Posted on 10/02/2006 4:29:47 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at pokernews.com ...
It's as much of a potential mechanism for money laundering as onling gambling sites. This his how Hillary laundered the illegal campaign contributions from Tyson, but I don't recall anyone proposing banning commodity futures trading over it.
And you can do that same 'commodities' gambling ONLINE too! The difference is the govt wants to be able to 'get their cut'.
You may be right, but my understanding is that you are still under obligation to report it.
Count me as one of them. Frankly, I've had it with the Republicans at this point.
Thank you. Your explainations/comments seem reasonable. I really appreciate your insite.
That was my initial take on it.
Few credit cards and banks allow their cards to be used for online gaming...so alot of companies have popped up to fill the void...You pay them and they pay the casino. Of course, it costs you more.
BINGO! (opps! that's gambling, too, isn't it?)
I am the 5th generation of my family to farm in this community. Our 3 adult sons are farming with us, and our grandchildren's 4-H projects represent the 7th generation to farm here.
The risks at the poker table at the local casino seem small compared to the risks we've taken in the last 40 years to build this operation.
The politicians have an interest in creating the perception that they can indeed control it. The beltway bureaucrats have an interest in getting the money and authority to pursue the attempt.
I agree, though, that this is just another example of the GOVT GETTING BIGGER, MORE CONTROLLING, and MORE INTRUSIVE.
That is NOT why I vote Republican--they are 'ticking off' their strongest supporters. Actions like this WILL cause some less involved and less vocal Republicans to just 'stay home'.
To quote Janice Rogers Brown (who I would LOVE to see appointed to the Supreme Court),,,
"Where government advances – and it advances relentlessly – freedom is imperiled".
"I still don't understand FReepers' support of online gambling"
Do you understand support of people being able to spend their own money, in their own houses, on whatever they like.
"I've suspected that online gambling rackets are run by spam gangs and other kinds of gangs, including those who support crime including terrorism"
What tosh. 'Scam gangs' don't generally submit themselves to regulation by the London Stock Exchange, like the biggest online poker room, for instance. Many poker rooms are run by reputable businesses of many years standing (lots of British bookmakers, for instance, with thousands of shops between them and decades of business).
"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.""
That doesn't give any details at all of an actual 'connection. All it says is that there is a 'vulnerability'. That may be an argument for better regulation, but not prohibition. Airports are vulnerable to terrorism. Do you advocate the prohibition of air travel?
"There has been no outcry from the actual on-line gamblers, not that I've seen"
I'm not in the US, but there was a lobbying group set up called the PPA. I've also seen a lot of encouragement for people to call their Congressmen on poker messageboards that I've seen.
However, people who just like to wile away an hour every so often playing a sociable game of cards with people around the world, may not even be aware that their government has decided to remove that freedom from them in order to, err, increase security at ports.
"You need to keep records of your losses or the IRS won't accept them under audit."
What would you recommend for these records? If gambling at a casino, is it possible to get a receipt for the chips purchased or would a "record book" be valid?
The U.S. can tax any income above a certain level. Gambling winnings are generally considered income, on or off-shore. However, it would be difficult for the U.S. to track such winnings, as they wouldn't be reported to the IRS as such winnings are inside the U.S.
Thus Congress, ever the conservative institution, determined that since it couldn't guarantee under WTO rules it would be able to continue wetting its beak, better to pretend to social conservatism and ban the whole thing, sending the gamblers to unregulated bookies and regulated casinos.
"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."
You're wrong. Corporations have some workarounds similar to this (because they are usually incorporated in other countries where they make the income), but personal income taxation does NOT work this way. You make-a de money as an American citizen, you must file and pay-a de taxes (after the first $80K or so, anyway).
No probably about it.........
Bible thumping bump. Go Congress! Make it so all the little Poker Machiavelli's have to find productive work!
Where did you read this about Party Poker? They better not ban me before the Monster Millions final next May.
rein in, as in horses, not kings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.