Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?

[demon102]

I just read a post by someone that claimed to have read the bill that is getting pushed by Barney Frank and they are saying that there is a lot of things in there that we wouldnt want to have in it. I was gonna read it myself but then I opened it and my mind just shut off.


Here's what they said.

You are being fooled by Barney Frank's misleading language. Nothing in this bill repeals the UIGEA, all it does is add more legislation. Here, read the whole act yourself: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/21frank_004_xml_(2).pdf
It repeals nothing. It is a hoax. This whole thing from the passing of the UIGEA, to the arrests of the Neteller founders has been about crippling the world wide gaming network so that the big cats in the US can take over. Expect to say goodbye to Full Tilt, hello MGM.com. You can also expect to pay taxes on each session, pay fees to the government for allowing you to play, and have the fat cats get fat while we pay for the cream. This is a typical political stunt. Like calling something the Patriot Act that takes away all of your liberties. Do not be fooled. This will not be good for any of us. We are better off as things are now.
Plenty of sites open, and none of them are under an obligation to turn over all of their customers records (one of the requirements of the new Act). Don't thank the fox for guarding us hens. It won't be good for us. Plus, any ewallets that agree to work with the new sites will have to agree to be subject to US jurisdiction and will have no chance to operate in the US with any unlicensed sites. Although I like your idea. Read the whole act. It is terrible.

[TheEngineer]

I guess you could read the bill once your mind turns back on, or some of the 800 posts below.

I read the bill and it looks fine to me.

[Dunkman]

I agree if things stayed as they are right now, this day, at least as far as the logistics, it would be better for some (games will be much softer if the bill passes tho, so I'd prefer that to the status quo.) But, UIGEA enforcement hasn't even gotten going yet. Aside from the neteller stuff, everything that has happened is just companies making decisions on their own. It is extremely naive to think that things aren't going to get worse as time goes on.

I agree, Frank's bill is not ideal. He is proposing something he actually thinks can pass, given the fact that there was overwhelming support for the UIGEA on both sides of the isle. Let's not forget that the only reason the UIGEA didn't pass on it's own was that 1) a couple high ranking senators were burying it and 2) the Senate had too much other stuff going on.

The bill is not perfect, especially the sports betting stuff and allowing states to ban online gambling. I don't think it's unreasonable for the U.S. government to want to regulate the industry...when companies do business in the U.S. it is not unprecedented that they be expected to abide by U.S. law. As far as taxes, they could do it in a way that sucks, but I pay taxes on my winnings now, so it's not a big deal for me.

What this bill does do is settle the issue about online poker legality. We may think it's legal to play, but the only message going out to U.S. citizens through the media is that it's illegal to play. This will change that and result in a huge influx of bad players.

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
This whole thing from the passing of the UIGEA, to the arrests of the Neteller founders has been about crippling the world wide gaming network so that the big cats in the US can take over. Expect to say goodbye to Full Tilt, hello MGM.com.

[/ QUOTE ]

Duh. We all know that's the endgame anyway. The faster we get there, the better for all of us.

[BluffTHIS!]

This sounds like more grousing from the sports betting companies and affiliates. They don't benefit from the bill, and so seek to disparage it. All of us here should care *only* about how poker fairs in general, and not other forms of gambling, and not even the specific business model of any current or potential poker site. If the longhot comes in and the bill passes, we will have sites to play *poker* on and that is the bottom line, and all we should care about.

[Jay Cohen]

I have looked at it. It needs a lot of work if it is going to address the WTO matter. Frank mentioned the WTO in a quote in the LVRJ as one of the reasons for it.

http://www.lvrj.com/business/7219486.html

I don't know if I would call it grousing. The bill as written basically throws sports players and all foreign operators under the bus, unless they want to open up US subsidiaries and become American operators. That's not the same as allowing foreign operators access to the market.

The state by state thing is a mess. Potential limits on how much people can lose is not a good idea, B&M doesn't have to subject themselves to that.

[Coy_Roy]

I think the bill is near perfect for the poker community.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
I have looked at it. It needs a lot of work if it is going to address the WTO matter. Frank mentioned the WTO in a quote in the LVRJ as one of the reasons for it.

http://www.lvrj.com/business/7219486.html

I don't know if I would call it grousing. The bill as written basically throws sports players and all foreign operators under the bus, unless they want to open up US subsidiaries and become American operators. That's not the same as allowing foreign operators access to the market.

The state by state thing is a mess. Potential limits on how much people can lose is not a good idea, B&M doesn't have to subject themselves to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually in Missouri B&M casinos do have to obey a $500 loss limit every 2 hours for each customer. A bill passes the MO house to repeal this limit. I think that it is the only one in the US.
Jay, I don't agree that this bill necessarily discriminates against foreign companies because domestic companies would have to obtain the same license as a foreign operator. Some state laws and practices might still discriminate against foreign operators. The devil will be in the details.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I have looked at it. It needs a lot of work if it is going to address the WTO matter. Frank mentioned the WTO in a quote in the LVRJ as one of the reasons for it.

http://www.lvrj.com/business/7219486.html

I don't know if I would call it grousing. The bill as written basically throws sports players and all foreign operators under the bus, unless they want to open up US subsidiaries and become American operators. That's not the same as allowing foreign operators access to the market.

The state by state thing is a mess. Potential limits on how much people can lose is not a good idea, B&M doesn't have to subject themselves to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jay,

What would you recommend for legislation that could actually pass Congress, given the success of HR 4411 in the House last year?

I'd personally prefer something more open as well, but it's hard for me as an American to think Congress should force states to permit gambling if they offer no similar gambling already (such as Utah). I think a bill that proposed that would be DOA. As for the WTO, we should all encourage our government to choose to follow the ruling, but I can't imagine our Congress doing much in response to the WTO if they don't wish to.

Sports betting is another matter. Frank is giving leagues the ability to opt-out more for political expediency than anything else. Unfortunately, as you can tell by the baseball "steroid hearings" (good thing our government has nothing better to do) and the fact that state and city governments pay for sports stadiums, sports and government are linked in the U.S.

Thanks,

TE

[jschaud]

i agree with this guy ^^^^

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]

The state by state thing is a mess. Potential limits on how much people can lose is not a good idea, B&M doesn't have to subject themselves to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jay, I generally agree with most of your posts, but your far to intelligent to actually believe that the law prior to the UIGEA allowed gambling to occur across state lines without a federal carve out and inter-state compacts (see horse racing and lotteries). And you dont really think this would pass without a concession to the anti-gambling industry do you? Of course he is going to include gambling limits because state laws still qualify, so if you can't bet bigger than $1/round in a municipality (or not bet at all) then the poker room needs to accommodate the state laws with 50 unique situations. And your wrong, B&M DOES have to subject themselves to the very same rules and regulations, the only difference is that it doesn't cross state lines.

for what its worth, there is nothing surprising in this bill, except that fact that its as thorough as it is. It looks as if he addressed the WTO matter perfectly, foreign entities can participate as long as they pay taxes, file tax reports on players, and comply with state regulations - a win win for the states, the feds, and foreign operators.

With that said, I can't wait to see the storm that this bill will set off when the poker playing public realizes that it will never be business as usual again.

[jafeather]

[ QUOTE ]

With that said, I can't wait to see the storm that this bill will set off when the poker playing public realizes that it will never be business as usual again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Define "Business as usual."

[Mitch Evans]

I think some poeple with concerns of this bill are valid.

1) I would expect to see sick rake charges. Rakes so high you would think "Who would play those games?" but the reincarnation of party type fish will play, so protest all you want, they won't care about you TAGs.

2) Excessive multi-tabling... questionable.

3) Low limits... maybe 5/10FL 100NL?

4) Taxes taken out at cashout without any regard to losses. Sure, you pay your taxes and may now get refunds because of this, but what about the losers? They are now taking a huge percentage of that money that would go back into the games, and now it's up to the degenerate to go get that money back from the IRS.

I don't know.

[Jeff W]

Yeah, I'm not sure I want this bill to pass, but I only skimmed it. It doesn't seem to be in the libertarian spirit.

Probably moot. I doubt the bill passes.

[MinRaise]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have looked at it. It needs a lot of work if it is going to address the WTO matter. Frank mentioned the WTO in a quote in the LVRJ as one of the reasons for it.

http://www.lvrj.com/business/7219486.html

I don't know if I would call it grousing. The bill as written basically throws sports players and all foreign operators under the bus, unless they want to open up US subsidiaries and become American operators. That's not the same as allowing foreign operators access to the market.

The state by state thing is a mess. Potential limits on how much people can lose is not a good idea, B&M doesn't have to subject themselves to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually in Missouri B&M casinos do have to obey a $500 loss limit every 2 hours for each customer. A bill passes the MO house to repeal this limit. I think that it is the only one in the US.
Jay, I don't agree that this bill necessarily discriminates against foreign companies because domestic companies would have to obtain the same license as a foreign operator. Some state laws and practices might still discriminate against foreign operators. The devil will be in the details.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Missouri, you can buy $500 in casino chips every two hours, so you can lose more than $500 in a two hour span if you buy the chips beforehand. I would assume you could skirt around the law similarly online if this bill passes.

[AP0CALYP5E]

The Limit doesn't have to be a dollar amount. It could be a limit on how many deposits you can make in a 24 hour period or in a week.

If rakes increase you could see the max buy-in increased. .25/.50NL could have a max buy-in of $70 instead of $50 to help offset the higher rake.

[Tofu_boy]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the bill is near perfect for the poker community.

[/ QUOTE ]

as a poker player is this what we ask for??? If yes then be happy if we can get it. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Ace0fSpades]

I'm not sure online poker would even be profitable anymore if this bill passes. If we all end up on this "MGM.com" type site with so many rules and regulations it's barely even going to be worth it after all of this struggle. If we start putting in restrictions on losses and high tax/rake rates, the online poker market will boom, but only to fade out again. This just seems like a quick fix.

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure online poker would even be profitable anymore if this bill passes. If we all end up on this "MGM.com" type site with so many rules and regulations it's barely even going to be worth it after all of this struggle. If we start putting in restrictions on losses and high tax/rake rates, the online poker market will boom, but only to fade out again. This just seems like a quick fix.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rake won't raise to some ridiculous amount, it's 10% live and 5% online (approx), some sites it's 6%, on one it's 0%.

If it goes over live amounts, more people would go play live, which means they'd have to lower the fees. Other countries take takes from sites, their rake isn't 50% or some scary number.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The rake won't raise to some ridiculous amount, it's 10% live and 5% online (approx), some sites it's 6%, on one it's 0%.

If it goes over live amounts, more people would go play live, which means they'd have to lower the fees. Other countries take takes from sites, their rake isn't 50% or some scary number.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

The games will have to be competitive with B&M. Also, if the rake is set too high, there won't be any winning players. Without winning players, I think there won't be enough regulars to keep a lot of games going, which would doom the new sites.

Even B&M casinos know to drop the rake for six or fewer players. I think we'll be fine.

[crzylgs]

I have no idea where some of this rake paranoia is coming from. If anything, this should lower rakes, as increased access to the market will inspire some much-needed competition.

Also, I read the bill. It's great. No, it's not a repeal. Why not? Because a repeal has no chance at passing. What the bill does is address all the (stated) concerns of those who backed the UIGEA in the first place. It contains no specific regulation on rake, or multi-tabling, or HUDs, or whether lobbies show table VPIP, or whatever other pet peeve Tuff_Fish has. This is a good thing, as it means the sites can continue to operate the way they're already set up. Lets not let these little quibbles cloud the issue.

This is not the time to lobby for your pet poker cause. Everyone get on board, for [censored]'s sake. Call your reps, write your reps.

p.s. I, for one, am willing to throw the sports bettors under the bus if it will save online poker.

[ImsaKidd]

One of the things about online is that there are a LOT of casual players that dont even know theres a rake. So an increased rake might go unnoticed by many players.

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the things about online is that there are a LOT of casual players that dont even know theres a rake. So an increased rake might go unnoticed by many players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't they raise it now then? Double it, triple it? Because enough people would leave and go to the other sites.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the things about online is that there are a LOT of casual players that dont even know theres a rake. So an increased rake might go unnoticed by many players.

[/ QUOTE ]

They'll notice when they lose money every session, though. That's why even B&M casinos reduce the rake for shorthanded. If B&M players would notice long-term, we can be sure the online guys would.

I did an analysis of the situation when TuffFish suggested a plan for California that included the highest rake in the nation for 6-max limit. Here it is:

A full $5/$10 limit six-handed table will generate a $5 max rake on many showdowns (his game charges 5.75% up to the amount of the BB). I checked my last 1,000 $5/$10 6-max limit hands for you. For this game ($3 max rake), the average rake was $1.53 per hand (0.153 BB/hand, or 15.3 BB/100). For your game, the average rake is $2.49 per hand (0.249 BB/hand, or 24.9 BB per 100). So, your game costs as extra 9.6 BB per 100 hands (1.61 BB/100 per player)!!! In other words, it's as if in addition to the normal rake, someone came by and took $96 off the table every hour or so!

For the FullTilt game I analyzed, if there were two skilled players making 1 BB/100 hands on average playing with four equally skilled average players, the four lesser players would lose 17.3 BB/100 hands between them, on average (-15.3 BB/100 - 1 BB/100 * 2 players), or 4.3 BB/100 per player. For your game, six equal players would lose 4.2 BB/100 per person on average (-24.9 BB/100 / 6 players). So, your "fish protection" plan was just about overtaken by the obscene rake. And, if there was merely one breakeven player (i.e., a nominal 1.61 BB/100 winner who's margin was erased by your 1.61 BB/100 per person rake premium) at the table, the five average players would lose 5.0 BB/100! So much for fish protection.

Anwyay, Party has a successful, profitable model. Why shouldn't CA go with it? The market data says that works. Winning players keep the tables going while folks playing for entertainment get what they wanted. Your model precludes winning by all but the very best, who MAY eke out a minor win rate (i.e., the current > 2 BB/100 players only). With almost everyone losing on a regular basis, it's hard to envision long-term sustainability of your plan.

Seems like you haven't run any numbers or collected any data at all. You simply wrote out what sounded good to you, then disparaged anyone who disagreed with you. Anyway, you asked for numbers and here they are.

[frogfanatic]

Well from what I took from the bill is that it screws all of us in the State of Washington by blocking poker site access by using our IP address. Am I correct in this interpetation?

[Mitch Evans]

When Party topped out, they did raise the rake. Then they started up with the jackpot tables (which they took 10% before paying out). Then the Monster promotion. Nobody left. It took Party closing to send people to Stars.

The 10K main event at the wsop used to be free. They witheld nothing from the prize pool, nor did they charge a vig. Then in the late 90's Becky started to charge $100 per person for the main event. People were not happy, but the numbers increased. The next year she decided to take 3% of the prize pool... people were pissed, but the numbers increased. Then Harrahs bought the wsop and raised it to 6%, and they had a banner year. Now they take 9% for many of the events.

Since the boom started, B&M rakes have increased quite a bit as well. If they can get it, they will take it. It would not be surprising if they start high, see what people are willing to pay, and work from there.

[spino1i]

I really doubt the rake is going to go up. Party et al had such a ridicolous profit margin before, they still have a ridicolous profit margin even after taxes..

As for the govt taking money from your cashouts, I doubt thats going to happen either. They just have a better of way of tracking how much each player is making..

[Jeffiner99]

Yes, I have read the bill. I am a lawyer and have read it the way a lawyer does. With an eye to reading between the lines.

You are all missing something very important. Pig4 brought it up in another forum. If you have a choice of playing online, having the gov't look at your daily books and have to pay taxes on everything or go to your local casino and play in cash taxless anonymity which would you choose? How long do you think the fish will hang around? How many more fish do you think will agree to that scenario?

Don't forget how bad the tax laws are to gamblers. If you win it goes into your gross income column. What you lose can only be deducted in your itemized deductions. How many college kids do you know that itemize deductions?

Think it is bad playing at a table with a high rake when the fish are being bled dry, try adding them losing another 1/3 to taxes. How long do you think they will stick around.

This bill also calls for licensing. That is just another word for limiting access to the market. (Ever try getting a liquor license in NY City?) Licensing doesn't make you any safer, the gov't can't protect you. e.g. Enron was licensed to trade stocks. All licensing does is make the fat cat politicians rich as the big poker sites can afford to pony up the money, the small ones, well, they may not have enough to pay for a license and perhaps they don't want to agree to be subjected to US jurisdiction (I sure wouldn't) and they may run. So now you lose all the rest of the sites that have stuck around and gain what? MGM.com? I trust fulltilt more. But that is just me.

And what happens when all the sites that are up and running right now all leave the market together. It will take forever to rebuild all that goodwill. You will lose more fish.

Then the few scraggling minnows who do venture out of the pond into the new sites will be slammed with the new taxes and run for the hills. Not to mention all the rest of you who have been playing for a while - you do realize part of the requirement for getting a license is to give up your customers information anytime they are asked. Will that be good for all of you? What if PartyPoker agrees to get licensed and as part of its agreement it gives the US Govt all records from all of its customers back to its inception? Looking forward to that?

And what happens when the first poker players start to get audited? and audited and audited? Then how many fish will play online? What if it becomes a rumor, or true, that if you played on a site you will now be subject to audits for years and years to come? It happened to Vegas dealers in the 80s. What will that do to the online industry?

There are no WMDs in Iraq. This war is not about bringing democracy to the Middle East and this Barney Frank bill will NOT help poker players.

If he wanted to repeal the bloody thing then the Act would be one sentence long, instead of 26 pages. Plus, the word repeal would show up somewhere. It doesn't. Not once. This act is an addendum, more legislation, not less.

And this is what people are calling better than nothing? I think not being whipped is better than being whipped, but that is just me.

Honestly, read the entire Act and imagine how each and every requirement will play out. It won't be good for us I can tell you that. Nothing politicians do is ever good for the little people. You are giving them more power over the industry and you know what they say about power.

What if instead of calling it a repeal of the UIGEA, Barney Frank had said, I propose a bill that will instill more regulations into the online gaming industry, limit entrance into the market for the smaller sites and is designed to specifically target poker players for more taxes. Would you all be for that? Because that is exactly what he has done. Only he is calling it something else. Imagine that. A politician pretending a bill is oh let's say A Safe Port Act and then actually making it about killing the online gaming industry. They don't do things like that, do they?

[Jack Bando]

Going paragraph by paragraph.

I really don't care, they won't for the most part, a lot. OH NOES! THE MAN KNOWS I WON $20 ON STARS LAST WEEK!!1!

The ones that actually file properly.

And you know the tax and rake will be way too high because?

I'd trust a US company that's been around for decades over Full Tilt. And you know how strict the license process is because?

They'd leave because? And if Harrah's had their own site, it'd probably be huge, with the word Harrah's plastered all over the WSOP TV shows.

I have no fear of the gov, they even said a few weeks ago that they can't audit all of the people they know are tax frauding.

A repeal would be nigh impossible, a new law (2046) making it legal to open sites here would be the opposite of UIEGA. New laws trump old laws if they conflict for the most part.

It's nice to see you again Lawman007/GaboonViper. Missed you.

[jafeather]

I am of the belief that this bill is good for us. But I am not a lawyer. Jeffiner says he is, but is obviously not an established, trusted poster.

Before we get all gung-ho and beg our representatives to vote this bill in (too late for myself and many more, I know) I do not think it is irresponsible to review it thoroughly.

Are any established posters on here an attorney, or close friends with one. It can't hurt to see what multiple people with considerable legal experience have to say about what this bill can do in the long run. It'd really suck for us to all be begging for something that hurts us. That's just being advisably cautious.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
a new law (2046) making it legal to open sites here

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it might give you a license if at least one state does not opt out of this regulation. That state will make it lawful to open a site. Getting a license doesn't create a place to legally operate.

[CaptVimes]

Losing fish because of taxes is ridiculous. Why would they have any tax liability? They are losing players. Any gambling income they would have to report would be marginal at best. 33% is not a realistic amount for tax either for most people. Probably 25%, including state taxes.

Just about everything we do in this country has some form of tax attached. Taxing online gambling will keep a few away granted, but most people could give a rip. Just like when someone walks up to a slot machine and plunks a dollar in. They are not thinking, 'oh crap, if I win I'm gonna get 1099'd and have to pay tax'. They are thinking 'one pull could win $1000'. Legitimizing the industry, which this bill could do, is far better than worrying about people paying extra tax here and there. Oh, and people who go to casino's should be paying tax anyway. Not saying that they do.

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]

And this is what people are calling better than nothing? I think not being whipped is better than being whipped, but that is just me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This bill isn't better than nothing. It's better than what's coming, UIEGA. UIEGA hasn't even started attacking deposits or the sites yet, that was mainly sabre rattling. We don't know how much damage UIEGA will do once activated, and Kyl wants Congress to do MORE besides UIEGA. Online gambling isn't dead yet, and Kyl doesn't like that.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Well from what I took from the bill is that it screws all of us in the State of Washington by blocking poker site access by using our IP address. Am I correct in this interpetation?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think you're correct in assuming it's the bill that screwed Washington state residents. It's the Washington state legislature that screwed you. This is a matter for the states. I recommend you work it out at that level.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
Losing fish because of taxes is ridiculous. Why would they have any tax liability? They are losing players. Any gambling income they would have to report would be marginal at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're not a pro, you're not taxed on your net winnings/losses, so yes, fish will get decimated by taxes because of our draconian tax code.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're not a pro, you're not taxed on your net winnings/losses, so yes, fish will get decimated by taxes because of our draconian tax code.

[/ QUOTE ]

The legislation doesn't say anything about reporting every nickel and dime every player wins. Besides that, it isn't the legislation's fault that current tax code is idiotic in regards to taxing of gambling income. It simply requires the following of existing law.

[Skallagrim]

I have read the bill in its entirety now, and I am amazed at all the panic and speculation. The bill is not player heaven, but it is far better than any other realistically attainable alternative.

You guys do realize that FTP already pays taxes in whatever place its incorporated in, dont you? New taxes on FTP (whiich is the only reason the rake would rise, the licensing fee would not do it) would only happen if FTP moved to the US - then whatever state it was in could tax its play. The Frank law does not mean every states gets to tax all play. States will be getting taxes from its in-state players, and any site that chooses to open in that state. To open the business in a state would reguire the state to not opt out, and otherwise subject the site to state laws and regulations regarding taxes and the operation of the business. - Note for permafrost: putting a business in a state and letting players from a state play are 2 completely seperate parts of the bill.

But us players are gonna have to be honest about our poker income...I know thats bad for some ... buts its hard to feel too sorry for ya.

I was wrong before about states having to pass new legislation to opt out, the Bill allows the governor of the state to make the decision. It is interesting to contemplate how that will play out....(subject of a later post) - the bill does seem to allow states to opt out of some things and not others...

WTO concerns are pretty well addressed, as any foreign site should be able to get a license pretty easily - the Bill leaves the details, of course, to "forthcoming regulations." All sites will have to comply with the crazy quilt of state opt out/in decisions, though, and that may be seen as over burdensome - but it is applied across the board, no domestic favoritism.

No question sportsbettors will get the shaft, sorry. The leagues have their own agenda and are too powerful to defy.

Basically, if the bill passes, FTP, Stars, and all the others will have to apply for a license. They will have to show their books, and their ability to stop underagers, fraud, money laundering, and identify problem gamblers. They will also have to agree to provide tax forms like 1099s for the US players.

But then they will perfectly legal in every state that does not opt out.

We better get the PPA to really build up the state organizations.

Skallagrim

[crzylgs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Losing fish because of taxes is ridiculous. Why would they have any tax liability? They are losing players. Any gambling income they would have to report would be marginal at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're not a pro, you're not taxed on your net winnings/losses, so yes, fish will get decimated by taxes because of our draconian tax code.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it... losing players actually benefit from not being able to net on a Sched. C, because the IRS doesn't allow C-filing gamblers to deduct losses in excess of their wins. They just report gross winnings as Other Income, and deduct losses. Losses in excess of winnings reduce their tax liability.

[Jeffiner99]

You write:

Losing fish because of taxes is ridiculous. Why would they have any tax liability? They are losing players. Any gambling income they would have to report would be marginal at best. 33% is not a realistic amount for tax either for most people. Probably 25%, including state taxes.

Just about everything we do in this country has some form of tax attached. Taxing online gambling will keep a few away granted, but most people could give a rip. Just like when someone walks up to a slot machine and plunks a dollar in. They are not thinking, 'oh crap, if I win I'm gonna get 1099'd and have to pay tax'. They are thinking 'one pull could win $1000'. Legitimizing the industry, which this bill could do, is far better than worrying about people paying extra tax here and there. Oh, and people who go to casino's should be paying tax anyway. Not saying that they do.

Try reading the bill you are so gung-ho about. In order to maintain a license a site must have "Appropriate mechanisms to ensure that all taxes relating to Internet gambling due to Federal and State governments and to Indian tribes from
persons engaged in Internet gambling are collected
at the time of any payment of any proceeds of Internet gambling."

At the time of any payment of any proceeds. Still think the fish are safe? They will be eaten alive by the rake and then the taxes. But then, hell, they never win so why worry? What about you? Are you a winning player? Are you gonna be so happy when they come for their 1/3 each time you cash out. And what if you lose it all back next month. They won't refund your taxes until the end of the year. Got enough of a bankroll to fund that?

And more importantly, why would you want to play online with those conditions?

Sorry I haven't been here long enough to be a trusted poster. I did go to Harvard law school if that makes any difference. I also know a lot about economics and how licensing affects an industry.

This bill is a Trojan horse. Once it kills the online industry it can be turned on the cash players. I mean, if we have the precedent out there that online players have to pay taxes each time they cash out, why not have that in live games too? So when you go to the cage, they take 1/3 or more of your winnings and if you save all your receipts you may be able to get some of it back at the end of the year. Of course, on the days you lose, they don't give it back, you have to wait until the end of the year. In the meantime your bankroll gets smaller and smaller.

Of course that might not happen. They might only kill the online players.

What makes you think that just because the US Govt gave something a license they can be trusted? The Mint went out of business, as did the Sands, the Desert Inn, the Landmark and many many other well known casinos. Just because they are a big name now doesn't mean you are protected. Just because they get a license doesn't mean they can be trusted. It just means they paid off the right guy. Don't you know how Washington works? Or do you believe the fairy tale that the US Gov't is your friend and is here to help you???????

When you hand over power to a politician he takes it and uses it to his advantage, not yours. This bill is not meant to help poker players. It is meant to collect as many taxes as possible from all the gamblers out there and to destroy the industry if it can.

People, haven't you gotten on to their game by now? They tell you they are protecting you so they can take your money and run.

Just ask yourself if you will want to play online where when you cash out they immediately take out taxes? If you said no, then I bet a lot of others will say no too. And if the people on here don't want to play online anymore then who the heck will be left?????

Here are some other provisions of the bill that are worrisome:

In order to have a license you will have to have "Appropriate safeguards to combat fraud and money laundering as may be prescribed by regulations issued by the Director or a designee of the Director."

Anyone know what that might mean? No of course not, because so far no regulations have been issued by the Director. But in legalese it means you are giving them a blank check to create any regulations they want and are giving them a blank check to enforce those regulations any way they want.

Also, a licensed casino will have to have "Appropriate safeguards to combat compulsive Internet gambling." What will that mean? Who knows. It can mean as much or as little as the US govt. wants it to. Perhaps they will determine that no one should gamble more than 100 dollars in one day or five hundred dollars in any one week? If so, you can't complain. You gave them power to do that. What if they determine that if you are found to have lost more than 5k a year you are a degenerate and must be sent to an institution to get your addiction under control? You can't complain, you gave them the mechanism to do that.

The most troublesome paragraph is that "In order to get a license a casino must ensure that it will follow: such other requirements as the Director may establish by regulation or order."
Boy, this Director guy sure gets a lot of power. The Poker Czar! And anything he says you cannot complain about because you gave him the power!

That is the problem with writing blank checks of power. In my opinion no legislation should be allowed to be passed that has this amount of wiggle room. You don't have a clue how any of this will be used. And once it is in place, you have to worry when the "other guy" gets in office because he may use it against you in a way "this guy" promised not to. Just because you trust the guy in office now to use this power wisely doesn't mean the next guy won't be a right-winged Christian Evangelist who thinks gambling is the devil's work and it all must be stopped. (I don't mean any offense to Christian Evangelists) If you vote for this bill you are giving them the power over you to do ANYTHING they want to.

Read the legislation. If you don't know what something means then you are not stupid. It just means that thing is not defined and can be used in any way they determine.

Try this. Read the document. Pretend you are a lawyer and you are telling your client how this can be used to hurt him. Think about it. Think about what the words mean, how they can be twisted, and what the worst possible outcome is.

Here it is:http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/21frank_004_xml_(2).pdf

I am trying to get you all to think like lawyers. If I were your personal lawyer I would tell you that you would be nuts to sign a contract like this. It doesn't say what its limitations are, which means it has no limitations. Are you sure you want to agree to that???

That one poster had it right. Be really careful what you wish for, you just may get it. You don't have to hire a lawyer to believe me. Just read it. Please please please folks, don't rush headlong into this thing without reading it carefully.
You don't want to vote for something that turns out to hurt you, do you?

P.S. In case you are all confused where my bias lies, I REALLY REALLY like playing poker online and don't want it to go away.

[Our House]

Are you guys serious? Fish won't care about open tax records within online gaming??

You are overestimating who most fish are and what they do. They're not like us. They don't use PokerTracker or log sessions. 95% of them believe they're winning players. They want to gamble off the books in a back alley card game (you know, so they can avoid paying taxes in the event that they make a big score). The last thing they want is the government on their backs and the last thing we want is for the fish to have to review their cashier histories.

I only know all of this because I dealt with LOTS of fish when running poker games for the past 13 years.

[LeapFrog]

[ QUOTE ]
They will be eaten alive by the rake...

[/ QUOTE ]

Can someone please show me where in the bill it mentions what sites will be charging for rake?

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The rake won't raise to some ridiculous amount, it's 10% live and 5% online (approx), some sites it's 6%, on one it's 0%.

If it goes over live amounts, more people would go play live, which means they'd have to lower the fees. Other countries take takes from sites, their rake isn't 50% or some scary number.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

The games will have to be competitive with B&M. Also, if the rake is set too high, there won't be any winning players. Without winning players, I think there won't be enough regulars to keep a lot of games going, which would doom the new sites.

Even B&M casinos know to drop the rake for six or fewer players. I think we'll be fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can online casinos be competitive if they take taxes out of your winnings every time you cash out and the B&M casinos don't? (See the bill, that is the requirement -- taxes must be taken out by the online operator at the time of any payouts.) Maybe the casinos will agree to drop to the rake to keep customers, but the US GOVT won't agree to drop the tax rate. Who is going to stick around? I sure won't play online anymore. Will you?
I am not talking about paying taxes at the end of the year, I am talking about them taking out taxes every time you cash out. Who will play online under those conditions?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Try reading the bill you are so gung-ho about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who are you Jeffiner? For a brand new poster, you sure are pushy and aggressive with us. I'm not saying anything about you, but if I were pro-ban, I'd join gambling sites and make posts like yours to dissuade the poker community from supporting the Frank bill. Did your pastor put you up to this? Or your GA group?

Seems you think Rep. Frank is trying to destroy online gambling. You think he's now in the pocket of the the religious right?

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I haven't been here long enough to be a trusted poster. I did go to Harvard law school if that makes any difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that where you learned to talk down to us?

[ QUOTE ]
I am trying to get you all to think like lawyers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess they don't teach people skills at Harvard? I guess lil' ol' me will have to get by with my MBA and my engineering degrees. Oh, the humiliation.

Anyway, you sound very agitated over this. You really think Frank is now anti-gambling? You think Ron Paul is cosponsoring anti-gambling legislation? If you think this is an innocent oversight, why not contact Frank's office and help him with the legislation? His office isn't all that far from Harvard. I've called them three or so times with different issues since UIGEA passed and I can assure you they answer the phone on the first or second ring, and they're always very friendly and helpful. His aides clearly think they are supporting Internet gambling rights. I guess Rep. Frank didn't tell them it's a "trojan horse"?

One more question. What type of bill (that could pass Congress) would you propose? If it's good, why not forward it to Frank and Ron Paul?

[AP0CALYP5E]

If the sites have to tax your cash outs, it's just a simple matter to subtract your initial deposit, then tax the remaining money since that remaining amount is your profit.

You deposit $500. You build up to $800 then cashout. The site just has to tax the difference($300) which is what you profited.

Fish won't be affected because they they deposit more than they cashout.

[SwordFish]

[ QUOTE ]
losing players actually benefit from not being able to net on a Sched. C, because the IRS doesn't allow C-filing gamblers to deduct losses in excess of their wins. They just report gross winnings as Other Income, and deduct losses. Losses in excess of winnings reduce their tax liability.

[/ QUOTE ]


Deducting gambling losses in excess of winnings is not allowed.


SF

[Mitch Evans]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They will be eaten alive by the rake...

[/ QUOTE ]

Can someone please show me where in the bill it mentions what sites will be charging for rake?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excise tax? The government is going to try and get their hands on as much as they can, and the players are going to have to foot the bill. I mean, don't they have to write the fine print at some point?

No big deal, let's forget about that. Once again, look at Harrahs, which will probably be the leading online poker room. They bought the wsop and doubled the fee (3% to 6%) on the 10K event. This year they have tripled (3% to 9%) the vig on most all of the other events. Do you really think they are going to give you awesome rake drops?

I think the way they handled the wsop says a lot about what a major corporation will do when they get their hands on something. Now the government... I suppose they are more fair than a major corporation?

[ike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They will be eaten alive by the rake...

[/ QUOTE ]

Can someone please show me where in the bill it mentions what sites will be charging for rake?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excise tax? The government is going to try and get their hands on as much as they can, and the players are going to have to foot the bill. I mean, don't they have to write the fine print at some point?

No big deal, let's forget about that. Once again, look at Harrahs, which will probably be the leading online poker room. They bought the wsop and doubled the fee (3% to 6%) on the 10K event. This year they have tripled (3% to 9%) the vig on most all of the other events. Do you really think they are going to give you awesome rake drops?

I think the way they handled the wsop says a lot about what a major corporation will do when they get their hands on something. Now the government... I suppose they are more fair than a major corporation?

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf do you want? your friendly neighborhood mom+pop online pokerroom?

[LeapFrog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They will be eaten alive by the rake...

[/ QUOTE ]

Can someone please show me where in the bill it mentions what sites will be charging for rake?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excise tax? The government is going to try and get their hands on as much as they can, and the players are going to have to foot the bill. I mean, don't they have to write the fine print at some point?

No big deal, let's forget about that. Once again, look at Harrahs, which will probably be the leading online poker room. They bought the wsop and doubled the fee (3% to 6%) on the 10K event. This year they have tripled (3% to 9%) the vig on most all of the other events. Do you really think they are going to give you awesome rake drops?

I think the way they handled the wsop says a lot about what a major corporation will do when they get their hands on something. Now the government... I suppose they are more fair than a major corporation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Talk about cart before the horse... Nothing wrong with a little speculation, but making pronouncements concerning the business models of online poker rooms that don't even exist yet is entering the realm of the absurd.

Online poker rooms have much lower overhead when compared to B&M. I'm not saying companies won't try the 'whatever the market will bear' approach but really you don't have to skim that much to make a tidy profit. In the event the bill becomes law the amount of competion in the US market will I'm sure also have an effect.

Too many strands in old duder's head here... we are just going to have to wait a bit for answers.

[Mitch Evans]

Looking at my cable bill, I'm being charged an FCC fee and a Licence fee. Looking at my cell bill, there are several surcharges listed. Why are these charges passed to the consumer? Maybe because every company does business that way? I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume gambling institutions will pass these fees onto their player base in some way.

Once the precedent is set, all sites will follow. The competitiveness will be in the form of incentives and not lower rakes, at least in my absurd way of thinking.

[Our House]

LF,

Nothing is 100%, but it is fairly safe to assume that the rake will be higher if online poker is US Gov't regulated. If B&M is any indication as to what is expected, the operators' taxes and licensing fees will be very high. Just like offline casinos, the online corporations would charge as much as they are legally allowed to charge.

Granted, online operating expenses are less than B&M. However, fierce competition has never been able to drive down prices in this industry. Rake isn't really a determining factor for most gamblers (BTW "most gamblers" does not include winners like us), and the sites/casinos know that. If you need a good example of online competition - take a look at World Poker Exchange. Rake Free; No Fish.

It's pretty much irrelevant what B&M operation costs are. If online expenses are more than they currently are for Party/Stars/FullTilt, the assumption that rates will be higher when expenses are higher is legit.

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
At the time of any payment of any proceeds. Still think the fish are safe? They will be eaten alive by the rake and then the taxes. But then, hell, they never win so why worry? What about you? Are you a winning player? Are you gonna be so happy when they come for their 1/3 each time you cash out. And what if you lose it all back next month. They won't refund your taxes until the end of the year. Got enough of a bankroll to fund that?

And more importantly, why would you want to play online with those conditions?

Sorry I haven't been here long enough to be a trusted poster. I did go to Harvard law school if that makes any difference. I also know a lot about economics and how licensing affects an industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get a grip.

I went to HLS too, and then practiced at a major firm for ten years, and I feel quite confident saying that what you seem to lack is the recognition that being a good lawyer requires more than paranoia. It requires understanding real world conditions an your client's objectives.

In this instance, the main objective is combating a law (UIGEA) which attempts to shut down all (non-horse racing, non-lottery) internet gambling completely. Yes, as with virtually any legislation, Frank's bill is not 100% unambiguous. But it's WAY better than the UIGEA. There won't be any fishes if there isn't any on-line poker. And even if there are taxes, etc., fishes won't care at all. You seem to believe that paying a few percent in taxes will drive away fishes, who by definition regularly lose much more than those few percent just by playing. Oh, and as for me, I pay my taxes, so I'm not too concerned about that aspect of it and if other winning players are and they choose to stop playing then so be it -- more fish for me.

One final thought: Did it occur to you that maybe Frank recognizes that the only possibility of getting this thing passed is to include the types of regulatory/licensing safeguards that the bill has? The "one-liner" repeal would be DOA.

I don't know a lot about Frank, but it seems that he's an intelligent, principled legislator. Maybe he actually believes that individual freedoms should be balanced by protections from the dangers that sometimes accompany those freedoms. Wacky.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They will be eaten alive by the rake...

[/ QUOTE ]

Can someone please show me where in the bill it mentions what sites will be charging for rake?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excise tax? The government is going to try and get their hands on as much as they can, and the players are going to have to foot the bill. I mean, don't they have to write the fine print at some point?

No big deal, let's forget about that. Once again, look at Harrahs, which will probably be the leading online poker room. They bought the wsop and doubled the fee (3% to 6%) on the 10K event. This year they have tripled (3% to 9%) the vig on most all of the other events. Do you really think they are going to give you awesome rake drops?

I think the way they handled the wsop says a lot about what a major corporation will do when they get their hands on something. Now the government... I suppose they are more fair than a major corporation?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's good for us to analyze what the bill will mean to us, but this sounds like you're taking the worst-case possibilites and assuming that's the likely outcome.

[Jack Bando]

Mitch, it's hard to compare the Harrah's WSOP to future online rooms is somewhat off, WSOP is basically it's own sector, so they can up their prices without too much worry of players going to the other guy. What other guy??? Aren't most B&M's rake about the same (with some exceptions?)?

And Engineer, it's a 99% chance Jeffiner's Gaboon, who disappeared a week before Jeff registered. Which is odd, since Gaboon signed up a month or two after our last doomsayer disappeared.

Can a mod or someone check somehow to see if GaboonViper=Jeffiner99=Lawman007?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
And Engineer, it's a 99% chance Jeffiner's Gaboon, who disappeared a week before Jeff registered. Which is odd, since Gaboon signed up a month or two after our last doomsayer disappeared.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And Engineer, it's a 99% chance Jeffiner's Gaboon, who disappeared a week before Jeff registered. Which is odd, since Gaboon signed up a month or two after our last doomsayer disappeared.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was Viper banned?

Regardless, Jeff makes a point which has been brought up previously... most people have no idea what regulation really means...

Things will never be the way they were before... does this result in a total doom and gloom scenario... no... but, it does mean that there will be a lot of unhappy people.

... and everyone should read the proposed bill, not just rely on other people's commentary about it.

[JPFisher55]

First, Rep. Frank's law talks about collection of taxes from those "engaged" in the wagering business. This is not the player, but the licensee.
Second, Skall is right, only sites operating in a state of the US would be subject to state taxes, not foreign sites.
Third, a governor has to certify the status of his or her state laws banning internet gaming for his state to have an exemption. Most states would have to pass some law banning all or some forms of internet gaming to get the exemption. It is not the sole decision of the governor. Sorry, Skall, I read this part of the bill differently than you.
Fourth, in practice, this bill will make it easier for unlicensed sites to access the US market than under the UIGEA. Ewallets will arise that service both licensed sites and unlicensed. US banks can service these ewallets because they will not be able to distinguish transactions involving licensed sites from unlicensed site that come from these ewallets. US banks like this provisions because they do not want to enforce the UIGEA. Thus, licensed operators will have to compete with unlicensed operators and you the player can decide which to give your business.
I would prefer no government intervention in online gaming, but this bill is better than the present uncertain situation.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And Engineer, it's a 99% chance Jeffiner's Gaboon, who disappeared a week before Jeff registered. Which is odd, since Gaboon signed up a month or two after our last doomsayer disappeared.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was Viper banned?

Regardless, Jeff makes a point which has been brought up previously... most people have no idea what regulation really means...

Things will never be the way they were before... does this result in a total doom and gloom scenario... no... but, it does mean that there will be a lot of unhappy people.

... and everyone should read the proposed bill, not just rely on other people's commentary about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know Viper's status. As for Jeffiner, he does bring up good points here and there. It's just that he moves from stating opinions to adopting an argumentative tone. If he can switch his tactics a bit, I'll personally be very happy to read his doomsday posts.

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
WTO concerns are pretty well addressed, as any foreign site should be able to get a license pretty easily - the Bill leaves the details, of course, to "forthcoming regulations." All sites will have to comply with the crazy quilt of state opt out/in decisions, though, and that may be seen as over burdensome - but it is applied across the board, no domestic favoritism.

No question sportsbettors will get the shaft, sorry. The leagues have their own agenda and are too powerful to defy.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

The WTO issue is not addressed at all. The WTO found that the US made commitments to Antigua in the gambling sector, that Antiguan gaming operators should be allowed to access the US market.

The WTO split the world up into remote gaming and non-remote gaming, not sports, poker, casino, lotteries, and horse racing.

The WTO views the US as one country. The US can't say Antigua you can offer blackjack in NY but not in Maryland and be compliant. The US can't say Antigua you can offer poker and casino, but not sports because the leagues said you can't and be compliant. Under the present decision, Antiguan operators are supposed to be allowed to offer ALL forms of remote gaming in ALL 50 states.

Forcing Antiguan companies to open US subsidiaries to offer gaming, apply for 50 different licenses, and subject themselves to 50 different regulatory bodies is not the same as allowing licensed Antiguan operators access to the US market.

For those of you who are going to come in here and say, "Well the US doesn't care about what the WTO says...etc. etc." I have no argument. If you are right and the US doesn't care, none of it matters. I will no go back and forth with, "They need to comply vs. The US doesn't give a @#$%."

I think the US will ultimately have to comply with the decision. Representative Frank mentioned the need to comply with the US's commitments when he introduced this bill. Other members of Congress believe the US needs to comply or it could lead to other WTO members not complying when they have decisions that go against them. (The ranking republican on the foreign relations committee has gone to the trouble of writing a letter, http://www.antiguawto.com/LettertoUSTR.pdf) The US has never failed to comply with an adverse decision in the WTO, the US gets more out of the WTO than any other country.

I share Representative Frank's disdain for the UIGEA, and I would have preferred a straight up repeal, this doesn't repeal anything. The UIGEA is still there and will still be a burden on the banks and other finincial service providers.

Antigua still has the intellectual property remedy on its side and affected players are starting to take notice. I can tell you that a large non-gaming entity, that would be affected by the lifting of IP protections, has already reached out to Antigua's team. They are concerned. A green light to violate the TRIPS agreement is a significant tool.

The US should negotiate with Antigua in good faith. I am sure Antigua would be willing to not take players from Utah as part of a settlement because they have NO gambling there. What they won't accept is a state saying, we have lotteries, horses, and card rooms here, but you are not welcome. If they have any gambling at all, Antigua will expect full access, no more artificial distinctions between types of wagering.

The WTO case should get to the remedy phase by the summer or early fall. Once that happens I think you will see more members of Congress realize that it's real. Traditionally most trade matters don't get fixed until all appeals have been exhausted. The US has until May 22 to appeal the Compliance Panel decision that said they have done nothing to comply. If they bring it, it shouldn't take more than 90 days.

[TheEngineer]

Jay,

We're glad you post here to share your opinions. Thanks.

I think you're well intentioned, but perhaps you aren't fully aware of the realities of U.S. politics.

First of all, the Americans here are annoyed by UIGEA, but we're still proud, loyal Americans. The static you're hearing from us is genuine; we want legal gambling, but even we don't wish to be pushed around by the WTO or by Antigua. If we feel this way, you can imagine the response you'd get from anti-gambling folks. That's the point we're trying to make....this argument works well overseas, but it doesn't really resonate with the American people.

Now, I've written to my congressman and senators in terms of respecting the WTO decision because it's correct, but not in terms of following it because we were ordered to do so. After all, we merely have to disallow interstate Internet horse betting to be compliant. Not a high hurdle, really.

[ QUOTE ]
The WTO views the US as one country

[/ QUOTE ]

For better or worse, we don't. We view the U.S. as what the initials stand for...United States. Americans really believe this.

[ QUOTE ]
Antigua still has the intellectual property remedy on its side and affected players are starting to take notice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this "threat" will coerce any legislation. It will attract attention, at least.

[ QUOTE ]
Antigua will expect full access, no more artificial distinctions between types of wagering

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't see Americans responding well to this. The decision is a great moral lever....hopefully we'll choose to do the right thing.

Seriously, I hope we'll be able to pursuade the U.S. to comply. Antigua should fight hard in the WTO, and I support that.

You have a good site and, with some adjustments to your business model, this is a good opportunity for you.

[JPFisher55]

Jay, I have a question. Are you stating that if a state in the US has some form of gambling, casino, horse race track or lottery, then it must allow a foreign online gaming operator access to its citizens even though that foreign online gaming operator does not have an available federal license? Rep. Frank's bill would only require a federal license and states could opt out, but could not require a separate license.
I thought that the WTO decision required the US to treat domestic and foreign online gaming operators the same. I did not read it to mean that the US had to treat all online operators the same as on site operators.

[jafeather]

[ QUOTE ]
How many warships does Antigua have, exactly?

Royal Antigua and Barbuda Defence Force personnel
Headquarters 8
Battalion 77
Service and Support 71
Volunteer 30
Coast Guard 29
Total 215 personnel
Active personnel: 185
Reserve personnel: 30
Coast Guard: consists of four vessels

Uh oh...when do we surrender?

[/ QUOTE ]

Engineer....c'mon, man. I very much appreciate everything you do here. You are working harder for our right to gaming than anyone else in these forums.

That being said, how can you tell Jeffiner to watch his tone, and then fire back at Jay with something like this? This "We're bigger, that's why!" crap is exactly why the US is hated by so many across the world.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
how can you tell Jeffiner to watch his tone, and then fire back at Jay with something like this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously Eng, come on, stick to what's working for you... your last post didn't.

ps.. Jay, I thought Antigua ruled out using IP as a weapon, has that position changed?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer....c'mon, man. I very much appreciate everything you do here. You are working harder for our right to gaming than anyone else in these forums.

That being said, how can you tell Jeffiner to watch his tone, and then fire back at Jay with something like this? This "We're bigger, that's why!" crap is exactly why the US is hated by so many across the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a perjorative at Jay. I like Jay and we exchanged some PMs not long ago. I wasn't firing back at him, really. I was sharing with him reality of U.S. public opinion and the reality of going to Congress with demands on our sovereignty. The WTO is a great MORAL lever....we should do what's right. I fully support Antigua's efforts with the WTO and I've said so. However, telling us that states' rights are unimportant will alienate many of our supporters, I think. And, when making statements about what Antigua is "willing to accept", the average American will think in terms of Antigua being a fun place to visit, but not as one to dictate laws to us. After all, we joined the WTO for free trade reasons, which is perceived as trade of goods to 99% of Americans.

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
Jay,

We're glad you post here to share your opinions. Thanks.

I think you're well intentioned, but perhaps you aren't fully aware of the realities of U.S. politics.

First of all, the Americans here are annoyed by UIGEA, but we're still proud, loyal Americans. The static you're hearing from us is genuine; we want legal gambling, but even we don't wish to be pushed around by the WTO or by, LOL, Antigua. If we feel this way, you can imagine the response you'd get from anti-gambling folks. That's the point we're trying to make....this argument doesn't resonate well with the American people.

Now, I've written to my congressman and senators in terms of respecting the WTO decision because it's correct, but not in terms of following it because we were ordered to do so. After all, we merely have to disallow interstate Internet horse betting to be compliant. Not a high hurdle, really.

[ QUOTE ]
The WTO views the US as one country

[/ QUOTE ]

So. We view the U.S. as what the initials stand for...United States. Americans really believe this.

[ QUOTE ]
Antigua still has the intellectual property remedy on its side and affected players are starting to take notice.

[/ QUOTE ]

America really won't be willing to be blackmailed here. I don't think this "threat" will coerce any legislation.

[ QUOTE ]
The WTO case should get to the remedy phase by the summer or early fall. Once that happens I think you will see more members of Congress realize that it's real.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were to get this post printed in a number of American newspapers, approval of legalization would plummet. This would be seen as an affront to our sovereignty and to our federal system of government.

I really think you should consider returning to discussions based on following the WTO decision because of U.S. commitments and because it's the right thing to do. Arguing that we "have" to follow the decision will alienate even us. Either that, or the WTO and Antigua had better get to raising a military.

[ QUOTE ]
Antigua will expect full access, no more artificial distinctions between types of wagering

[/ QUOTE ]

How many warships does Antigua have, exactly?

Royal Antigua and Barbuda Defence Force personnel
Headquarters 8
Battalion 77
Service and Support 71
Volunteer 30
Coast Guard 29
Total 215 personnel
Active personnel: 185
Reserve personnel: 30
Coast Guard: consists of four vessels

Uh oh...when do we surrender?

Seriously, I hope you'll consider sticking to trying to politely pursuade the U.S. into compliance. Antigua should fight hard in the WTO, but it would be a huge political mistake, I think, for any of us to claim the U.S. "has" to do anything.

You have a good site and, with some adjustments to your business model, this is a good opportunity for you.

[/ QUOTE ]


Engineer, Engineer, Engineer,

That's almost like an "America, love it or leave it post."

The WTO agreements are set up to settle matters of international commerce like gentlemen, using the dispute settlement process, not with guns. I once said to the WTO lawyer, "Why doesn't Antigua throw the US out of the Base they have down there and give it to the Iranians if they don't comply?" He correctly responded that the whole point of the WTO system was to avoid such actions.

The US lost. They may not like it but they lost the Antigua-Gaming case. The US does have to make a decision whetehr they want to be part of the WTO or not. If they do wish to be part of it, they can not pick and choose which decisions they will follow. They can't seriously expect China or others to abide by negative decsions if they do not. In a sense the enitre WTO process goes against national sovereignty for all who participate, everyone gives up something to be part of it. Up until now the US has chosen to participate, they have also encouraged others to participate.

Eliminating remote horse racing alone would not bring the US into compliance. They would have to eliminate all remote wagering. I don't think they will ever do the former let alone the latter.

The only hammer Antigua has is asking for permission to violate the TRIPS treaty on intellectual property. Antigua also has the benefit of the international trade community watching this case. It doesn't look good when one of the smallest members ever to bring a case against the largest wins and the out come is ignored by the loser.

It's not about blackmail, it's about Antigua reaping the benefits of the process it went through and using all of the tools available to it. Antigua is not going to throw the US off the base they have down there, and I assume the US is not going to invade over this issue. If you want to debate whether or not the US should subject themself to the WTO at all, that is a legitimate debate that will find advocates on both sides.

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
Jay, I have a question. Are you stating that if a state in the US has some form of gambling, casino, horse race track or lottery, then it must allow a foreign online gaming operator access to its citizens even though that foreign online gaming operator does not have an available federal license? Rep. Frank's bill would only require a federal license and states could opt out, but could not require a separate license.
I thought that the WTO decision required the US to treat domestic and foreign online gaming operators the same. I did not read it to mean that the US had to treat all online operators the same as on site operators.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the decision says that the US needs to allow Antiguan operators access to the US market to offer remote gaming, all forms. The issue of treating domestic and foreign the same arose in the sub-argument about whether or not the US could opt out of its commitments on moral grounds.

If remote gaming is offered anywhere in the US, the moral argument fails, and the primary decision prevails, Antiguan operators should have access to the entire US market.

What I am saying is that as long as Antigua has that decision in their favor, they will not as part of a settlement agree to step aside in certain states while they offer other forms of gaming. I am certain Antigua would be willing as part of a settlement not offer any gaming in Utah and Hawaii since they don't offer any gambling at all.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how can you tell Jeffiner to watch his tone, and then fire back at Jay with something like this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously Eng, come on, stick to what's working for you... your last post didn't.

ps.. Jay, I thought Antigua ruled out using IP as a weapon, has that position changed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. Again, I like and respect Jay, so it's not a negative at him. However, it didn't come across right so I edited it before my time elapsed.

Thanks.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer, Engineer, Engineer,

That's almost like an "America, love it or leave it post."

The WTO agreements are set up to settle matters of international commerce like gentlemen, using the dispute settlement process, not with guns. I once said to the WTO lawyer, "Why doesn't Antigua throw the US out of the Base they have down there and give it to the Iranians if they don't comply?" He correctly responded that the whole point of the WTO system was to avoid such actions.

The US lost. They may not like it but they lost the Antigua-Gaming case. The US does have to make a decision whetehr they want to be part of the WTO or not. If they do wish to be part of it, they can not pick and choose which decisions they will follow. They can't seriously expect China or others to abide by negative decsions if they do not. In a sense the enitre WTO process goes against national sovereignty for all who participate, everyone gives up something to be part of it. Up until now the US has chosen to participate, they have also encouraged others to participate.

Eliminating remote horse racing alone would not bring the US into compliance. They would have to eliminate all remote wagering. I don't think they will ever do the former let alone the latter.

The only hammer Antigua has is asking for permission to violate the TRIPS treaty on intellectual property. Antigua also has the benefit of the international trade community watching this case. It doesn't look good when one of the smallest members ever to bring a case against the largest wins and the out come is ignored by the loser.

It's not about blackmail, it's about Antigua reaping the benefits of the process it went through and using all of the tools available to it. Antigua is not going to throw the US off the base they have down there, and I assume the US is not going to invade over this issue. If you want to debate whether or not the US should subject themself to the WTO at all, that is a legitimate debate that will find advocates on both sides.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jay,

That reply of mine came across much more harshly than I inteded for it to. I just edited it, but you got in the reply before I hit the "submit " button. Anyway, my goal was to share with you the political aspects of making various types of arguments that play well overseas but not in America.

The WTO simply isn't seen as a body with authority to dictate American gambling laws to the majority of Americans. I think it's a good moral lever, of course. We should keep our commitments, but the U.S. really won't pass legislation legalizing all sports betting because the WTO said to. I'm concerned that we'll run into problems with the Frank bill if Antigua says it pushes us further out of compliance, as the remedy requires the U.S. to ban all online gambling.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
The WTO simply isn't seen as a body with authority to dictate American gambling laws to the majority of Americans. I think it's a good moral lever, of course. We should keep our commitments, but the U.S. really won't pass legislation legalizing all sports betting because the WTO said to. I'm concerned that we'll run into problems with the Frank bill if Antigua says it pushes us further out of compliance, as the remedy requires the U.S. to ban all online gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eng, whats the real point?... the majority of americans have no clue what the WTO is, or that any of these things that we care about are even going on...

Are you expecting that HR2046 is going to be voted on without significant alteration?

Are you expecting that the US will ignore the WTO on this, and ultimately make the WTO ineffective?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Eng, whats the real point?... the majority of americans have no clue what the WTO is, or that any of these things that we care about are even going on...

Are you expecting that HR2046 is going to be voted on without significant alteration?

Are you expecting that the US will ignore the WTO on this, and ultimately make the WTO ineffective?


[/ QUOTE ]

I hope the WTO ruling works for us.

I'm not expecting the U.S. to force Utah to legalize online sports betting to comply with the WTO.

I hope the issues with the Frank bill relative to the WTO decision don't doom it. I'd hope Antigua would welcome it.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how can you tell Jeffiner to watch his tone, and then fire back at Jay with something like this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously Eng, come on, stick to what's working for you... your last post didn't.

ps.. Jay, I thought Antigua ruled out using IP as a weapon, has that position changed?

[/ QUOTE ]

My bad on the post to Jay.

On the plus side, I ran 25.68 BB/100 while playing two $15/$30 limit 6-max tables while dialoguing here (found a couple of live ones). /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how can you tell Jeffiner to watch his tone, and then fire back at Jay with something like this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously Eng, come on, stick to what's working for you... your last post didn't.

ps.. Jay, I thought Antigua ruled out using IP as a weapon, has that position changed?

[/ QUOTE ]

My bad on the post to Jay.

On the plus side, I ran 25.68 BB/100 while playing two $15/$30 limit 6-max tables while dialoguing here (found a couple of live ones). /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't you reply back to this an hour ago...

Well done on the poker.. maybe its a sign! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

fwiw, time to bumpity bump your action thread... whats the plan for the week?...

[Skallagrim]

As I understand the WTO decision, just a flat out repeal of the UIGEA would not have brought the US into compliance either.

Mr. Cohen, I like you and wish you well, but I think your being a bit overboard on the WTO ruling. I did not read it as "any remote gaming, therefore all remote gaming." I read it as basically sayiing "you allow some domestic remote gaming (horses - lotto - instate casino linked jackpots, etc...), you cannot prevent companies from outside the US from offering the same service." On this score, if the congress had banned all remote gaming except on horses and let Antigua also offer betting on horses to americans, compliance would have been found, I believe. Perhaps Mr. Cohen is aware of some WTO ruling that says explicitly any remote gambling means must allow all kinds of remote gambling? How does that square with things like age restrictions, which are different in different countries? What would prevent a country from saying POKER is OK (game of skill and all) but all other online gaming is illegal?

I will be honest and say I am also unaware of WTO attitudes towards different rules for different US states. I am guessing that as long as there is no preferential treatment for domestic businesses, individual state rules would be OK.
I guess this because the US already allows each state to have different insurance laws, for example, and we havent been called to the WTO by foreign insurance companies.

And to JP, I was a little drunk last night when I read the bill /images/graemlins/wink.gif, so maybe I missed the part about certifying as opposed to deciding when it comes to the governor's opt out/in decision. My guess from past interaction with you is you are right /images/graemlins/smile.gif. Either way, except for the poor folks in WA and LA, opting out will require affirmative state action, and thats good for us because it means we will have the opportunity to fight against opting out, and no action = opting in.

Again I sympathize with the sports bettors, but overall this bill will, IMHO, effectively open legal poker in the US. We then can trust free market competition to keep fees low.

And while regs might require witholding of taxes, I doubt it. That requires too much paperwork for everyone, including the Feds. But it is pretty easy to simply require the sites to issue summaries for their players every year along the lines of "last year X deposited 1500, withdrew 2500 and has 500 still in account." You then report this on your taxes just like a 1099 form. Not that big of a deal if you are already honest about your taxes and certaily not something that will scare the fishes.

And finally, paranoia about the US government is usually not a bad thing. But it is in this case if it leads you to not support this bill ... what secret cabal in the named agency is going to issue regs for a law designed to allow online gaming that effectively prevents any site from seeking the US license? Obviously counter productive since that would mean US players will continue to play at only unlicensed sites.

SUPPORT THE BILL!

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't you reply back to this an hour ago...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but I thought we were due for a lighter reply.

[ QUOTE ]
Well done on the poker.. maybe its a sign! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks! Maybe I should have had both eyes on this site when I typed out my reply to Jay, though.

Jay is pretty clear. He wants us to oppose HR 2046 and hold out for something with no opt-outs for states or sports leagues. I respect his opinion, but I don't think we can all splinter over differences. There are simply too few of us. If we all split up and don't get behind HR 2046, our opponents will claim there is no support for online gambling in America. Hopefully we'll all get behind this one.



[/ QUOTE ] fwiw, time to bumpity bump your action thread... whats the plan for the week?...

[/ QUOTE ]

True. I may start yet another one, specifically to support HR 2046...that way it will be easier to sticky to the other forums. I'll decide sometime today.

Cheers.

[counthomer]

This is by far the most interesting thread I have seen in this section for ages, not because of the subject matter but because of what has been revealed.

Allow me to summarise from my perspective.

Firstly, Frank's bill has effectively exposed the divergence between the desires of the operators (as exemplified by Jay Cohen) and the desires of the general poker community (somewhat represented by us, the 2 + 2er). Jay was more than happy to sing from the rooftops with the 2 + 2ers when the WTO decision was the life raft, but now there is something else on the horizon he has somewhat been overtaken by events. Unable to explicitly come out and criticise a bill that would undoubtedly be bad for his company, he is forced to try and use the WTO case to beat it into a form which is more palatable for him. His preference is clear:

1) Implementation of WTO ruling (ideally only for Antigua)
2) The current uneasy truce
3) A level playing field with no US business
4) The Frank bill in its current form

Jay knows that any licencing structure will almost certainly be the death knell for WSEX (as there is zero prospect of him getting licence in any time frame that will permit him to compete), so he is forced into a situation where he has to continue to espouse the WTO case while simultaneously subtly criticising the Frank bill. Unfortunately he cannot be aggressively critical on these forums, as if he goes to far, he risks incurring the anger of the poker community, which would undermine the entire point of his presence here.

Now that is rather critical of Jay (whom I have no issue with - I even use his company), but for Jay you can pretty much read any poker site owner. The divergence goes way beyond WSEX - to my knowledge (and please correct me if I am wrong), all of the operators have been deafeningly silent on the Frank bill (indeed I know people in my company have been told not to comment), simply because they are now between a rock and hard place. The community (operators, players, supporters and all) need to work together, and the sites know this, so they cannot be seen to be against something that is potentially positive for the players but not for them.

Secondly, Frank's bill probably exposes the myth that Antigua has a real weapon in the form of IP sanctions, which has been banded about on these forums ad nauseum. Simply put (and I am sure that the Antiguans know this), the last thing they want is to force us (the US) to push the button either way (that meaning doing something to make the moral exemption valid, or something like the Frank bill which would almost certainly negate any benefits in being based offshore). In order to protect their economy, they must get access without having the US suck up their companies. The licencing provisions in the Frank bill are almost certainly designed to achieve this. All the operators know that US companies will be first in the queue for these licences, and if an MGM.com gets a licence six months earlier than Antiguapoker.com (or even a Full Tilt) it is game over for the latter and anybody else.

Furthermore, we are now seeing the exposure of some of the differences in the poker community. In one group we have the people who see the UIGEA as a freedom issue, and are unhappy with any partial solution which they feel does not go far enough on matters of personal freedom. We have another group who see a UIGEA 'perfect storm' coming and are happy to jump onto any offer which looks like safety. There is a further group who have legitimate concerns on the financial implications of the bill for any company. I think the UK went down the road of legalising gaming, and thus far they have been extremely unsuccessful in attracting the big companies, mainly due to tax reasons. Finally we have those who are unsure, or who have specific legal concerns.

And what of the PPA? The PPA knows it needs the backing of the sites. It is therefore in the unenviable position of being unable to push 100% for Frank without alienating its biggest backers. This is unfortunate as I believe the PPA was poised to make a big difference (in the long run). Time will tell how these pieces fit together.

It feels to me like Frank's bill has had a fracturing effect, just at the time we needed total solidarity. It may be that if the UIGEA regulations (if not in their specific wording, then in how the banks react to their intent) are bad, they may have a galvanising effect and make everyone push in the right direction. I hope not, as that means the short term is going to be very tough. I have a lot of time for the efforts of Frank, but when my poker freedoms are being removed on a weekly basis I find it disheartening when efforts such as this cannot get the full backing of the community due to the individual interests of parties.

I'm therefore undecided on the bill. Part of me wants to support anything that will let me play online in future, but another part of me says that there are better long term solutions, and in the short/medium term there are products coming that will make all this debate moot.

At least it has thrown a bit of light on the subtle shilling by site reps on these forums. Anyway, just my 2c - I'm off to prepare for the Sunday Million. Long live online poker /images/graemlins/cool.gif

P.s Better anything than the rubbish proposed by Tuff_Fish!

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eng, whats the real point?... the majority of americans have no clue what the WTO is, or that any of these things that we care about are even going on...

Are you expecting that HR2046 is going to be voted on without significant alteration?

Are you expecting that the US will ignore the WTO on this, and ultimately make the WTO ineffective?


[/ QUOTE ]

I hope the WTO ruling works for us.

I'm not expecting the U.S. to force Utah to legalize online sports betting to comply with the WTO.

I hope the issues with the Frank bill relative to the WTO decision don't doom it. I'd hope Antigua would welcome it.

[/ QUOTE ]


No offense taken here.

Antigua will welcome this bill as a starting point. But I don't see how they can welcome this bill as is. It misses the WTO decision by miles.

You are saying Antigua should accept it because this is as good as it will get. Well, for Antigua, this is no better than yesterday. Yesterday, the day before, and the year before many people didn't believe Antigua had any shot. There were many who didn't think they could even win the case. Well they did win, and they shouldn't stand down just because what they won may not be politically popular in Washington.

==================

To answer the other point about what the WTO found to be non-compliant, they found three federal laws out of compliance with the US's commitments under the GATS. The Wire Act, the Illegal Gaming Business Act, and the Travel Act.

The WTO ruled the US has made commitments in the sector. They spent a lot of time on "likeness." They ultimately split the world into remote gaming and non-remote gaming.

The issue of equal treatment arose when the US tried to raise a moral defense late in the game. That moral defense failed. The Appellate Body said that while a country was entitled to have such laws to protect public morals, they have to meet the second prong of the defense that those same laws are enforced against domestic providers of similar services. The Appellate Body decision only mentioned the horse racing as an example of non-equal treatment, the latest Compliance Panel report mentions others.

While the US state laws the Antiguans brought up were thrown out for lack of supporting evidence, it would be a slam dunk to bring a fresh case if they had to, the hard part is done. The case law is clear now. The US has made commitments and their moral defense fails because of the presence of other remote gaming in the country.

==================
While I saw the quote about not using the IP retaliation, I know that has not been ruled out yet. One thing I learned a long time ago is the media makes a lot of mistakes and you can't believe everything you read.

===================

I believe once Antigua gets to the remedy phase, there will be serious settlement talks that allow Antigua to have their industry, and allow the WTO to still mean something.

[Ace0fSpades]

I havn't really had the time to read the entire bill that has been proposed, is there any mention of pokertracker or pokerace hud? Also, who thinks these programs will be allowed with these new generation poker sites?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
No offense taken here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. None was intended.

Thanks for sharing your opinion on how the U.S. should react to the WTO decision. I, for one, would be very happy if the end result was a decision by the U.S. to fully comply with the ruling.

In the mean time, let's all continue to support HR 2046. If it looks like there's no support for online gambling rights, our enemies will declare victory. If that happens, we know how the U.S. will resolve the WTO issue, and it won't involve forcing gambling on Utah and Hawaii. Rather, it will be the Goodlatte 5 year prison sentence for playing poker online (his Wire Act expansion proposal). Let's all keep the pressure on. Support HR 2046. Thanks!

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I havn't really had the time to read the entire bill that has been proposed, is there any mention of pokertracker or pokerace hud? Also, who thinks these programs will be allowed with these new generation poker sites?

[/ QUOTE ]

No mention of computer programs at all (TuffFish didn't write it, apparently. /images/graemlins/grin.gif).

Computer aids generally aren't permitted in the U.S. for aiding in making wagering decisions (in B&M casinos), but I have no prediction on what will happen online. It may be left up to the site operator.

[Sniper]

Eng, fwiw, imo, PokerTracker wins as a tax management tool... its not going anywhere... and should be required! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[LeapFrog]

Our House, Mitch, all this got buried about 80 posts back while I was sleeping.

[ QUOTE ]

Nothing is 100%, but it is fairly safe to assume that the rake will be higher if online poker is US Gov't regulated.


[/ QUOTE ]

Quite possibly true, but how bad will it be. Will it be brutal? That seemed to be the implication in posts by Mitch and others.

[ QUOTE ]

No big deal, let's forget about that. Once again, look at Harrahs, which will probably be the leading online poker room. They bought the wsop and doubled the fee (3% to 6%) on the 10K event. This year they have tripled (3% to 9%) the vig on most all of the other events. Do you really think they are going to give you awesome rake drops?


[/ QUOTE ]

As for this:

[ QUOTE ]

Looking at my cable bill, I'm being charged an FCC fee and a Licence fee. Looking at my cell bill, there are several surcharges listed. Why are these charges passed to the consumer? Maybe because every company does business that way? I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume gambling institutions will pass these fees onto their player base in some way.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here you are talking about companies that have HUGE infrastructure costs(setup and maintenance) and assorted licensing fees,etc. Of course they will charge as much as they possibly can, they are quite anxious to recoup those 'losses'. Comparing the business model of a online poker room to the that of a telecommunications company is 'absurd' (lol, just joking here).

At least in terms of cable they have a virtual monopoly in most areas, they can charge whatever they pretty much feel like.

[ QUOTE ]

Once the precedent is set, all sites will follow. The competitiveness will be in the form of incentives and not lower rakes, at least in my absurd way of thinking.


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem I have with these posts is you are speaking in absolutes regarding the business models of online rooms that do not yet exist.

Perhaps some enterprising young whippersnapper will setup his own poker room and offer rakeback and only become a multimillionaire in year as opposed to a few months /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I think a little creative marketing could easily educate the 'fish' concerning rakeback/rake. Many people are willing to jump to a new credit card that offers a whopping 1% cash back. The WSEX example I think is a poor one as basically no one outside of 2+2 knows they exist and it isn't easy to move money to/from the site.

edit: sigh, speeled mitch's name wrong

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
That reply of mine came across much more harshly than I inteded for it to. I just edited it, but you got in the reply before I hit the "submit " button. Anyway, my goal was to share with you the political aspects of making various types of arguments that play well overseas but not in America.

[/ QUOTE ]

Engineer, I love what you're doing to motivate the troops to help overturn the effects of UIGEA. But in response to your recent line of argument I say "speak for yourself." Just because the current administration's approach is to flip the bird to the rest of the world and do whatever the hell they want, doesn't mean all Americans think we have no responsibility to live up to our international obligations. Even if those obligations are to countries that cannot engage us in military conflict.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That reply of mine came across much more harshly than I inteded for it to. I just edited it, but you got in the reply before I hit the "submit " button. Anyway, my goal was to share with you the political aspects of making various types of arguments that play well overseas but not in America.

[/ QUOTE ]

Engineer, I love what you're doing to motivate the troops to help overturn the effects of UIGEA. But in response to your recent line of argument I say "speak for yourself." Just because the current administration's approach is to flip the bird to the rest of the world and do whatever the hell they want, doesn't mean all Americans think we have no responsibility to live up to our international obligations. Even if those obligations are to countries that cannot engage us in military conflict.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't even speaking for myself. Like I said, I hope Antigua wins and the U.S. chooses to accept the WTO's ruling. What I am saying is that it may not be a good idea for us to write to our congressmen (especially the Republican ones) with demands that we open Utah to sports betting because "Antigua won't accept anything less".

The WTO is a great lever for us. The irony here is that, if we make good progress with HR 2046, the prospects of Antigua getting a favorable response from this is reasonably good. If HR 2046 falls flat and no one calls or writes, the odds of Antigua getting a favorable response would likely be lower, as the last votes would be for HR 4411, UIGEA, and against HR 2046. As I noted earlier, the U.S. can meet WTO obligations by either opening up the entire U.S. or by shutting down the entire U.S. I think some overestimate the power of the horse lobby.

Anwyay, we're in a good position now. Let's use all of this to our benefit.

[whangarei]

Very interesting post, count. You seem to be saying that existing poker sites are not thrilled by Frank's bill. What is the evidence for this? Why is that? Will it be difficult for a site like Stars to get a license in the U.S.? I can see the difficulty in Jay getting a license, as much as I would like for him to have one if the bill passes.

[ QUOTE ]
And what of the PPA? The PPA knows it needs the backing of the sites. It is therefore in the unenviable position of being unable to push 100% for Frank without alienating its biggest backers. This is unfortunate as I believe the PPA was poised to make a big difference (in the long run). Time will tell how these pieces fit together.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the looks of the PPA website it sure looks like they are 100% behind Frank's proposal. Do you know something different?

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
The WSEX example I think is a poor one as basically no one outside of 2+2 knows they exist and it isn't easy to move money to/from the site.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not just WPX, it's many different poker venues. I know this because I ran games and had promotions for many years.

In my clubs and home games, we've tried several different promotions and many of them included lowering the rake. All that did was succeed in attracting more winning players. The fish didn't care if the rake was $10 a hand. All they ever wanted was action games that weren't full of tight-asses.

This fish philosophy has a universal application. It applies to all fish everywhere. And, the reason is because fish think emotionally...not logically...when they play poker.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The WSEX example I think is a poor one as basically no one outside of 2+2 knows they exist and it isn't easy to move money to/from the site.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not just WPX, it's many different poker venues. I know this because I ran games and had promotions for many years.

In my clubs and home games, we've tried several different promotions and many of them included lowering the rake. All that did was succeed in attracting more winning players. The fish didn't care if the rake was $10 a hand. All they ever wanted was action games that weren't full of tight-asses.

This fish philosophy has a universal application. It applies to all fish everywhere. And, the reason is because fish think emotionally...not logically...when they play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. They notice when they lose long-term, but they blame "doom switches" and other foolishness. Still, if they lose money (online) all the time due to the rake, many won't come back.

[LeapFrog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The WSEX example I think is a poor one as basically no one outside of 2+2 knows they exist and it isn't easy to move money to/from the site.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not just WPX, it's many different poker venues. I know this because I ran games and had promotions for many years.

In my clubs and home games, we've tried several different promotions and many of them included lowering the rake. All that did was succeed in attracting more winning players. The fish didn't care if the rake was $10 a hand. All they ever wanted was action games that weren't full of tight-asses.

This fish philosophy has a universal application. It applies to all fish everywhere. And, the reason is because fish think emotionally...not logically...when they play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meant WPX as opposed to WSEX -- anyway, I think this is where the creative marketing comes in to play. Put it in actual dollar values, ie something like 'with our 30% rakeback the average player will receive an extra $25 dollars each month!!! For our high rollers this can be hundreds or even thousands!' (or whatever) -- everyone likes 'free money' even fish.

[JPFisher55]

Jay, thx for your answer. I agree that the horse racing issue raised in the appellate report is just one example of a few discriminatory laws against offshore online gaming providers. I can only hope that the US decides to honor the WTO decision by repealing the 3 acts it found in violation and the UIGEA.
In the meantime, Rep. Frank's bill is better than nothing. At least it takes the pressure off the banking system to enforce the UIGEA. This will allow access for us online poker players.
I agree that this bill will not pass in its original form. I hope that future revisions will make it better; like a poker exemption.

[counthomer]

[ QUOTE ]
Very interesting post, count. You seem to be saying that existing poker sites are not thrilled by Frank's bill. What is the evidence for this? Why is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

As I stated, people in my company have been told to make no official comment, and I think the silence is deafening in that I see no evidence of that being different at any other company. I would suggest that you send a few emails to the companies and post any replies here - it should be informative.

Are the companies actually against Frank's bill? I would say not at this stage. Upon analysis it is way too early in the process, and most of them are happy to sit back and see what changes get made to it. Some companies are also well down the line of developing new products which aren't subject to the problems of the UIGEA so they probably don't care either way.

[ QUOTE ]
Will it be difficult for a site like Stars to get a license in the U.S.?

[/ QUOTE ]

No idea on this point. There are just too many variables. What might be more important would be the question of whether a offshore site such as Stars could get a licence in time to compete with the Harrahs etc. If the US authorities ensure the encumbent US gaming giants have even a short head start, it is almost as good as 100% protectionism from an offshore perspective.

[ QUOTE ]
I can see the difficulty in Jay getting a license, as much as I would like for him to have one if the bill passes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like him to get one too, as Stars and Wsex get 100% of my business at the moment, and I think his company is innovative and honest. However, it is this very aspect which I believe is the hidden agenda behind his posts (not that I blame him for it - I would do the same).

[ QUOTE ]
From the looks of the PPA website it sure looks like they are 100% behind Frank's proposal. Do you know something different?

[/ QUOTE ]

The PPA has to publically back all iniatives such as this. They would probably back Tuff_Fish's pile of rubbish if it had a chance. The key is what happens when things get closer to becoming reality. In this scenario I think the money follows the power, and the PPA needs the backing of the sites, both directly through donations and indirectly through membership drives.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
The WTO views the US as one country. The US can't say Antigua you can offer blackjack in NY but not in Maryland and be compliant. The US can't say Antigua you can offer poker and casino, but not sports because the leagues said you can't and be compliant. Under the present decision, Antiguan operators are supposed to be allowed to offer ALL forms of remote gaming in ALL 50 states.

Forcing Antiguan companies to open US subsidiaries to offer gaming, apply for 50 different licenses, and subject themselves to 50 different regulatory bodies is not the same as allowing licensed Antiguan operators access to the US market.

[/ QUOTE ]

So long as the foreign company has the same hoops as the domestic supplier this is legal with the WTO, the requirement is not for free access it is for the same access and yes that can include asking them to have an office or even servers in jurisdiction.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Some companies are also well down the line of developing new products which aren't subject to the problems of the UIGEA so they probably don't care either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you elaborate on what products you believe don't have issues? (and that would be large enough to make companies fall into a "don't care either way" attitude?)

[ QUOTE ]
If the US authorities ensure the encumbent US gaming giants have even a short head start, it is almost as good as 100% protectionism from an offshore perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

This industry has already proven that a "head start" is not enough to maintain market leadership...

[ QUOTE ]
I would like him to get one too, as Stars and Wsex get 100% of my business at the moment, and I think his company is innovative and honest. However, it is this very aspect which I believe is the hidden agenda behind his posts (not that I blame him for it - I would do the same).

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain this?... you think Jay is posting here, because its going to somehow help him get a license?

[Jeffiner99]

I apologize to this group if I sounded as if I was talking down to anyone. I only mentioned the fact that I went to Harvard because I was attacked for not having any credibility because I am new to this site. I am a poker
player but prefer to discuss legal issues so while I have read this site for years, I thought I would do better to shut up and listen to the pros speak about poker. Since this legal issue came up, I thought I would try to enter the discussion.

I have seen posters that think that the bill just wants you to pay your taxes and what is wrong with that? Nothing. Everyone should pay taxes. But this bill goes further than that. It says that anytime you cash out from an online site, the site must collect all state and federal taxes from you at the time of the cash out.

"Appropriate mechanisms to ensure that all
taxes relating to Internet gambling due to Federal
and State governments and to Indian tribes from
persons engaged in Internet gambling are collected
at the time of any payment of any proceeds of Internet gambling."

I believe this will have a much greater impact on the regular and pro players than the fish, they don't cash out that much. State and Federal taxes include Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes as well. Add it all up and depending on your tax bracket that could mean that every time you cash out you the online casino will be forced to collect one third to perhaps one half of your winnings. Now, if you have a choice - play online and when you win the gov't takes an immediate cut of up to half of your winnings or go take a drive and come home with all of your cash which would you choose? At least if you pay your taxes at the end of the year you keep your working capital throughout the year.

I am not some stooge for the anti-gamers or some person who used to post here or whoever you think I am. I am just a person who loves to play poker online and I don't want the industry to be killed by bad legislation.

Everyone keeps saying this is better than the UIGEA. But this is just an addendum to the UIGEA. It gives the act more teeth. It does not repeal it. The UIGEA stays in place and gets this 26 page piece of legislation added on to it.

I have heard it said, well, try and write something that you think will pass congress... Is that really the test? I think we are in big trouble here. But I don't want us in deeper. I don't think grabbing on to an exploding bomb is better than not having a life raft.

If you hear anger in my posts it is anger at the politicians certainly not this board. I am angry that once again I believe I have been lied to by the gov't. I believe that calling something a repeal when you are not repealing anything is misleading. I am angry about that. I am angry because everyday I watch the news I feel that everyone is telling the emperor how lovely his new clothes are.

I am fiercely loyal to poker. I want it to continue. All forms, online and in the casinos. And the last thing I would want to do is fracture any group committed to protecting it.

So when I see that my group (poker players) is being lied to I get a little worked up. I get really frustrated when I see people rushing to believe the gov't is trying to help us when the document that has been written is overly broad, vague, contains numerous undefined terms, and has clauses that might very well destroy our ability to make a living at this game.

I do not mean to talk down to anyone. But I have spent years and years reading statutes. So, all I was trying to do was to share my experience in how to read a statute and what you have to look out for. When a statute uses undefined terms it is because the government wants to be able to use it to wield the maximum power possible. If terms are defined then you have an argument that gov't has overstepped its bounds and gone too far. If the terms are undefined and contain broad sweeping clauses such as "you are also subjected to any requirement that the Director may establish by regulation or order" then the entire industry is at the mercy of the Director. In this case the Director is the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

I don't know who that is and I don't care. Even if it someone who is friendly to gambling right now, political posts change and next time the guy holding the knife to our throats might not be so nice. I don't think I have any control over the guy with the knife, but I can take the knife out of his hand.

I desperately want a bill that is good for us. I can write it one sentence: REPEAL THE UIGEA, Effective immediately.

But just because that might not happen doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I have heard people who want a well written bill and one that will pass congress. So, I want my cake and eat it too. I don't think we can get a bill that protects us and gives congress all the power they crave. Therefore, I would rather have nothing. So far the UIGEA hasn't explicitly made poker illegal, or destroyed it. I would rather have one very bad but weak bill than two bad bills that have some teeth.

Benjamin Franklin said that those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. (Or something to that effect. Don't yell at me for getting the quote wrong.)

I think we too shouldn't be willing to throw our poker liberties into the wind just so that we will have a little security.

I brought up the worst possible scenarios so that people could see just how bad this bill could really be. But even without the ambiguous terms, the one that is clear, taking taxes out of every player's cash out will, I think, kill the industry. At least it will for me.

You need a huge bankroll to fade that. I don't have the kind of bank account that can wait until the following April 15th to receive my money back. If I have a great January but have a few losing months after that, I would have to pay the huge tax hit for the January win and then have to wait until the end of the year to get the overpayment back. That is a lot of working capital that will be lost to us for the year.

Moreover, once we allow them to do that to us then how can we complain if they then say you have to pay taxes every time you cash out at the cage too? Then, not only has online poker died, but say goodbye to the live games too. At this point I am mostly speaking to the pros. The fish won't care, they probably won't notice.

I think it is important to read a bill carefully and then prepare for the worst. They wrote the bill. They could have used more limiting language. They didn't.


If you would like me to stop posting I will be happy to do so. Just say the word. I don't need to be personally attacked like this. I certainly didn't try to attack anyone else. I respect you all and especially this board. I was only trying to help decipher a misleading bill that may do major irreparable damage to the poker industry.

Had I had a chance I would have fought hard against the UIGEA too. But they sneaked that one by us.

[counthomer]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you elaborate on what products you believe don't have issues? (and that would be large enough to make companies fall into a "don't care either way" attitude?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately I can't. Even with the freedoms of anonymity there are still some areas I won't go into.

[ QUOTE ]
This industry has already proven that a "head start" is not enough to maintain market leadership...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to disagree on this one. Anyone entering the US market with the benefit of being able to clone existing products and recruit the right people will easily dominate the market. The poker market is relatively mature so there is not the scope for players to out perform others as before. The US market is so big that the first ones in have the sort of advantage that has never existed.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you explain this?... you think Jay is posting here, because its going to somehow help him get a license?

[/ QUOTE ]

No i think Jay's postings on this subject, especially with respect to the WTO angle, are based on the reality that he doesn't want to see any scenario involving licencing by the US authorities. Not only is he probably aware that this is almost certainly a tool to ensure US Inc (and possibly US companies) are the major beneficiaries, but he also knows that he is in a very bad position for getting licence personally. Jay is all for US poker - as long as he is not on the outside looking in (no shame in that, but all his posts should be seen in this light).

[Jack Bando]

You make some good points Jeff, I was just against your downtalking parts and doom-and-gloomism.

Our best case scenario would be a bill that says "UIEGA is dead, let's turn the clock back to mid 2006 and allow what went on back then, Party and Neteller may come back now."

Sadly, I doubt that will happen. This bill is our best chance ATM. UIEGA isn't even being enforced yet, Kyl wants it to be very strong, and Goodlatte wants playing online to be a 5 year felony.

If this bill can allow HarrahsPoker.com to exist and stop the people who are calling for Stars, Neteller, and our heads I'll be happy.

[Skallagrim]

Jeff may have gone to Harvard, but his interpertation of the taxation clause he cites is a very highly unlikely one. The provision requires taxes "RELATED TO INTERNET GAMBLING" to be collected at the time of "payment of any proceeds of Internet gambling."

There are no current taxes on internet gambling.

This does not require the site to asses your income tax liability and withold funds accordingly, an impossibility. AT WORST, it anticipates a rule like the one already in existence in casinos that requires withholding after a payout over $12,000 (?). It probably also anticipates the possibility of a new tax, either state or federal on online play.

And since the tax is only collected at payout, even if Jeff's interpertation were corrrect, that wont affect the fish (who only ever take a cashout after a big score), but the pros who cash out regularly - and for them the witholding may be a good thing to do tax wise.

Jeff, we all appreciate your passion, but you are barking up the wrong tree ... I just cant believe that the regulations will so obviously kill the golden goose just as the Feds start to get their hands on a cut.

Skallagrim

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Jeff may have gone to Harvard, but his interpertation of the taxation clause he cites is a very highly unlikely one. The provision requires taxes "RELATED TO INTERNET GAMBLING" to be collected at the time of "payment of any proceeds of Internet gambling."

There are no current taxes on internet gambling.

This does not require the site to asses your income tax liability and withold funds accordingly, an impossibility. AT WORST, it anticipates a rule like the one already in existence in casinos that requires withholding after a payout over $12,000 (?). It probably also anticipates the possibility of a new tax, either state or federal on online play.

And since the tax is only collected at payout, even if Jeff's interpertation were corrrect, that wont affect the fish (who only ever take a cashout after a big score), but the pros who cash out regularly - and for them the witholding may be a good thing to do tax wise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I'll even go one step further and say I want tax withholding - if everything is tracked, I don't need to worry about getting audited every year I send in a large payment and mark myself down as a 'gaming specialist' or w/e.

Moreover, counthomer is right, too. I like WSEX as a site, I have nothing against Jay Cohen, and his prosecution was total [censored], but he is a convicted felon in the US. That means he's never getting a gaming license, and that in turn means he has every reason in the world to oppose any bill requiring one.

BTW, I *don't* agree that sportsbettors get thrown under the bus here, exactly because of this. Not everybody is going to go for a US gaming license or care about US laws; WSEX and most of today's existing sportsbooks are going to ignore Frank's bill just like they're busy ignoring UIGEA. In fact, for them, it'll be a virtual repeal of UIGEA, because no bank will feel like checking whether a check is from a legal poker site or illegal sportsbook ever again...

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jeff may have gone to Harvard, but his interpertation of the taxation clause he cites is a very highly unlikely one. The provision requires taxes "RELATED TO INTERNET GAMBLING" to be collected at the time of "payment of any proceeds of Internet gambling."

There are no current taxes on internet gambling.

This does not require the site to asses your income tax liability and withold funds accordingly, an impossibility. AT WORST, it anticipates a rule like the one already in existence in casinos that requires withholding after a payout over $12,000 (?). It probably also anticipates the possibility of a new tax, either state or federal on online play.

And since the tax is only collected at payout, even if Jeff's interpertation were corrrect, that wont affect the fish (who only ever take a cashout after a big score), but the pros who cash out regularly - and for them the witholding may be a good thing to do tax wise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I'll even go one step further and say I want tax withholding - if everything is tracked, I don't need to worry about getting audited every year I send in a large payment and mark myself down as a 'gaming specialist' or w/e.

Moreover, counthomer is right, too. I like WSEX as a site, I have nothing against Jay Cohen, and his prosecution was total [censored], but he is a convicted felon in the US. That means he's never getting a gaming license, and that in turn means he has every reason in the world to oppose any bill requiring one.

BTW, I *don't* agree that sportsbettors get thrown under the bus here, exactly because of this. Not everybody is going to go for a US gaming license or care about US laws; WSEX and most of today's existing sportsbooks are going to ignore Frank's bill just like they're busy ignoring UIGEA. In fact, for them, it'll be a virtual repeal of UIGEA, because no bank will feel like checking whether a check is from a legal poker site or illegal sportsbook ever again...

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for this clause:
No person shall engage in the business of Internet betting
or wagering in the United States without a license issued
by the Director in accordance with this subchapter.

And the fact that this bill is an addendum to the UIGEA, not a repeal of it. So it makes it clearer to banks what is considered illegal gambling and would make it easier to prosecute a bank that dealt with an unlicensed site.

But then, I don't want to be a downer. Sorry.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]



fwiw, time to bumpity bump your action thread... whats the plan for the week?...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd love to see a financial push for Frank and the 11 co-sponsors.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
Jeff may have gone to Harvard, but his interpertation of the taxation clause he cites is a very highly unlikely one. The provision requires taxes "RELATED TO INTERNET GAMBLING" to be collected at the time of "payment of any proceeds of Internet gambling."

There are no current taxes on internet gambling.

This does not require the site to asses your income tax liability and withold funds accordingly, an impossibility. AT WORST, it anticipates a rule like the one already in existence in casinos that requires withholding after a payout over $12,000 (?). It probably also anticipates the possibility of a new tax, either state or federal on online play.

And since the tax is only collected at payout, even if Jeff's interpertation were corrrect, that wont affect the fish (who only ever take a cashout after a big score), but the pros who cash out regularly - and for them the witholding may be a good thing to do tax wise.

Jeff, we all appreciate your passion, but you are barking up the wrong tree ... I just cant believe that the regulations will so obviously kill the golden goose just as the Feds start to get their hands on a cut.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

All income is subject to income taxes. Including income from internet gaming. And the clause doesn't require a document being issued with any winnings. It requires the sites to "collect" the taxes before paying out any winnings. That is not impossible, it is just burdensome.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
No big deal, let's forget about that. Once again, look at Harrahs, which will probably be the leading online poker room. They bought the wsop and doubled the fee (3% to 6%) on the 10K event. This year they have tripled (3% to 9%) the vig on most all of the other events. Do you really think they are going to give you awesome rake drops?


[/ QUOTE ]

I read this earlier and laughed.

What's the vig on 99% of all online tournaments?

10%

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The WTO views the US as one country. The US can't say Antigua you can offer blackjack in NY but not in Maryland and be compliant. The US can't say Antigua you can offer poker and casino, but not sports because the leagues said you can't and be compliant. Under the present decision, Antiguan operators are supposed to be allowed to offer ALL forms of remote gaming in ALL 50 states.


[/ QUOTE ]
It sounds like Jay and some others here want us to oppose Frank's bill on the grounds that it doesn't meet the full intent of the WTO decision. The game plan then would be to hope the U.S. chooses to open up online gambling to satisfy the WTO. Others of us wish to support the Frank bill because it's good for us and because it addresses the concerns our opponents have. So, while I was in the gym today (which used to be more fun, as any of you who read about my ruptured pec on The Gym forum can imagine), I was trying to think how we can continue to stay focused on our ultimate goal. I think it's doable.

As for the WTO, someone told me to speak for myself regarding Americans' feelings (and that's a very valid comment). So, how does Congress feel:
- No one has offered a bill repealing the Wire Act. No one has discussed such a bill.
- Of all of Congress, only Barney Frank has even mentioned the WTO decision. While he'd like to use the decision as a moral lever, apparently his bill puts us further out of compliance (an assessment I disagree with...our market will be more open than today, so I think that will put us closer to compliance...it's just semantics either way, though, as it falls short).
- We can't really look to Ron Paul here, as he is an opponent of our membership in the WTO on soveriegnty grounds. He sponsored legislation in 2000 to get the U.S. out of the WTO (HJ Res 90, http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2000/roll310.xml ).
- HR 4411 and UIGEA passed in direct violation of the WTO ruling, with barely a mention of the issue.
- Jon Kyl just last week pressured Atty. Gen. Gonzales to get to work on "tough" banking regulations to stop Americans from choosing to gamble online
- Goodlatte still wants to expand the Wire Act to make us felons

So, where do we go and how do we all work together? First of all, we ALL need to rally around the Frank bill to show public support for online gambling rights. If it looks like Americans don't care about this issue, we can forget about it. After all, the U.S. has more than one option with regard to the WTO decision. We can open up online gambling, we can completely shut it down, or we can leave the WTO. Also, there's a possibility that we'll be compliant merely by allowing Antigua to offer online horse racing betting in America. My earlier comments to Jay certainly weren't intended to be mean; I personally hope we adopt the recommended WTO solution (as opposed to the other options available to the U.S.). They simply reflected my feelings on the political reality of the situation as mentioned above.

So, we can all work together. We should support the Frank bill 100% without hesitation, as we NEED to show public support for the issue at large. The bill will progress through Congress. During this process, the final WTO decision will come through. If the timing is right and we do our part, the Frank bill will be in conference, or at least approved by the House, when the U.S. has to commit to some action in response to the WTO decision. With that, we'll be in a much better position to negotiate a good agreement with Antigua that satisfies everyone to the maximum degree possible. The Frank bill can be amended in conference to loosen it up a bit to meet whatever we need to do to comply with whatever arrangement we come to with Antigua, and we'll be good to go (and that would aid the bill in its final passage).

So, let's all work hard for this one. Without the first step (success of HR 2046), everything else is dicey, especially as the last recorded vote on online gambling was 317-93 against us (HR 4411).

Thanks for your consideration.

[evazan]

I'm hoping someone could answer these questions and hopefully this will put an end to everyone saying this bill isn't what we want.

Doesn't this bill do essentially the same thing that Britain has done with online gambling? Did the British government regulating online gambling lead to the death of online poker in Britain? I'm pretty sure the answer to the first question is yes and the answer to the second one is no so I am failing to understand why regulating online gambling in America would kill it.

A somewhat unrelated question is just how poker sites would ensure taxes are paid. Would taxes be withdrawn from each pot we win such as rake? Would taxes be taken out each time we withdraw? If the sites are taking our taxes does that mean we don't have to pay anymore taxes on our winnings during tax season?

[Jack Bando]

Evazan, I'll answer the last paragraph.

Prob not, maybe, if #2 is yes then I think so.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm hoping someone could answer these questions and hopefully this will put an end to everyone saying this bill isn't what we want.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, most of us are saying this is exactly what we want. I don't blame you at all for the confusion, as the volume is high for all sides.

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this bill do essentially the same thing that Britain has done with online gambling? Did the British government regulating online gambling lead to the death of online poker in Britain? I'm pretty sure the answer to the first question is yes and the answer to the second one is no so I am failing to understand why regulating online gambling in America would kill it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bill itself is clearly not intended to kill online gambling. Barney Frank is a friend to our cause, as is Ron Paul, a cosponsor. Some folks are speculating as to some worst-case scenarios that would be possible, but the bill itself lends itself to good poker, IMHO.

[ QUOTE ]
A somewhat unrelated question is just how poker sites would ensure taxes are paid. Would taxes be withdrawn from each pot we win such as rake? Would taxes be taken out each time we withdraw? If the sites are taking our taxes does that mean we don't have to pay anymore taxes on our winnings during tax season?

[/ QUOTE ]

The bill provides for taxes to be withheld with withdrawals. The exact mechanism remains to be seen. I don't think there's any case where taxes would be raked. I actually wish they would...let the fish pay my taxes! If taxes are withheld, that would lessen your need to file quarterly estimated tax payments, but you'd still have to check to ensure you were having enough withheld. I think this provision will be modified along the way...it's there now just to show taxes have been addressed.

[evazan]

Thanks for the reply but you didn't really answer my question about Britain. I too believe in Frank and don't doubt for a second that he is an ally. My question was regarding Britain's form of a regulating online poker and if we are following their model which appears to be successful.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the reply but you didn't really answer my question about Britain. I too believe in Frank and don't doubt for a second that he is an ally. My question was regarding Britain's form of a regulating online poker and if we are following their model which appears to be successful.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not familiar enough with the specifics of British regulation. You can review the actual legislation at http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/21frank_004_xml_(2).pdf

[Mitch Evans]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No big deal, let's forget about that. Once again, look at Harrahs, which will probably be the leading online poker room. They bought the wsop and doubled the fee (3% to 6%) on the 10K event. This year they have tripled (3% to 9%) the vig on most all of the other events. Do you really think they are going to give you awesome rake drops?


[/ QUOTE ]

I read this earlier and laughed.

What's the vig on 99% of all online tournaments?

10%

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad I could humor you, but if you take a minute and stop laughing, perhaps you can understand that my entire point was how a major corporation doubled and tripled the vig once they took over, and maybe they would do something similar once they get involved in online poker. Many people disagree with me on that, but at least they understood the point I was making.

But since you want to compare the two, let's compare apples to apples. The smallest buy-in at the wsop (outside of the employee event) is $1000. How can you compare the vig on a $10 or $100 stars tournament to one that is $1000?

The $2500 event at the wsop has 9% taken out of the prize pool. The stars $2500 event is $100, or 4% of the buy-in. Keep in mind that stars gives then entire $2500 to the player, so it really is a $2600 buy-in event with 3.85% taken out of the prize pool.

[JPFisher55]

Ok, I'll admit it. The more I think about Rep. Frank's bill the less I like it.
The only good thing about it is that it might make it impossible for the banks to enforce the UIGEA against ewallets. This would ease access to the same, probably unlicensed sites, that we used to play at before last October.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this bill do essentially the same thing that Britain has done with online gambling? Did the British government regulating online gambling lead to the death of online poker in Britain? I'm pretty sure the answer to the first question is yes and the answer to the second one is no so I am failing to understand why regulating online gambling in America would kill it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does seem similar to the UK's 2005 Gambling Act. The UK approach is to require licenses and to get these you need to sign up to social responsibility criteria regarding problem gamblers, preventing underage gamblers, keep punters money in trust accounts, accurately show odds, ensure all games are fair to the punter, let punters set their own deposit limits, show how long people have been gambling, show people how much they have won/lost.....

The regulations are largely about protecting the gambler from crooked games or site default and to some extent from themselves.

It is too early to tell if the Online provisions will work as they do not come into effect until Sept 2007. The downside for the sites is not just regulatory overview including inspections and license fees but also a 15% tax on gross profits for the sites (remembering of course that UK gamblers do not pay income tax on their winnings).

The regulatory approval should act as a reassurance for new customers which is a carrot for the sites with the stick being that unlicensed sites will not be allowed to advertise.

I think it is a huge opportunity for a new poker boom in the UK because it will reassure new players, the act also allows $10 games in pubs for the first time. If and when it works it will help win the argument for regulated, legal, poker in the US.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

i love putting on the telly and seeing gambling sites names written on the players and the field.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
I am of the belief that this bill is good for us. But I am not a lawyer. Jeffiner says he is, but is obviously not an established, trusted poster.

Before we get all gung-ho and beg our representatives to vote this bill in (too late for myself and many more, I know) I do not think it is irresponsible to review it thoroughly.

Are any established posters on here an attorney, or close friends with one. It can't hurt to see what multiple people with considerable legal experience have to say about what this bill can do in the long run. It'd really suck for us to all be begging for something that hurts us. That's just being advisably cautious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know I am not an established poster. I am an established reader of this site, but until now I thought I could learn more by listening than talking. (I love poker but I am not a great player, so I learn by listening to all of you). But you are wise to be cautious.

I am certainly not the last word on this subject. I would like to see many discussions about this bill too. But mostly what I see is either people saying yeah or nay but not too many actually discussing the TEXT of this bill.

Why can't we have a discussion on that? The bill is not that hard to read. It is boring, true, but it is written in plain English. Just because it is "called" a repeal on the UIGEA doesn't mean it is. (It absolutely is not by the way. It is an addendum to it. It says so on the first page). Just because Barney Frank has pretended he is a friend to poker players doesn't mean he is.

I think everyone should read the thing. Then we can talk about the bill itself, line by line. Paragraph by paragraph and imagine how this bill will be used.

Here it is in all its glory: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/21frank_004_xml_(2).pdf

So how about that? Instead of just talking about the thing as a whole and if it good for us to have a bill that talks about poker, let's see what it does to poker.

Just because Britain may regulate poker doesn't mean that this bill will act the same way. So you can't compare the two.

Please. Come on. Isn't it worth reading and talking about before we all support it? What if it really does hurt us? What if it sets up the IRS to have open access to everyone's accounts past and present? What if it will add tons of money to play online? What if it will eliminate all of the sites that we trust now and gives a monopoly to a small handful? What if it makes the UIGEA stronger instead of weaker?

Shouldn't we explore that?

[Dunkman]

Jeff, just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean we haven't read the bill. I just read it for a third time to make sure I wasn't missing something.

There's no doubt that there's some less than desirable results that will come from it passing, especially on the taxes front. Like has been mentioned, it makes the most sense for the sites to hold taxes on withdraw, as taking it like rake or after a session would be logistically unreasonable (of course they could, but it seems unlikely.) I haven't heard anyone say it's a repeal of the UIGEA. However, by my reading, in 5384 "Financial Institutions", it claims that no person or investment banker will be held liable as long as they are in compliance with this subchapter, and no financial institution will be held liable as long as they are in compliance with this subchapter as well as Federal, State, and foreign BANKING laws and regulations. This seems to me to effectively take every bit of the meat out of the UIGEA, but there is of course a chance I could be reading it incorrectly.

I think there's definitely a chance that domestic sites could pop up and have an advantage over foreign sites. I think it could give IRS access to people's accounts, although I think the past accounts is kind of far-fetched.

Here's what I disagree with. The Frank's conspiracy theory stuff is absurd....it just is. That kind of stuff doesn't happen. It would be much easier for him to just pass more stringent legislation against online gambling rather than this elaborate plan to trick us into supporting legislation that hurts us. It's just not possible, I don't know how many other ways people have to say it.

I am of the opinion that it will help us immensely. UIGEA enforcement will only continue to tighten, and it's going to be harder and harder to move money as time goes on. Personally, I'd be willing to have the IRS take taxes out of my withdraws to not ever have to deal with epassporte again, but maybe that's just me.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I'd be willing to have the IRS take taxes out of my withdraws

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you realize how bad that is for the 90+% of players that DON'T win??

For example:

- Break even player (BEP) deposits 1k.

- BEP plays for a week and still has 1k in his account.

- BEP cashes out and gets 650 (/images/graemlins/confused.gif)

It's even worse for losing players who get TAXED after they just "ran bad".

[Our House]

Unless, of course, you're saying that the IRS intends to manage everyone's poker account activity to see who is a long term winner and who isn't. Good luck with that one.

[Dunkman]

I would think if they're taking taxes when you cash out that they would just tax the net winnings that you had. I mean we all know that a "session" is not defined in the tax code, so they could make it anything they want. For all we know we'll have the option as to whether they withhold money for taxes or just let us handle it ourselves. Or maybe they'll only withhold if there's more than $1000 net winnings (which would be great for shielding fish from this) or something. I think it's premature to get all crazy about this now.

There's a lot of people posting with these doomsday scenarios...don't buy the [censored] the sports betting industry is feeding you.

[Mitch Evans]

[ QUOTE ]
I would think if they're taking taxes when you cash out that they would just tax the net winnings that you had. I mean we all know that a "session" is not defined in the tax code, so they could make it anything they want. For all we know we'll have the option as to whether they withhold money for taxes or just let us handle it ourselves. Or maybe they'll only withhold if there's more than $1000 net winnings (which would be great for shielding fish from this) or something. I think it's premature to get all crazy about this now.

There's a lot of people posting with these doomsday scenarios...don't buy the [censored] the sports betting industry is feeding you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it in the best interest of the IRS to demand taxes upon cashout and let the player file loses at the end of the year, or for them to tax on net wins? Think about it, there are several resons why they would want taxes on any cashout now rather then waiting. The best case scenario everyone can hope for is that the sites will issue 1099G's at the end of the year, but that's not in the best interest of the IRS for several reasons.

[Dunkman]

If there's a new session every time you sit at a table, and the IRS takes out taxes every time you have a winning session, but doesn't adjust for losses, no one would be able to keep playing after a couple months because every penny online would be withheld. That doesn't really makes much sense, because then they don't get any more tax revenue. Withholding the money prevents people from using it to generate even more tax burden. I mean the IRS does stupid stuff, but not usually stupid stuff that cuts down on the tax revenue they will ultimately receive. I can see withholding net winnings on cashout, but I can't see where doing anything more than that would be feasible for them. I'm relying on common sense, with is always dangerous when dealing with the federal government, but all these "the sky is falling" scenarios just seem really unlikely to me. Maybe I'm just being naive, idk.

[Mitch Evans]

Well, I certainly wasn't talking about tracking individual sessions since you can't walk away and spend money like in B&M. I simply think whatever and whenever you cashout they see that as income that is now useable, and they want their entire cut and don't really give a rat's ass whether or not you report at the end of the year because they got theirs. I hope I'm wrong, really I do... about all of this stuff.

[zaah1]

I think this would have the positive effect of finally letting people just pay on their net winnings and eliminating the rediculous requirement of itemizing gross wins and losses by session. Or at least it would make each deposit/withdrawal a session instead of each time you sit at a table or whatever.

[Piece of Cake]

[ QUOTE ]

For example:

- Break even player (BEP) deposits 1k.

- BEP plays for a week and still has 1k in his account.

- BEP cashes out and gets 650 (/images/graemlins/confused.gif)

It's even worse for losing players who get TAXED after they just "ran bad".

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like bad math to me. If I invest $1000 and then withdraw $1000, I don't pay taxes, nor would a poker player in this instance. Annual taxes are on yearly earnings (or income minus deductions), not on total net worth each year. In your example, the breakeven player had 0 equivalent income (or had deductable losses equivalent to his earnings) and thus pay no taxes. You don't give 35% of your savings account to the govt each year do you? Hopefully you give give ~35% of its gains. DUCY?

It's my guess (and I haven't read the bill but I imagine) that the sites will simply issue a tax form like your W2, or more specifically like the 1099 from you brokerage which would outline your session earnings much like the 1099 outlines your investment gains for the year. In fact, I'm not sure why the site don't do this already.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
- Break even player (BEP) deposits 1k.

- BEP plays for a week and still has 1k in his account.

- BEP cashes out and gets 650

[/ QUOTE ]

How on Earth is this possible? Winnings are taxed. In the equation above, BEP won $0. Tax on $0 is $0.

That's like saying you deposit $1000 and without playing withdraw the money and would have to pay tax on it?

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
It's my guess (and I haven't read the bill but I imagine) that the sites will simply issue a tax form like your W2, or more specifically like the 1099 from you brokerage which would outline your session earnings much like the 1099 outlines your investment gains for the year. In fact, I'm not sure why the site don't do this already.



[/ QUOTE ]

It says "Appropriate mechanisms to ensure that all taxes relating to Internet gambling due to Federal and State governments and to Indian tribes from persons engaged in Internet gambling are collected at the time of any payment of any proceeds of Internet gambling."

Notice it doesn't say a form at the end of a year.

It says any payment, any proceeds.

I don't know if that means every pot, table, session, withdrawal, bonus or what.

BTW, the press release mentions collecting fees and taxes from individuals. Do you know what these fees are for and exactly what taxes? Me neither.

Until I know more or this changes drastically, count me out.

[Skallagrim]

IF IF IF IF IF ....

If they pass this bill and then write a regulation saying all poker money must be given to the government that will be terribly bad for us and the game.

RIGHT NOW THERE ARE NO "TAXES RELATED TO INTERNET GAMBLING"

RIGHT NOW THERE ARE NO "FEES" TO COLLECT.

MAYBE THEY WILL NEVER PASS ANY SUCH LAWS. MAYBE THEY WILL PASS A LAW SAYING ALL WINNINGS AT POKER ARE TAX FREE! NOW THAT WOULD BE GREAT!

The simple and correct point is that this bill does not specify any new taxes or withholding schemes. It merely requires sites to be able to comply with any such laws/taxes/schemes later.

The IRS is not interested in hiring thousands of new workers to process and monitor millions of tiny payments from cashouts.

And once the states or feds start cashing they are not going to kill the source of revenue by draconian regulations. If they want to do that why not just pass a much simpler law saying poker is illegal and all poker money is forfeited to the government.

IF IF IF

Lets worry about what is, rather than what if.

Skallagrim

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

For example:

- Break even player (BEP) deposits 1k.

- BEP plays for a week and still has 1k in his account.

- BEP cashes out and gets 650 (/images/graemlins/confused.gif)

It's even worse for losing players who get TAXED after they just "ran bad".

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like bad math to me. If I invest $1000 and then withdraw $1000, I don't pay taxes, nor would a poker player in this instance. Annual taxes are on yearly earnings (or income minus deductions), not on total net worth each year. In your example, the breakeven player had 0 equivalent income (or had deductable losses equivalent to his earnings) and thus pay no taxes. You don't give 35% of your savings account to the govt each year do you? Hopefully you give give ~35% of its gains. DUCY?

It's my guess (and I haven't read the bill but I imagine) that the sites will simply issue a tax form like your W2, or more specifically like the 1099 from you brokerage which would outline your session earnings much like the 1099 outlines your investment gains for the year. In fact, I'm not sure why the site don't do this already.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please read the context of my example. It was a reply to someone saying that taxes could be taken out of each withdrawal. How could the government know if they're taxing a winning or losing player? If they're applying a mandatory tax to losing players, I've got news for you...the internets will run out of fish rather quickly because they WILL NOT play any more online poker.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
- Break even player (BEP) deposits 1k.

- BEP plays for a week and still has 1k in his account.

- BEP cashes out and gets 650

[/ QUOTE ]

How on Earth is this possible? Winnings are taxed. In the equation above, BEP won $0. Tax on $0 is $0.

That's like saying you deposit $1000 and without playing withdraw the money and would have to pay tax on it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Look at my post immediately above this one. The person I was replying to stated that each withdrawal could be taxed and what you quoted was my reply to him.

Then, I said:

"Unless, of course, you're saying that the IRS intends to manage everyone's poker account activity to see who is a long term winner and who isn't. Good luck with that one."

It IS like saying 'deposit 1000 and immediately withdraw a taxed 1000'. You're arguing the same point I am. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Dunkman]

This has gotten completely absurd. If you guys wanna believe this conspiracy theory [censored], go for it. When you're done being neurotic, apply just a tiny bit of common sense to this stuff, stop reading things into bills that aren't there, and sleep better at night.

[Mitch Evans]

[ QUOTE ]
The IRS is not interested in hiring thousands of new workers to process and monitor millions of tiny payments from cashouts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether they take taxes out of cashouts or not, it certainly wouldn't be because of the situation you've cited. In the event of cashouts being taxed, a site would be obligated to withhold taxes and make federal tax deposits just like they do for their employees' withholding.

[Mitch Evans]

[ QUOTE ]
This has gotten completely absurd. If you guys wanna believe this conspiracy theory [censored], go for it. When you're done being neurotic, apply just a tiny bit of common sense to this stuff, stop reading things into bills that aren't there, and sleep better at night.

[/ QUOTE ]

Common sense in regards to gaming issues for the gambler and the government are vastly different.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The IRS is not interested in hiring thousands of new workers to process and monitor millions of tiny payments from cashouts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether they take taxes out of cashouts or not, it certainly wouldn't be because of the situation you've cited. In the event of cashouts being taxed, a site would be obligated to withhold taxes and make federal tax deposits just like they do for their employees' withholding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Imagine the paperwork if EVERY cashout had withholding and tax. Each would have to have its own identify code and be processed to insure the money was credited to the right taxpayer's account. It is just not cost effective to do this for small amounts. Especially since the small amounts are not going to affect overall tax liability and are just going to be returned to most folks as part of their usual refund.

Now cashouts over 10,000, even 1,000, are a different story, but not EVERY cashout.

[YoureToast]

Why not just require each site to issue a 1099 (or similar tax form) at the end of each calendar year, like any other business?

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]

Why not just require each site to issue a 1099 (or similar tax form) at the end of each calendar year, like any other business?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because that would be intelligent and make sense. These are not characteristics of the Beltway.

[CHAx]

I think the issue that is being HUGELY overlooked here is the states power to make it illegal for us to play poker on a state by state basis. I can easily see a scenario where only a handful of states allow it. So how are you going to feel when your state bans poker and all the major sites (only ones with fish) get licensed? D'Amato (sp?) tells us not to worry because he envisions a "grassroots, state by state movement" to legalize poker in every state. Are you Serious D'Amato?

Secondly, lets imagine a scenario where these sites get licensed and taxed by US Gov. Pretty easy to see international players are not going to want to play in US regulated sites, particularily if they get wacked by a "profits" tax. Even fish win big from time to time and cutting their winnings down by ANY amount will piss them off, even more than it pisses off winning players. So will the fish pool really grow enough to warrant our support?

I am just not sure that this bill improves the poker landscape anyway. There are plenty of non-US fish to fill the pools. I am not worried about getting money onto sites (FTP/bodog/Stars are easy enough). I am not even worried if US fish cannot get money onto sites. I only care that I can continue to find some fish. And there are plenty of non-US fish.

UIGA really is not going to be a problem for most of us so why are we in a rush to get MORE REGULATION? The current bill is TOOTHLESS and all we are doing is drawing more attention to the loopholes that exist. These are huge loopholes that were unlikely to be addressed. Instead, we are making all this noise about how innefective the bill is, and guess what? They listened, and now they are closing the loops. The icing on the cake is that we seem to enjoy the Koolaid. I've got a bridge to sell you.....

[spino1i]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the issue that is being HUGELY overlooked here is the states power to make it illegal for us to play poker on a state by state basis. I can easily see a scenario where only a handful of states allow it. So how are you going to feel when your state bans poker and all the major sites (only ones with fish) get licensed? D'Amato (sp?) tells us not to worry because he envisions a "grassroots, state by state movement" to legalize poker in every state. Are you Serious D'Amato?

Secondly, lets imagine a scenario where these sites get licensed and taxed by US Gov. Pretty easy to see international players are not going to want to play in US regulated sites, particularily if they get wacked by a "profits" tax. Even fish win big from time to time and cutting their winnings down by ANY amount will piss them off, even more than it pisses off winning players. So will the fish pool really grow enough to warrant our support?

I am just not sure that this bill improves the poker landscape anyway. There are plenty of non-US fish to fill the pools. I am not worried about getting money onto sites (FTP/bodog/Stars are easy enough). I am not even worried if US fish cannot get money onto sites. I only care that I can continue to find some fish. And there are plenty of non-US fish.

UIGA really is not going to be a problem for most of us so why are we in a rush to get MORE REGULATION? The current bill is TOOTHLESS and all we are doing is drawing more attention to the loopholes that exist. These are huge loopholes that were unlikely to be addressed. Instead, we are making all this noise about how innefective the bill is, and guess what? They listened, and now they are closing the loops. The icing on the cake is that we seem to enjoy the Koolaid. I've got a bridge to sell you.....

[/ QUOTE ]

I really dont think internet poker is that unpopular among the population to get outlawed in most states state-by-state.

[Skallagrim]

The US government cannot tax non-US players at a foreign poker site. No jurisdiction (if it were otherwise the US would already be taxing the world).

A site located in the US (not merely licensed) may be made to pay a tax on its gross receipts. The players only feel that in increased rake.

And if we cant win the argument in most states, we cant win the argument at a national level either and really should just give up.

Actually, it will be far easier to win this in most states, I think: vocal minorities have more impact (which works against us, I admit, in states with lots of moralist, anti-gambling types - you all know who you are).

[CHAx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the issue that is being HUGELY overlooked here is the states power to make it illegal for us to play poker on a state by state basis. I can easily see a scenario where only a handful of states allow it. So how are you going to feel when your state bans poker and all the major sites (only ones with fish) get licensed? D'Amato (sp?) tells us not to worry because he envisions a "grassroots, state by state movement" to legalize poker in every state. Are you Serious D'Amato?

Secondly, lets imagine a scenario where these sites get licensed and taxed by US Gov. Pretty easy to see international players are not going to want to play in US regulated sites, particularily if they get wacked by a "profits" tax. Even fish win big from time to time and cutting their winnings down by ANY amount will piss them off, even more than it pisses off winning players. So will the fish pool really grow enough to warrant our support?

I am just not sure that this bill improves the poker landscape anyway. There are plenty of non-US fish to fill the pools. I am not worried about getting money onto sites (FTP/bodog/Stars are easy enough). I am not even worried if US fish cannot get money onto sites. I only care that I can continue to find some fish. And there are plenty of non-US fish.

UIGA really is not going to be a problem for most of us so why are we in a rush to get MORE REGULATION? The current bill is TOOTHLESS and all we are doing is drawing more attention to the loopholes that exist. These are huge loopholes that were unlikely to be addressed. Instead, we are making all this noise about how innefective the bill is, and guess what? They listened, and now they are closing the loops. The icing on the cake is that we seem to enjoy the Koolaid. I've got a bridge to sell you.....

[/ QUOTE ]

I really dont think internet poker is that unpopular among the population to get outlawed in most states state-by-state.

[/ QUOTE ]

While that may be true, I think the reality is:

Poker is not popular enough to GET an exemption in most states.



My point is really that if this goes through AND your state doesn't make exemptions for poker, you are in a lot worse shape than you would be if we only had UIGA.

[Mitch Evans]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The IRS is not interested in hiring thousands of new workers to process and monitor millions of tiny payments from cashouts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether they take taxes out of cashouts or not, it certainly wouldn't be because of the situation you've cited. In the event of cashouts being taxed, a site would be obligated to withhold taxes and make federal tax deposits just like they do for their employees' withholding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Imagine the paperwork if EVERY cashout had withholding and tax. Each would have to have its own identify code and be processed to insure the money was credited to the right taxpayer's account. It is just not cost effective to do this for small amounts. Especially since the small amounts are not going to affect overall tax liability and are just going to be returned to most folks as part of their usual refund.

Now cashouts over 10,000, even 1,000, are a different story, but not EVERY cashout.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, there is no paperwork. Tax it, make a federal tax deposit (electronically) and all of the "paperwork" is exported from their database and sent to the IRS at the end of the year. This is not even an issue; if it were, the IRS wouldn't require corporations to withhold millions of peoples' paychecks every week and make regular tax deposits.

[Jack Bando]

CHAx, you make some good points. But here's my main concern about all of this.

The months before UIEGA passed until last week poker players, sports gamblers, I-casino gamblers, the sites, and the financial sites have been on the defensive trying to prevent UIEGA or find ways around it.

This is our first big chance to be on offense. Is it our perfect bill? No, but it's something. The guys who were behind UIEGA aren't satisfied. Sen. Kyl has been asking around to make sure UIEGA is implement very strongly. Rep. Goodlatte wants PLAYING ON THE SITES TO BE A 5 YEAR FELONY.

Our enemies haven't rested, so I don't see the point in cherry picking for the perfect plan. We need to counter them with something and get the ball rolling for us.

[spatne]

No, but the sites *do* know how much of your online funds are profits above and beyond any deposits that you've made. A regulation that requires casinos to do any kind of tax calculations will also require that they do them correctly, and the burden will be on them, not the IRS.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I'd be willing to have the IRS take taxes out of my withdraws

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you realize how bad that is for the 90+% of players that DON'T win??

For example:

- Break even player (BEP) deposits 1k.

- BEP plays for a week and still has 1k in his account.

- BEP cashes out and gets 650 (/images/graemlins/confused.gif)

It's even worse for losing players who get TAXED after they just "ran bad".

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Did you expect this bill to repeal current tax law? The tax laws suck for gamblers, but that's not the fault of this bill or Rep. Frank, for that matter. We should take this up someday, perhaps, but the bill doesn't create new taxes on players.

2. Why would the break-even player have money withheld when he ran even? The withholding on withdrawal is on profits. The sites know how much the player won or lost...it's not so hard.

3. I imagine the actual implementation of the taxation part of this bill would be similar to the regs on today's B&M casinos, with the exception that we can expect our net profit/loss to be reported to the IRS.

4. We need to show support simply to demonstrate the fact that many Americans support the right to choose to gamble online. UIGEA is just the beginning, guys. If we're not playing offense, we're playing defense agaist Kyl, Goodlatte, and a compliant White House (and that didn't go so well last time).

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The bill is not that hard to read.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've all read it, thanks. You're freaking out way too much over this. Barney Frank is not a gambler, nor is Ron Paul. They've said so repeatedly. No shock there. What they did was put together a bill that addresses every red herring presented by our opponents. That way, the debate will focus on the freedom to gamble online, rather than on money laundering and other such nonsense. It's that simple. The tax provisions are there to remove taxation from the debate. The licensing is there to show a means of compliance. It's very straightforward.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the issue that is being HUGELY overlooked here is the states power to make it illegal for us to play poker on a state by state basis. I can easily see a scenario where only a handful of states allow it. So how are you going to feel when your state bans poker and all the major sites (only ones with fish) get licensed? D'Amato (sp?) tells us not to worry because he envisions a "grassroots, state by state movement" to legalize poker in every state. Are you Serious D'Amato?

Secondly, lets imagine a scenario where these sites get licensed and taxed by US Gov. Pretty easy to see international players are not going to want to play in US regulated sites, particularily if they get wacked by a "profits" tax. Even fish win big from time to time and cutting their winnings down by ANY amount will piss them off, even more than it pisses off winning players. So will the fish pool really grow enough to warrant our support?

I am just not sure that this bill improves the poker landscape anyway. There are plenty of non-US fish to fill the pools. I am not worried about getting money onto sites (FTP/bodog/Stars are easy enough). I am not even worried if US fish cannot get money onto sites. I only care that I can continue to find some fish. And there are plenty of non-US fish.

UIGA really is not going to be a problem for most of us so why are we in a rush to get MORE REGULATION? The current bill is TOOTHLESS and all we are doing is drawing more attention to the loopholes that exist. These are huge loopholes that were unlikely to be addressed. Instead, we are making all this noise about how innefective the bill is, and guess what? They listened, and now they are closing the loops. The icing on the cake is that we seem to enjoy the Koolaid. I've got a bridge to sell you.....

[/ QUOTE ]

I really dont think internet poker is that unpopular among the population to get outlawed in most states state-by-state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you seen the UIGEA? That got voted in despite the fact that 80% of Americans are happy to see poker legal. The population doesn't get a vote. That is not how Washington works. Each individual governor would decide. Still so sure how those guys think? And what if a big supporter of his against gambling, then how do you like your chances?

Once you give the gov't power you don't get to decide how it is used, nor does anyone else in the state where you live.

I couldn't agree more with the poster on top. Yes, the UIGEA is toothless now, but with this addendum it grows huge sharp fangs, gives states an easy way to make poker illegal and puts the entire industry in more jeopardy, not less. Since when do you think the gov't is your friend? They are in the business they are to make money, off of all of us. The only money the gov't has is from us. And this is a way for them to make more. I can't see why people think that this bill is a good thing? It won't protect poker. It won't legalize anything. And despite all your reassurances that the IRS plays fair and wouldn't dream of taking money from people that are only breaking even, I don't share your same level of trust. I believe the language of the bill. When it says it will force the sites to take money from each and every cash out, I believe it.

You are starting to sound like a bunch of girls who think he really will leave his wife and he didn't mean to hit you and really does love you. The text of the bill says that the sites must take taxes from each cash out. Why can't you believe that will happen? If they didn't mean it, then why put it in that way? It will not be up to the IRS to track, it will be up to the sites. It doesn't say that the sites must take taxes on your profits only. It says tax the cash out. Do you think the IRS minds holding on to your money for the year and then paying you back if you can prove you deserve it? Do you know why they insist on taking taxes as often as they do? So if you DIE, they got theirs first.

They are not the super fair really nice guys you think they are. They will not look at all the sites where you play and then average out exactly what your tax should be taking your deductions in mind. This bill tells the sites that if they want a license then they must take taxes out of your cash outs. I suspect, any site that wants a license will agree. Fair or not.

I also cannot see any way this improves the poker landscape. It will cut down on the number of sites. We will be stuck playing at places that have a huge overhead (and probably pass that on) have to worry about getting tax overpayments back at the end of the year and I can't see why a smaller player would want to subject themselves to the hassle.

Over and over I see people saying that we need this bill as a response to the UIGEA and that we need to change the landscape. You are aware that this bill STRENGTHENS the UIGEA? It is more legislation added on to that same bill. It is simply another chapter of the UIGEA. It is not new. It does not reside anywhere else. IT IS ATTACHED. It makes the UIGEA more powerful. You have a train behind you and you are all picking up more coal to throw in its boiler. This bill does not derail the train. It makes it go FASTER.

I want off the track! Write to Barney Frank. Tell him you don't like this version. Tell him you want what he promised. A repeal of the UIGEA. It is very easy. It will only take one sentence. Then if we can get that passed and it is really true that most of America loves poker, it shouldn't be too hard. If not, then at least we are not worse off than we are now.

[Our House]

Hi spatne and Engineer,

Apologies if I haven't been clear in what I am trying to say. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

All of my replies in this thread are based on Dunkman's comment:

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I'd be willing to have the IRS take taxes out of my withdraws

[/ QUOTE ]
My point is having every withdrawal taxed is not only unrealistic, but it would literally be THE END OF ONLINE POKER!

The only people who would remain unaffected in the case of taxed withdrawals would be WINNING players (less than 10% of the poker playing population).

If the government stepped in to analyze who is a winning player and who isn't, breakeven/losing players are in a ton of trouble. Do you honestly think the government is able to tell who is a winner based on evaluation of account activity over a short-term time frame?? That is what would be necessary in order for them to tax each withdrawal correctly. How would a losing player feel if he lost 3k playing in B&M rooms and back alley poker games and then got even online; only to find out that his cashout was taxed 28%? Would you really want the fish's return visits to be left in the government's hands? I wouldn't. What if the fish lost all his money on site A and got taxed for his winnings on site B? Do you honestly think this player feels like itemizing deductions on a constant basis and having to worry about getting rebates at the end of the year? Fish don't keep records. They never have and they never will. When the taxes hit them, it will only become another excuse for how they got cheated and how online play is rigged. Poker may be a business for us (10%), but it's a recreation for them (90%). Try to put yourselves in the shoes of the casual player.

Seriously...even WE can't determine if someone is a winner after a small sample size. If ALL withdrawals were taxed, things would only balance out evenly for winners. Breakeven and losing players just wouldn't play.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
CHAx, you make some good points. But here's my main concern about all of this.

The months before UIEGA passed until last week poker players, sports gamblers, I-casino gamblers, the sites, and the financial sites have been on the defensive trying to prevent UIEGA or find ways around it.

This is our first big chance to be on offense. Is it our perfect bill? No, but it's something. The guys who were behind UIEGA aren't satisfied. Sen. Kyl has been asking around to make sure UIEGA is implement very strongly. Rep. Goodlatte wants PLAYING ON THE SITES TO BE A 5 YEAR FELONY.

Our enemies haven't rested, so I don't see the point in cherry picking for the perfect plan. We need to counter them with something and get the ball rolling for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this bill get the ball rolling after us. This is offense? Handing the other team the ball? Why would you want to strengthen the UIGEA? I thought you didn't like it.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you honestly think the government is able to tell who is a winner based on evaluation of account activity over a short-term time frame??

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm. I have an engineering degree and an MBA (since you like to see credentials). How could we do such a complex thing? Wow, so hard. /images/graemlins/confused.gif Oh wait...I know. Let's have the sites withhold on withdrawals THAT EXCEED THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED!! Yeah, maybe that might work.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
But this bill get the ball rolling after us. This is offense? Handing the other team the ball? Why would you want to strengthen the UIGEA? I thought you didn't like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's been fun Jeff. Just tell your pastor you did your best. He'll understand.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But this bill get the ball rolling after us. This is offense? Handing the other team the ball? Why would you want to strengthen the UIGEA? I thought you didn't like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's been fun Jeff. Just tell your pastor you did your best. He'll understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

That will really help the discussion. Such wise words from an Engineer ooh. Wow. Thanks. So that's how you engage in conversations. Ad Hominem attacks?

I suppose it is better to just ignore the legislation, pay no attention to the actual WORDS and just hope that things go exactly the opposite as stated. The words suck, but that can't be what they really mean because I don't like that so I will just suggest that the words can't be that terrible because well, that would be terrible.

Brilliant strategist.

No, go into pretend land and make things up that aren't there so they fit what you wish they had said and then try to convince everyone that is what they really meant. Just pay no ATTENTION to the words.

Appropriate mechanisms to ensure that all
taxes relating to Internet gambling due to Federal
and State governments and to Indian tribes from
persons engaged in Internet gambling are collected
at the time of any payment of any proceeds of Inter15
net gambling.

That can't possibly mean that the casino must COLLECT taxes from the players at the time of cash outs. No, that must mean vouchers, or tax receipts at the end of the year or something other than COLLECT. They can't mean COLLECT. How could that happen? Since it can't, they can't mean it.

Take another equally impossible example. How could they possibly collect money from a person's paycheck? They don't know what your deductions will be at the end of the year. They have to guess. But they wouldn't guess. It wouldn't be fair. Then you might end up overpaying taxes and they would get to use your money for FREE for the year. That wouldn't be right. Then you would have to file a report at the end of the year and request that they send your own money back to you. It might cost money to hire someone to do that. That wouldn't be fair. They couldn't do that. And what if they didn't even pay you interest on your overpayment. Then you would really get hosed. There is absolutely no way that could happen. Therefore there is no such thing as being able to withhold taxes from paychecks. Besides, think of all the people that would have to be employed to keep track of all that money. It is too unwieldy a job. They would have money coming in every week or two from every working person in the US? No way. It would cost too much. And some of those people don't make a lot of money, so it wouldn't be worth their time. No, no way the IRS ever devises a scheme to take withholding taxes from paychecks. Since it is not possible with paychecks, then how could it be possible with cash out checks? Since it is too hard to even contemplate that clause in the bill must be there for show.

Yes, I see your point. How could I be so blind?

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you honestly think the government is able to tell who is a winner based on evaluation of account activity over a short-term time frame??

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm. I have an engineering degree and an MBA (since you like to see credentials). How could we do such a complex thing? Wow, so hard. /images/graemlins/confused.gif Oh wait...I know. Let's have the sites withhold on withdrawals THAT EXCEED THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED!! Yeah, maybe that might work.

[/ QUOTE ]
I never asked to see any credentials (reread my posts if you want), but how does your engineering degree account for gift certificates, inter-account transfers, bonus releases, rakeback payments, affiliate player accounts that deposit and/or "hold" money for other players, and partnerships?

Also, think of the burden that sites would have to carry for each and every withdrawal that was made. On top of that, consider the fact that it would be necessary for every single site to network together unless you want 100% of poker players to have to go through the trouble of claiming losses as deductions.

But, all of that is beside the point. We're talking about two other things:

- Taxing ALL withdrawals (as Dunkman stated earlier)
- The effect of mandatory taxation on players that aren't long term winners

Of course, this is all speculative. I doubt withdrawals will be taxed. IMHO, by collecting that way, the government would be cutting off its nose to spite its face and really wouldn't be happy with the long term results from a financial standpoint.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
That will really help the discussion. Such wise words from an Engineer ooh. Wow. Thanks. So that's how you engage in conversations. Ad Hominem attacks?


[/ QUOTE ]

Who else would join here out of the blue to argue so vehemently against this? I guess if it's not a perfect bill you want us to sit it out and let Goodlatte push through his Wire Act expansion. That will be easy when we all keep quiet now, per your plan, as we'll have shown that Americans don't support the right choose to gamble online. Sorry, but this is the time to fight.

Also, I'm not that impressed with your analysis of this at all. First of all, why does it seem so hard to you for sites to COLLECT taxes on withdrawals that exceed deposits? There's no guessing...it's very straightforward. Sum the deposits and prior withdrawals, then subtract the requested one. Pretty easy, and only players with profits (probably over some threshold) would be affected. They teach math at Harvard, don't they?

Also, why did you think taxes would be a showstopper for us? Did your pastor tell you we don't pay taxes? Well, I do, as do damn near all of us.

Another odd error you made was in assuming social security taxes would be withheld from payments. Why would you think that? Only Schedule C filers would pay that. Did you see something in HR 2046 that amended any tax code?

You seem to have adopted a very argumentative tone with regards so this, as if you're angry that we'd support this. You keep calling us stupid and accusing us of not having read the legislation. Well, we've read it, multiple times, and we like the overall package.

You've got to be a troll. There's no other explanation.

[Dunkman]

[ QUOTE ]

You've got to be a troll. There's no other explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

There's nothing else going on here, and I'm tired of arguing with a brick wall, so you win, now please go back where you came from.

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
CHAx, you make some good points. But here's my main concern about all of this.

The months before UIEGA passed until last week poker players, sports gamblers, I-casino gamblers, the sites, and the financial sites have been on the defensive trying to prevent UIEGA or find ways around it.

This is our first big chance to be on offense. Is it our perfect bill? No, but it's something. The guys who were behind UIEGA aren't satisfied. Sen. Kyl has been asking around to make sure UIEGA is implement very strongly. Rep. Goodlatte wants PLAYING ON THE SITES TO BE A 5 YEAR FELONY.

Our enemies haven't rested, so I don't see the point in cherry picking for the perfect plan. We need to counter them with something and get the ball rolling for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this bill get the ball rolling after us. This is offense? Handing the other team the ball? Why would you want to strengthen the UIGEA? I thought you didn't like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a Bears fan, so I know all about giving the other team the ball. You're right, we should scrap this bill and wait for the perfect one. Oh, as long as Goodlatte and Kyl stop coming after us whil we get our perfect plan ready. They'll do that right?

I doubt this bill was formed just to attack gambling when another head-on attack (a super UIEGA, Wire Act amended to go after players) would be more effective and easier to pass.

[Dunkman]

[ QUOTE ]

- Taxing ALL withdrawals (as Dunkman stated earlier)


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you may be slightly misunderstanding me, although you do have a good point I'll get to shortly. I meant my withdraws would be taxed. I'm no Doyle Brunson, but I'm a consistent winner, and I have a static bankroll mostly because I keep buying electronic [censored] with my winnings. So, my withdraws would most likely be taxed. I don't mean that I think EVERYONE'S would be, just people who are winners. I think "(3) Appropriate mechanisms to ensure that all taxes relating to Internet gambling due to Federal and State governments and to Indian tribes from persons engaged in Internet gambling are collected at the time of any payment of any proceeds of Internet gambling." makes that very clear.

Another thing...fish don't really cash out that much...most of the cashing out is done by us.

I do think you're right to think it could be a problem. I would hope they run a yearly tally and only take taxes if you're up for the year, but it could be done by last deposit or something else equally troubling. It could be a situation where someone who's a break-even or losing player runs hot a couple times and cashes out and has to pay taxes, only to loose that much and more later but not get any relief. You're absolutely right to be worried about this, but I just don't feel like we have any choice but to support this bill and hope it turns out ok. I'm trying to stay optimistic and hope they don't make this as bad as they can.

Finally, what choice do we have but to support this? I don't understand what the [censored] people are thinking when they assume that now is as bad as it can get...this is the beginning of what's coming. If we don't get some momentum soon, there isn't gonna be any online gambling in the U.S. at all when our opponents get done with us. There's no guarantee the political landscape will look this good 18 months from now. This bill isn't perfect, but it's something, and it's something that's coming up in a time when it could actually pass. This bill is all we've got, and even something this weak is going to be hard as hell to pass, what makes you think something much more lenient stands any chance at all? This could be the last chance we have to save internet gambling in the U.S. for awhile...seriously.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That will really help the discussion. Such wise words from an Engineer ooh. Wow. Thanks. So that's how you engage in conversations. Ad Hominem attacks?


[/ QUOTE ]

Who else would join here out of the blue to argue so vehemently against this? I guess if it's not a perfect bill you want us to sit it out and let Goodlatte push through his Wire Act expansion. That will be easy when we all keep quiet now, per your plan, as we'll have shown that Americans don't support the right choose to gamble online. Sorry, but this is the time to fight.

Also, I'm not that impressed with your analysis of this at all. First of all, why does it seem so hard to you for sites to COLLECT taxes on withdrawals that exceed deposits? There's no guessing...it's very straightforward. Sum the deposits and prior withdrawals, then subtract the requested one. Pretty easy, and only players with profits (probably over some threshold) would be affected. They teach math at Harvard, don't they?

Also, why did you think taxes would be a showstopper for us? Did your pastor tell you we don't pay taxes? Well, I do, as do damn near all of us.

Another odd error you made was in assuming social security taxes would be withheld from payments. Why would you think that? Only Schedule C filers would pay that. Did you see something in HR 2046 that amended any tax code?

You seem to have adopted a very argumentative tone with regards so this, as if you're angry that we'd support this. You keep calling us stupid and accusing us of not having read the legislation. Well, we've read it, multiple times, and we like the overall package.

You've got to be a troll. There's no other explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you really are a jerk aren't you. When you lose any hope of winning an intelligent argument you call your opponents trolls. Well done.

I joined when the bill was brought up by Barney Frank. So why does it seem so strange to you that I would discuss it.

You talk about my tone. You are outright rude and insulting. At least I have had the decency to treat you with courtesy, that was until you started to outright attack me.

If you really want to know why I suggested that SS might get taken out of the cash outs it is because the language of the bill says ALL FEDERAL TAXES. Unless you have different news to report, Social Security taxes are Federal. Since All is an inclusive word, I included SS taxes as part of what could be taken out of the cash outs.

Now, I have had enough. If you want to have an insult fest, then please take is somewhere else. I may be new, but the rules of engagement in this forum that I read said no attacking each other personally. And I find it really interesting that in quoting me above, you forgot to include your earlier insult of me.

And why on earth would you keep referring to a pastor? Do you think that makes a great insult?

And how on earth you can speak for the entire board as in "We've read it." is beyond me.

I argue against the bill because it is BAD for poker. It is bad for poker players. It gives the UIGEA more teeth. It gives the States a way to opt out and make it illegal in any given state at any given time. It limits competition in the market and that always leads to higher prices. It has a clause in there that could make it impossible for the fish to stay in action. It gives the feds access to an industry that has been doing just fine without it. It makes that act you so oppose, the UIGEA, stronger.

I do not think that just because a bill has come along that has the word poker in it that makes it good for poker. I am not willing to hang my hat on just anything. I want to see what we are getting into first. I want to analyze the situation and see if this might not be a bad thing. Be careful what you wish for... and all that.

I am not coming in here trying to hurt all the poor poker players by suggesting that they do not support a bill that opens doors for the industry. Quite the opposite. I am being analytical as are others on this board. Determining before we support something if it is a good idea. It is called thinking! Many others on this board are interested in doing that too.

I suggest we fight and fight hard. I suggest that we all go to Ron Paul and ask him to sponsor a bill to really REPEAL the UIGEA. I suggest we don't fall for the first thing that comes along without determining the RAMIFICATIONS.

So BACK OFF!!

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt this bill was formed just to attack gambling

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it wasn't. There is no conspiracy theory behind it. Let's not forget how Barney Frank spoke out against the UIGEA before it was even passed.

Don't get me wrong...

My comments in the thread thus far have made it seem like I don't believe this bill is good for us. That's not true at all. I may not be in favor of certain collection methods regarding taxes, but that's just something that NEEDED to be included by Barney Frank in order for the bill to have a fighting chance. It's not likely to be followed to the letter, although, I do still have this fear that super-tight regulation will scare off the fish.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you honestly think the government is able to tell who is a winner based on evaluation of account activity over a short-term time frame??

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm. I have an engineering degree and an MBA (since you like to see credentials). How could we do such a complex thing? Wow, so hard. /images/graemlins/confused.gif Oh wait...I know. Let's have the sites withhold on withdrawals THAT EXCEED THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED!! Yeah, maybe that might work.

[/ QUOTE ]
I never asked to see any credentials (reread my posts if you want), but how does your engineering degree account for gift certificates, inter-account transfers, bonus releases, rakeback payments, affiliate player accounts that deposit and/or "hold" money for other players, and partnerships?

Also, think of the burden that sites would have to carry for each and every withdrawal that was made. On top of that, consider the fact that it would be necessary for every single site to network together unless you want 100% of poker players to have to go through the trouble of claiming losses as deductions.

But, all of that is beside the point. We're talking about two other things:

- Taxing ALL withdrawals (as Dunkman stated earlier)
- The effect of mandatory taxation on players that aren't long term winners

Of course, this is all speculative. I doubt withdrawals will be taxed. IMHO, by collecting that way, the government would be cutting off its nose to spite its face and really wouldn't be happy with the long term results from a financial standpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]


My bad. I thought that was Jeffiner. Sorry about my fast-clicking. Obviously I'll give you a real, respectful answer. As for the bill, Frank simply wanted to take tax collection out of the debate, so it would be gambling vs. prohibition. It seems our opponents want to talk about everything but gambling (underage gambling, money laundering, terrorism, etc). The tax issue can be worked out. Would you really oppose the bill until Frank gets the taxation exactly right? From the end of your post I'm assuming you wouldn't. I think his tax plan beats the Goodlatte 5-year prison sentence plan, to be honest.

The bill will go through multiple amendments before it passes. There will be chances to tweak the tax collection process, especially if Harrah's and MGM get behind this.

By the way, we should discuss negatives of the bill. I don't wish to look like I'd want to stymie anything. I've posted a couple of them myself, such as giving the director of the FCEN so much authority over the licensing process. Jeffiner just goes too far to be legit.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
If you really want to know why I suggested that SS might get taken out of the cash outs it is because the language of the bill says ALL FEDERAL TAXES. Unless you have different news to report, Social Security taxes are Federal. Since All is an inclusive word, I included SS taxes as part of what could be taken out of the cash outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

YOU pay SS taxes on gambling winnings now? I have different news to report. We don't (unless filing as pros). Gambling winnings aren't taxed for SS.

[ QUOTE ]
I suggest we fight and fight hard. I suggest that we all go to Ron Paul and ask him to sponsor a bill to really REPEAL the UIGEA. I suggest we don't fall for the first thing that comes along without determining the RAMIFICATIONS.

[/ QUOTE ]

That should be good for three votes. Thanks for the help.


[ QUOTE ]

So BACK OFF!!

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored] off.

[Dunkman]

Yeah I had to put Jeff on ignore, I can't take it anymore.

[TheEngineer]

Ban

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
As I understand the WTO decision, just a flat out repeal of the UIGEA would not have brought the US into compliance either.

Mr. Cohen, I like you and wish you well, but I think your being a bit overboard on the WTO ruling. I did not read it as "any remote gaming, therefore all remote gaming." I read it as basically sayiing "you allow some domestic remote gaming (horses - lotto - instate casino linked jackpots, etc...), you cannot prevent companies from outside the US from offering the same service." On this score, if the congress had banned all remote gaming except on horses and let Antigua also offer betting on horses to americans, compliance would have been found, I believe. Perhaps Mr. Cohen is aware of some WTO ruling that says explicitly any remote gambling means must allow all kinds of remote gambling? How does that square with things like age restrictions, which are different in different countries? What would prevent a country from saying POKER is OK (game of skill and all) but all other online gaming is illegal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mr Cohen is reading far to deeply into the WTO ruling, he is extrapolating what he wishes was in the ruling rather than what actually is contained within the ruling. From my reading the US only needs to disallow interstage gambling of all forms to comply, or alternatively the US can permit foreign entities to supply gambling services that are legally allowed to cross state borders such as horse racing and lotteries. Mr Frahnk's bill includes compliance with the WTO ruling, of course to be fully compliant the USA must pass laws allowing foreign entities to operate on equal ground with domestic gambling entities which are allowed to conduct gambling across state borders. I believe the US has the international right to require licensing and taxation compliance as a requirement, provided the requirements are the same for domestic competitors - someone please clarify if this is correct.

[crashjr]

I finally read the text of the bill as proposed, and I have mixed feelings. I would like a return to the days of free access to any internet gaming site that would take us, the sort of laissez faire market we had before the arrest of several internet gaming execs. and the passage of the UIGEA. This bill does not accomplish that. Instead, it would expand the role of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. It would require that agency to interpret the tax laws of the several states and withhold taxes upon payment of internet gaming proceeds. I imagine that the players will need to fill out tax withholding information, whether they file as a professional or not, and what state they pay taxes in. As we know, there are states where winnings are taxable, but losses are not deductable. This could create a real nightmare for players in those states. It would be up to some future regulations to see how this would actually be enforced and if W-2G or 1099 forms would be issued and the activities of the player reported to the appropriate taxing agencies, but it seems to me that such reporting would almost certainly be included in those regs. Legalizing and regulating internet gaming without addressing unfair tax issues is a major concern for me from a policy point of view (I live in California, so I do not suffer the same problem as those in Mass., Ill., etc.).

The other main issue I have is that the bill does indeed seem to take the US further out of compliance with the WTO ruling in favor of Antigua. I still believe that enforcement of the WTO ruling is the best way for internet gaming to return to the way that is was before the UIGEA.

That said, this bill is better than the status quo. We should support it, and keep our momentum. This is indeed the time to fight.

As for Jeff, I have dealt with several attorneys that argue like he does. His arguments are not well thought out and he is quick to attack his adversary personally. I deal with difficult people too often to have to do it here, when we should all have the same interests.

[crashjr]

[ QUOTE ]
Mr Frahnk's bill includes compliance with the WTO ruling, of course to be fully compliant the USA must pass laws allowing foreign entities to operate on equal ground with domestic gambling entities which are allowed to conduct gambling across state borders. I believe the US has the international right to require licensing and taxation compliance as a requirement, provided the requirements are the same for domestic competitors - someone please clarify if this is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that this would be correct if the Frank bill did not include state opt-out provisions, at least the states where some form of gambling is allowed.

Jay Cohen is fighting a good fight. This is a multi-front campaign, and I think his involvement with the Antigua v. US WTO ruling is a great service to US internet gamblers. Of course, under the Frank bill, WSEX would not get a license to provide internet gaming services in the US so long as he was an officer or director due to his felony conviction, so it is in his personal interest that Frank's bill not pass as proposed. Perhaps if Congress sent the bill to the President without the state opt-out provision and with a recommendation for a full pardon, he would support it.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
As for Jeff, I have dealt with several attorneys that argue like he does. His arguments are not well thought out

[/ QUOTE ]

They are much better than average arguments. Care to elaborate your rebuttal of his arguments?

[ QUOTE ]
he is quick to attack his adversary personally

[/ QUOTE ]
You surely meant COUNTER attack. And he probably wasn't expecting adversaries. (hang in their Jeff, you get used to the ad hominems)

[ QUOTE ]
we should all have the same interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

He has stated he has the same interests. He doesn't agree that the Frank bill promotes those interests.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I finally read the text of the bill as proposed, and I have mixed feelings. I would like a return to the days of free access to any internet gaming site that would take us, the sort of laissez faire market we had before the arrest of several internet gaming execs. and the passage of the UIGEA. This bill does not accomplish that.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Of course, we lost the HR 4411 vote by a wide margin, so a total repeal is very unlikely. Fortunately, we have a bill that addresses the "concerns" (i.e., red herrings) of our opponents. This should give us some momentum.

[ QUOTE ]
It would require that agency to interpret the tax laws of the several states and withhold taxes upon payment of internet gaming proceeds. I imagine that the players will need to fill out tax withholding information, whether they file as a professional or not, and what state they pay taxes in. As we know, there are states where winnings are taxable, but losses are not deductable. This could create a real nightmare for players in those states. It would be up to some future regulations to see how this would actually be enforced and if W-2G or 1099 forms would be issued and the activities of the player reported to the appropriate taxing agencies, but it seems to me that such reporting would almost certainly be included in those regs. Legalizing and regulating internet gaming without addressing unfair tax issues is a major concern for me from a policy point of view

[/ QUOTE ]

That sucks for them (it really does), but their states do have these requirements, and that's their right. It's not like Congress can change state tax policy. I imagine this needs to be worked at the state level. Players in these states are already subjected to these unfair state taxes, so there's nothing new here.

[ QUOTE ]
The other main issue I have is that the bill does indeed seem to take the US further out of compliance with the WTO ruling in favor of Antigua. I still believe that enforcement of the WTO ruling is the best way for internet gaming to return to the way that is was before the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

The interpretation of the ruling by some here seems to be a reach. While it seems Antigua would be allowed to provide horse race wagering (if the U.S. didn't simply repeal the Interstate Horse Racing Act), the stretch into assuming Antigua will be permitted to allow sports wagering in Utah may be a bit much.

I think our best hope relative to using the WTO decision in our favor is a good performance by HR 2046.

[ QUOTE ]
That said, this bill is better than the status quo. We should support it, and keep our momentum. This is indeed the time to fight.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. Not only is it better than status quo...it's far better than what our opponents have planned for us. We've seen only the beginning of the banking issues. Kyl promises more. Goodlatte still wants to make us felons.

Our best defense is a good offense. For example, we're more likely to see some money from prospective domestic sites. We're also seeing positive press here and there. Also, we're energized, so the politicians are hearing from us. And, our opponents are now on the defensive, which means they cannot sit around planning new ways to put us in jail for playing poker.

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I understand the WTO decision, just a flat out repeal of the UIGEA would not have brought the US into compliance either.

Mr. Cohen, I like you and wish you well, but I think your being a bit overboard on the WTO ruling. I did not read it as "any remote gaming, therefore all remote gaming." I read it as basically sayiing "you allow some domestic remote gaming (horses - lotto - instate casino linked jackpots, etc...), you cannot prevent companies from outside the US from offering the same service." On this score, if the congress had banned all remote gaming except on horses and let Antigua also offer betting on horses to americans, compliance would have been found, I believe. Perhaps Mr. Cohen is aware of some WTO ruling that says explicitly any remote gambling means must allow all kinds of remote gambling? How does that square with things like age restrictions, which are different in different countries? What would prevent a country from saying POKER is OK (game of skill and all) but all other online gaming is illegal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mr Cohen is reading far to deeply into the WTO ruling, he is extrapolating what he wishes was in the ruling rather than what actually is contained within the ruling. From my reading the US only needs to disallow interstage gambling of all forms to comply, or alternatively the US can permit foreign entities to supply gambling services that are legally allowed to cross state borders such as horse racing and lotteries. Mr Frahnk's bill includes compliance with the WTO ruling, of course to be fully compliant the USA must pass laws allowing foreign entities to operate on equal ground with domestic gambling entities which are allowed to conduct gambling across state borders. I believe the US has the international right to require licensing and taxation compliance as a requirement, provided the requirements are the same for domestic competitors - someone please clarify if this is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are partially right, the US could eliminate ALL remote gaming and be in compliance. It doesn't matter if it crosses state lines or not. That would allow them to successfully challenge the primary decision on moral grounds.

The WTO found three Federal laws to be out of compliance, the Wire Act, the Illegal Gaming Business Act, and the Travel Act. The state laws were dismissed because they felt Antigua did not present enough evidence. However, the road map is there now and Antigua could go back and destroy ever state law one by one if they needed to.

It has nothing to do about allowing Antigua to offer horses or lotteries across state lines, nothing.

Here is what I received from one of the WTO lawyers the other day. This is the import of the decision:

"The US has (a) made a GATS commitment to free and open trade in gambling services, which the WTO has already ruled on in the affirmative, and (b) has no moral grounds to oppose remote gambling (i.e., no Article XIV defense) then the US needs to permit Antiguan operators full access. Full access, it appears from the way the WTO has ruled, means all forms of gambling (casino, poker, lottery, sports, race, bingo, etc.)"

That's the big picture. It may not taste good politically but that's what it is. The US has tried to spin it for some time by saying it's just about horse racing, or that they won on moral grounds. (A half truth since they only satisfied the first prong of the morals defense.)

Ask any TRADE lawyer to read all three reports, the intial Panel Report, the Appellate Body Report, and the latest Compliance Panel Report. They will tell you it's clear that the US has three otions, ban ALL remote wagering (inter or intra-state), allow Antigua full unfettered access, or negotiate a settlement with Antigua. You can find all three here, http://www.AntiguaWTO.com

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, you really are a jerk aren't you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. I am to people who come in out of nowhere and try to talk us out of fighting back. The condescending manner of discussion isn't helping you much, either.

[ QUOTE ]
When you lose any hope of winning an intelligent argument you call your opponents trolls.

[/ QUOTE ]

You appear to be a troll to me. You're trying to reduce the motivation of our team to fight back....ergo, troll. As for the "argument" at least you finally admit that's what you're doing....arguing with us. So, how do you assume I'm losing anything? I've addressed all of your points (not for you, but for the occasional reader who'll think 2+2 is divided on this, when we're not), and all you've done is repeat the same points, only more loudly, adding that we must not have read the legislation. We have. Troll.

[ QUOTE ]
And how on earth you can speak for the entire board as in "We've read it." is beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because we've been discussing it at length prior to you joining us to disrupt our effort.

[ QUOTE ]
And why on earth would you keep referring to a pastor?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I think you're from Focus on the Family or some similar organization. There's no other explanation I can think of.

However, let's give you a chance. HR 4411 was approved by the House 317-93 in a straight-up vote. Please share with us a plan that could possibly restore to us our right to play. You think a simple UIGEA repeal will go through like magic?

[ QUOTE ]
I argue against the bill because it is BAD for poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. 5 years in jail is bad for poker. Expecting people to pay the taxes they already owe under current law isn't.

[ QUOTE ]
It gives the States a way to opt out and make it illegal in any given state at any given time

[/ QUOTE ]

States have always had this right. You wish the federal government to force gambling on Utah? I hope Utah will choose to allow Internet gambling, but can't you see this is a political loser (and for good reason, actually)? Actually, I imagine you can see that.

[ QUOTE ]
I suggest that we all go to Ron Paul and ask him to sponsor a bill to really REPEAL the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

We did. Again, you wandered in here and assumed we were idiots waiting for you to read the bill for us and to give us your esteemed leadership. Here's my email from Ron Paul's office:

[ QUOTE ]
----- Original Message -----
From: Singleton, Norman
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 1:18 PM
Subject: Internet gambling


Hello, I am Congressman Ron Paul's legislative director. You are receiving this message because you contacted our office regarding Internet gambling. Dr. Paul intends to work with House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank to repeal the ban.

Norman Kirk Singleton
Legislative Director
Congressman Ron Paul
203 Cannon
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-2831

"...libertarianism will win eventually because it and only it is compatible with the nature of man and of the world. Only liberty can achieve man's prosperity, fulfillment, and happiness....libertarians now propose to fulfill the American dream and the world dream of liberty and prosperity for all mankind."

"Murray Rothbard


[/ QUOTE ]

This is it. This is what we have, and it's an uphill struggle.

I'm not trying to insult you. I really believe you to be a troll from a fundamentalist church or family-oriented group (same thing), so saying so isn't an insult. Also, we need to show the occasional reader that we don't agree with your comments.

We all need to fight back and fight back hard. That doesn't mean living in some dreamland where we have any chance of legalizing untaxed, unregulated online gambling.

[Skallagrim]

And I am going to say this one last time, primarily for the readers who come here looking for actual information.

THIS BILL DOES NOT MANDATE THAT ALL TAXES BE TAKEN OUT OF EVERY CASHOUT!

When Jeff wrote:

"If you really want to know why I suggested that SS might get taken out of the cash outs it is because the language of the bill says ALL FEDERAL TAXES. Unless you have different news to report, Social Security taxes are Federal. Since All is an inclusive word, I included SS taxes as part of what could be taken out of the cash outs."

he was either demonstrating his ignorance (because I have pointed this out before) or repeating his scare argument for whatever personal reason.

THE BILL READS "ALL TAXES RELATED TO INTERNET GAMBLING"

JEFF DID NOT INCLUDE THE PHRASE "RELATED TO INTERNET GAMBLING." IN FACT HE CHANGED IT TO "ALL FEDERAL TAXES." IT DOES NOT SAY ALL FEDERAL TAXES. WHY DO THAT JEFF? BECAUSE ADDRESSING THIS POINT WILL EITHER SHOW YOUR ARE WRONG OR BECAUSE YOU DO REALLY JUST WANT TO STIR THINGS UP?

RIGHT NOW THERE ARE NO TAXES "RELATED TO INTERNET GAMBLING."

Knowing our government, if this Bill were to pass, I am sure the government would THEN pass some taxes related to internet gambling. What they would be we will have to WAIT AND SEE.

Could it be that every cashout has to have a percentage with held? Of course that is theoretically possible. It could also say ALL winnings must be with held. Oh the horror! It could also be (most likely) that a percentage is required to be taken out of any cashout over "x" amount.

One thing Barney Frank is is smart. He put this provision in to further support for the bill. Just like the state and league opt outs, and the money laundering and age verification parts.

I am surprised Jeff hasnt gotten to the age verification thing, because I am sure that once this bill passes the FECN regulations will require that every player must show up at site headquarters in person with three forms of photo ID or not be able to play. Think the fish will stand for that?

Yes, I am convinced, it is far better to have all these funding difficulties and to just wait for the congress to realize that we are on to their game. Of course then they will give up and just repeal the UIGEA, or maybe just tell the DOJ to leave us poker players alone cause we are so smart......

Unless someone asks specific questions about provisions of this bill, I too am done with this debate.

It appears there are some who are so afraid of what might happen with this bill that they have forgotten the fear of what might happen without this bill and it appears there is no way to talk them out of this psychosis.

Skallagrim

[Berge20]

Jeff and Engineer,

If you can't discuss stuff w/o attacking each other, then don't reply back/forth. Seems like a good thread, let's not drag it into the mud.

[TonyDanza]

[ QUOTE ]
I really dont think internet poker is that unpopular among the population to get outlawed in most states state-by-state.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Have you seen the UIGEA? That got voted in despite the fact that 80% of Americans are happy to see poker legal. The population doesn't get a vote. That is not how Washington works. Each individual governor would decide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Harvard law school? LOL.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, under the Frank bill, WSEX would not get a license to provide internet gaming services in the US so long as he was an officer or director due to his felony conviction, so it is in his personal interest that Frank's bill not pass as proposed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good point I had not considered. Perhaps Mr. Cohen should consider hiring a firm to lobby to have his conviction lifted instead... it might prove to be more fruitful in the long run for him, a semi adversarial position with the USA rather than a full adversarial stance.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
Ask any TRADE lawyer to read all three reports, the intial Panel Report, the Appellate Body Report, and the latest Compliance Panel Report. They will tell you it's clear that the US has three otions, ban ALL remote wagering (inter or intra-state), allow Antigua full unfettered access, or negotiate a settlement with Antigua. You can find all three here, http://www.AntiguaWTO.com

[/ QUOTE ]

Full unfettered access? Thats not how I understand any WTO action. WTO is about fair trade, fair trade assures foreign companies receive the same treatment as US companies - same taxes, same licensing requirements provided there can be reasonable compliance.

Nobody is denying the US has to give full access to Antiguan companies in the gambling space, however unless you can prove otherwise (and so far you have not I'm afraid) I don't think your correct that the US has to give unfettered access; the US only has to provide equal access which means to horses and lotteries since there are no other inter state gambling options available. I tried, but I couldn't find any mention of intra-state gambling within the rulings, someone please point it out if it does exist.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, you really are a jerk aren't you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. I am to people who come in out of nowhere and try to talk us out of fighting back. The condescending manner of discussion isn't helping you much, either.

[ QUOTE ]
When you lose any hope of winning an intelligent argument you call your opponents trolls.

[/ QUOTE ]

You appear to be a troll to me. You're trying to reduce the motivation of our team to fight back....ergo, troll. As for the "argument" at least you finally admit that's what you're doing....arguing with us. So, how do you assume I'm losing anything? I've addressed all of your points (not for you, but for the occasional reader who'll think 2+2 is divided on this, when we're not), and all you've done is repeat the same points, only more loudly, adding that we must not have read the legislation. We have. Troll.

[ QUOTE ]
And how on earth you can speak for the entire board as in "We've read it." is beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because we've been discussing it at length prior to you joining us to disrupt our effort.

[ QUOTE ]
And why on earth would you keep referring to a pastor?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I think you're from Focus on the Family or some similar organization. There's no other explanation I can think of.

However, let's give you a chance. HR 4411 was approved by the House 317-93 in a straight-up vote. Please share with us a plan that could possibly restore to us our right to play. You think a simple UIGEA repeal will go through like magic?

[ QUOTE ]
I argue against the bill because it is BAD for poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. 5 years in jail is bad for poker. Expecting people to pay the taxes they already owe under current law isn't.

[ QUOTE ]
It gives the States a way to opt out and make it illegal in any given state at any given time

[/ QUOTE ]

States have always had this right. You wish the federal government to force gambling on Utah? I hope Utah will choose to allow Internet gambling, but can't you see this is a political loser (and for good reason, actually)? Actually, I imagine you can see that.

[ QUOTE ]
I suggest that we all go to Ron Paul and ask him to sponsor a bill to really REPEAL the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

We did. Again, you wandered in here and assumed we were idiots waiting for you to read the bill for us and to give us your esteemed leadership. Here's my email from Ron Paul's office:

[ QUOTE ]
----- Original Message -----
From: Singleton, Norman
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 1:18 PM
Subject: Internet gambling


Hello, I am Congressman Ron Paul's legislative director. You are receiving this message because you contacted our office regarding Internet gambling. Dr. Paul intends to work with House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank to repeal the ban.

Norman Kirk Singleton
Legislative Director
Congressman Ron Paul
203 Cannon
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-2831

"...libertarianism will win eventually because it and only it is compatible with the nature of man and of the world. Only liberty can achieve man's prosperity, fulfillment, and happiness....libertarians now propose to fulfill the American dream and the world dream of liberty and prosperity for all mankind."

"Murray Rothbard


[/ QUOTE ]

This is it. This is what we have, and it's an uphill struggle.

I'm not trying to insult you. I really believe you to be a troll from a fundamentalist church or family-oriented group (same thing), so saying so isn't an insult. Also, we need to show the occasional reader that we don't agree with your comments.

We all need to fight back and fight back hard. That doesn't mean living in some dreamland where we have any chance of legalizing untaxed, unregulated online gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

What was your email to Ron Paul's office? I saw his reply. I was wondering what he was replying to.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask any TRADE lawyer to read all three reports, the intial Panel Report, the Appellate Body Report, and the latest Compliance Panel Report. They will tell you it's clear that the US has three otions, ban ALL remote wagering (inter or intra-state), allow Antigua full unfettered access, or negotiate a settlement with Antigua. You can find all three here, http://www.AntiguaWTO.com

[/ QUOTE ]

Full unfettered access? Thats not how I understand any WTO action. WTO is about fair trade, fair trade assures foreign companies receive the same treatment as US companies - same taxes, same licensing requirements provided there can be reasonable compliance.

Nobody is denying the US has to give full access to Antiguan companies in the gambling space, however unless you can prove otherwise (and so far you have not I'm afraid) I don't think your correct that the US has to give unfettered access; the US only has to provide equal access which means to horses and lotteries since there are no other inter state gambling options available. I tried, but I couldn't find any mention of intra-state gambling within the rulings, someone please point it out if it does exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under Rep. Franks' bill, providers of online horse racing pari-mutual betting do not need this federal license. The same would be true for fantasy league operations and state lotteries. Thus, to comply with the WTO decision, offshore providers of online gaming cannot be required to obtain this federal license.
Besides what other country requires a license for online gaming operators located in another country? Not UK, their new licensing is for online gaming operators located in the UK.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
What was your email to Ron Paul's office? I saw his reply. I was wondering what he was replying to.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've been writing to politicians since UIGEA passed. Here are two of my letters to Rep. Paul.

[ QUOTE ]


Dear Congressman Paul,

I'm writing to thank you for your strong support for the right of Americans to play Internet poker and other online games in the privacy of their own homes. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) is big government nanny-statism at its worst.

In your capacity as a member of the House Committee on Financial Services, I imagine you’ve considered the impact of this legislation on the American banking industry. For example, this bill forces American banks to function as the moral police of America. It shifts the costs and other burdens of enforcement to them as well.

I believe all Americans should be aghast at this federal intrusion into our homes. Again, thank you for your leadership against the UIGEA.

Sincerely,

The Engineer

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
March 4, 2007

The Honorable Ron Paul
United Stated House Of Representatives
203 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Paul:

I'm writing to thank you for your strong support for the right of Americans to play Internet poker and other online games in the privacy of their own homes. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) is big government nanny-statism at its worst. I believe the outrage of my fellow poker players contributed strongly to the Democratic win in the last election. It's not just me; many Republican core supporters do not support the big government nanny state. That's why the Contract with America was so enthusiastically received by the Republican rank-and-file.

Additionally, in your capacity as a member of the House Committee on Financial Services I imagine you’ve considered the impact of this legislation on the American banking industry, including the following:

· This bill forces American banks to function as the moral police of America. It shifts the costs and other burdens of enforcement to them as well.
· The Department of Justice has apparently elected to act outside the scope of existing federal law. The recent heavy-handed DOJ arrests of the founders of Neteller and the seizure of pending EFT transfers from Neteller to American citizen are outrages. It seems the DOJ has a vendetta against U.S. online gamblers who broke no federal laws by playing. In other words, although they are part of the executive branch, they’ve elected to create their own laws – laws that have not been introduced through your committee or approved by Congress.
· The House Committee on Financial Services should desire a regulated market. That way, the U.S. can set and enforce the age limits while establishing procedures for money-laundering monitoring.

I believe all Americans should be aghast at this federal intrusion into our homes. Again, thank you for your leadership against the UIGEA. I urge you to continue working for the repeal of this bane to our liberties. Repeal is good for the Republican Party and it’s good for America. Thank you.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[/ QUOTE ]

[prodonkey]

well it starts dropping off from 10% after u get over $100 buy ins.. the 615's have just over 5% vig.. so charging 9% on 1500 and above tourneys is a little gross.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask any TRADE lawyer to read all three reports, the intial Panel Report, the Appellate Body Report, and the latest Compliance Panel Report. They will tell you it's clear that the US has three otions, ban ALL remote wagering (inter or intra-state), allow Antigua full unfettered access, or negotiate a settlement with Antigua. You can find all three here, http://www.AntiguaWTO.com

[/ QUOTE ]

Full unfettered access? Thats not how I understand any WTO action. WTO is about fair trade, fair trade assures foreign companies receive the same treatment as US companies - same taxes, same licensing requirements provided there can be reasonable compliance.

Nobody is denying the US has to give full access to Antiguan companies in the gambling space, however unless you can prove otherwise (and so far you have not I'm afraid) I don't think your correct that the US has to give unfettered access; the US only has to provide equal access which means to horses and lotteries since there are no other inter state gambling options available. I tried, but I couldn't find any mention of intra-state gambling within the rulings, someone please point it out if it does exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under Rep. Franks' bill, providers of online horse racing pari-mutual betting do not need this federal license. The same would be true for fantasy league operations and state lotteries. Thus, to comply with the WTO decision, offshore providers of online gaming cannot be required to obtain this federal license.
Besides what other country requires a license for online gaming operators located in another country? Not UK, their new licensing is for online gaming operators located in the UK.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) WTO allows the US to lisence foreign operators provided the licensing requirements are the same.

2) The Frank bill puts poker in compliance with the WTO, additional legislation would be required to put the carveouts made by the wire act in compliance as well. Frank is taking this one step at a time so its not a bitter pill to swallow.

[_dave_]

Hi *TT*,


[ QUOTE ]

Full unfettered access? Thats not how I understand any WTO action. WTO is about fair trade, fair trade assures foreign companies receive the same treatment as US companies - same taxes, same licensing requirements provided there can be reasonable compliance.

Nobody is denying the US has to give full access to Antiguan companies in the gambling space, however unless you can prove otherwise (and so far you have not I'm afraid) I don't think your correct that the US has to give unfettered access; the US only has to provide equal access which means to horses and lotteries since there are no other inter state gambling options available. I tried, but I couldn't find any mention of intra-state gambling within the rulings, someone please point it out if it does exist.

[/ QUOTE ]


I am probably wrong, but my understanding of the WTO ruling is this:

The WTO does not discriminate between gambling on various events, only between remote-gambling and local gambling.

The WTO sees no difference between gambling on the running of horses, the fall of lottery numbers (events which the USA sanctions remote gambling upon), or the flipping of coins, the running of athletes, the outcome of a football match, the playing of poker / blackjack etc. (which the USA claims is an immoral crime corrupting the morality of the nation (but only if conducted remotely) ).

The WTO ruling as I read suggests that if the USA allows any remote gambling, it must either eliminate remote gambling within it's borders or allow Antigua to offer remote gambling services to Americans to be compliant eith the ruling.

The distinction between the events which are gambled upon are an entirely false construct, and the WTO makes no acknowledgment of it - remote gambling is remote gambling, no matter the event being wagered upon.

As I said, probably wrong, but that's how I understand it right now.

dave.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi *TT*,


[ QUOTE ]

Full unfettered access? Thats not how I understand any WTO action. WTO is about fair trade, fair trade assures foreign companies receive the same treatment as US companies - same taxes, same licensing requirements provided there can be reasonable compliance.

Nobody is denying the US has to give full access to Antiguan companies in the gambling space, however unless you can prove otherwise (and so far you have not I'm afraid) I don't think your correct that the US has to give unfettered access; the US only has to provide equal access which means to horses and lotteries since there are no other inter state gambling options available. I tried, but I couldn't find any mention of intra-state gambling within the rulings, someone please point it out if it does exist.

[/ QUOTE ]


I am probably wrong, but my understanding of the WTO ruling is this:

The WTO does not discriminate between gambling on various events, only between remote-gambling and local gambling.

The WTO sees no difference between gambling on the running of horses, the fall of lottery numbers (events which the USA sanctions remote gambling upon), or the flipping of coins, the running of athletes, the outcome of a football match, the playing of poker / blackjack etc. (which the USA claims is an immoral crime corrupting the morality of the nation (but only if conducted remotely) ).

The WTO ruling as I read suggests that if the USA allows any remote gambling, it must either eliminate remote gambling within it's borders or allow Antigua to offer remote gambling services to Americans to be compliant eith the ruling.

The distinction between the events which are gambled upon are an entirely false construct, and the WTO makes no acknowledgment of it - remote gambling is remote gambling, no matter the event being wagered upon.

As I said, probably wrong, but that's how I understand it right now.

dave.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dave, I agree with you. IMO, the horse racing matter on which the Appellate report focused was just one example of the discrimination in US law against foreign online gaming operators. The panel on the compliance issue found more instances of discrimination.
Rep. Franks' bill does not really address these instances of discrimination because it exempts all these special online gaming, horse racing, fantasy leagues and lotteries, from its licensing requirements.
Maybe future bills or amendments will address these matters.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Rep. Franks' bill does not really address these instances of discrimination because it exempts all these special online gaming, horse racing, fantasy leagues and lotteries, from its licensing requirements.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give us more info on theses exemptions?

[JPFisher55]

All the exemptions in the UIGEA are kept. It is not repealed. Section 5389 specifically states all previous state and federal gambling laws are not affected by this bill.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
All the exemptions in the UIGEA are kept. It is not repealed. Section 5389 specifically states all previous state and federal gambling laws are not affected by this bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

So my UIGEA copy says that lawful horseracing is not included. If it is lawful and not included, why does it need an exemption from a law that addresses unlawful actions?? Does it say somewhere that unlawful horseracing is exempt?

Not included is a different idea than being included and needing an exemption, seems to me. There is no exemption for lawful gambling, none needed.

I see nothing in UIGEA exempting unlawful lotteries or unlawful fantasy games. Where do you see that?

Are there other unlawful internet gambling actions exempted?

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
Not UK, their new licensing is for online gaming operators located in the UK.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and no. The operator must have someone in the UK to deal with and they must have their servers in the UK for inspection (even if just mirrored) but they can be incorporated and pay their corporate taxes wherever. An Antiguan company would need some equipment and staff in the UK to serve the UK market (as well as the license) but that's it. I believe this is WTO compliant - you can regulate, you can tax but you can't exclude foreign companies.

[JPFisher55]

But the UK clearly does not enforce this licensing law. They clearly, in practice at least, allow their citizens to gamble at unlicensed websites and transfer money to them by ewallet etc.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
But the UK clearly does not enforce this licensing law. They clearly, in practice at least, allow their citizens to gamble at unlicensed websites and transfer money to them by ewallet etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I recall correctly, their enforcement starts September 1st.

[permafrost]

The Frank bill has a paragraph that promises to collect taxes from individuals. Page 9 if you want to look.
[ QUOTE ]
(3) Appropriate mechanisms to ensure that all taxes relating to Internet gambling due to Federal and State governments and to Indian tribes from persons engaged in Internet gambling are collected at the time of any payment of any proceeds of Internet gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Barney isn't here to tell me if that means some existing taxes, a new tax scheme, or a combination of both. And what "any proceeds" means? And what "any payment" means? And what "due to" means. Could someone ask him please?

Until we get that answer, we're on our own for analysis.

Let's start with the phrase "all taxes". That could mean sales, estate, Fed income, excise, state income, new gambling taxes, self-employment tax. Maybe you can think of others. Let's look at each.

Sales tax relating to internet gambling?? Nope, not selling.

Estate tax relating to internet gambling? Maybe, but we won't be around, meh.

Fed income tax relating to internet gambling? Yes, you do make an income playing, so yes there will be income tax. The paragraph refers to collection when any "proceeds" are paid. That's another clue that income taxes are included in "all".

Excise tax relating to internet gambling? Doubtful.

State income tax relating to internet gambling? Yes, see Fed income above.

A new gambling tax scheme relating to internet gambling? That must be what the phrase refers to if it isn't some of these other taxes.

Self-employnment tax relating to internet gambling? Income is flowing to you. How do you prove that you don't owe SE tax? Remember, the operator loses his license if he was supposed to collect this and didn't. That makes him very suspicious of someone making a profit and saying they don't need SE tax withheld; the operator won't care.

Now, "any payment". Leaving the table? Withdrawing? Bonus? I lean towards when leaving the table since that is the first time you are paid. No way it's once a year.

What about "any proceeds"? We can only hope this means profit.

What about "due to"? I don't even know what tax I will have due for the year. How will the operator know? He won't, he will have to guess, on the high side so he collects enough.

My conclusion is we should be looking for collections of the existing taxes when we leave a profitable table. Even Barney wouldn't try to slip in a new one.

This will really impress the fish. SS # on sign-up, taxes collected if they manage a win or if they get a bonus. If they do sign up.

[Dunkman]

How you interpret "payment of any proceeds of Internet gambling" to mean leaving a table I'll never know. Don't let the bill stand in the way of a good argument...that seems to be the theme of this thread now.

[Skallagrim]

One point to remember is that this bill is not just a poker bill. When a slot player hits a huge jackpot or a sportbettor wins a longshot also has to be considered.

And thank you perma for phrasing your argument correctly now, we dont know what new taxes will come. They could be either good for the game or bad, I will admit. But I, for one, will worry about the new taxes when they are proposed.

Skallagrim

[Windmilla]

Good bill. How long till its passed?

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
Good bill. How long till its passed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Betting the farm that it will not become law in the 110th Congress would be a superior wager, in terms of EV, to moving all in with a set and getting called by a gutshot straight draw.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good bill. How long till its passed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Betting the farm that it will not become law in the 110th Congress would be a superior wager, in terms of EV, to moving all in with a set and getting called by a gutshot straight draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee 15% is higher than I figured.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the UK clearly does not enforce this licensing law. They clearly, in practice at least, allow their citizens to gamble at unlicensed websites and transfer money to them by ewallet etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I recall correctly, their enforcement starts September 1st.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again yes and no. The "enforcement" will be a ban on advertising (and likely sponsorship) by unlicensed sites. There are no provisions to prevent money transfers. The expectation is (or maybe was given the higher than hoped levy)that the regulated sites will win out via increased customer confidence and the ability to promte. It is a market led approach not a ban on individuals or sites.