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 08-02-2010, 04:16 PM   #1051
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 pianospike View Post
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.
Some just want to fight this with hopes and dreams.

Also, no one is giving up on the opt-out states. Rather, we simply see the fight moving to those battlefields.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 04:42 PM   #1052
RainMan77
grinder
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 483
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

So simple!!! Just move!! Why do we even care about legislation then?? Lets just give up and we can all move to Canada, with 0% tax on poker winnings!!!! Or one of the hundreds of other countries in the world that allow online poker!!! Problem solved!!!
RainMan77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 04:59 PM   #1053
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
So simple!!! Just move!! Why do we even care about legislation then?? Lets just give up and we can all move to Canada, with 0% tax on poker winnings!!!! Or one of the hundreds of other countries in the world that allow online poker!!! Problem solved!!!
Bye
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 05:12 PM   #1054
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)

Move to Canada and your US federal tax liabilities move with you. But at least you wouldn't be paying Canadian taxes (for now, anyway).

Sometimes people do have to move to continue to work in their chosen professions. That's not to minimize the disruption and cost of moving, its merely recognizing that sometimes that is a fact of life.

Those of you who are absolutely convinced that your state will opt-out need to consider the points that have been made in this thread and others. I think most of you are far more worried about your state opting out than you need to be. But even if that is not true, the PPA will continue to fight with you, state by state as needed.

The only states I really see opting out for the long term are those totally run by the christian-right wing. I concede those moralists will probably never see the light of reason. But if you live in one of those states you also need to consider that those same political forces could totally ban online gaming and/or poker tomorrow (assuming they were smart enough to do it right).

IOW, the danger you see from any new Federal legislation is not really much different from the danger you face from State legislation right now.

If you are a professional online poker player in one of those states, you might want to consider moving anyway, whether or not any Federal legislation is passed.

Skallagrim
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 05:26 PM   #1055
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 Skallagrim View Post
Move to Canada and your US federal tax liabilities move with you. But at least you wouldn't be paying Canadian taxes (for now, anyway).

Sometimes people do have to move to continue to work in their chosen professions. That's not to minimize the disruption and cost of moving, its merely recognizing that sometimes that is a fact of life.

Those of you who are absolutely convinced that your state will opt-out need to consider the points that have been made in this thread and others. I think most of you are far more worried about your state opting out than you need to be. But even if that is not true, the PPA will continue to fight with you, state by state as needed.

The only states I really see opting out for the long term are those totally run by the christian-right wing. I concede those moralists will probably never see the light of reason. But if you live in one of those states you also need to consider that those same political forces could totally ban online gaming and/or poker tomorrow (assuming they were smart enough to do it right).

IOW, the danger you see from any new Federal legislation is not really much different from the danger you face from State legislation right now.

If you are a professional online poker player in one of those states, you might want to consider moving anyway, whether or not any Federal legislation is passed.

Skallagrim
+1

Everyone,

States can criminalize your play now. We can fight this in court (as Lee Rousso is in Wash. state), but no PPA = no real court challenge.

If you think your state is a problem, you can't just sit back and pretend Congress -- the same Congress that voted 317-93 against us in 2006 -- will force this on your state. They won't. You have to fight at the state level, too.

Without PPA, poker in those states won't get better. It will get worse.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 05:29 PM   #1056
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Again, can we please move away from saying disagree with a provision of a proposed bill=wish there was no PPA?

This isnt close to true.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 05:33 PM   #1057
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)

To add to what TE added, while I am confident we can win our case in Washington state, I certainly can't guarantee it.

And WA is a little unique. Their biggest problem is that they banned online poker while allowing poker in their casinos and also allowing online betting on horse racing. That kind of protectionist discrimination is what we can fight in court.

But if your state has no casinos, no licensed online gaming of any kind, and (maybe) only a state lottery. Thats a much tougher court case for us.

Skallagrim
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 05:37 PM   #1058
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 LetsGambool View Post
Again, can we please move away from saying disagree with a provision of a proposed bill=wish there was no PPA?

This isnt close to true.
I think RainMan, Leaf Frog, and Former DJ wish there were no PPA.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 05:43 PM   #1059
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
I think RainMan, Leaf Frog, and Former DJ wish there were no PPA.
I wish there weren't PPA officials that constantly put words in the mouths of others and feel the need to demonize any opposition rather then let their arguments stand on merit alone.
LeapFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 05:47 PM   #1060
RainMan77
grinder
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 483
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog View Post
I wish there weren't PPA officials that constantly put words in the mouths of others and feel the need to demonize any opposition rather then let their arguments stand on merit alone.
THIS
RainMan77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 05:48 PM   #1061
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 LetsGambool View Post
Again, can we please move away from saying disagree with a provision of a proposed bill=wish there was no PPA?

This isnt close to true.
Also, the issue isn't over a mere provision in a broader bill. As it's a necessary provision of any poker-enabling legislation, opponents of the provision actually oppose passing ANY pro-poker federal legislation, preferring that we fight only for legislation repealing the Wire Act and UIGEA.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 05:49 PM   #1062
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 wish there weren't PPA officials that constantly put words in the mouths of others and feel the need to demonize any opposition rather then let their arguments stand on merit alone.
Which part of "I think...." was confusing?
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 05:51 PM   #1063
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 LetsGambool View Post
Again, can we please move away from saying disagree with a provision of a proposed bill=wish there was no PPA?

This isnt close to true.
+1

Most posters are just raising legitimate concerns and questions about specifics in the bill or legislation in general. Not bashing the PPA or wishing they didn't exist.
novahunterpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 05:53 PM   #1064
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 novahunterpa View Post
+1

Most posters are just raising legitimate concerns and questions about specifics in the bill or legislation in general. Not bashing the PPA or wishing they didn't exist.
Of course. Most with questions are seeking discussion. Just a few are not.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 05:56 PM   #1065
sba9630
Pooh-Bah
 
sba9630's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: This space intentionally left blank
Posts: 4,510
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by pianospike View Post
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.
If he lives in central Ohio he's about four hours driving distance to FIVE different states.
sba9630 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 06:05 PM   #1066
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
Which part of "I think...." was confusing?
Here is where you put 'words' in my mouth, or are you going to take exception to the phrasing because this is an internet forum? I had said that I lost respect for you, not that you were unworthy of my respect. It also had nothing to do with a disagreement about the status quo, but about the effects of state opt outs on players. A complete mischaracterization of my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
IMO, it's laughable that LeapFrog posts that I'm not worthy of his respect just because he disagrees with me out of a misguided belief in the perpetual nature of the status quo.
And right here on this page can be seen your efforts to demonize the 'opposition' and squash discussion.
LeapFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 06:08 PM   #1067
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
THIS
This is a discussion forum. You can expect vigorous debate here. If you you don't like that, it's too bad.

People like you allowed UIGEA. Too many poker players felt bills from Congress could only hurt poker and suggested that we all stay nice and quiet. Well, we saw what that got us.

Many of us have no intention of allowing that to happen again. You should expect tough, challenging responses to your anti-poker legislation posts.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 06:12 PM   #1068
ferelli
centurion
 
ferelli's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: hollywood
Posts: 156
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.
im confused are you just saying 33% as in your income tax rate or 33% on top of that?
ferelli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 06:14 PM   #1069
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Also, the issue isn't over a mere provision in a broader bill. As it's a necessary provision of any poker-enabling legislation, opponents of the provision actually oppose passing ANY pro-poker federal legislation, preferring that we fight only for legislation repealing the Wire Act and UIGEA.
Even if this was true which I dont think it is, its still not the same as saying that the PPA shouldnt exist or the PPA is a negative influence.

The structure of opt outs, whether the 50% tax is a dealbreaker, whether opt outs should drive us to other options (states, legislation, etc) are all debatable points.

PPA has their viewpoints, and thats fine, but sometimes it seems like everyone needs to take a loyalty oath where they agree with everything the PPA does or else they dont want the organization to exist. Or it seems like you feel the need to justify the PPA's existence.

That shouldnt be the case, IMHO. The PPA's positive influence speaks for itself.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 06:25 PM   #1070
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 LetsGambool View Post
Even if this was true which I dont think it is, its still not the same as saying that the PPA shouldnt exist or the PPA is a negative influence.

The structure of opt outs, whether the 50% tax is a dealbreaker, whether opt outs should drive us to other options (states, legislation, etc) are all debatable points.
Yes, we're working on the 50%. That's not what the discussion here is. Rather, LeapFrog says he objects to FTP or PS pulling out of opt-out states.

Quote:
PPA has their viewpoints, and thats fine, but sometimes it seems like everyone needs to take a loyalty oath where they agree with everything the PPA does or else they dont want the organization to exist. Or it seems like you feel the need to justify the PPA's existence.

That shouldnt be the case, IMHO. The PPA's positive influence speaks for itself.
Skallagrim and I speak for ourselves here. I've been posting here since prior even to joining the PPA as a member and I didn't relinquish that right when I joined the PPA Board.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 06:25 PM   #1071
RainMan77
grinder
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 483
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
This is a discussion forum. You can expect vigorous debate here. If you you don't like that, it's too bad.

People like you allowed UIGEA. Too many poker players felt bills from Congress could only hurt poker and suggested that we all stay nice and quiet. Well, we saw what that got us.

Many of us have no intention of allowing that to happen again. You should expect tough, challenging responses to your anti-poker legislation posts.
Yes and you should also expect vigorous debate and not feel a need to demonize other's opinions or discredit them by calling them trolls etc...

I don't suggest we stay quiet, but I also suggest we don't pursue bad legislation that hurts poker players. Especially when status-quo isn't so bad right now.

We are PPA members too, and I think a good organization should listen to its members and encourage debate, and be sympathetic to other's concerns.
RainMan77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 06:35 PM   #1072
sba9630
Pooh-Bah
 
sba9630's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: This space intentionally left blank
Posts: 4,510
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMan77 View Post
Yes and you should also expect vigorous debate and not feel a need to demonize other's opinions or discredit them by calling them trolls etc...

I don't suggest we stay quiet, but I also suggest we don't pursue bad legislation that hurts poker players. Especially when status-quo isn't so bad right now.

We are PPA members too, and I think a good organization should listen to its members and encourage debate, and be sympathetic to other's concerns.
There's little if any debate going on, a certain subset of posters keep repeating the same point(s) over and over and over and over again, ad infinitum.
sba9630 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 06:59 PM   #1073
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
Yes and you should also expect vigorous debate
That's why this forum exists.

Quote:
I don't suggest we stay quiet, but I also suggest we don't pursue bad legislation that hurts poker players.
That's all part of the debate.

Quote:
Especially when status-quo isn't so bad right now.
History is littered with gaming that failed because it was not recognized as legitimate by the jurisdictions in which it operated. If you honestly believe the status quo will last for twenty years, you can make that case here.

Quote:
We are PPA members too, and I think a good organization should listen to its members and encourage debate, and be sympathetic to other's concerns.
The PPA will definitely hear you out. Feel free to email them anytime.

However, this is not the PPA forum and I'm not here solely to represent PPA. While I do share with you all what PPA is doing, I post my own opinions.

This distinction is doubly important for my modding here. I don't represent PPA in my modding at all. Rather, I mod as an individual poster on behalf of Mason, Mat, and Two Plus Two.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 07:06 PM   #1074
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 RainMan77 View Post
We are PPA members too, and I think a good organization should listen to its members and encourage debate, and be sympathetic to other's concerns.
I do not think the PPA has an obligation to be sympathetic to the opposition it is facing in this thread. The fact of the matter is that most of the opposition they have faced in the week since the mark up has been from players who either do not understand the limitations on congressional power, or do not understand the risk of doing nothing or think they live in opt out states.

Just my opinion, but: I have not seen a single opposing viewpoint on this bill that did not begin from one of those three premises.

The counter arguments have all been made time and again:

1. Opt outs are constitutionally required, and even if they weren't, they are a political necessity.

2. Doing nothing means giving a clear field for opponents to push for a ban. The push for this legislation took the initiative from our opponents, forcing them onto the defensive. Thus, even if this were a bad bill, trying to push it through Congress is an effective way of preserving the status quo for the time being.

3. Some players will take a hit when their state opts out. The number of players who take this hit can be kept to a minimum by existing and future lobbying in those states that might opt out. In any event, most states are expected to opt in, and, therefore, supporting this bill is what is best for the majority of PPA's membership.

A small minority of posters have completely ignored these arguments and continued to attack the PPA, TE and Skallagrim. In my view, any obligation they have to demonstrate sympathy for the ignorance and selfishness-based concerns of a tiny minority arguing from fear and ignorance and without a single fact behind them has long since been met.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 08:35 PM   #1075
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 TheEngineer View Post
I think RainMan, Leaf Frog, and Former DJ wish there were no PPA.
Thanks for the insult TE. No, what I wish is that the PPA would not support a bill that will make me a criminal if I choose to remain in the state where I have lived for 55 years, that state (Alabama) chooses to opt-out, and I still want to play online poker. If my state opts out, then I'm relegated to playing on "illegal" unlicensed sites - in addition to being subjected to a 50 percent deposit tax if I do choose (or risk) playing on one of the unlicensed (overseas) sites. I don't know of any other major member-supported organization - such as the AARP or the NRA - that supports legislation that would, in effect, turn some of their members into criminals.

As for those of you who believe that opt-outs will only occur in a handful of states dominated by "Christian right-wing conservative fundamentalists," there's an excellent chance that California will opt out - along with Texas and Massachusetts. That's at least a quarter of the current online poker market here in the United States. All you folks ready to move?

Former DJ
Former DJ 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