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 08-05-2010, 01:38 AM   #1151
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
We don't write the bills. We tell lawmakers what we want, but they have to incorporate it. I can't imagine any of them adding this to the opt-out. Also, I can't imagine any state deciding to opt out because they don't wish to participate, yet then going through the trouble of maintaining a list of authorized players.
I hear you, it just seems like you are talking past each other, as seen by his latest posts.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 04:07 AM   #1152
piranha
old hand
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,239
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by cardboardvox View Post
Add to the fact that not many players would support this, except for the select few professionals that would benefit. Almost like letting in more sharks, but keeping out fish
The professionals are going to play whether it's in their state or another state so why would the non-professionals be against this?
piranha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 04:12 AM   #1153
piranha
old hand
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,239
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
I hear you, it just seems like you are talking past each other, as seen by his latest posts.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
piranha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 04:13 AM   #1154
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

No one's really against it, but the people writing the bill want to give states the right to opt out of offering poker in their state, including saying that they dont want online poker pros.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 05:17 AM   #1155
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 piranha View Post
The professionals are going to play whether it's in their state or another state so why would the non-professionals be against this?
I don't think anyone would be against it. It's just hard to imagine Congress putting something so detailed into a bill like this.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 01:30 PM   #1156
cardboardvox
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 69
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by piranha View Post
The professionals are going to play whether it's in their state or another state so why would the non-professionals be against this?
Yeah, you're right. I'm kind of looking at it similar to the opt-out clause where certain players will be allowed to play at licensed sites while others will be prohibited. I justify it because its the states right to dictate gaming in their own state. This would take it to another level, allow some but not others within the state itself. Just doesn't really sit well with me is all, just like the opt-out doesn't sit well with others.

Another way too look at it is from a states point of view. The states that do opt-out, for whatever reason it may be, did it to not allow you to participate in the federal system. Why would they go through the trouble of setting up a system like this just so a select few can play at the licensed sites? It certainly won't be for revenue as it would be simpler just to opt-in (or just not opt-out) that will garner more revenue as less hassle of setting up such system. I would look at it as if the state is opting in, but get to specifically choose who can play or not based solely on their tax history.

Last edited by cardboardvox; 08-05-2010 at 01:48 PM.
cardboardvox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 06:43 PM   #1157
permafrost
old hand
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,968
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
In the U.S.



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.



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.

There’s a huge contradiction in PPA’s strategy. Why would the PPA push for new laws to license and tax poker sites since they are U.S. lawful already? Is it...

...DOJ threats to status quo? What would DOJ say is the violation since no law applies? And why would a judge do more than laugh the DOJ out of town if they tried such a stupid move?? It’s one thing for the PPA to be concerned about failing if the JPFisher strategy is pursued with litigation over an applicable law. But a court win for sites (if it even got that far) is a guaranteed slam dunk since there’s an ‘absence’ of applicable law. (The PPA press release did mention a prohibition, but that only applies to sites other than the lawful IP rooms under discussion.)

...State crackdowns? Nope, see above, still no law to enforce.

...Sites? Are sites pushing PPA for this government power grab? Why would they want to extend bureaucracy and add more taxes and license fees to their thriving, lawful business? Do they think it cuts competition somehow? Does it cut costs or add to profits? Does a license make them more lawful?

...Players? Do players want PPA to push for new taxes and regulation for the current lawful, trusted businesses? If so, maybe we need a new PPA poll, one where it's made very clear to players that the status quo is lawful, stable, untouchable…do they want to see new taxes and Fed agencies promoted or not?

Instead of burdening business with new Fed schemes, we should help these lawful IP sites grow, and also call for new competition. No opt out worries, no new tax, no income reports and DOJ told to butt out of transactions and free enterprise.

I call for a PPA push to make it better known that it’s lawful for anyone to currently operate, massively advertise, and even open new U.S. sites.

One main question; what is the reasoning behind PPA strategy to push for changing the currently lawful, trusted, stable, defensible status quo that players enjoy? Unless I’m missing some downside, my vote is to leave lawful IP sites alone!
permafrost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 06:51 PM   #1158
RGC2005
adept
 
RGC2005's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Louisville, Kentucky
Posts: 888
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

The DOJ contends that the current Status Quo is illegal. They just haven't gotten around to arresting anyone yet. My feeling is the DOJ is fully aware that the owners of the four major US facing sites will fight all the way to the US Supreme Court. This would endanger their beloved Wire Act and right now they are not going to push it. However, the DOJ is more than happy to chip away at the edges (Payment Processors, Advertising Agencies, Sponsored Events, etc.....)

The Status Quo only means you die slower.
RGC2005 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 07:00 PM   #1159
jackhigh
adept
 
jackhigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: OZ
Posts: 889
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by permafrost View Post
There’s a huge contradiction in PPA’s strategy. Why would the PPA push for new laws to license and tax poker sites since they are U.S. lawful already? Is it...

...DOJ threats to status quo? What would DOJ say is the violation since no law applies? And why would a judge do more than laugh the DOJ out of town if they tried such a stupid move?? It’s one thing for the PPA to be concerned about failing if the JPFisher strategy is pursued with litigation over an applicable law. But a court win for sites (if it even got that far) is a guaranteed slam dunk since there’s an ‘absence’ of applicable law. (The PPA press release did mention a prohibition, but that only applies to sites other than the lawful IP rooms under discussion.)

...State crackdowns? Nope, see above, still no law to enforce.

...Sites? Are sites pushing PPA for this government power grab? Why would they want to extend bureaucracy and add more taxes and license fees to their thriving, lawful business? Do they think it cuts competition somehow? Does it cut costs or add to profits? Does a license make them more lawful?

...Players? Do players want PPA to push for new taxes and regulation for the current lawful, trusted businesses? If so, maybe we need a new PPA poll, one where it's made very clear to players that the status quo is lawful, stable, untouchable…do they want to see new taxes and Fed agencies promoted or not?

Instead of burdening business with new Fed schemes, we should help these lawful IP sites grow, and also call for new competition. No opt out worries, no new tax, no income reports and DOJ told to butt out of transactions and free enterprise.

I call for a PPA push to make it better known that it’s lawful for anyone to currently operate, massively advertise, and even open new U.S. sites.

One main question; what is the reasoning behind PPA strategy to push for changing the currently lawful, trusted, stable, defensible status quo that players enjoy? Unless I’m missing some downside, my vote is to leave lawful IP sites alone!
They are not lawful - they are blatantly violating UIGEA. That is why Party and other publicly traded sites had to suddenly pull out of the US Markets. They pulled out the moment UIGEA went into effect. No other laws past or present including the wire act really affected them - only UIGEA.

Why do you think Lederer is not listed as the "owner, CEO, or President, etc." of Full Tilt - he is getting paid through some shell "software" company of Tilt to keep him out of jail.
jackhigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 07:27 PM   #1160
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,583
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by permafrost View Post
There’s a huge contradiction in PPA’s strategy. Why would the PPA push for new laws to license and tax poker sites since they are U.S. lawful already? ...

One main question; what is the reasoning behind PPA strategy to push for changing the currently lawful, trusted, stable, defensible status quo that players enjoy? Unless I’m missing some downside, my vote is to leave lawful IP sites alone!
This:

Quote:
Originally Posted by RGC2005 View Post
The DOJ contends that the current Status Quo is illegal. They just haven't gotten around to arresting anyone yet. My feeling is the DOJ is fully aware that the owners of the four major US facing sites will fight all the way to the US Supreme Court. This would endanger their beloved Wire Act and right now they are not going to push it. However, the DOJ is more than happy to chip away at the edges (Payment Processors, Advertising Agencies, Sponsored Events, etc.....)

The Status Quo only means you die slower.
In addition, without the PPA pushing for licensing and regulation, opponents to iPoker would find an open door to push for a change to the Wire Act to make iPoker illegal. That alone is a good enough reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackhigh View Post
They are not lawful - they are blatantly violating UIGEA. That is why Party and other publicly traded sites had to suddenly pull out of the US Markets. They pulled out the moment UIGEA went into effect. No other laws past or present including the wire act really affected them - only UIGEA.

Why do you think Lederer is not listed as the "owner, CEO, or President, etc." of Full Tilt - he is getting paid through some shell "software" company of Tilt to keep him out of jail.
Party and the other publicly-traded sites pulled out essentially because they are publicly-traded: the Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclay's Bank finance the public offerings of these sites. Because these banks can't be associated with activities that are [incorrectly] viewed by the DOJ as illegal (due to their US banking presence), these bankers threatened to immediately call in the loans of the sites, which would have bankrupted the sites. The sites had no choice but to pull out. It had nothing directly to do with whether or not the UIGEA made the sites unlawful.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 08:05 PM   #1161
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
There’s a huge contradiction in PPA’s strategy. Why would the PPA push for new laws to license and tax poker sites since they are U.S. lawful already? Is it...
You've asked this tens of times, only for you to ignore the responses and repost the same question later.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 12:00 AM   #1162
jackhigh
adept
 
jackhigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: OZ
Posts: 889
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu View Post
This:



In addition, without the PPA pushing for licensing and regulation, opponents to iPoker would find an open door to push for a change to the Wire Act to make iPoker illegal. That alone is a good enough reason.



Party and the other publicly-traded sites pulled out essentially because they are publicly-traded: the Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclay's Bank finance the public offerings of these sites. Because these banks can't be associated with activities that are [incorrectly] viewed by the DOJ as illegal (due to their US banking presence), these bankers threatened to immediately call in the loans of the sites, which would have bankrupted the sites. The sites had no choice but to pull out. It had nothing directly to do with whether or not the UIGEA made the sites unlawful.
Well... obviously it had EVERYTHING to do with the UIGEA making the sites illegal - payment processing (you just said it didn't you? )

Party lost millions in stock value and potentially BILLIONS by leaving the US market. Why in God's gracious earth would they do this if they weren't breaking any laws? It don't wash - ducy! Trust me, I'm sure they had a room full of superstar high-priced lawyers trying to find a loophole - remember we're talking potential billions at stake (and millions in market value losses)

As they say... just follow the money.
jackhigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 01:32 AM   #1163
Six Finger Nate
old hand
 
Six Finger Nate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,623
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Anyone know how and when this moves through Ways and Means? The congressman from my district is on the committee and I want to call/write/e-mail him, but I'd like to do it near to the time when he actually sees the markup.

Or should I just do it now? Does it matter?
Six Finger Nate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 02:23 AM   #1164
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)

One thing that we NEED to be doing about hr2267 is facebook messaging. If even half the users on this forum sent out facebook messages to their friends with a ppa letter link, it could make a serious dent.

Here is what I have written to hundreds of facebook freinds. Anyone can feel free to just copy/paste this as you'd like to message people:

Quote:
Hey guys. Like some of you, I play poker online. I’m not sure if many of you know, but this coming fall is a VERY critical season politically for online poker. A bill called HR2267 by Congressman Barney Frank that would essentially create a regulated American market for online poker just passed a financial house committee and is nearing a debate in the Senate. As you can imagine, this would dramatically change the market here in the states as the vast majority of poker players are limited by financial regulations put in place by a sloppy, ambiguous bill 4 years ago called the UIGEA (unlawful internet gambling enforcement act).

A few pros of HR2267 in my opinion:
1. Freedom. Pretty simple, Americans can have an adult decision to gamble online if they see fit in their own homes.
2. Accountability. The current offshore market is unregulated and creates no system to help problem gamblers and those underage as the government has no player disciplines standards to put on sites offshore like Full Tilt and Pokerstars. People who shouldn’t gamble online still do, despite prohibitive efforts by the government. Prohibition really doesn’t stop anybody.
3. Revenue. The current offshore sites are not taxed. American run companies would be. Experts say it would yield up to $42 billion over ten years. (might take a little sting out of this recession)


Most of you know I hate politics, so it takes a lot for me to actually try and spread this word. I’d just hate to see this freedom taken away from us. (and this has been considered a “bipartisan” issue, so if you like to play sides more, it really doesn’t apply.)


Anyways, if you have 30 seconds and you agree with me, please follow the instructions on this link and email your state reps.

http://www.capwiz.com/pokerplayersal...118526&type=ML

The letter is pre-written, but you can add in whatever you would like, it’s just important that this issue not be ignored.


Thanks guys.
sluggger5x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 12:46 PM   #1165
RGC2005
adept
 
RGC2005's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Louisville, Kentucky
Posts: 888
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Done and posted it to my website as well.
RGC2005 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 02:35 PM   #1166
UhtredTheUgly
journeyman
 
UhtredTheUgly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 334
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

I'm not american. How does this affect my games? Will I still play with americans (I play on Stars)?
UhtredTheUgly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 02:58 PM   #1167
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 UhtredTheUgly View Post
I'm not american. How does this affect my games? Will I still play with americans (I play on Stars)?
Nothing in the US legislative bill forbids this. There will likely be a separate site skin for US players, but with a combined international player base with the foreign skin(s).
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 06:32 PM   #1168
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Not sure that ends up being true, but its possible.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 07:21 PM   #1169
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 PokerXanadu View Post
Nothing in the US legislative bill forbids this. There will likely be a separate site skin for US players, but with a combined international player base with the foreign skin(s).
Nothing in the language forbids it,at least not yet. IIRC It doesn't mention international player pools at all. I don't think we can say (as of right now) if the final regs will allow international player pools or not. This something that might have to be clear in future amendments.

I hope you're correct PX.
novahunterpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 07:51 PM   #1170
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 novahunterpa View Post
Nothing in the language forbids it,at least not yet. IIRC It doesn't mention international player pools at all. I don't think we can say (as of right now) if the final regs will allow international player pools or not. This something that might have to be clear in future amendments.

I hope you're correct PX.
I hope so, too. Based on the wording of some of the recent bill amendments that passed (which indicated to me an awareness that gambling sites will have both an on-shore and an off-shore presence), and the involvement of casino corporations that will also want an international player pool, I expect this to be the case.

However, the bill is far from complete and bill amendments, or later Treasury regs, could pose a stumbling block - to this as well as other issues. This is the best argument for remaining a partner* in the process of passing this legislation. We need to continue to have a strong voice so the end result is a player friendly bill. Opposing the bill now, way before it is in final form, due to disagreement on some of the current provisions is a sure way to get a bad bill.

P.S. Thanks for spelling you're correctly!

[*Insert the TPCEO disclaimer.]
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 08:33 PM   #1171
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 don't oppose the legislation.
novahunterpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 08:36 PM   #1172
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 novahunterpa View Post
^^I don't oppose the legislation.
Yes, I know. Just taking the opportunity to drive home the point once more, for the benefit of the spectators.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2010, 02:42 PM   #1173
cardboardvox
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 69
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Loving the extra exposure. Even Attack of the Show on G4 had a segment about this

http://g4tv.com/videos/47934/Federal...line-Gambling/
cardboardvox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2010, 03:00 PM   #1174
dabomb75
veteran
 
dabomb75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dreaming of being an FPP Pro
Posts: 2,343
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by cardboardvox View Post
Loving the extra exposure. Even Attack of the Show on G4 had a segment about this

http://g4tv.com/videos/47934/Federal...line-Gambling/
lol super random but sweet
dabomb75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2010, 05:48 PM   #1175
MewsicLovr
veteran
 
MewsicLovr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,137
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

I'm sure this has been answered a dozen times already and for that I apologize - but does this bill allow Europeans to play on US-licensed sites? Or does us-licensed imply us-only? Thanks in advance.
MewsicLovr 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 05:11 AM.


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