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, 04:52 PM   #826
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
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.



We thank you sir.
Believe me, its not banonlinepoker's name I find objectionable.

Without referring to anyone specific, I just hate when stupid, ignorant, racist people spread their views. There are many ways to debate this subject where people can agree to disagree.

There are also a small number of posters (perhaps one) who are very ignorant, stupid, and racist.

America would be better off without these people, so I hope they dont reproduce.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:55 PM   #827
bigticket
journeyman
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 380
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hem is for nits View Post
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.
I agree completely. I want to play against my fellow Americans, Canadians would be welcome too but thats it.
bigticket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:56 PM   #828
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
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

Yes, I see that you don't understand. Can you please explain what crime Stars and FT committed? I would be very interested to see that.
aces_full1963 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:57 PM   #829
permafrost
old hand
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,968
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
NEWS RELEASE

PPA Praises Passage of H.R. 2267, Internet Gambling Regulation Bill


Washington, DC (July 28, 2010)...

While the bill has passed out of Committee, there is still much work to be done and areas of policy in this bill that must still be addressed. To be clear, despite the concerns of some of our members, nothing in the Committee-passed legislation precludes lawful Internet poker-only operators whom U.S. players know and trust today from the opportunity to operate under a regulated system.
Good to hear we have lawful IP operators. Would someone tell me where these operators are lawful?

If it is in the U.S., where can I read the statutes and regulations? Internet operators offering race betting have statutes and regulations making them lawful; ditto state lottery...I just can't find the info for poker business. Since the PPA says whatever makes them lawful must exist, why do these lawful poker sites now need even more regulations and a second license? Why aren't there more poker operators under these existing rules? Are all lawful operators wanting more rules and taxes?

Maybe PPA means the operators are lawful in some other country and some now seek a new Fed framework and state approval to someday be lawful in the U.S.? That would mean operating in the U.S. is currently unlawful which fits better with the consensus saying the status quo is iffy, why there isn't more competition, reality, why it's hard to move funds, etc.

Again, where are the trusted operators lawful?
permafrost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 05:01 PM   #830
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
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.
The erosion of the freedom to be a dead beat parent? Yeah, you know, I am ok with eroding that freedom.

If you owe back support, then, yes, I am fine with the appropriate agency taking whatever money you have in the market or whatever money you have on a poker site.

The only acceptable explanation for owing back child support is that you don't have any money.

In the larger sense, we should be supporting amendments such as this one that a. make the bill more politically palatable to the general public, b. actually might help some children c. only "erode" the "freedom," to be a criminal.*

________________________

*dead beat-ism is jailable in my state, and I put lots of dead beat parents in jail; can't speak for any other state.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 05:03 PM   #831
jcsmithson
adept
 
jcsmithson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,123
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

can I get cliffs of what this law does for the newcomers? I have questions such as:

-Is the 50% tax just on deposits, not on cashout?
-How will such a tax effect traffic on sites like Stars and FTP? Predictions about the future of Stars and FTP post legislation?
-Will this create another influx of poker players from the US?
-Basically, what are the pros and cons?
jcsmithson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 05:07 PM   #832
pianospike
adept
 
pianospike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: california
Posts: 1,081
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by permafrost View Post
Good to hear we have lawful IP operators. Would someone tell me where these operators are lawful?

If it is in the U.S., where can I read the statutes and regulations? Internet operators offering race betting have statutes and regulations making them lawful; ditto state lottery...I just can't find the info for poker business. Since the PPA says whatever makes them lawful must exist, why do these lawful poker sites now need even more regulations and a second license? Why aren't there more poker operators under these existing rules? Are all lawful operators wanting more rules and taxes?

Maybe PPA means the operators are lawful in some other country and some now seek a new Fed framework and state approval to someday be lawful in the U.S.? That would mean operating in the U.S. is currently unlawful which fits better with the consensus saying the status quo is iffy, why there isn't more competition, reality, why it's hard to move funds, etc.

Again, where are the trusted operators lawful?
Where does it say in statute that they are not lawful? That is the more appropriate question.
pianospike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 05:10 PM   #833
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcsmithson View Post
can I get cliffs of what this law does for the newcomers? I have questions such as:

-Is the 50% tax just on deposits, not on cashout?
-How will such a tax effect traffic on sites like Stars and FTP? Predictions about the future of Stars and FTP post legislation?
-Will this create another influx of poker players from the US?
-Basically, what are the pros and cons?
1) Yes, as currently stands, for depositing on an unlicensed operator. For licensed operators, there is a tax on deposits payable by the site.
2) Much depend on if Stars/FT can get licensed. That is an open question. If they cant, there is a good chance they leave the US market
3) In licensed states, most likely.

Pros and cons are too complicated to address.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 05:35 PM   #834
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
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.
So where am I wrong here: if the tax bill is not implemented, there likely won't be a licensing bill right? Or am I missing something there? If true, what you're saying is that you're willing to sacrifice a licensing bill that will likely improve our rights from what they are likely to be if no licensing bill is passed b/c a minority of states citizens won't be able to play.

TE, again, I may be missing something here but I am very worried about this. It seems to me that a large reason this licensing bill MAY succeed is because legislators believe that it do a better job of protecting citizens and because it will generate revenue. The reality is that any licensing bill for any "thing" needs to effectively say: "it is illegal to do this thing unless you are licensed." However that particular conditional prohibition is enforced is in many respects irrelevant. We can't say on the one hand that we need a federal licensing bill and on the other say its OK to gamble on an unlicensed site.

Sure we should try to improve or remove this particular enforcement mechanism, but should we risk the whole enchilada to do so? I would argue "no" and I would think that the PPA should be taking efforts to improve the poker legal landscape for the majority of US citizens, rather than for all of them if reaching for the utopia is likely to cost the majority to lose their rights.
YoureToast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 06:11 PM   #835
Hem is for nits
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 135
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Yes.



LOL

Take this to the "online poker is rigged" thread.
Its not a joke. My brother in law was one of the pioneers of developing an RNG. He said after they developed one in 2001 they had potential sites asking them if there was a way to set the RNG so a player entering a pot behind had a better chance to win than usual. Thus evening the playing field and allowing weaker players to stay around. That was the only way to build a sustainable player base is what he was told. This is why playing lagtard is the only way to beat the games.
Hem is for nits is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 06:17 PM   #836
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 jcsmithson View Post
can I get cliffs of what this law does for the newcomers? I have questions such as:

-Is the 50% tax just on deposits, not on cashout?
-How will such a tax effect traffic on sites like Stars and FTP? Predictions about the future of Stars and FTP post legislation?
-Will this create another influx of poker players from the US?
-Basically, what are the pros and cons?
Try this:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...95&postcount=2
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 06:44 PM   #837
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by YoureToast View Post
So where am I wrong here: if the tax bill is not implemented, there likely won't be a licensing bill right? Or am I missing something there? If true, what you're saying is that you're willing to sacrifice a licensing bill that will likely improve our rights from what they are likely to be if no licensing bill is passed b/c a minority of states citizens won't be able to play.

TE, again, I may be missing something here but I am very worried about this. It seems to me that a large reason this licensing bill MAY succeed is because legislators believe that it do a better job of protecting citizens and because it will generate revenue. The reality is that any licensing bill for any "thing" needs to effectively say: "it is illegal to do this thing unless you are licensed." However that particular conditional prohibition is enforced is in many respects irrelevant. We can't say on the one hand that we need a federal licensing bill and on the other say its OK to gamble on an unlicensed site.

Sure we should try to improve or remove this particular enforcement mechanism, but should we risk the whole enchilada to do so? I would argue "no" and I would think that the PPA should be taking efforts to improve the poker legal landscape for the majority of US citizens, rather than for all of them if reaching for the utopia is likely to cost the majority to lose their rights.
I would argue yes, and will be working against any final bill that has this provision it in by telling my reps they will lose votes from both poker players and social conservatives by supporting this bill.

Hopefully it doesnt come to that. I applaud the PPA's stance on this issue. Its definitely on the right side of the balance between a desire for regulation and protecting all players rights. This is especially true because we have no idea which states will opt out.

Good job PPA!
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 06:52 PM   #838
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by permafrost View Post
Good to hear we have lawful IP operators. Would someone tell me where these operators are lawful?
In the U.S.

Quote:
Internet operators offering race betting have statutes and regulations making them lawful; ditto state lottery.
For poker sites, it's the absence of such laws that make these lawful. This is because activities that violate no laws are not unlawful by definition.

Quote:
Since the PPA says whatever makes them lawful must exist, why do these lawful poker sites now need even more regulations and a second license? Why aren't there more poker operators under these existing rules? Are all lawful operators wanting more rules and taxes?
The DoJ is stopping U.S. based sites from opening. It is our belief that the status quo will fail if U.S. based sites cannot compete. We also believe lawmakers will come after online poker if they cannot figure out ways to license, regulate, and tax them.

Quote:
Maybe PPA means the operators are lawful in some other country and some now seek a new Fed framework and state approval to someday be lawful in the U.S.?
No, we didn't mean that.

Quote:
That would mean operating in the U.S. is currently unlawful which fits better with the consensus saying the status quo is iffy, why there isn't more competition, reality, why it's hard to move funds, etc.
The problems arise from the fact that the DoJ has chosen to act as if online poker is unlawful.

Quote:
Again, where are the trusted operators lawful?
Where they are not prohibited by law.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 06:57 PM   #839
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
So where am I wrong here: if the tax bill is not implemented, there likely won't be a licensing bill right? Or am I missing something there?
Our opponents are not seeking this penalty. Even UIGEA did not seek to make players the target of enforcement. It's not clear that we'd lose a single vote in dumping this provision. There can easily be a licensing bill without this provision.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 07:02 PM   #840
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
Its not a joke. My brother in law was one of the pioneers of developing an RNG. He said after they developed one in 2001 they had potential sites asking them if there was a way to set the RNG so a player entering a pot behind had a better chance to win than usual. Thus evening the playing field and allowing weaker players to stay around. That was the only way to build a sustainable player base is what he was told. This is why playing lagtard is the only way to beat the games.
This is the wrong forum for an "online poker is rigged" discussion.

You can discuss legislation requiring RNG verification and audits all day long, of course, but I'll delete any future "online poker is rigged" posts. Thanks.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 07:05 PM   #841
Jussurreal
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 395
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

What does this bill mean for online sports gambling players? Any change at all?

What about the tax bill for online sports gambling players?
Jussurreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 07:07 PM   #842
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
Sure we should try to improve or remove this particular enforcement mechanism, but should we risk the whole enchilada to do so? I would argue "no" and I would think that the PPA should be taking efforts to improve the poker legal landscape for the majority of US citizens, rather than for all of them if reaching for the utopia is likely to cost the majority to lose their rights.
The real risk is in turning every player from a potential opt-out state into an opponent of the bill. We in potential opt-out states can stomach losing the bigger sites. After all, they want this bill and, at least IMO, it's in bad form to seek to hold them hostage to the status quo by opposing bills they support. What we can't stomach is our own bill doing what even Jon Kyl and Jim Leach didn't seek in 2006 -- penalize players.

We also don't wish to set a precedent that players are appropriate targets of federal enforcement efforts.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 07:13 PM   #843
deucesevenoffsuit
grinder
 
deucesevenoffsuit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 447
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.
No offense intended, but this kind of thinking is a large part of the reason America is in the sorry state it's in these days. Sir, the Government's role is to SERVE THE PEOPLE, not the other way around. If they choose to license sites, the sole reason should be to PROTECT THE PLAYERS. That is, ensure that the sites are fiscally viable, not offering fraudulent games, equipped with adequate security to prevent/detect fraud, etc. If I as a player wish to take undue risk by playing at an unlicensed site, then it is my decision and I take full responsibility for putting my funds in possible jeopardy.
deucesevenoffsuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 07:52 PM   #844
JPFisher55
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 3,425
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by deucesevenoffsuit View Post
No offense intended, but this kind of thinking is a large part of the reason America is in the sorry state it's in these days. Sir, the Government's role is to SERVE THE PEOPLE, not the other way around. If they choose to license sites, the sole reason should be to PROTECT THE PLAYERS. That is, ensure that the sites are fiscally viable, not offering fraudulent games, equipped with adequate security to prevent/detect fraud, etc. If I as a player wish to take undue risk by playing at an unlicensed site, then it is my decision and I take full responsibility for putting my funds in possible jeopardy.
Excellent post deuce, it is nice to find someone who understands the meaning of the word "freedom."
JPFisher55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 08:10 PM   #845
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 TheEngineer View Post
The real risk is in turning every player from a potential opt-out state into an opponent of the bill. We in potential opt-out states can stomach losing the bigger sites. After all, they want this bill and, at least IMO, it's in bad form to seek to hold them hostage to the status quo by opposing bills they support. What we can't stomach is our own bill doing what even Jon Kyl and Jim Leach didn't seek in 2006 -- penalize players.
I completely disagree. I can't stomach losing the bigger sites because if they are licensed (as you seem to think they will be) then I think it is logical the feds will turn their eyes to the processors of the smaller, unlicensed sites. Not only will you have drastically smaller player pools but transferring money could well be more difficult.

I find it really, really hard to believe that smaller sites are going to thrive in this climate. Plus, as I have said, I think that among casual players, the idea that the smaller sites are shady or illegal will be reinforced and I expect their will be further attrition of their numbers. The bumhunting on those sites is going to be epic and I'm sure will make for excellent games both for casual and professional players.

Also lol at it being 'bad form to seek and hold them hostage to the status quo by opposing the bills they support'. Is it bad form for the people who think their state will opt-out to stand up for their right to play poker, to have access to a decent game? Ridiculous and insulting. Ah well if nothing else I guess they can move, it is pretty trivial for most, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
I hardly think having either to move to the next state or having to play a smaller site is "getting thrown under the bus."
LeapFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 08:12 PM   #846
nuts busted
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 349
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
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.
This is shocking to me. It completely flies in the face or your argument FOR the opt-out clause. In other threads you've stated that you aren't willing to abandon a piece of legislation if the bill is for the greater good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57/poker-legislation/email-i-got-ftp-about-hr-2267-a-827547/index6.html

An opt out doesn't have to harm players at all. It can simply be one where opt-out states do not participate at all in the licensed game. In other words, opt-out states would simply have the status quo.
Your argument is that those in the opt-out states will maintain the status quo, which I might add you've also mentioned is unsustainable. So you're willing to support the opt-out at the ultimate detriment to a minority of the players, but not the tax in opt-out states, because you're not willing to cause harm to the minority of players.

I will be irate if this effort fails because the PPA pulls support for the legislation simply based on the 50% tax on non-licensed sites.

All that said, I applaud and appreciate the efforts of you and the PPA. Keep up the good work. Just don't eff it up.
nuts busted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 08:18 PM   #847
nuts busted
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 349
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
The real risk is in turning Poker Stars and Full Tilt into an opponent of the bill.
FYP
nuts busted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 08:31 PM   #848
novahunterpa
Pooh-Bah
 
novahunterpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Triple Range Merging
Posts: 5,244
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

I think overall things will be great for those in opt-in states, I do think the games will look a bit different then they do today but overall should be good. If you live in an opt-out state it's going to suck, any sites serving those in opt-out states will be on the banned list and it's going to be much harder then it is today to process financial transactions.
novahunterpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 08:47 PM   #849
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 LeapFrog View Post
I completely disagree. I can't stomach losing the bigger sites because if they are licensed (as you seem to think they will be) then I think it is logical the feds will turn their eyes to the processors of the smaller, unlicensed sites. Not only will you have drastically smaller player pools but transferring money could well be more difficult.

I find it really, really hard to believe that smaller sites are going to thrive in this climate. Plus, as I have said, I think that among casual players, the idea that the smaller sites are shady or illegal will be reinforced and I expect their will be further attrition of their numbers. The bumhunting on those sites is going to be epic and I'm sure will make for excellent games both for casual and professional players.
You're entitled to your opinion that the status quo is golden and permanent. PPA and the sites disagree.

Quote:
so lol at it being 'bad form to seek and hold them hostage to the status quo by opposing the bills they support'. Is it bad form for the people who think their state will opt-out to stand up for their right to play poker, to have access to a decent game? Ridiculous and insulting.
What's LOL? The sites want legislation. You want to force them to serve the status quo until legislation is passed banning them.

Quote:
Ah well if nothing else I guess they can move, it is pretty trivial for most, right?
I had to move from Florida to Kentucky for work. That's the real world.

PPA's job is to get rigor into opt outs and to encourage states to participate, so we get a long lasting, stable poker environment. It's not to force PS and FTP to stay in the status quo against their will because we want to play their sites.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 08:54 PM   #850
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
This is shocking to me. It completely flies in the face or your argument FOR the opt-out clause. In other threads you've stated that you aren't willing to abandon a piece of legislation if the bill is for the greater good.

Your argument is that those in the opt-out states will maintain the status quo, which I might add you've also mentioned is unsustainable. So you're willing to support the opt-out at the ultimate detriment to a minority of the players, but not the tax in opt-out states, because you're not willing to cause harm to the minority of players.
PPA is also fighting for tougher opt outs. However, we recognize the Congress will not force poker on states with no commercial gaming. We cannot fight that which cannot be fought.

Quote:
I will be irate if this effort fails because the PPA pulls support for the legislation simply based on the 50% tax on non-licensed sites.
Again, it's not like we got anything in exchange for this 50% tax. It gains us nothing, while harming our efforts by costing us player support. It's a bad provision and it needs to go.

We really don't have to fear standing up for ourselves. If we can fight here, how can we fight for tax fairness or other issues? This is why we have an advocacy group.

Quote:
All that said, I applaud and appreciate the efforts of you and the PPA. Keep up the good work. Just don't eff it up.
Thanks, I think.
Rich Muny 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 04:49 AM.


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