A Message from PPA Exec Dir.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't think of an instance where we want something that's being actively opposed by PPA. If PPA is actively working on 30% of what we want and is not hurting the other 70% (by opposing it), then we're FAR better off than we'd be if they didn't exist, as the 30% stuff wouldn't be getting done, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, the "30%" figure I used was to illustrate the point. I personally think the PPA's figure is higher. What I was really trying to say was:

[ QUOTE ]
I can't think of an instance where we want something that's being actively opposed by PPA. For example, if PPA were actively working on only 30% of what we want and was not hurting the other 70% (by opposing it), then we'd be FAR better off than we'd be if they didn't exist, as the 30% stuff wouldn't be getting done, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

That being said, I'm not joining the board to "sell out" or to be a PPA apologist. I'm extremely happy to have someone like John come on board and QUICKLY make much-needed changes, and I'm encouraged by the progress. However, I'm joining the board to represent the player community and to keep the pressure on to deliver.

The bottom line is that the PPA has improved about 5-fold in the last six weeks. It's time for us all to move forward with our agenda.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer, I look forward to the energy you will undoubtedly bring to the PPA. It would be awesome if you could organize a boycott drive of the NFL. That would go a long way to showing that we are not easy targets for anybody and that our fight for our freedoms merits attention.

[/ QUOTE ]

John and I have discussed some aspects of this. As I've been leading (or at least very actively supporting) the boycott fight here, you know I'm passionate about this. After all, if the NFL came out in favor of a handgun ban, you can be sure the NRA wouldn't let it slide.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I just want to echo the comments of others saying both that the engineer is an excellent addition to the board and that this is a big step in the right direction for the PPA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks! I look forward to representing all of us (the player community, not 2+2 LLC, obviously) in our efforts.

While I don't represent 2+2 LLC, I'll obviously take their concerns and questions to the board (and all of yours as well) if they ask.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But in fact they have said that they are doing nothing on the regs issue and let that be posted here.

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA reps never posted here, or at least that the impression I had, so how could they say that they don't work on the regs. This is the opportunity to ask Pappas directly whether the regs are one of their priorities.

[/ QUOTE ]

See this post in the PPA update thread where Engineer reports on his conversation with Mr. Pappas and points I had made earlier and where he says:

"2) BluffTHIS is correct, the PPA isn’t lobbying to neuter the regs. I expressed my thoughts that they should, but they won’t."

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a straight talking person who disinclined to sugar-coat anything. I also believe in free dialogue. I'll encourage the PPA to be as open as I am here.

As for the issue, I've not fully clarified this with John (we've simply had a lot to go over every time we've spoken so far), so I may be speaking a bit out of turn. If I had to guess, I'd imagine that these regs are being fought by chambers of commerce, banks, and big media companies, all of whom (unlike poker) have excellent standing in the Bush administration (keep in mind that the regs are being prepared by the executive branch, all of whom work for and serve at the pleasure of the president). As evidenced by the delays in completion of the UIGEA regs, they seem to have had an impact. PPA may have felt it best to work from the sidelines in support of these other interests.

I've been a big proponent of us writing to the regulation writers, as we have nothing to lose. For PPA to do it, they have to pull someone off of something else.

Everyone here knows I've been a big proponent here (if not the leader of the effort) of actively fighting for neutered regs. As a board member, I'll continue to emphasize the need to jump in and do all we can.

[berya]

"If you're going for fight for the legality of poker, fight for those unfair taxes laws toward poker/gambling in general too."

Yes I agree. Don't forget about the taxes, also rake. We don't want to have the government regulate this and then bleed us dry.

Thank you and keep up the good work.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're going for fight for the legality of poker, fight for those unfair taxes laws toward poker/gambling in general too.

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt. Even a showdown monkey like me made six figures at this last year. Clearly taxes are not fair for us.

There is a timing question, of course (i.e., should we get the legislation passed first before looking like we're looking for a break on our taxes), but this has to be addressed at some point.

Say what you want about the current PPA board...there's no denying that they're all very aware of this issue.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're going for fight for the legality of poker, fight for those unfair taxes laws toward poker/gambling in general too.

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt. Even a showdown monkey like me made six figures at this last year. Clearly taxes are not fair for us.

There is a timing question, of course (i.e., should we get the legislation passed first before looking like we're looking for a break on our taxes), but this has to be addressed at some point.

Say what you want about the current PPA board...there's no denying that they're all very aware of this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a suggestion on overall strategy. Depending on the legislative area of break through, skills game, UIEGA repeal, and or some form of regulatory licensing scheme, taxes have to be part of our conversations and strategy. IMO we need to address this issue as part of the total package. If you wait until later, the GAO will prepare a report for Congress saying how much of the poker revenue you are giving away as a "new subsidy" to poker players. Once a revenue stream is on the books it is seem as owned by congress.

At some point we are going to have, when we get that far, to negotiate a licensing scheme, age verification, as part of the regularity scheme. Unless we include tax considerations in our preliminary discussions with members they will feel that bringing it up later as a new issue. PR wise it will be fought as a give-away to gambling interests.


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a suggestion on overall strategy. Depending on the legislative area of break through, skills game, UIEGA repeal, and or some form of regulatory licensing scheme, taxes have to be part of our conversations and strategy. IMO we need to address this issue as part of the total package. If you wait until later, the GAO will prepare a report for Congress saying how much of the poker revenue you are giving away as a "new subsidy" to poker players. Once a revenue stream is on the books it is seem as owned by congress.

At some point we are going to have, when we get that far, to negotiate a licensing scheme, age verification, as part of the regularity scheme. Unless we include tax considerations in our preliminary discussions with members they will feel that bringing it up later as a new issue. PR wise it will be fought as a give-away to gambling interests.


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree that the GAO numbers for legalized gaming with tax reform would show an increase in gross tax revenue (while doing it later would show a loss), I'd still be concerned that it doing it simultaneously would be still seen as a giveaway to gambling interests, such that it would impede progress of our legislation.

I don't have an opinion, as I don't have any data one way or another. I'm just mentioning the two sides of the argument. Either way, this topic deserves it's own thread.

[oldbookguy]

While it is a given congress will be concerned with taxes and income and we do not like that 'pooled' ruling, the latter issue needs to be fought as a separate issue in my opinion.

If we can get the ‘skill’ exemption as proposed in the Wexler Bill the ‘skill’ gaming sites already operate under a set tax plan, one we will like, at least I do.

Really, first get Poker treated equal to those games and sites and go after the tax deduction issue and how it is applied to B&M not as a single issue.

See World winner T&C’s as follow, this is an American Company.

http://www.worldwinner.com/cgi/legal/terms.html

Actually, if we can get THIS in place, winning are treated under these sites very favorably.

Quoting from WW T&C’s, “It is the policy of the Site, in compliance with United States Internal Revenue Service regulations, to send an IRS Form 1099 or other appropriate form to any person who wins in excess of $600 (USD) on the Site in any given year. Depending on the jurisdiction in which you reside, the Site may also send you additional similar tax forms. However, you remain solely responsible for paying all federal and other taxes in accordance with the laws that apply in your state, province, and/or country of residence.”

Notice they hold NO taxes, only issue a 1099.

Really, this is where we want to be. Treated equal with the games and equal to the ‘skill’ sites.

WW is the home site for AOL, MSN & YAHOO! Cash / Skill Games.

obg

[Merkle]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're going for fight for the legality of poker, fight for those unfair taxes laws toward poker/gambling in general too.

[/ QUOTE ]

AGREE