elected even if they sustain major losses in Congress which is looking likely, I think this has a decent shot at passing in the lame duck session.

About the 50% tax

Almost any state that opts out will probably be one of the 12 - 14 states with specific laws about online poker or all gambling. So, I doubt if anyone from those states is playing online legally now.

"It is also a principle thing - where else is a consumer liable for a penalty levied on a business for breaking the law?"

Not wanting to be argumentitve because I greatly respect your time and effort.
But if someone buys bootleg alchol is their a penalty on both the consumer and the seller?
If I unknowingly buy stolen goods from someone in good faith can’t the items be taken from me without compensation? It appears to me consumers can suffer legal damage from doing business with a business that is breaking the law.

If somebody is playing on an unlicensed site do you really believe they will report and pay the appropriate tax? How many people order items from out of state and the pay the appropriate sales tax to their state?

“When a user of tangible personal property does
not pay sales tax to a dealer, the user becomes
personally liable for the tax. This generally
occurs when a user purchases articles from an
out-of-state dealer not registered for Tennessee
tax.” From the TN sales tax codes.

Just add a clause that if a state opts out of this bill then they opt out of all aspects of the bill, including the extra tax.

But this issue is a long way from a “deal breaker” in my opinion and I am someone who might be in an opt out state. Do you really want to throw away legal play in about 40 – 45 states (based on Skall’s estimates) over this issue? I fought for years to get the Blue Laws overturned, to open the doors for liquor sales and to get liquor by the drink in my county; this is just one more issue, but if I don’t like the law I’ll fight to change it and do what I think is right by my personal standards. If they means I pay fines or penaltys when the time comes so be it.

When dealing with overturning the blue laws and the dry counties, each county that did this made it easier for the adjacent counties to follow suit. I urge TE and others NOT to withdraw support for this bill over this issue if it is not rectified. (Personally I think it will be appropriately addressed in the markup)

I have no personal biases in my modding. Berge20 and I mod this forum for compliance with the Two Plus Two terms and conditions.

You chose the inflammatory handle specifically to illicit these types of responses, so don't expect me to disrupt the forum to stop these reasonable and expected responses.

That being said, I did take action on the post you found objectionable.

Can I borrow your crystal ball? I would love to see who will win the SB next year. Truth is I chose my handle because I did not support online poker in it's current form and do support it as the current bill being debated lays out. I don't chose to use a username to provoke people in forums. I didn't think the users here would react so violently to winning tax free money by playing a site hosted somewhere offshore but that is not my cross to bear it's theirs.

We thank you sir.

I don't understand why you believe we have to provide enforcement. I especially don't see why you think players should be the target of such enforcement. Why do you link the two?

Additionally, I don't know that this provision buys us a single "aye". It's not like Kyl said he'd be with us if only we had this penalty. Rather, our supporters offered it up as a compromise in advance of the actual negotiations.

IMO, we can add licensed sites and let the free market decide. If the sites are well-run and the taxes are low, the market will favor those sites. In other words, the market will drive compliance.

Yes.

LOL

Take this to the "online poker is rigged" thread.

Why would removing this cost us the bill? I doubt that it costs us a single vote.

In that case, perhaps you should have chosen "licenseonlinepoker" or something like that. Surely you should have seen that a poker forum would not share your enthusiasm to ban online poker and then perhaps replace it with something else somewhere down the road.

If you didn't see that, perhaps you do need my crystal ball. It doesn't see the future, unfortunately, but it does see the obvious.

Thats not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is if the removal of the provision fails, will you (the PPA) still support the bill?

OJ was charged with a crime. Stars and FT have not been. I think that's a pretty big omission.

I won't support the tax bill if it contains any features that direct enforcement efforts onto players in opt-out states. If states want to ban poker, let them enforce it.

Except that Barney isn't in the Senate.

Of course he was, he lived and committed his crime on US land subject to the law where as PS and FT hid on Indian land and offshore where they can't be touched. For just this reason.

A perfect scenario