JUST TAX US!!!!

[nineinchal]

Ultimately, the groupthink in the US legislature will develop into: Let's tax the internet gamblers since we can derive an easy source of revenues without having to soak the overburdened US taxpayer for more income taxes.

Just give it two or three years. Well OK, maybe four or five....

[Indiana]

You'd think that somebody would realize that taxing us would be the only way to solve the social security dilemma. Hell, we could keep it afloat for another 40 yrs.

Indy

[driller]

If you thought the Monster deal was bad, wait until you see the rake with taxes included.

Why do you think lotteries only pay back 20% (or less)? Because they are a tax on the mathematically challenged.

[playah8er]

the tax on our winnings is high enough and i hate writing that check every year. I cant imagine the rake if they're taxing the revenue of these sites.

[Dunkman]

[ QUOTE ]
If you thought the Monster deal was bad, wait until you see the rake with taxes included.

Why do you think lotteries only pay back 20% (or less)? Because they are a tax on the mathematically challenged.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate it when people say that about lotteries. You know, people also get utility from just playing because they enjoy it, it's not just about how much money they can win. If you add the utility from playing from the utility from the money gained when they actually win, it makes perfect sense for "some" people to play the lottery. Sure, some people play too much when they can't really afford it, but blanket statements about it being dumb to play don't really take simple microeconomic principles into account.

Also, I'm pretty sure that right now Party would be thrilled to pay corporate income taxes on their profits in the US and keep the exact same rake structure. That's a lot better than the $0 profits they're getting from the US now.

[govman6767]

Your missing the big picture when you say JUST TAX US!!!!!

The cost of study...after study.....after study.
Then when the decision is about to be made......
another study.

I wonder if the tax dollars that go towards the studies meant to eventually tax internet gambling are going to be worth it for us 7.00 an hour joes at the quick mart.

Another way to put it

They should double the online room's rake for the first two years so they can pay off what it's going to take to get this made legal.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
the tax on our winnings is high enough and i hate writing that check every year. I cant imagine the rake if they're taxing the revenue of these sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? These sites are cash printing machines, if they had a 15% levy on their profits (same as UK bookmakers) they don't need to up the rake they just need to up their revenues as fast as possible. Just as the UK bookies did when they changed from a 10% punter tax to a 15% profit tax on sites.

In fact competition by regulated sites could drive the rake down because the sites need the 85% of profits they keep to grow aqnd the best way to do that is to increase throughput.

[Harkey]

Three years tops before online poker is up and running in at least one state, with laws to allow networking of sites in different states (they'll cite Powerball and horse racing for the ability to do this) soon to follow.

[driller]

That's about the biggest stretch of utility theory I've ever read. You must be a schill for a lottery or MD 20 20. A lot of utility in cheap wine for some people as well.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you thought the Monster deal was bad, wait until you see the rake with taxes included.

Why do you think lotteries only pay back 20% (or less)? Because they are a tax on the mathematically challenged.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate it when people say that about lotteries. You know, people also get utility from just playing because they enjoy it, it's not just about how much money they can win. If you add the utility from playing from the utility from the money gained when they actually win, it makes perfect sense for "some" people to play the lottery. Sure, some people play too much when they can't really afford it, but blanket statements about it being dumb to play don't really take simple microeconomic principles into account.

Also, I'm pretty sure that right now Party would be thrilled to pay corporate income taxes on their profits in the US and keep the exact same rake structure. That's a lot better than the $0 profits they're getting from the US now.

[/ QUOTE ]I think the reason people bash lotteries here is because of the hypocrisy of keeping it safe while attacking our game.People here have nothing against lotteries just the hypocrisy.

[Misfire]

It's already taxed. Heavily.

[Unabridged]

[ QUOTE ]
Ultimately, the groupthink in the US legislature will develop into: Let's tax the marijuana smokers since we can derive an easy source of revenues without having to soak the overburdened US taxpayer for more income taxes.

Just give it two or three years. Well OK, maybe four or five....

[/ QUOTE ]

[rubbrband]

They would make it legal if the republicans didn't control everything and hadn't sold out to the chrisitian right.

[prodonkey]

Isn't all the money being wagered taxed already? I mean honestly.. how many times can the government tax a dollar.. they tax Joe Schmoe's pay check, before he puts it online to gamble with.. then when we win it.. more taxes.. then when a poker site takes a small cut of it.. they will tax that. I started this post out speaking humorously.. but now that I think about it.. how many times does a dollar really get taxed?

[kslghost]

Regulating by taxing is referring to poker sites, Not players (in regard to OP). Players are already taxed, and the 12 billion-dollar industry figure is confusing because I don't believe it regards to individual players. Overall everyone loses at poker (as a gigantic enormous group, not individuals), and thus players and their winnings have nothing to do with this figure.

Additionally, it is unlikely this would heavily effect rake, as almost all these businesses run a hefty profit. They would trade a good amount of this for tenure in the US market.

[BradleyT]

I always like to speculate where we'll be playing if it does get legalized in the U.S.

My guess is Yahoo would become the biggest online poker site.

[Shandrax]

Hold'em with a 5% rake PLUS tax is basically impossible to beat for all but the very best. It would kill online poker.

[kslghost]

You need to think about what you said, as it doesn't make any sense.

Tax is only a percentage of what you win. It wouldn't change the # of players winning at all. If you can beat hold'em for 1 dollar a year, tax would simply make it so you win .75 cents or something.