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, 03:13 PM   #801
_MAGiC_
banned
 
_MAGiC_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Grindin
Posts: 860
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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
_MAGiC_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 03:13 PM   #802
CountingMyOuts
adept
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 901
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by udbrky View Post
Ugh, I'm just outside of Tiberi's area
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.
CountingMyOuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 03:20 PM   #803
JasonInDallas
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Foothills
Posts: 6,899
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hem is for nits View Post
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.
please take this to one of the the Internet Poker "poker is rigged" threads
JasonInDallas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 03:20 PM   #804
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 Hem is for nits View Post
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.
Trust me, Harrah's RNG will be rigged against you as well.
pianospike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 03:20 PM   #805
Hem is for nits
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 135
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by pianospike View Post
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
Hem is for nits is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 03:24 PM   #806
YoureToast
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 3,582
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Yes, we're saying OUR BILL should not penalize players in opt-out states who play on unlicensed sites.
And are you also saying that NO bill is better than a bill with the current provision in tact?
YoureToast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 03:30 PM   #807
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 Hem is for nits View Post
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
You may be alone in that sentiment, because I'm pretty sure that nearly everyone here would prefer to have a worldwide player pool.
pianospike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 03:33 PM   #808
Hem is for nits
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 135
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by pianospike View Post
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.
Hem is for nits is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 03:39 PM   #809
henway
centurion
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 173
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally posted by PokerXanadu
The deadline for passage of the current Barney Frank bill (and the Menendez bill) is the end of this year. If the bill is not passed into law by then, the process will have to be started over with introduction of a new bill in the new session of Congress, which starts in January.
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?
henway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 03:57 PM   #810
gtp9998
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 305
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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.
gtp9998 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:02 PM   #811
oldbookguy
veteran
 
oldbookguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,025
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggger5x View Post
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.
Great interview.
oldbookguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:05 PM   #812
Hem is for nits
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 135
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gtp9998 View Post
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.
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?
Hem is for nits is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:06 PM   #813
banonlinepoker
banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,338
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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

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

Quote:
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?
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.
banonlinepoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:07 PM   #814
Merkle
centurion
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 112
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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)
Merkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:11 PM   #815
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 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 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.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:17 PM   #816
banonlinepoker
banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,338
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
That being said, I did take action on the post you found objectionable
We thank you sir.
banonlinepoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:18 PM   #817
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 pokurz View Post
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.
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.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:20 PM   #818
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 Hem is for nits View Post
Does this mean we are gonna get to play on RNG's that are inspected by a government gaming board?
Yes.

Quote:
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.
LOL

Take this to the "online poker is rigged" thread.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:21 PM   #819
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
And are you also saying that NO bill is better than a bill with the current provision in tact?
Why would removing this cost us the bill? I doubt that it costs us a single vote.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:33 PM   #820
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 banonlinepoker View Post
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.
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.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:37 PM   #821
YoureToast
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 3,582
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Why would removing this cost us the bill? I doubt that it costs us a single vote.
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?
YoureToast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:40 PM   #822
aces_full1963
veteran
 
aces_full1963's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,972
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
OJ was charged with a crime. Stars and FT have not been. I think that's a pretty big omission.
aces_full1963 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:45 PM   #823
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
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?
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.

Last edited by Rich Muny; 07-29-2010 at 04:55 PM.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:49 PM   #824
bull62
newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 41
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.
Except that Barney isn't in the Senate.
bull62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:51 PM   #825
banonlinepoker
banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,338
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by aces_full1963 View Post
OJ was charged with a crime. Stars and FT have not been. I think that's a pretty big omission.
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.

Quote:
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.
A perfect scenario
banonlinepoker 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 04:44 AM.


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