Online Poker Inches Closer to Exemption [Archive]

flafishy

01-24-2007, 02:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really understand the enthusiasm.

If it's a press release from the PPA saying they've got someone (Porter or Berkley probably) to introduce this legislation to do a poker carveout, happy day. Thousands of bills get introduced each Congress and most don't move an inch.

I suppose it is a necessary step, but I would hold reservations on how much progress this really is.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's all posturing, IMO. There would be no motivation for US lawmakers to do an online poker carveout. PPA might be making some noise around Capitol Hill these days, but I doubt they have any real political clout. It doesn't seem to me that any politician would be all that concerned with going after the online poker playing voter bloc. And by carving out online poker, that just means leaving the gates open for a flow of money out of our economy.

I think this is all just wishful thinking on our part.

yeahright

01-24-2007, 02:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really understand the enthusiasm.

If it's a press release from the PPA saying they've got someone (Porter or Berkley probably) to introduce this legislation to do a poker carveout, happy day. Thousands of bills get introduced each Congress and most don't move an inch.

I suppose it is a necessary step, but I would hold reservations on how much progress this really is.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it doesn't get introduced soon to stop the bleeding of all the sites wanting to pull out.....none of this will matter.

Coming from someone who's spoken to top management at several rooms...it's REALLY important that something positive happens in the next 3-6 months.....and I mean positive as in just getting the bill introduced.

Obviously that doesn't mean it will pass, but if it doesn't get introduced, you can say good bye to at least 2 other rooms I know of.

Berge20

01-24-2007, 02:45 PM

If rooms are basing their decisions based upon a bill being introduced or not, they really are grasping IMO.

yeahright

01-24-2007, 03:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If rooms are basing their decisions based upon a bill being introduced or not, they really are grasping IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling it grasping or whatever, it's a fact.

If there is no reason to believe the US is interested in considering making poker legal and it appear the full scale war on gambling will continue, more sites will pull out. I know of 2 that are discussing it right now.

And I'm not saying that to scare anyone, I'm trying to show the importance of getting some momentum in congress.

ekdikeo

01-24-2007, 03:03 PM

Considering Gambling911 often posts pictures of midgets attempting sexual encounters with the subjects of their articles, I consider them less than reputable. They do at least post a lot of stuff that is better than the OTHER things that come up on my News Alert for "poker", where I often see these nebulous two or three line press releases forming or announcing some thing or other that has no clear reason for existing.

Skallagrim

01-24-2007, 03:27 PM

The negativity of the "green" postings here at 2+2 is really beginning to annoy me. Talking about getting a bill introduced is indeed a small step. BUT IT IS A STEP. The longest journey begins with a single step (sorry - couldn't help myself on that one ). A bill introduced then gets our representatives to pay some attention, and us something specific to tell them to support. Much has been made (usually by green posters and long time posters) of the supposed political insignificance of US poker players. I will point out one thing - Homosexuals make up anywhere from 3 to 10% of the US population. And a large number of them remain in the closet. Yet 25 years ago homosexual acts were crimes in almost every state in this country - but now we argue over whether they should be allowed to get married. Dont underestimate the political clout of a determined 5% of the country. To save this game, rather than go softly into the goodnight (sorry again), we must support these kinds of efforts, not knock them or simply try to express our supposed intellectual superiority by predicting they will al fail. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

schwza

01-24-2007, 03:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really understand the enthusiasm.

If it's a press release from the PPA saying they've got someone (Porter or Berkley probably) to introduce this legislation to do a poker carveout, happy day. Thousands of bills get introduced each Congress and most don't move an inch.

I suppose it is a necessary step, but I would hold reservations on how much progress this really is.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't have any problem with it, but i'm certainly not wetting my pants with excitement. it's basically the ppa guy saying "this is what i've been up to."

one roadblock i see (besides the obvious one of nobody in congress being on our side) is that sites could set up faux poker games that act as total luck games. 7-card stud with 1-ante stacks, etc.

joeker

01-24-2007, 03:29 PM

It's a start....sure this bill won't go anywhere, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. It will take awhile to build momentum, but at least we will have a bill to point to when we call our reps.

Money runs the political establishment in Washington, however the PEOPLE do have the final say, and if there is enough outcry form the public for something the politicians will listen.

It's a start

Fishhead24

01-24-2007, 03:32 PM

Would be more inclined to listen to individuals at TheRX rather than what is reported by G911....overall.

Probably the best in-depth source for offshore gaming considering that sportsbettors, as well as poker players are represented there..........and sportsbetting was well into offshore gaming before poker exploded.

-FH-

joeker

01-24-2007, 03:35 PM

I have no doubt the report is true, I think the PPA is making an effort, regardless of whether they are shady or not.

1p0kerboy

01-24-2007, 03:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
total luck games. 7-card stud with 1-ante stacks, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I crush this game when we play it in our home game.

Beastmaster

01-24-2007, 03:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]

If it doesn't get introduced soon to stop the bleeding of all the sites wanting to pull out.....none of this will matter.

Coming from someone who's spoken to top management at several rooms...it's REALLY important that something positive happens in the next 3-6 months.....and I mean positive as in just getting the bill introduced.

Obviously that doesn't mean it will pass, but if it doesn't get introduced, you can say good bye to at least 2 other rooms I know of.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to name which rooms? Are these rooms providing support to the PPA?

Wynton

01-24-2007, 03:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If rooms are basing their decisions based upon a bill being introduced or not, they really are grasping IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling it grasping or whatever, it's a fact.

If there is no reason to believe the US is interested in considering making poker legal and it appear the full scale war on gambling will continue, more sites will pull out. I know of 2 that are discussing it right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, only a select few of your buddies have any way of knowing whether you actually have any inside information, as you claim.

I know you don't care what I think, but I mention this again for those who don't read this forum regularly.

yeahright

01-24-2007, 04:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If rooms are basing their decisions based upon a bill being introduced or not, they really are grasping IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling it grasping or whatever, it's a fact.

If there is no reason to believe the US is interested in considering making poker legal and it appear the full scale war on gambling will continue, more sites will pull out. I know of 2 that are discussing it right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, only a select few of your buddies have any way of knowing whether you actually have any inside information, as you claim.

I know you don't care what I think, but I mention this again for those who don't read this forum regularly.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a couple PM's.

Maybe spending you should spend more time email congressmen and less time trying to make sure no one believes my posts.

You'd be doing us all a favor.

autobet

01-24-2007, 04:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There would be no motivation for US lawmakers to do an online poker carveout. PPA might be making some noise around Capitol Hill these days, but I doubt they have any real political clout. It doesn't seem to me that any politician would be all that concerned with going after the online poker playing voter bloc. And by carving out online poker, that just means leaving the gates open for a flow of money out of our economy.

I think this is all just wishful thinking on our part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Online poker is played by 12-22 million Americans (or at least it used to be). It is hard to say how many of those would vote a pro online poker ticket...any voting block of more than 1 million has a ton of political clout. This is one of the reasons the PPA is trying to increase its membership. Even raising it to half a million would make a big difference.

I agree it is a long shot for a bill to make its way through Congress, but at least the PPA is doing its job and trying.

1p0kerboy

01-24-2007, 04:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Online poker is played by 12-22 million Americans (or at least it used to be). It is hard to say how many of those would vote a pro online poker ticket...any voting block of more than 1 million has a ton of political clout. This is one of the reasons the PPA is trying to increase its membership. Even raising it to half a million would make a big difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention that 2 key legislators lost their position in Congress this past November because of the fraction of the swayed vote over this key issue.

We'll do it again.

Our voice is growing strong and without a doubt at some point online poker will be regulated in the U.S.

Petomane

01-24-2007, 05:03 PM

There's no reason for any poker site to close to US players. Since Neteller opened up an "account" for me with an American bank and I withdrew from "checking" on my debit card, the same arrangement could be made by a new e-wallet with, say, a bank in the Cayman Islands. It's up to the poker sites to figure it out.

Or we could continue just mailing checks.

Problem is, PokerStars really tightened up after the Neteller fiasco. WSEX was theoretically the best thing that happened to poker, but in reality, the games were tough.

It's not just any poker we need, but good poker.If there's a site that caters to American pros, the Europeans will stay away - they have Party.

There's no reason why Party couldn't set up a "proxy server", where it seems that American players are logging on from eg.Algeria.

The poker sites have 20 million American customers - it's up to them to figure out how to keep us.

Mondogarage

01-24-2007, 05:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There would be no motivation for US lawmakers to do an online poker carveout. PPA might be making some noise around Capitol Hill these days, but I doubt they have any real political clout. It doesn't seem to me that any politician would be all that concerned with going after the online poker playing voter bloc. And by carving out online poker, that just means leaving the gates open for a flow of money out of our economy.

I think this is all just wishful thinking on our part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Online poker is played by 12-22 million Americans (or at least it used to be). It is hard to say how many of those would vote a pro online poker ticket...any voting block of more than 1 million has a ton of political clout. This is one of the reasons the PPA is trying to increase its membership. Even raising it to half a million would make a big difference.

I agree it is a long shot for a bill to make its way through Congress, but at least the PPA is doing its job and trying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, hyperbole is going to get you nowhere. Please provide evidence of online poker being played by 12-22 million Americans. Extra credit if you can prove anywhere near that amount playing with real money accounts. You're basically saying 1 in every 15-30 Americans and that just has never been true. (If it were, that many fish would make me very wealthy, indeed.)

Anyway, the OP is correct. Capitol Hill doesn't care about online poker while Iraq, the deficit, and upcoming presidential elections take precendence. Nor should it. It's important to us, but in the grand scheme of life in American society, it's nothing. Except it's a nothing that coming out as "pro-gambling" will do little except energize the far right in the next election cycle.

Now, if the PPA manages to grease a ton of palms with some real money there, that might change things. But, and here is where Frist's shady tactics last year really screwed us, your average member of the House of Representatives knows that absolutely nothing bad can happen to them as a result of not affirmatively voting to carve out poker, while the impact of taking such action on their future candidacies is unknown.

1p0kerboy

01-24-2007, 05:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, the OP is correct. Capitol Hill doesn't care about online poker while Iraq, the deficit, and upcoming presidential elections take precendence.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't necessarily true.

Take note that the rider for online gambling snuck in even while many other 'important' things were going on.

Also note that money talks in Congress, not important issues.

In a way I wish it were the other way around- with Congress working hard takling issues that are important to the well being of the nation. But that is rarely the case.

Mondogarage

01-24-2007, 05:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, the OP is correct. Capitol Hill doesn't care about online poker while Iraq, the deficit, and upcoming presidential elections take precendence.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't necessarily true.

Take note that the rider for online gambling snuck in even while many other 'important' things were going on.

Also note that money talks in Congress, not important issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

The UIGEA wasn't sneaked in because Congress cared about online poker. It got snuck in by a couple of right-wingers because they cared about having something to show off to their fundamentalist constituencies, not because they actually cared about gambling. And because the NFL and other very high paying constituencies with political clout wanted it to happen, for their own reasons.

And, it was snuck in by a different Congressional power structure which is...now...out of power. From a "look at your constituents with a straight face" perspective, it will always be easier to ban something looked at as immoral by large segments of society, than it will be to allow something that is of interest to a smaller sector of society. Why? Because the former looks impressive to a lot of voters, while the latter will please less than it will piss off.

1p0kerboy

01-24-2007, 05:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It got snuck in by a couple of right-wingers because they cared about having something to show off to their fundamentalist constituencies, not because they actually cared

[/ QUOTE ]

This proves my point in so many ways.

A Congressman's agenda is really never what it should be.

If the poker player's voice is loud enough, that's what the agenda will be.

Do you see why?

Mondogarage

01-24-2007, 06:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It got snuck in by a couple of right-wingers because they cared about having something to show off to their fundamentalist constituencies, not because they actually cared

[/ QUOTE ]

This proves my point in so many ways.

A Congressman's agenda is really never what it should be.

If the poker player's voice is loud enough, that's what the agenda will be.

Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because the poker player's voice can never be as loud as the voice of, say, the Catholic Church, or the Moral Majority, or the AARP, and their extremely well funded lobbies. Why? Because in the end, your "average" weekend poker player is a) far outnumbered by those in other, more "self-righteous" organizations, and b) has no reason to tie their cart up with those who are actually trying to make a living at the game.

Joe Schmoe who donks a few low limit tables ever now and then, while playing in their pub league freerolls, has almost nothing in common with the internet pros, and has no financial stake in the outcome. They're the ones not worried about trying to find new mechanisms to fund or withdraw from the sites, because online poker is such a miniscule part of their life.

The actual number of people in the USA who are truly negatively impacted by the UIGEA (as it pertains to poker, anyway), probably numbers no more than in the few tens of thousands, tops. I'll be more generous and say it numbers 80,000. (The actual number is probably more like 15,000, tops.) That's not a big constituency at all, and certainly not enough to sway any electoral events on a national level.

In the absence of a large constituency, you need a LOT of money to get anything done. I totally agree a congressman's agenda is rarely what it should be, because their agenda is, more often than not, simply getting re-elected. (Or, they're single issue candidates like our asshat Tom Tancredo, who simply want to ship everyone with a Mexican-sounding surname across the Rio Grande.)

Tell me why the collective poker players' voice can set a congressman's agenda. I just think you've wayyyy overestimated our pull in the real world, but I'm keen to understand your thinking.

LeeLoo

01-24-2007, 06:41 PM

The negative responses are amazing. While it might not mean anything and never get introduced or passed at least someone is doing something and making a start. A month ago or so everyone was saying we sat on our asses and did nothing when we should have tried harder. Now we have a green name who apparently wants to bad mouth an attempt. I guess the green name has more pull and is doing more than the PPA.

Skallagrim

01-24-2007, 06:44 PM

You naysayers and prophets of hopeless doom are as big a part of the problem as the religious right and the NFL. If you spent the equal amount of time you spend moaning in these forums in writing an e-mail to your congressperson, we would be quite far along on changing the law for poker. We have some allies in Congress, and Congress does all sorts of legislating on non-big issues. Sure money talks big in the Capitol, but so do votes. The NRA, whether you agree with them or not, stopped an awful lot of anti-gun legislatioin and it wasnt because they bribed the congress, it was because they could reliably turn out 5% or so of the electorate in certain states to vote on their issue alone. Polls show the majority of the general public supports the right to play poker online. Politicians know this. They also know it is not the biggest issue for most voters, but it only has to be a big issue for that 5% (or less!) that often makes the difference in election results. STOP WHINING, STOP THE DOOM AND GLOOM, AND JUST WRITE A LETTER OR TWO! IT IS FAR FROM IMPOSSIBLE OR UNLIKELY TO SEE THIS CHANGE. Of course if you really dont mind the loss of online poker ....

ekdikeo

01-24-2007, 06:45 PM

Well, the estimates that I've seen are that there are or were anywhere from 6 million to 26 million online players in the United States. If towards the high end of that estimate, I imagine that that would count for a little bit of potential clout at a federal level. If that's spread out evenly among the 50 states, thats not very much among a state level though (except for maybe Alaska or Rhode Island).

DoGMaTiCMD

01-24-2007, 06:57 PM

I don't know enough about whats going on to have a real prediction.

Thats something I think a lot of people here should admit before they rant.

Mondogarage

01-24-2007, 06:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the estimates that I've seen are that there are or were anywhere from 6 million to 26 million online players in the United States. If towards the high end of that estimate, I imagine that that would count for a little bit of potential clout at a federal level. If that's spread out evenly among the 50 states, thats not very much among a state level though (except for maybe Alaska or Rhode Island).

[/ QUOTE ]

I would imagine whatever the number is, it's probably fairly proportionately spread out amongst the states.

I also think there's such a huge gulf between 6,000,000 and 26,000,000 as to make any individual estimate untrustworthy. All I can go on is how many players I see logged into the sites at any given time (and deduct a smallish number, say 10-15% to account for non-US players).

Then, your estimate has to differentiate between those like me, who have real money accounts, and those like my wife, who only have play money accounts. Even the largest online tournies have, what...6,000 player or so, tops. Most MTTs have anywhere from a few hundresd players to a couple thousand. While one can't draw a definitive conclusion from that, fields of that size are not indicative of a population of millions interested in preserving our game.

As for being "negative", all I'll say is that, in my day job, I work in the legal field, and am trained to look at all sides with equal parts open-mindedness and skepticism, and will not blind myself to political and real world realities just because I indulge in some moderate-to-heavy MTT and SNG action.

Frankly, I have no idea how this is going to end. I'm hopeful we'll see a poker carve-out, but given the pace of recent events, I doubt it will happen before most of the current players shut up shop or leave the US market. Which is, probably, exactly what the big casino operators would want, as it would clear the field for them to enter once the dust dies down...

DoGMaTiCMD

01-24-2007, 07:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, the estimates that I've seen are that there are or were anywhere from 6 million to 26 million online players in the United States. If towards the high end of that estimate, I imagine that that would count for a little bit of potential clout at a federal level. If that's spread out evenly among the 50 states, thats not very much among a state level though (except for maybe Alaska or Rhode Island).

[/ QUOTE ]

I would imagine whatever the number is, it's probably fairly proportionately spread out amongst the states.

I also think there's such a huge gulf between 6,000,000 and 26,000,000 as to make any individual estimate untrustworthy. All I can go on is how many players I see logged into the sites at any given time (and deduct a smallish number, say 10-15% to account for non-US players).

Then, your estimate has to differentiate between those like me, who have real money accounts, and those like my wife, who only have play money accounts. Even the largest online tournies have, what...6,000 player or so, tops. Most MTTs have anywhere from a few hundresd players to a couple thousand. While one can't draw a definitive conclusion from that, fields of that size are not indicative of a population of millions interested in preserving our game.

As for being "negative", all I'll say is that, in my day job, I work in the legal field, and am trained to look at all sides with equal parts open-mindedness and skepticism, and will not blind myself to political and real world realities just because I indulge in some moderate-to-heavy MTT and SNG action.

Frankly, I have no idea how this is going to end. I'm hopeful we'll see a poker carve-out, but given the pace of recent events, I doubt it will happen before most of the current players shut up shop or leave the US market. Which is, probably, exactly what the big casino operators would want, as it would clear the field for them to enter once the dust dies down...

[/ QUOTE ]

Also I've heard that a few casinos err whatever are interested in starting their own state-regulated online casinos. ..Or is that what you meant?

ekdikeo

01-24-2007, 07:05 PM

Right, I certainly wasn't arguing that there's a huge force. Just that there's probably a few more than 15-20k people. Remember there are (or at least were) hundred(s?) (of) site(s) ...

Wynton

01-24-2007, 07:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know enough about whats going on to have a real prediction.

Thats something I think a lot of people here should admit before they rant.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that would cut down on the traffic considerably.

Mondogarage

01-24-2007, 07:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Also I've heard that a few casinos err whatever are interested in starting their own state-regulated online casinos. ..Or is that what you meant?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly what I mean. Though simply "state-regulated" won't suffice as, even if all non-US players are blocked, you're still talking about interstate commerce, which is within the purview of the federal government.

The 800 lb gorilla, though, when it comes to taxing online poker, may not even be the moralists. It's the business association who have fought for years and years, thus far successfully, to keep taxation off the internet.

While this is far from certain, I suspect that if one lobbying group fights for US regulation of online poker, to include taxation of winnings, there will be enough internet commerce heavyweights (I'm talking Amazon, eBay, Apple, and the like, and even companies like Blizzard), all of whom rode the no-tax wave to profitability, who will lobby very hard against it, for their own reasons. If I had to put my money on who would win a lobbying fight between the PPA and the big dollar 'net retailers, I'd take Amazon and give the points.

I know, I know...buying a cookbook on Amazon has absolutely nothing to do with poker, but their very highly paid lobby is there to resist *any* form of taxation of internet commerce transactions, in much the same way as the NRA fights each and every piece of gun control legislation, no matter how ludicrous they look in doing so. Why? Because they fear that once the door is opened a crack, it's a slippery slope before they lose the tax advantages they have in dealing with customers.

I don't know how much water such an argument would hold, ultimately. But I think anyone talking about legislative prospects without acknowledging the possibility of this happening is not reading the opponents' hand very well.

Skallagrim

01-24-2007, 08:12 PM

I know quite a bit about whats going on as I read the news on this subject constantly (its even somewhat work related for me), I have a law degree, and I have worked on numerous political campaigns. Credentials enough to Rant?

In my life I have seen all sorts of surprise political victories by minorities. In fact since the Religious Right and other anti-gambling types make up at most 20 to 30% of the electorate, the UIGEA was a minority victory for them!

A campaign to exempt poker, the great american game, now enjoying high TV ratings and significant popularity among many folks who dont play, is far from a lost cause - thats all I am really trying to say.

As for predictions, Im no Nostradamus - but if you demand a prediction of victory in order to get involved in a worthwhile cause, then you are what can only be called a coward.

The only prediction I will make is that if most players take an "I dont care" or "there's nothing I can do" attitude then the poker exemption will indeed never happen. I believe thats called a self-fullfiling prophecy.

PS - its no big deal to make the sites report winnings over a certain amount to the government (one source of non internet tax revenue) and any US site would have to pay corporate taxes on profit. Overseas sites could be required to pay some sort of regiistration fee or whatever.

MasterLJ

01-24-2007, 08:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Also I've heard that a few casinos err whatever are interested in starting their own state-regulated online casinos. ..Or is that what you meant?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly what I mean. Though simply "state-regulated" won't suffice as, even if all non-US players are blocked, you're still talking about interstate commerce, which is within the purview of the federal government.

The 800 lb gorilla, though, when it comes to taxing online poker, may not even be the moralists. It's the business association who have fought for years and years, thus far successfully, to keep taxation off the internet.

While this is far from certain, I suspect that if one lobbying group fights for US regulation of online poker, to include taxation of winnings, there will be enough internet commerce heavyweights (I'm talking Amazon, eBay, Apple, and the like, and even companies like Blizzard), all of whom rode the no-tax wave to profitability, who will lobby very hard against it, for their own reasons. If I had to put my money on who would win a lobbying fight between the PPA and the big dollar 'net retailers, I'd take Amazon and give the points.

I know, I know...buying a cookbook on Amazon has absolutely nothing to do with poker, but their very highly paid lobby is there to resist *any* form of taxation of internet commerce transactions, in much the same way as the NRA fights each and every piece of gun control legislation, no matter how ludicrous they look in doing so. Why? Because they fear that once the door is opened a crack, it's a slippery slope before they lose the tax advantages they have in dealing with customers.

I don't know how much water such an argument would hold, ultimately. But I think anyone talking about legislative prospects without acknowledging the possibility of this happening is not reading the opponents' hand very well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Blizzard is a bad example. Blizzard has only had monthly subscriptions for their games since WoW came out, meaning they only made $$$ from the box sales. Sony has had it for 10+ years now.

All other points are valid.

rokstedy

01-24-2007, 08:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
PS - its no big deal to make the sites report winnings over a certain amount to the government (one source of non internet tax revenue) and any US site would have to pay corporate taxes on profit. Overseas sites could be required to pay some sort of regiistration fee or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't mind at all if they incorporated this into any regulations myself. Hell, the sites can send me a 1099 if they want.

As for overseas customers, it should be repeated that no allowances need to be made for them in terms them being allowed to play. No registration required. All are welcome. The goverment will take their 7% of their rake from the HOST, not the player. The overseas player would be required to pay their own tax on their winnings in whatever capacity their govermnment requires them to do so.

Mondogarage

01-24-2007, 08:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

While this is far from certain, I suspect that if one lobbying group fights for US regulation of online poker, to include taxation of winnings, there will be enough internet commerce heavyweights (I'm talking Amazon, eBay, Apple, and the like, and even companies like Blizzard), all of whom rode the no-tax wave to profitability, who will lobby very hard against it, for their own reasons. If I had to put my money on who would win a lobbying fight between the PPA and the big dollar 'net retailers, I'd take Amazon and give the points.

I know, I know...buying a cookbook on Amazon has absolutely nothing to do with poker, but their very highly paid lobby is there to resist *any* form of taxation of internet commerce transactions, in much the same way as the NRA fights each and every piece of gun control legislation, no matter how ludicrous they look in doing so. Why? Because they fear that once the door is opened a crack, it's a slippery slope before they lose the tax advantages they have in dealing with customers.

I don't know how much water such an argument would hold, ultimately. But I think anyone talking about legislative prospects without acknowledging the possibility of this happening is not reading the opponents' hand very well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Blizzard is a bad example. Blizzard has only had monthly subscriptions for their games since WoW came out, meaning they only made $$$ from the box sales. Sony has had it for 10+ years now.

All other points are valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a bad example as you think, because what I'm talking about is the type of tax they'd fight, which is sales taxes on the WoW subscription service. Basically, there's been a moratorium on any sort of federal taxes on internet sales, and the monthly subscription to WoW is a monthly sale. Anyway, not to belabor the point, but it's those sites who will do almost anything to prevent any sort of federal taxation on the net, because it's the lack thereof that has given them (okay, not so much Blizzard) a competitive advantage in the marketplace.

Mondogarage

01-24-2007, 08:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In my life I have seen all sorts of surprise political victories by minorities. In fact since the Religious Right and other anti-gambling types make up at most 20 to 30% of the electorate, the UIGEA was a minority victory for them!

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but they also have a much longer history of political activism, and a much larger bully pulpit. And, as "core voter" types, they're far more likely to actually vote than most other groups. And, face it, 20-30% of the electorate is far larger than the active online poker populace.

[ QUOTE ]
A campaign to exempt poker, the great american game, now enjoying high TV ratings and significant popularity among many folks who dont play, is far from a lost cause - thats all I am really trying to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Far from a lost cause, yet very much an uphill battle. My point in bringing up the areas I am, is that folks on these forums seem to think all you have to do is join PPA and write a letter, and you'll get your online poker. I'm just here to say that there are some far more deep-pocketed, interested parties, and more experienced at the lobbying game, who have numbers greater than ours, who have interests to protect in fighting any poker carve out.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
As for predictions, Im no Nostradamus - but if you demand a prediction of victory in order to get involved in a worthwhile cause, then you are what can only be called a coward.

[/ QUOTE ]

Far from a coward. However, blind decisions aren't smart, either. Seriously, I'm not anti-PPA, and I'm really not trying to focus too much on that organization, and have no personal stake in anyone running it, but before I hitch my cart to a particular horse, I want to know what they're actually doing. Self-serving press releases aren't information. I want to know how they're funded, who they've engaged as lobbyists, etc. As for my own congressperson, I am sad to report that my district is represented by one of the most far-right, corrupt, and morally holier-than-thou members of Congress, Marilyn Musgrave. If she had her druthers, Colorado would be forced to shut the brick and mortar casinos we already have. I like a good battle, but sometimes, tilting at a windmill is just...tilting at a windmill.

[ QUOTE ]
The only prediction I will make is that if most players take an "I dont care" or "there's nothing I can do" attitude then the poker exemption will indeed never happen. I believe thats called a self-fullfiling prophecy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. So where are the big money players who actually have the most to gain? Where's Disney (ESPN) on this? Where's Fox? They stand to lose a nice chunk of ad revenue from poker sites. Where's Harrah's? If they step up, you actually have something.

[ QUOTE ]
PS - its no big deal to make the sites report winnings over a certain amount to the government (one source of non internet tax revenue) and any US site would have to pay corporate taxes on profit. Overseas sites could be required to pay some sort of regiistration fee or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely.

joeker

01-24-2007, 09:33 PM

When they say tax the poker rooms, that's not an internet tax. It would be an income tax and perhaps the poker sites would be forced to track and report player winnings over a certain amount.

It really has nothing to do with "taxing the internet"

rokstedy

01-24-2007, 10:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When they say tax the poker rooms, that's not an internet tax. It would be an income tax and perhaps the poker sites would be forced to track and report player winnings over a certain amount.

It really has nothing to do with "taxing the internet"

[/ QUOTE ]

so true. I'm pretty sure ebay and amazon do not operate on a pure profit level. surely they pay taxes on income earned, just like any other business. just like a poker site would.

demon102

01-25-2007, 12:34 AM

how come there is no talk about what happened in Italy? They had anti e-gambling legilation a few years ago the was turned around. I dont know the specs of it but it would be interesting to know what helped turn around the legislation they had against Igaming.

Bdraft

01-25-2007, 03:05 AM

I have a quick question. What were the PPA lobbyist, if there are any, doing while the UIGEA of 2006 was being written? Surely they knew something was coming and may have been more effective in the earlier stages to get an exemption for poker. From past history and things I have read, the PPA seems more reactive instead of proactive. Am I just misinformed?

I really don't expect a miracle but has there been ANY progress and if so....what?

Bdraft

permafrost

01-25-2007, 03:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
A campaign to exempt poker, the great american game, now enjoying high TV ratings and significant popularity among many folks who dont play, is far from a lost cause - thats all I am really trying to say.

The only prediction I will make is that if most players take an "I dont care" or "there's nothing I can do" attitude then the poker exemption will indeed never happen. I believe thats called a self-fullfiling prophecy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exemption?

If online poker is unlawful, then the US gov't would have to strike down all laws about online poker and more to fit UIGEA; or they could say the UIGEA applies to all unlawful gambling except unlawful online poker. Both somewhat silly.

If online poker is legal, we don't need an exemption.

Would you please elaborate on what an exemption will say and do that has more logic to it than I have explored?

Oink

01-25-2007, 08:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
how come there is no talk about what happened in Italy? They had anti e-gambling legilation a few years ago the was turned around. I dont know the specs of it but it would be interesting to know what helped turn around the legislation they had against Igaming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spain, France, Germany and Italy all had/has restrictions on online gambling. However, it is against the rules of the European Union as it is viewed as protection of national gambling industries. To my knowledge it is only France (surprise) that keeps fighting the EU on this issue as Spain recently changed their policies.

The continuing liberalization of the European markets are one of the main reasons for Party's resurgence in traffic.

1p0kerboy

01-25-2007, 09:09 AM

Maybe we really should all start calling our Congressmen letting them know that we support a bill like this.

Skallagrim

01-25-2007, 12:48 PM

Replying to Permafrost: The UIGEA is one of the most poorly written statutes ever, as one can expect from a last minute hack job. I beleive that the MOST LIKELY Court interpertation of the UIGEA will not include poker (at least not in states without a specific ban on internet poker) - but one cant be certain. And one will only be certain after an arrest and trial and possible appeal(s) and then its still possible you would have lost. Businesses like to avoid that kind of expense and risk, which is why so many are leaving the US market.

Which is why an esplicit poker exemption from the UIGEA is a good thing - NO MORE UNCERTAINTY. It would allow all the poker sites to accept americans instantly, and let all the e-wallets, and even credit cards(!) fund poker sites without hesitation.

Skallagrim

permafrost

01-25-2007, 01:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Replying to Permafrost: The UIGEA is one of the most poorly written statutes ever, as one can expect from a last minute hack job. I beleive that the MOST LIKELY Court interpertation of the UIGEA will not include poker (at least not in states without a specific ban on internet poker) - but one cant be certain. And one will only be certain after an arrest and trial and possible appeal(s) and then its still possible you would have lost. Businesses like to avoid that kind of expense and risk, which is why so many are leaving the US market.

Which is why an esplicit poker exemption from the UIGEA is a good thing - NO MORE UNCERTAINTY. It would allow all the poker sites to accept americans instantly, and let all the e-wallets, and even credit cards(!) fund poker sites without hesitation.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll try again. What does the exemption say?

Is it "We hereby make all previous laws about poker null and void"?

Or is it "We declare unlawful poker to be exempt from the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act"?

Or is it something else?

Skallagrim

01-25-2007, 01:58 PM

HOUSE BILL # ****** Amend the UIGEA by inserting the following in the defintions section: "Unlawful interent gambling does not include participation in the game of Poker."

Skallagrim

Mondogarage

01-25-2007, 02:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When they say tax the poker rooms, that's not an internet tax. It would be an income tax and perhaps the poker sites would be forced to track and report player winnings over a certain amount.

It really has nothing to do with "taxing the internet"

[/ QUOTE ]

so true. I'm pretty sure ebay and amazon do not operate on a pure profit level. surely they pay taxes on income earned, just like any other business. just like a poker site would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but I think you're missing something here.

Any US operating company would already be paying a corporate income tax, which would be what's comparable to eBay and Amazon paying income taxes. A tax on poker would be above and beyond that. I agree, maybe it's something that could just be pulled from the rake, or tourney fees, or what not. But it is clearly two separate taxes. One a tax on the poker transaction (consider it a sin tax like that on alcohol, cigarettes, etc., that's over and above state sales tax), and the other consisting of income tax on the business entity.

But yeah, the more I think about it, I can see how it can be easily implemented from a technology perspective, as long as it were a US site.

joeker

01-25-2007, 02:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but I think you're missing something here.

Any US operating company would already be paying a corporate income tax, which would be what's comparable to eBay and Amazon paying income taxes. A tax on poker would be above and beyond that. I agree, maybe it's something that could just be pulled from the rake, or tourney fees, or what not. But it is clearly two separate taxes. One a tax on the poker transaction (consider it a sin tax like that on alcohol, cigarettes, etc., that's over and above state sales tax), and the other consisting of income tax on the business entity.

But yeah, the more I think about it, I can see how it can be easily implemented from a technology perspective, as long as it were a US site.

[/ QUOTE ]

See when they talking about taxing it I dont view it that way....I dont think the game itself would be taxed, just the companies operating and the players (with the poker sites providing 1099s or something) at the end of the year.

I dunno I could be wrong

Mondogarage

01-25-2007, 02:16 PM

Well, players are already required to report winnings, and there's been no new legislation needed for that. It's just like any other income. Any any US companies are already required to file corporate income tax returns. So I really don't think "taxing poker" can refer to income taxes, because that's already covered and not an issue.

Just my .05/.10 worth.

rokstedy

01-25-2007, 02:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but I think you're missing something here.

Any US operating company would already be paying a corporate income tax, which would be what's comparable to eBay and Amazon paying income taxes. A tax on poker would be above and beyond that. I agree, maybe it's something that could just be pulled from the rake, or tourney fees, or what not. But it is clearly two separate taxes. One a tax on the poker transaction (consider it a sin tax like that on alcohol, cigarettes, etc., that's over and above state sales tax), and the other consisting of income tax on the business entity.

But yeah, the more I think about it, I can see how it can be easily implemented from a technology perspective, as long as it were a US site.

[/ QUOTE ]

See when they talking about taxing it I dont view it that way....I dont think the game itself would be taxed, just the companies operating and the players (with the poker sites providing 1099s or something) at the end of the year.

I dunno I could be wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

I was under this assumption too. But I have read in other threads that there are other gambling operations (B&M I believe) that are being taxed as much as 18% and that's taken from Gross profit. If that's the case...yikes!!! We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

If a site deals 150 million hands a year (some more, some less), with rake at $1 per hand, that's $28 million per year per site.

CybrPunk

01-25-2007, 07:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, players are already required to report winnings, and there's been no new legislation needed for that. It's just like any other income. Any any US companies are already required to file corporate income tax returns. So I really don't think "taxing poker" can refer to income taxes, because that's already covered and not an issue.

Just my .05/.10 worth.

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue isn't taxing players personal winnings but rather taxing the profit taken in the form of rake by the poker sites. That's billions of dollars anually.

Mondogarage

01-25-2007, 07:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The issue isn't taxing players personal winnings but rather taxing the profit taken in the form of rake by the poker sites. That's billions of dollars anually.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know...look up about 5 posts. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

groo

01-25-2007, 07:43 PM

I called my Rep. Trent Franks he is opposed to online gambling on moral grounds. His aide that deals with this is Jeff Chowdry (sp?) the phone number to reach him in DC is 202-225-4576 if anyone is interested. (maybe you've just had a bad session and need to take it out on someone)

John Kyl's office claims to be opposed simply and specifically "because it is illegal." Aide Tom Humphrey 202-224-4521

John McCain's office feels the Senate has more important things to worry about, but is upset with the underhanded methods used to pass the legislation last year. Stated that I should find someone to sponsor opposing legislation, but stated they would not sponsor this. They did give me the feeling that they would support it though. Lee Corosi 202-224-2235 we might actually make some headway here.

Didn't get much on how anyone felt about the PPA other than that they were all familiar with it, which would imply that the PPA is making some noise.

TheRock69

01-25-2007, 08:11 PM

Sites that depend on US customers will fold if poker becomes legal. If it becomes legal a USA poker room would take most of the USA players very quickly. This is the big reason no sites campaign or make donations to US government officials.

rokstedy

01-25-2007, 08:14 PM

joeker

01-25-2007, 08:15 PM

permafrost

01-26-2007, 12:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
HOUSE BILL # ****** Amend the UIGEA by inserting the following in the defintions section: "Unlawful interent gambling does not include participation in the game of Poker."

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. The Feds would be telling the States that either their poker laws don't make poker unlawful when played online, or they would be telling the States that the Feds won't help enforce laws about unlawful poker played online. It could happen.

groo

01-26-2007, 01:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sites that depend on US customers will fold if poker becomes legal. If it becomes legal a USA poker room would take most of the USA players very quickly. This is the big reason no sites campaign or make donations to US government officials.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is certainly true that many US owned sites would pop up, however, no one is going to play at site with bad software or poor customer service just because it's located in the US. Competition would certainly increase and existing sites would have to step up or they would be left behind. For example, PokerStars would have to have a CS phone number reachable from the US, and Party would have to develope some level of intelligent CS. On the other hand bonus whores would still flock to the Crypto's for the monthly bonuses. Also, the existing sites have the advantage of being already known and having, at least on some level, a loyal customer base.

Those can compete will prosper, those that cannot will die.

Spike Forehand

01-26-2007, 07:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The actual number of people in the USA who are truly negatively impacted by the UIGEA (as it pertains to poker, anyway), probably numbers no more than in the few tens of thousands, tops. I'll be more generous and say it numbers 80,000. (The actual number is probably more like 15,000, tops.) That's not a big constituency at all, and certainly not enough to sway any electoral events on a national level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe so, but there are millions upon millions of Americans who believe that the government has no right to regulate what you and I do in the privacy of our own homes, and by association are negatively impacted by this type of loss-of-freedom legislation. Don't you think that those people could also be passionately moved by this right-wing attack on personal freedoms? Not to mention, the two-faced carve-outs for horse racing and lotteries?

It does no good to sit and complain, or for 2+2 to make a big splashy post about their lack of support for PPA. We all need to be unified and support any organizations that are active in moving legistlation forward. If you don't wanna spend the $20, then at least sign up for the free membership.

If a better version of the PPA comes along, I'll also support them by signing up and getting involved.

- Spike