IGREA gains six cosponsors

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker has to continue with rakes comparable to or less than B&M, or it will fall on its face (and will return less in tax revenues as a result). Fortunately, it's easy for us. We should vehemently oppose all direct government rakes. Even a small rake will grow over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree online rake has to be below B&M but a government tax take does not mean it will ne higher than now. Look at affiliates. They get a good chunk of the rake either outright or passing it to us as rakeback and taking a slice - they give an idea of the LOW end of the margin hit sites can take and still maintain the current rake.

A small tax is not the death of online poker. (Though I do accept taxing winnings and the sites is a bit harsh).

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker has to continue with rakes comparable to or less than B&M, or it will fall on its face (and will return less in tax revenues as a result). Fortunately, it's easy for us. We should vehemently oppose all direct government rakes. Even a small rake will grow over time.

This could be fish city all over again! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I think would happen. Party and all the others would return, then there would be new domestic sites. There would also be the potential for safeguards, for example, prompt payouts, none of this waiting weeks and months for a check that bounces. So it wouldn't be all negative.

I confess I'd like a return to the glory days, so I'm trying to think positive.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poker has to continue with rakes comparable to or less than B&M, or it will fall on its face (and will return less in tax revenues as a result). Fortunately, it's easy for us. We should vehemently oppose all direct government rakes. Even a small rake will grow over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree online rake has to be below B&M but a government tax take does not mean it will ne higher than now. Look at affiliates. They get a good chunk of the rake either outright or passing it to us as rakeback and taking a slice - they give an idea of the LOW end of the margin hit sites can take and still maintain the current rake.

A small tax is not the death of online poker. (Though I do accept taxing winnings and the sites is a bit harsh).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be concerned about allowing a direct government rake, because congressmen who don't understand the industry could simply increase the rake every time they needed money. While they may balk at increasing site taxes from 30% to 45%, they may see increasing the government rake from $.50 to $1.25 (on top of the site rake) as inconsequential. Government frequently makes ill-informed decisions like this.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poker has to continue with rakes comparable to or less than B&M, or it will fall on its face (and will return less in tax revenues as a result). Fortunately, it's easy for us. We should vehemently oppose all direct government rakes. Even a small rake will grow over time.

This could be fish city all over again! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I think would happen. Party and all the others would return, then there would be new domestic sites. There would also be the potential for safeguards, for example, prompt payouts, none of this waiting weeks and months for a check that bounces. So it wouldn't be all negative.

I confess I'd like a return to the glory days, so I'm trying to think positive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Domestic sites with domestic, trusted names. Direct bank transfers. E-checks. Commercials. Links in sites that actually go to dot.coms (not dot.nets). This could be outstanding for us if it gets done properly. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[JPFisher55]

Govt. won't mean to tax it to death, but they will do so by incompetence. Most politicians have never had a real job. So they underestimate the effects of taxes.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Govt. won't mean to tax it to death, but they will do so by incompetence. Most politicians have never had a real job. So they underestimate the effects of taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

See my post two posts above yours. Yes, government frequently screws things up due to sheer incompetence. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] We'll just have to be vigilant, I guess.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
"By pleading guilty to the racketeering conspiracy charge, the British-based company admitted that it operated an illegal gambling business, laundered money and committed mail and wire fraud, U.S. Attorney Catherine Hanaway said in a statement."

More here

-- Russ Fox

[/ QUOTE ]

XFT (x-posted for truth). This (the linked article) should be required reading for anyone who thinks the status quo, especially with this Justice Department, will be good for online poker.

[vinyard]

[ QUOTE ]
This is evidence that the Dems have decided to regulate online gaming in order to tax it; maybe to death.

[/ QUOTE ] There is no such evidence provided.

[Uglyowl]

Slot machines at Indian casinos can payout 95-99% and the government still gets a nice chunk of change. Hopefully it is profit based or a flat license fee or something, so the rake doesn't need to change.

[wax42]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just so I'm clear, if they were for HR4411, that's bad right? (Although if that is bad, they're now good, which is good)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. HR 4411 became UIGEA after being lightened up a bit (i.e., HR 4411 was even worse than UIGEA).

[/ QUOTE ]I was wondering... Frist could have put anything into the SAFE Port Act and it would have passed. So why did he use a weakened version of HR 4411 rather than the full version?