Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

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...04_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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

[ 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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

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

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

[ 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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

[ 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

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

i agree with this guy ^^^^

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

[ 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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

[ 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."

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

[ 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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

[ 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. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

[ 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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

[ 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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

[ 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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

[ 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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

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?

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

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..

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

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?

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

[ 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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

[ 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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

[ 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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

[ 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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

[ 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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

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

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

[ 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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

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.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

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.