Reaction To Online Gaming Bill Vehement And Outraged

Poker News ^ | October 02, 2006 | Earl Burton

[baystaterebel]

Reaction to the online gaming legislation passed in a late night pre-recess session in Congress has been one of outrage as poker lobbying organizations and support groups prepare for the future.

Late Friday evening, Congress was able to link a bill regarding online gaming to the latest bill regarding American port security. This bill, which was enacted to prevent another situation such as the Dubai scenario earlier this year (which would have awarded security rights for several coastal cities to a Muslim country), was virtually guaranteed to pass through the Senate. It was with this bill that Senator Bill Frist, Senator Jon Kyl and others were able to stake their online gaming bandwagon on.

[xzins]

Other then appeasing a few fanatic Bible Thumpers

I am what you might call a "bible thumper," and my objection to gambling, in general, is the damage that it truly does cause in families and neighborhoods. If it were possible to restrict the damage to individuals, I'd readily fall back on my normal argument "live and let live."

Nonetheless, I do NOT support restrictions on gambling. Because the damage to families and neighborhoods is real and is measurable, I see no reason to assume that governments cannot be involved in this issue and regulate it with legislation.

I allow for gambling for the same reason I allow for alcohol consumption:

1. There is a fallacy in catering to the addict rather than to the majority capable of moderation.

2. There is a fallacy in government attempting to regulate that which is amazingly simple to engage in whether government objects or not. Government couldn't really control Uncle Jake making whiskey in his garage and selling it to his neighbors. Nor can government control those who run numbers and play poker. It's insane to regulate that which you can't control.

1 & 2 above do not mean government has no interest in TRYING to do so, if they so desire.

[HKMk23]

It has been my understanding that if you are a U.S. citizen, every dollar you acquire, by whatever means, onshore or offshore, is reportable and taxable as income excluding only certain tax-deferred investments and profits from real estate sales up to a cap.

So, it's not illegal to have an offshore accout; it's illegal to have one and fail to report your interest income. If you go to Monaco and win $1M, that's not illegal, but you must report it when you file your taxes. The local government will take their pound of flesh at the point of payment; reporting to the IRS is your job.

Now, you could always return via Grand Cayman, land in the U.S. sans capital, and leave some unnamed bank in Grand Cayman with a hefty new, numbered interest-earning account, but -- technically, at least -- you still have to report everything. Some things are nearly impossible for then to discover if you DON'T report them, BUT, if you don't report them and they DO discover them...you're TOAST.

But, then, I think you implied that you're somewhat of a gambler... ;-)

[gate2wire]

Pretty much what HKMk23 wrote. Your winnings are taxable, but you can write off your losses. IRS has no way of knowing what your losses are. Unless you get audited, you can show what ever losses you need to (I am NOT advocating committing fraud here.) You need to keep records of your losses or the IRS won't accept them under audit.


By the way, all this Bill does is limit the way one funds their account and cashes winnings.

[MarkL]

I could be wrong about this, but I believe that if you earn money off-shore, and leave it completely off-shore, then it's not taxed. It's only taxed when you access it, or bring it into the country.

IIRC, that's how the Kenedys and Soros manage to have huge amounts of money available, but don't actually pay taxes on it. Sort of like a consumption tax. They don't pay taxes on it until they actually use it.

Mark

[Theo]

I still don't understand FReepers' support of online gambling. If you want to throw your money away, go to a "legal" establishment that's regulated.

I've suspected that online gambling rackets are run by spam gangs and other kinds of gangs, including those who support crime including terrorism. I do not doubt the onlinegambling/terrorism connection one bit. See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1711933/posts?page=34#33 for a discussion of that "connection."

[barkeep]

The casinos, the Indians, and the state lotteries all lobbied hard for this, they think it will reign in the competition. I specialize in football and blackjack, make a nice side income there. Main reason there is no outcry of opposition is this law is useless. My sports bets are with a local guy, technically illegal, blackjack in person. If I were interested in the online services, it would take about ten minutes to transfer some money and set up an account this law wouldn't touch.

Actually nobody really thinks this bill will do anything except give some Congresscritters a campaign boost on the "values" right. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) thought he needed it, the RNC thinks they need Leach to win to keep the majority, and they are probably right. All in all, a good move tactically, has no real effect on any gambler with more than three brain cells still rattling around.

If this sounds a bit cynical, well it is, but that is how the "great game" of politics is played. Not really that much different from gambling, online or not.

[gate2wire]

"I still don't understand FReepers' support of online gambling. If you want to throw your money away, go to a "legal" establishment that's regulated."

If I want to legally bet on a football game, I would have to fly to Vegas or drive 3 hours to Atlantic City. Why can't I go on-line and bet with a LEGAL British Book?

[gate2wire]

"Actually nobody really thinks this bill will do anything except give some Congresscritters a campaign boost on the "values" right."


"Congress has grappled with this issue for ten years, and during that time we've watched this shadow industry explode," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tennessee). "For me as majority leader, the bottom line is simple: Internet gambling is illegal. Although we can't monitor every online gambler or regulate offshore gambling, we can police the financial institutions that disregard our laws."


http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/todaysnews/newsview.asp?recno=66786&subsec=1

[jocon307]

"If I want to legally bet on a football game, I would have to fly to Vegas or drive 3 hours to Atlantic City."

Vegas only, you can't bet on Sports in Atlantic City, only horse racing.

[gate2wire]

I stand corrected.

[NonValueAdded]

The offshore connection ... a Google search should turn up dozens more articles: The Web: WTO's gambling deadline missed.

It is the logical reason why there would be enough support to pass the measure. I'm puzzled that this doesn't seem to come up in public statements from either side. Do the republicans prefer the bible thumper tag to being painted as caving to the WTO? Are there special interests that will throw their online operations under the bus in order to save their bricks and mortar operations from international electronic competition? Plenty of meat for a real journalist. Too bad they don't make those anymore.

[Lexington Green]

Pubbies just lost the poker vote -- that's millions of voters

[redgolum]

Thanks.

I don't like gambling, but honestly if someone wants to waste the money that is OK. This whole fight against Internet gambling doesn't make much sense to me.

If the argument is that it is bad for society, then state lottos (which suck up a lot more of the "poor" money than online sites) would logically be the first thing to be focused on. I don't have the stats, but I suspect that there are a lot more problem gamblers at casinos than online.

Funny though, the DNC isn't screaming either. This is from both sides.

[OldFriend]

I suspect that this is part of the effort to track fund transfers out of the US for terror related purposes.

[THEUPMAN]

I think the real fear is that on-line gambling might be cutting into the state lottery funds.

Can't have private companies competing with the state monopolies now can we ....
?

[Iwentsouth]

You cannot be serious. Party Poker is going to ban US players. That is the biggest site down more then 50% on the Londan Exchange. Many of the smaller sites have already begun banning US players.

Between the Democrats in Washington state and the Republicans in D.C.

I choose none of the above.

[redgolum]

Great points, and pretty much what I believe also.

I don't gamble (grew up the son of a farmer, a $500 bet is pretty small change compared to that gamble), but I know a quite a few who do as a source of entertainment. Much like I enjoy a good crafted beer or fine whiskey on occasion.

Both have the possibility of abuse to the determent of society, and hence why there is some regulation. But in the end banning either one is a bit of over reaction.

[Gone GF]

"poker lobbying organizations.."

And then there's this from the item..."poker player's rights organization"

What's that about? I see a new protected class.

[tacticalogic]

""The majority opinion correctly applies our decision in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), and I join it in full. I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

-Clarence Thomas

[stockstrader]

It's all about the taxes, period.

Heck, gambling via the 'options' and 'futures' markets has been a given for many, many years. The difference is the govt can monitor that activity much easier and ensure that they 'get their cut'.