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 08-01-2010, 11:25 PM   #1026
TruePoker ex-CEO
veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: No Superusers
Posts: 2,802
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skallagrim View Post
Prohibition is an excellent example of a similar situation. Thanks pianospike.

With hindsight is it not fair to say that anyone who stood up in 1932 and said "I am against this repeal of prohibition because my state will stay "dry" and thats not fair to those of us in dry states" would feel pretty foolish today?

Skallagrim
Since they would be at least 85 years old, they would be pretty happy to feel anything...... but I doubt they would feel foolish.
TruePoker ex-CEO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 11:56 PM   #1027
JPFisher55
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 3,425
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
It's hard to see Congress exempting us from taxation while expecting plumbers, doctors, drywall hangers, and everyone else to pay theirs. Telling Congrdess that it's harder these days to make a living as a professional poker player probably wouldn't elicit a ton of sympathy.
TE, many countries do not tax gambling winnings including poker. However, the US has traditionally taxed them and everything else; except medical insurance benefits. OTOH, some countries do tax income of gambling professionals however it is defined.

However, most only tax net gambling winnings if they tax them. Only the US would tax gross winnings, but permit deductions of losses against winnings only if the taxpayer itemizes. It would really help if that system was changed.
JPFisher55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 12:11 AM   #1028
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 JPFisher55 View Post
TE, many countries do not tax gambling winnings including poker.
Yes, I'm aware of that. Unfortunately, I don't see us joining their ranks any day soon.

Quote:
However, the US has traditionally taxed them and everything else; except medical insurance benefits. OTOH, some countries do tax income of gambling professionals however it is defined.
True.

Quote:
However, most only tax net gambling winnings if they tax them. Only the US would tax gross winnings, but permit deductions of losses against winnings only if the taxpayer itemizes. It would really help if that system was changed.
I think that's the maximum for which we can hope.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 12:21 AM   #1029
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 TruePoker CEO View Post
Since they would be at least 85 years old, they would be pretty happy to feel anything...... but I doubt they would feel foolish.
FWIW, my grandfather is over 85, feels plenty, and would feel foolish to this day had he fought the end of Prohibition because of state opt outs.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 05:13 AM   #1030
IpwnVegas
newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 16
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Sorry if this is already asked but i dont wanna read through 70 pages.
Are funds on PokerStars and FTP in jeopardy if they do not get granted a license? and should i consider cashing most of my money out before this bill goes through?
IpwnVegas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 05:58 AM   #1031
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

No
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 08:51 AM   #1032
Kevmath
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: @Kevmath
Posts: 28,213
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
“Al Capone couldn’t get a liquor license if he’d stayed around to the end of Prohibition,” said Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., who authored one of the amendments.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010...-flush-online/
Kevmath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 09:14 AM   #1033
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Here's another good column, this one by Steve Chapman: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...et_106560.html

DIGG: http://digg.com/political_opinion/St..._Is_a_Safe_Bet
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 11:44 AM   #1034
TeflonDawg
Pooh-Bah
 
TeflonDawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: RetiredExtremelyDangerous
Posts: 5,535
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.
A lot of those players aren't paying any income taxes at all. That's the reason they're "professionals" now.

Bolded doesn't mean anything. One could lose 20K in a year and still end up 100K ahead (Supernova Elite). There are tons of other examples. Your argument sounds like the players who were beating NL1000 pre-UIGEA complaining that something needs to be done to the rake b/c zomg now they can't beat NL100.

Of course we all want lower rake, less taxes, and etc. But the fact of the matter is that the result of regulation will be less than perfect and current winning players will have to "adapt or die". For all we know, the situation could be reverse, and we actually end up with more winning players, with current winners winning even more. It's not out of the realm of possibility...
TeflonDawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 12:20 PM   #1035
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)

Here is I would say a negative article for us. It states pessimistic chances that we can get the bill in and through in just a 2 week span this september.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/inter...ry?id=11281823


I've asked this before, but is there anything we as a poker community can do to make a push this year?? I'm wondering if we have made our point and it is now up to the house to decide if this is a worthy bill to push before the end of the legislative cycle this winter.


Who, if anyone, can we be calling? I would make calls daily for months if I thought it gave us a better chance this fall.
sluggger5x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 12:58 PM   #1036
TruePoker ex-CEO
veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: No Superusers
Posts: 2,802
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Yes. FTP and PS do not believe they are violating U.S. law and they have legal opinions to back it up.
FWIW, Party Gaming also had a legal opinion, dating back to their IPO, that their offering poker did not violate US law.

Their 180 degree reversal, well after the IPO, wiping out the $8 Billion of market cap overnight when the UIGEA passed, was a somewhat puzzling resolution of the tension between potential director liability and preserving public shareholder value.

($6.0 Billion of that market equity value still eludes Party shareholders, to the benefit of PS and FTP owners)
TruePoker ex-CEO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 01:16 PM   #1037
HeroinBob
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 74
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Im curious why so many people are so pessimistic about this. Isnt this what we've been fighting for since the UIGEA was passed and we saw a huge dip in fishy players? Yeah the states that opt out will suck but i guess i just dont understand why so many people want things to stay the way they are. Will online sites be able to advertise .com sites after this?
HeroinBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 01:40 PM   #1038
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 HeroinBob View Post
Im curious why so many people are so pessimistic about this. Isnt this what we've been fighting for since the UIGEA was passed and we saw a huge dip in fishy players? Yeah the states that opt out will suck but i guess i just dont understand why so many people want things to stay the way they are. Will online sites be able to advertise .com sites after this?
HeroinBob:

I'll tell you why so many people are so pessimistic about this. Earlier in this (or a related) thread, a semi-professional player from Ohio posted that he supports his wife and children primarily via the money he earns playing online poker. He stated that if Ohio opts out and he is no longer able to play online, he (and a lot of other players in similar circumstances) are going to be very unhappy. Passage of these bills could [literally] take food out of his children's mouths.

I suppose some will dismiss this observation and say, "Well, if Ohio opts out, he can just go out and find a real job." That's very nice, but how many of you (still with jobs) have been out on the street lately trying to find a job? This is a bread-and-butter issue for a lot of the PPAs members - and they seem to be conveying the impression that they just don't give a ****.

Former DJ
Former DJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 01:59 PM   #1039
totaltool
grinder
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 466
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Former DJ View Post
HeroinBob:

I'll tell you why so many people are so pessimistic about this. Earlier in this (or a related) thread, a semi-professional player from Ohio posted that he supports his wife and children primarily via the money he earns playing online poker. He stated that if Ohio opts out and he is no longer able to play online, he (and a lot of other players in similar circumstances) are going to be very unhappy. Passage of these bills could [literally] take food out of his children's mouths.

I suppose some will dismiss this observation and say, "Well, if Ohio opts out, he can just go out and find a real job." That's very nice, but how many of you (still with jobs) have been out on the street lately trying to find a job? This is a bread-and-butter issue for a lot of the PPAs members - and they seem to be conveying the impression that they just don't give a ****.

Former DJ
Your understanding of how to properly use "literally" mirrors your understanding of the pros/cons of this issue
totaltool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 02:34 PM   #1040
GloupnaktouK
adept
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 749
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by totaltool View Post
Your understanding of how to properly use "literally" mirrors your understanding of the pros/cons of this issue
+1
GloupnaktouK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 03:19 PM   #1041
fluffysheap
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 224
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Former DJ View Post
He stated that if Ohio opts out and he is no longer able to play online, he (and a lot of other players in similar circumstances) are going to be very unhappy.
It's not clear at all that players in opted out states will no longer be able to play. Someone show me a line in the law that actually makes it illegal for them to play. Depositing might get harder, but professional players don't deposit generally, right?

Ohio has no reason to opt out. It's reasonable to worry that some state or another might opt out but honestly to do so is just throwing money away. So a state has to have a really good reason to do it.

Professional online poker players can, barring some sort of family or legal issue tying them to a particular state, live wherever they want. So if it is a problem, they live in a state that doesn't opt out. There are a number of very nice states which are all but certain to not opt out. (Far better than Ohio, that's for sure - my opinion of course).

People who work regular jobs often move to go where economic conditions are more favorable for them. Until the advent of online play, professional poker players basically had to live in Vegas (or near Atlantic City, I guess, maybe). Now people are complaining that maybe 10% of the country might end up being a bad place to be a poker pro.

The only way the bill is a net loss for online winning players is:
1) If somehow enough states opt out that there are actually fewer players than there are now.
2) Players that are not paying taxes currently will find that gets harder and more dangerous

Everybody else wins or breaks even I think.
fluffysheap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 03:23 PM   #1042
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 fluffysheap View Post
It's not clear at all that players in opted out states will no longer be able to play. Someone show me a line in the law that actually makes it illegal for them to play. Depositing might get harder, but professional players don't deposit generally, right?
PokerStars and FT are going to try to get a license. That means that they won't be accepting customers in the opt-out states, nor will any room that is licensed or trying to get one. You could still play at some horrible traffic minor though.
LeapFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 03:37 PM   #1043
tcarr89
adept
 
tcarr89's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Angleshooting my friends IRL
Posts: 1,058
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

sorry im a huge dbag can someone link me to cliffs real quick
tcarr89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 03:38 PM   #1044
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)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tcarr89 View Post
sorry im a huge dbag can someone link me to cliffs real quick
Cliffs: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Last edited by novahunterpa; 08-02-2010 at 03:38 PM. Reason: wrong quote
novahunterpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 03:38 PM   #1045
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
Here is I would say a negative article for us. It states pessimistic chances that we can get the bill in and through in just a 2 week span this september.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/inter...ry?id=11281823
I thought it was a positive article for our position that happened to be pessimistic on our chances of passing something this year. I'm glad to see this is the new standard for unbiased columns. The old standard was one where sites were lawbreakers and players were all addicted degenerates.

IMO, we benefit from all media coverage that portrays us as being in the fight. Coverage of our victory is all golden.

Quote:
I've asked this before, but is there anything we as a poker community can do to make a push this year?? I'm wondering if we have made our point and it is now up to the house to decide if this is a worthy bill to push before the end of the legislative cycle this winter.

Who, if anyone, can we be calling? I would make calls daily for months if I thought it gave us a better chance this fall.
We should call everyone who is on the PPA letter distribution list, roughly in this order:
  • Your U.S. Representative
  • Both of your U.S. Senators
  • Your governor
  • Your state senator and representative
  • Attorney General Eric Holder
  • President Obama
  • Your state attorney general
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 03:44 PM   #1046
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 TruePoker CEO View Post
FWIW, Party Gaming also had a legal opinion, dating back to their IPO, that their offering poker did not violate US law.

Their 180 degree reversal, well after the IPO, wiping out the $8 Billion of market cap overnight when the UIGEA passed, was a somewhat puzzling resolution of the tension between potential director liability and preserving public shareholder value.

($6.0 Billion of that market equity value still eludes Party shareholders, to the benefit of PS and FTP owners)
Party Poker has also spent considerable effort trying to get Congress to say now what it didn't say with UIGEA (or ever) -- that online poker was legal in the U.S. until UIGEA made it unlawful. They've worked hard to make this case to European media as well.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 03:56 PM   #1047
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
HeroinBob:

I'll tell you why so many people are so pessimistic about this. Earlier in this (or a related) thread, a semi-professional player from Ohio posted that he supports his wife and children primarily via the money he earns playing online poker. He stated that if Ohio opts out and he is no longer able to play online, he (and a lot of other players in similar circumstances) are going to be very unhappy. Passage of these bills could [literally] take food out of his children's mouths.

I suppose some will dismiss this observation and say, "Well, if Ohio opts out, he can just go out and find a real job." That's very nice, but how many of you (still with jobs) have been out on the street lately trying to find a job? This is a bread-and-butter issue for a lot of the PPAs members - and they seem to be conveying the impression that they just don't give a ****.

Former DJ
That's ridiculous. PPA is reprenting players at the state level to help encourage states to participate.

Too bad you didn't take high school civics. How sad that you are not educated about how the system of U.S. government works and that you simply don't understand the division of powers between the federal government and the states.

As for the Ohio player, I guarantee he's far better off with PPA pushing federal legislation. Without us, I wouldn't be surprised to see anti-online gaming legislation to "protect" the new casinos opening there. Also, do you think he'd be better off with a federal ban on the current sites? That's the choice.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 03:59 PM   #1048
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 Former DJ View Post
HeroinBob:

I'll tell you why so many people are so pessimistic about this. Earlier in this (or a related) thread, a semi-professional player from Ohio posted that he supports his wife and children primarily via the money he earns playing online poker. He stated that if Ohio opts out and he is no longer able to play online, he (and a lot of other players in similar circumstances) are going to be very unhappy. Passage of these bills could [literally] take food out of his children's mouths.

I suppose some will dismiss this observation and say, "Well, if Ohio opts out, he can just go out and find a real job." That's very nice, but how many of you (still with jobs) have been out on the street lately trying to find a job? This is a bread-and-butter issue for a lot of the PPAs members - and they seem to be conveying the impression that they just don't give a ****.

Former DJ
How awful for this guy. I have two friends right now that are moving to Oklahoma and Texas from California because that is where they were able to find a job in their field. They basically had to go where the work was. How absolutely disastrous for this poor fellow in Ohio that will probably only have 30 or 40 states to choose from to move to in order to work his job of playing poker.
pianospike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 04:12 PM   #1049
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 tcarr89 View Post
sorry im a huge dbag can someone link me to cliffs real quick
Try this regarding the Markup:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...2267-a-840228/

And this regarding federal legislation in general:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...95&postcount=2
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 04:13 PM   #1050
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
PokerStars and FT are going to try to get a license. That means that they won't be accepting customers in the opt-out states, nor will any room that is licensed or trying to get one. You could still play at some horrible traffic minor though.
Ohio, which is 15 minutes from my house (though I can't see Ohio from my house), was a prime candidate for state legislation criminalizing online poker playing.

Ohio has new casinos on the way. They will be run by two non-Nevada companies that are not prime candidates to offer online poker. Ohio's governor is also grasping at straws to show he's opposing further expansion of gaming, including formally opposing the new provision to offset gaming wins with gaming losses via state income tax deductions. Had PPA and poker players not made so much noise in Kentucky (Ohio's neighbor), and had PPA not beaten back a similar effort in Mass., I believe Ohio would have criminalized online poker playing (it's already illegal to be a professional gambler, though I'm not aware of any prosecutions).

Fortunately, we dodged that. The Ohio casino enabling legislation went through without mentioning us.

I realize a small handful of posters here think the 317-93 UIGEA House loss was a fluke and was not at all meaningful and continue to believe our opponents will just go away. I wish they would, but they won't. Sorry.
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 04:42 AM.


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