What is your definition of Regulation?

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
You pose a great question TT. I think life may be better as we currently stand than if the government continues to get involved in our lives at this level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo! Some day we will look back and wish that online poker was banned, because those were the good old days when there were back-door methods to fund an account. Do we really want the government regulating and taxing our games? What if they screw it all up? What if the compromise is a situation similar to the games in Florida right now?

Keep it coming 2+2.... lets brainstorm, how do we encourage regulation without damaging out game?

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You pose a great question TT. I think life may be better as we currently stand than if the government continues to get involved in our lives at this level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo! Some day we will look back and wish that online poker was banned, because those were the good old days when there were back-door methods to fund an account. Do we really want the government regulating and taxing our games? What if they screw it all up? What if the compromise is a situation similar to the games in Florida right now?

Keep it coming 2+2.... lets brainstorm, how do we encourage regulation without damaging out game?

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]We already pay taxes.The real crush of regulation would be on the sites.Those are the ones who are not paying taxes,not the players.Although,this taxing of poker sites could effect us as well,by companies who try to pass their new burden to players through higher rake.Free market would hopefully control this to an extent.At least this would seem logical.How exactly does it work in other countries where it is regulated and sites are taxed???If someone who lives somewhere like this could chime in and explain the actual effects that would be great.It is a very interesting question,and id like to hear from someone who is living it,what the reality of playing online poker under government regulation is.

[*TT*]

[/ QUOTE ]We already pay taxes.The real crush of regulation would be on the sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

And don't you think the sites will pass the buck to the end user? After all their foreign customers don't force the company to pay additional taxes.

I don't think the burden will be via higher rake, it will have to be implemented as a dedicated and separate rake that only kicks in when the player is a US citizen.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]We already pay taxes.The real crush of regulation would be on the sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

And don't you think the sites will pass the buck to the end user? After all their foreign customers don't force the company to pay additional taxes.

I don't think the burden will be via higher rake, it will have to be implemented as a dedicated and separate rake that only kicks in when the player is a US citizen.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]I see your point,but we are assuming an off shore company in this scenario???Thats also another factor that would greatly be affected by legalizing and regulating online poker.We might safely assume that if given the green light alot of american casinos and other companies would swoop in like hawks on this profitable market.So your point is well taken,but would be a completely different scenario for taxing sites if they were an american company on american soil.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
We already pay taxes.The real crush of regulation would be on the sites.Those are the ones who are not paying taxes,not the players.Although,this taxing of poker sites could effect us as well,by companies who try to pass their new burden to players through higher rake.Free market would hopefully control this to an extent.At least this would seem logical.How exactly does it work in other countries where it is regulated and sites are taxed???If someone who lives somewhere like this could chime in and explain the actual effects that would be great.It is a very interesting question,and id like to hear from someone who is living it,what the reality of playing online poker under government regulation is.

[/ QUOTE ]

The situation in the UK is like this. The betting shops (William Hill, Ladbrokes etc) pay a 15% levy of their take to the taxman, this is on top of their normal corporation tax etc. This replaced a 9% tax on all bets (you could pay it placing a bet or lose it from your winnings, this was the only UK tax on gambling winnings). The bookies agreed to this deal a few years back and have since concentrated on upping their revenues via electronic terminals in shops etc so that both the bookies and the taxman get more - as a result of an increase in gambling. The punters are happy as they feel 9% better off and given the competition of betting exchanges the bookies have not been able to fix the book by anything like 9%.

In Gibraltar/Antigua etc it is a bit less clear as they don't talk about it but the scuttle but is that taxes are about 1% of revenues. The UK gov is yet to outline what tax regime they would have for dedicated online operations, they would like 15% as this way it matches the B&M operations but it's unlikely anyone would come onshore at this rate. The problem for the UK is if they set a lower rate the local firms will go "Oi, what about us" and the treasury wants the money. It's likely they will need an online/B&M difference but this would make all the bookies try and push all the punters online.

Anyway the conference was not just about regulation it was also about taxation. They will not admit it but the 32 governments were trying to get a cartel where they all agreed a minimum tax take. Gib/Antigua may not be keen to lose their competitive advantage but today's press with gov ministers putting pressure on the Treasury by talking about nobody coming onshore suggests they made progress but not near 15%.

My guess 5% and an agreement to work on joint regulation so that a licence in 1 country can be ported to another for a fee and a cut of the 5% on revenues from that market. This is just a guess though, the negotiations will be long.

In short though the tax on the companies should not really hit the rake or the punter much, it is likely to hit the house margin in a competitive market. We all know they are making superprofits today, the market will push the rake down and because only authorised sites will be allowed to advertise the real market will be of regulated sites.

[5thStreetHog]

Thanks for the reply.

[AAAA]

representative kasper from ND indicated he thought the state could get the IRS to accept a Net win/loss for the year instead of each session. IMO it would be better for the government to run the room rather than try to tax it. there is an extra level of expense if the companies try to run the rooms.

perhaps in its infancy, this would have been a bad idea, but now that things have pretty much settled down with changes in software and such...i think it is a reasonable thing for a government to do.

years ago i read a book where there were no taxes at all except for a voluntary gambling game that people enjoyed playing! perhaps the time has come!