What is your definition of Regulation?

[Sniper]

Interesting question TT...

I can forsee a time when Poker Sites will report W2G earnings based on table session winnings, and withhold 25% of win$ everytime you get up from the table. Leaving the player to have to calculate and prove losses for deduction purposes, when they file taxes, as it is today.

[Exsubmariner]

Banning = regulation.

Just ask the ACers in the politics forum. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting question TT...

I can forsee a time when Poker Sites will report W2G earnings based on table session winnings, and withhold 25% of win$ everytime you get up from the table. Leaving the player to have to calculate and prove losses for deduction purposes, when they file taxes, as it is today.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see we share the same vision.

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

[Moneyline]

There was a lengthy discussion on this around the time of the House vote. I think there are both pros and cons to legislation, with the pros outweighing the cons. At the time most people seemed to share my opinion on this.

The pros:
1) Insured deposits
2) Governement would monitor the integrity of the games/shuffle
3) Easier payment access
4) Better safeguards to stop underage and problem gamblers.
5) Explosion in the numbers of casual players for above 4 reasons.

Essentially, the pros are that online gambling will be legitimized, and the base of casual players will increase. Also, no payment problems like the current Pokes Poker fiasco.

The Cons:
1) Automatic witholding of taxes.
2) States potentially limiting the maximum amount that can be bet.

Automatic witholding would be a pain in the ass because it amounts to giving the gov't an interest free loan instead of allowing me to put that money in my bankroll and use it to generate more income. Individual states placing limits on bets would obviously keep players from those states from playing higher stakes games.

The concern about the gov't taking a piece of every hand a player wins as opposed to every session is not a credible concern IMO. Not only does it seem like a logistical nightmare for the IRS, but it would go against current protocol of accounting by session.

[4_2_it]

TT,

Since the government has failed to properly ever regulate anything, I am very much for the status quo. If the WTO case could blow up that would be a good thing.

This is going to be a state by state issue as I do not see how gambling could be considered interstate commerce unless they figure out a way to allow me to be present in one state while 'legally' placing a bet in another.

I think a situation like this would 'seem' to be close to a techincal violation of the Wire Act for some.

Right now, I think that banks will influence this process to make it very easy (read: inexpensive) for them to just make a token effort. The poker sites will develop and communicate workarounds and the Democrat Congress will have no inclination to modify the law to take these into account.

My definition of regulation? That's a tough one. I wonder what the Internet sites would want. Seems it would easy for them to generate W2s that include wins and losses and 1099s for bonuses. I wonder if we would also get 1099s from our rakeback affiliates?

[Ace upmy Slv]

Just a quick statement/question:

I have cashed at several live tournaments including a close to 6 figure cash at this years WSOP. I have always just received a W2G form with no taxes taken at the time of the cash. I will pay taxes on those at the end of the year. What would be the difference with online poker?

What would prevent each site sending all US customers one W2G at the end of the year for their poker winnings on their site? Each site would have to monitor each players accounts for the whole year and send a W2G accordingly. We each would then pay taxes on this at the end of the year just like any other W2G. The online sites would be regulated and taxed like any other B&M casino. Obviously their increased costs would be passed down to the players through added rake or larger tourney fees.

Each site could send a yearly statement showing all deposit amounts, winnings, rake paid, tourney buyin fees, etc for tax purposes. Think of it like buying and selling stocks. You don't automatically pay taxes every time you buy and sell a stock during the year. You pay taxes or deduct taxes at the end of each year based on the overall profit or losses from buying and selling stocks.

Am I offbase here or missing something?

[dragonystic]

Some people have stated it should be regulated like "tobacco and firearms" or that it should be regulated like regular B&M's. But as I think about this more, it all seems absurd.

We don't regulate FOREIGN B&M's or foreign tobacco. And that's what these online casinos are right now! Why should the US get any sort of cut?? If the US can get a cut, why not the UK or Sweden or Germany? This doesn't make sense. Online casinos service dozens (hundreds?) of countries! What is to stop each and every government from sticking it's hand out?

If the US wants a cut, they'd have to have the servers in the US, as the UK is attempting to do. Otherwise they are entitled to nothing.

[John_Manley]

Regulation would have to incorporate/address all the issues that the goverment has sited as a reason to ban online gaming (underage gambling, regulations to prevent as much as possible money laundering, a method to tract online player winnings and losing so that taxes can be collected, gambling addiction, etc.). Other issues like gaming site fairness/cheating would have to be addressed and I suspect there would be some sort of gambling commision that would have to be formed to monitor the online gambling sites. Along with the regulations, I suspect would come stiffer penalties to sites and users who violate any of the gambling laws. I'm sure the big Vegas casios will lobby to be the sole operators of online gaming but in my opinion that would violate free trade.

[burningyen]

[ QUOTE ]
Gambling is legalized and regulated at the state level.

[/ QUOTE ]
Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. They could easily pass a law with respect to internet gambling that preempts state laws.

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
Some people have stated it should be regulated like "tobacco and firearms" or that it should be regulated like regular B&M's. But as I think about this more, it all seems absurd.

We don't regulate FOREIGN B&M's or foreign tobacco. And that's what these online casinos are right now! Why should the US get any sort of cut?? If the US can get a cut, why not the UK or Sweden or Germany? This doesn't make sense. Online casinos service dozens (hundreds?) of countries! What is to stop each and every government from sticking it's hand out?

If the US wants a cut, they'd have to have the servers in the US, as the UK is attempting to do. Otherwise they are entitled to nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the idea is that the US government would only get a cut of the earnings made off US gamblers. If other countries wanted to regulate poker as well, they would only get a piece of the profits from gamblers from their specific country.