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 07-31-2010, 01:28 PM   #1001
repulse
veteran
 
repulse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 3,070
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skallagrim View Post
But I agree its best to spell it out even more directly and our lobbyists are pushing for that. I think it will happen because, as NoahSD said, virtually no one is against that simple and fair result.
So excited for this. Fingers crossed.
repulse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 02:17 PM   #1002
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)

Thought it was a good artice. Made the Philadelphia Enquirer.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/sport...es_a_step.html
sluggger5x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 02:23 PM   #1003
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 sluggger5x View Post
Thought it was a good artice. Made the Philadelphia Enquirer.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/sport...es_a_step.html
Excellent article, thanks for posting it. This paragraph had me almost weeping with joy:

Quote:
The current online gambling picture is colored by a federal law passed in 2006, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), which does not criminalize online gambling for individual players but, among other things, requires financial institutions to block money transfers between players and gambling websites.
It is so rare for a reporter to get this right.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 03:11 PM   #1004
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 gtp9998 View Post
Why does everyone think this is a good thing? I don't get it. It is NOT illegal to play poker online RIGHT NOW and frankly I do not see anything the GOVT could do about it anyway. I think they have tried with freezing some cashouts but that was quickly counteracted by the sites, leaving them with their xxxx in their hand.

I hope it never passes.

Think about how many players can beat the rake, the opponents, AND some ridiculous tax rate. Almost nobody.
This is exactly the attitude that got us UIGEA.

Why try to dissuade others from fighting back when you don't even know what's going on? Can't you at least try to educate yourself on this issue before posting crap like this???? It's not like it hasn't been addressed 100 times on this thread alone.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 03:20 PM   #1005
Skallagrim
PPA Board Member/LSN Dir
 
Skallagrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: It's a PPA post only if so stated
Posts: 6,713
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

And one really has to LOL at this level of factual ignorance: "I think they have tried with freezing some cashouts but that was quickly counteracted by the sites, leaving them with their xxxx in their hand."

"Some cashouts"? How about $25 million in the biggest one, and millions in the 3 or 4 others.

"Quickly counteracted" ? Yeah, the sites reimbursed the players from their own pockets. That's an extra 30 or so million dollars in costs. "Counteracted" is hardly the appropriate term.

"...leaving them [the DOJ] with their xxxx in their hand" ? These actions left the DOJ with around $30 million of money sucked from the poker economy. I am sure no one at the DOJ thought they were left with "their xxxx in their hand."

Skallagrim
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 03:33 PM   #1006
DrewOnTilt
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
DrewOnTilt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 106 miles to Chicago
Posts: 7,748
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggger5x View Post
Thought it was a good artice. Made the Philadelphia Enquirer.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/sport...es_a_step.html
I saw this article the other day. The PE has typically run well-informed articles about the matter. It is one of the few major dailies that doesn't make the typical "online poker is illegal but..." claims.
DrewOnTilt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 03:34 PM   #1007
[x] swanny
formerly Nepa
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Stuck @home
Posts: 2,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
This is exactly the attitude that got us UIGEA.

Why try to dissuade others from fighting back when you don't even know what's going on? Can't you at least try to educate yourself on this issue before posting crap like this???? It's not like it hasn't been addressed 100 times on this thread alone.
question: Is this law going to Ban player from playing on Pokerstars and/or Fulltilt?

Question: If this does ban Pokerstars and/or Full Tilt how is this a good thing?

I agree that the law needs to be changed but if it is changed incorrectly it can spell trouble for current on-line players. Maybe I'm way off base. Please Change My Mind and convince me!

I'm starting to get the feeling that the PPA shoukd change their name to the COA(Casino Operators of America)

Like I said Please prove me wrong!
[x] swanny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 03:49 PM   #1008
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 Nepa View Post
question: Is this law going to Ban player from playing on Pokerstars and/or Fulltilt?

Question: If this does ban Pokerstars and/or Full Tilt how is this a good thing?
Those sites support this bill 100%. They believe they have a fair shot at getting licensed under the bill and they continue to lobby for their position.

Quote:
I agree that the law needs to be changed but if it is changed incorrectly it can spell trouble for current on-line players. Maybe I'm way off base.
For this, it seems you assume the status quo will last forever, as if the NFL, Focus on the Family, our Congressional opponents, the DoJ, and the B&M casinos locked out of the market will all just go away. Unfortunately, they will not. Check the history at: Federal online poker & gaming legislation history

If we cannot create a stable environment for online poker in America, it will remain under attack. It's that simple.

Quote:
Please Change My Mind and convince me!
No. I merely post my opinions. Those who agree can all band together and fight for their rights. Those who do not can hope our opponents will just go away.

Quote:
I'm starting to get the feeling that the PPA shoukd change their name to the COA(Casino Operators of America)
That's an odd idea that flies in the face of the actual facts. The reality is that the current sites strongly back PPA. They support us with financial contributions via the IGC and directly by asking their members for this support.

I fully recogize that there are some who think the status quo will last forever. Those who do are entitled to their opinion, but those who think our right to play is under attack will continue to fight for our rights.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 03:56 PM   #1009
RainMan77
grinder
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 483
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepa View Post

I'm starting to get the feeling that the PPA shoukd change their name to the COA(Casino Operators of America)

Like I said Please prove me wrong!
Hahah I like this idea. Don't let them scare you away from posting Nepa. You are not the only one that feels this way.
RainMan77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 04:00 PM   #1010
[x] swanny
formerly Nepa
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Stuck @home
Posts: 2,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Those sites support this bill 100%. They believe they have a fair shot at getting licensed under the bill and they continue to lobby for their position.



For this, it seems you assume the status quo will last forever, as if the NFL, Focus on the Family, our Congressional opponents, the DoJ, and the B&M casinos locked out of the market will all just go away. Unfortunately, they will not. Check the history at: Federal online poker & gaming legislation history

If we cannot create a stable environment for online poker in America, it will remain under attack. It's that simple.



No. I merely post my opinions. Those who agree can all band together and fight for their rights. Those who do not can hope our opponents will just go away.



That's an odd idea that flies in the face of the actual facts. The reality is that the current sites strongly back PPA. They support us with financial contributions via the IGC and directly by asking their members for this support.

I fully recogize that there are some who think the status quo will last forever. Those who do are entitled to their opinion, but those who think our right to play is under attack will continue to fight for our rights.
Thanks Engineer! I'm edging on the side of for it until I do some more research.

I'm sorry for being skeptical but the history of congress over the past couple of years has been horrible. Does anyone really trust congress? I feel this is the reason for some backlash in the thread.
[x] swanny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 04:01 PM   #1011
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 sluggger5x View Post
Thought it was a good artice. Made the Philadelphia Enquirer.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/sport...es_a_step.html
DIGG: http://digg.com/political_opinion/Th...Internet_Poker
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 04:03 PM   #1012
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 Nepa View Post
Thanks Engineer! I'm edging on the side of for it until I do some more research.
Thanks.

Quote:
I'm sorry for being skeptical but the history of congress over the past couple of years has been horrible. Does anyone really trust congress? I feel this is the reason for some backlash in the thread.
That's why we need our seat at the negotiating table.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 04:03 PM   #1013
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 RainMan77 View Post
Hahah I like this idea. Don't let them scare you away from posting Nepa. You are not the only one that feels this way.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 08:04 PM   #1014
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 TheEngineer View Post
Bachus is talking about my BigGovernment column that went after him. No one was paid....I'll write that for free everyday!
It's at http://a.********/scripts/flash/strat...&enablejs=true at time point 25:26.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 03:06 AM   #1015
ScreaminAsian
For President
 
ScreaminAsian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: DO NOT CONGRATULATE
Posts: 33,234
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

so we don't know when the bill can come up for a house vote?
ScreaminAsian is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 04:42 AM   #1016
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian View Post
so we don't know when the bill can come up for a house vote?
Companion tax bill still needs to go through committee and, IIRC, its vacation until Sept. 6th
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 09:08 PM   #1017
Poker J
adept
 
Poker J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 791
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Those sites support this bill 100%. They believe they have a fair shot at getting licensed under the bill and they continue to lobby for their position.
"The first amendment was brought by Congressman Brad Sherman of California. Online sites that have intentionally broken internet gaming laws cannot get a license to conduct business in the United States. This will affect larger online poker sites such as PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker, and Ultimate Bet who allowed players from the U.S. to play on their site after the UIGEA went into effect. This amendment passed."
from http://www.pokertableratings.com/blo...ittee-41-22-1/

Was this missunderstood by ptr? If these sites are considered illegal, how will they be able to get a license?
Poker J is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 09:14 PM   #1018
gtp9998
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 305
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

So PokerStars and Fulltilt are fully behind this bill. Forgive me while i laugh myself out of my chair. Being forced to take that stance and actually being behind it are two entirely different things, and I am fairly certain that you know this Engineer.

I recognize and commend all of your contributions on this, and maybe on balance it is for the best.

But , dare I say it? Most poker players are not paying taxes on all, or in some cases any of their winnings. In addition, in most cases, if they were, they WOULD NOT BE PROFITABLE.

So if this bill passes without amending the tax code to taxing poker players solely on net winnings, you don't need to be a MENSA member to predict the result. Online poker dies a rather quick death.

Even if it IS amended, this will still be a major problem. If you think UIGEA weeded out the poker economy, wait till rake PLUS INCOME TAX takes its toll on the fish.

This is a ugly truth that not many in this thread want to hear or are even willing to acknowledge.

Simple math.

Is there no way to fight for it's legality (expressly) without turning over the industry to the IRS?
gtp9998 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 09:14 PM   #1019
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

The poker only sites will argue that they weren't violating US law. PTR added some editorial comment there by saying those sites are intentionally breaking gaming laws.

I dont think the existing sites will be licensed, but they support the bill and continue to think they have a case to be licensed.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 09:20 PM   #1020
Poker J
adept
 
Poker J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 791
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Not licensing FTP or PS more than likely means blocking them from US. I would rather take money from other countries than my owner.
Poker J is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 10:08 PM   #1021
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 Poker J View Post
"The first amendment was brought by Congressman Brad Sherman of California. Online sites that have intentionally broken internet gaming laws cannot get a license to conduct business in the United States. This will affect larger online poker sites such as PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker, and Ultimate Bet who allowed players from the U.S. to play on their site after the UIGEA went into effect. This amendment passed."
from http://www.pokertableratings.com/blo...ittee-41-22-1/

Was this missunderstood by ptr? If these sites are considered illegal, how will they be able to get a license?
Yes. FTP and PS do not believe they are violating U.S. law and they have legal opinions to back it up.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 10:15 PM   #1022
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 gtp9998 View Post
So PokerStars and Fulltilt are fully behind this bill. Forgive me while i laugh myself out of my chair. Being forced to take that stance and actually being behind it are two entirely different things, and I am fairly certain that you know this Engineer.

I recognize and commend all of your contributions on this, and maybe on balance it is for the best.
Again, the bigger sites feel they have a case. I'm sure they'll continue to lobby for their position, of course.

Quote:
But , dare I say it? Most poker players are not paying taxes on all, or in some cases any of their winnings. In addition, in most cases, if they were, they WOULD NOT BE PROFITABLE.

So if this bill passes without amending the tax code to taxing poker players solely on net winnings, you don't need to be a MENSA member to predict the result. Online poker dies a rather quick death.
The Senate bill provides for netting up to the amount of winnings for each site. We want the same for the House bill.

Quote:
Even if it IS amended, this will still be a major problem. If you think UIGEA weeded out the poker economy, wait till rake PLUS INCOME TAX takes its toll on the fish.

This is a ugly truth that not many in this thread want to hear or are even willing to acknowledge.

Simple math.

Is there no way to fight for it's legality (expressly) without turning over the industry to the IRS?
How is this a major problem? If amended to permit amateurs to net wins, fish won't owe anything. Only winning players will.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 10:38 PM   #1023
gtp9998
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 305
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Except that when you handicap winning players at what 33% or so in addition to rake (just guessing on the tax rate) then the overall scope of what we must beat to remain professional poker players will be so drastic that almost no one will be able to do it. Am I the only one who sees this?

Consider that the avg winrate of a solid reg these days is 1bb/100 on the low end and 3-5 for the exceptional.
gtp9998 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 10:49 PM   #1024
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 gtp9998 View Post
Except that when you handicap winning players at what 33% or so in addition to rake (just guessing on the tax rate) then the overall scope of what we must beat to remain professional poker players will be so drastic that almost no one will be able to do it. Am I the only one who sees this?

Consider that the avg winrate of a solid reg these days is 1bb/100 on the low end and 3-5 for the exceptional.
It's hard to see Congress exempting us from taxation while expecting plumbers, doctors, drywall hangers, and everyone else to pay theirs. Telling Congress that it's harder these days to make a living as a professional poker player probably wouldn't elicit a ton of sympathy.

Last edited by Rich Muny; 08-02-2010 at 12:11 AM.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 11:00 PM   #1025
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 TheEngineer View Post
Here's a direct link at the appropriate starting point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhDaaWaUu2Y#t=8m15s
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 04:37 AM.


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