How many Representatives are for or against Online Gambling?

[RacersEdge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the case of online gambling I would expect the dems to be more opposed though, because they are more inclined to want to "protect you from yourself".

[/ QUOTE ]

But arent repubs more on the "its a sin" side?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of support for this is more of a "we can't get much in taxes from this so let's wrap our thuggery in the moral and nanny blankets". Plus I'm sure there's pressure from b & m casinos to get rid of some competition of theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you suggest the tax revenues wouldnt be significant? California Indian Casinos alone, with a volume that is miniscule compared to current online gambling (much less where the volume would go if the taint of illegality were removed), generate 120 million a year in revenues to Ca. Two Connecticut casinos generate over 300 million in "fess" a year. Tax revenues from online sites alone would generate on the order of a trillion a year in taxes. On top of that, with the cooperation of the online sites, documenting the winnings of gamblers for personal income taxation would be trivial. The numbers are so big I find it hard to believe they havent pushed to get their hands on them years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

But how does the US government tax corporations that are based outside the US?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

My guess is 95% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats oppose online gambling.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the case of online gambling I would expect the dems to be more opposed though, because they are more inclined to want to "protect you from yourself".

[/ QUOTE ]

But arent repubs more on the "its a sin" side?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of support for this is more of a "we can't get much in taxes from this so let's wrap our thuggery in the moral and nanny blankets". Plus I'm sure there's pressure from b & m casinos to get rid of some competition of theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you suggest the tax revenues wouldnt be significant? California Indian Casinos alone, with a volume that is miniscule compared to current online gambling (much less where the volume would go if the taint of illegality were removed), generate 120 million a year in revenues to Ca. Two Connecticut casinos generate over 300 million in "fess" a year. Tax revenues from online sites alone would generate on the order of a trillion a year in taxes. On top of that, with the cooperation of the online sites, documenting the winnings of gamblers for personal income taxation would be trivial. The numbers are so big I find it hard to believe they havent pushed to get their hands on them years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

But how does the US government tax corporations that are based outside the US?

[/ QUOTE ]

They wont have to. The major B&M players have their sites ready to go or under development. In fact, isnt WPT's site US based but only operates in other countries for real money? Once its legalized here the B&Ms will capture huge market share almost immediately because:

1. They are already trusted
2. They can establish affinity programs with their casinos that have real value instead of t-shirts and mugs.
3. The big name players will be able to affiliate directly with the sites, including ownership positions, that many wont risk while its not legal here. Eg, you are likely to see S&M and 2+2 take a visible position with one of the big sites.
4. In the unlikely event that sites cheat players there will be recourse in the American courts. That might even apply to cheating players.
5. The major existing sites will relocate to the US in an attempt to retain market share. Im not sure of the tax implications but most likely they could even split their revenues at least between US and nonUS players. Eg, a "PokerStarsUSA" skin might be formed to take the action from US players, with rake or tourney fees going to the appropriate skin. If that doesnt beat the taxes on foreing players, sobeit, they will still be better off paying US fees on all of their action, because of the market share.

[Machinehead]

I would say it's not a big issue for most congressmen because money isn't coming in from the opposition. If money was coming in that was pro-online gambling, you'd see it become a debated issue. Right now we just don't know what other members of congress think because nobody is paying them to think.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
"Our new direction will advance a common agenda, seek common ground, and apply common sense in the service of the common good."

Read gun control, abortion, and gay marriage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Empty rhetoric which does not justify outlawing guns, abortions, or gay marriage.

[lehighguy]

My guess is anyone that stands to gain from outlawing it will be for it.

[pokerpunchout]

Do any of the major sites (IGlobal, Pokerstars, ect..) pay lobies to try to influence representitives?

[lehighguy]

Maybe, maybe not. There are risks in open lobbying. I'm sure there is quite lobbying.

The best thing they can lobby for is for it to be illegal for US companies to start sites, but legal (or not enforced) for people to play.