|
|
#1
12-03-2006, 02:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Online vs. Live financial transactions
Maybe someone has pointed this out before but I haven't looked in the legislative forum much.
The internet gambling bill prohibits financial institutions from doing something on-line that they do ever day live in the United States. What casino does not have an ATM in it. Is that not the same thing? The feds might argue that B&M casinos in the United States are not illegal gambling as the bill states and is what they are trying to thwart. Are these not government sanctioned businesses in there sovereign nation of origin (Antiqua, UK, etc). Are not our indian casinos run by a different sovereign nation other than the United States? Whats the difference between financial institutions funding ATMs at an indian casino vs. funding for a online casino from another sovereign country? Oh, but the on-line casino doesn't pay taxes. Well neither do the indian casinos. (I am certainly not opposed to indian casinos, I spend way to much time there). The players at online casinos may not pay taxes on their winnings and the vast majority of live players at indian casinos don't pay taxes on their winnings either. (I always lose more than I win [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]) So whats the difference? or maybe they will introduce a bill to prohibit financial institutions from transacting business with any live gambling site also? Just a rant and ramble, sorry. 
|
|
#2
12-03-2006, 10:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Online vs. Live financial transactions
basically, my understanding is that the federal regulators that are currently working with the banking industry to determine what companies will be deemed "online" gaming sites. so to answer your question, if they determined some indian casino had ties to an online site and they wanted to prevent financial institutions from allowing tranfers to that place of business i'd imagine it is within their jurisdiction to do so. i don't think you'll see it happen, but theoritically it probably could if they could prove that the b & m casino had ties to online gambling.
|
|
#3
12-04-2006, 06:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I haven\'t looked in the legislative forum much: always a good lead-in
"I haven't looked in the legislative forum much"
Did you vote in November ? 'What casino does not have an ATM in it. Is that not the same thing?' ---- No, it is not. "The feds might argue ..." ---- Hey, that argument is over, the law was passed, i.e "as the bill states" has some meaning to you, correct ? "Oh, but the on-line casino doesn't pay taxes. Well neither do the indian casinos" ----- Really, you think the State compacts are entered into for free ? Do a LITTLE research before you posit these "amazing" facts. i.e. How much does Foxwoods pay to the State of Connecticut annually ? "(I always lose more than I win )" ---- Now that is a real shocker. Just a counter-rant.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
