Posted on 10/11/2017 6:54:01 PM PDT by Rummyfan
Now the media are just taunting us with their tall tales about Stephen Paddock, the alleged Las Vegas shooter. Reputedly serious news organizations are claiming that he made a living playing video poker. That's like claiming someone made a living smoking crack.
The media are either doing PR for the gambling industry or they don't want anyone considering the possibility that Paddock was using gambling to launder money.
NBC News reports, with a straight face: "Las Vegas gunman earned millions as a gambler." A Los Angeles Times article is headlined, "In the solitary world of video poker, Stephen Paddock knew how to win." The story says that Paddock's gambling "was at least a steady income over a period of years."
I don't know all the ins and outs of Paddock's life, but that's a lie.
How do reporters imagine casino owners make a living? Any ideas on how all those glorious lobbies, lights, pools and fountains are paid for? How do they think Sheldon Adelson and Steve Wynn became billionaires if gambling is a winning proposition for people like Paddock -- and therefore, by definition, a losing proposition for the casinos?
The media think about money the way Democrats do. They have absolutely no conception of where it originates. Those casino owners sure are generous! reporters think to themselves. Economist Thomas Sowell is always ridiculing journalists for not understanding basic economics. It turns out, they don't understand the spreadsheet of a lemonade stand.
(Excerpt) Read more at anncoulter.com ...
In a better world Ann Coulter would be running the New York Times and journalism would be a respected profession....
Ann’s done her research...
That is very interesting. I admit I did not believe it was possible.
That interview was in the 1990s. Everything has gone up since then. I also imagine some that do this for a living are better than others.
As a laundry man.
Maybe taking hit jobs on the side.
I think you’re pretty close.
“Until someone can produce hard evidence that Paddock made the money some other way, the existing evidence is that he made it as he reported, improbability notwithstanding.”
I don’t think you get it. That’s the point of money laundering. People who start spending millions on real estate, cars, boats, etc. show up on the radar with the IRS. This needs to match roughly what you have been telling the IRS you earn. If you report $50k a year, but spend like you’e making millions, you’ll go down like Al Capone.
So people launder their ill-got gains by pretending they got it elsewhere. Preferably in an all-cash business. Gambling is one easy way.
I think it is possible but improbable that he made fortunes gambling. And I also think that casinos watch their customers so well that they can probably tell if someone is laundering money. And this begs the question of their role in that dirty business.
The best way to win in Vegas, is to play the game with the best odds.
Which is why I always buy stock in the casino, if I go to Vegas to gamble.
Casinos certainly know if you consistently win. It won’t matter to them if you are just lucky or are a card counter, if you win more than they think that you should they will ban you.
That’s one more reason not to believe the idea that Paddock got rich by gambling.
Like you, I think gambling is how he was laundering money. That, and his real estate investing. Both involve large sums of money that may not attract attention if you report large taxable gains.
His dad was a career criminal. Stephen just put into practice a few tricks he learned about how to stay invisible to the authorities.
“Video poker in Vegas (as well as slots) would be a fairly straightforward way to launder a lot of money I’d think. As someone else mentioned, who cares if you lose 2 or 3 percent of your large bankroll when your goal is to have clean money at the end of the process.”
Something eludes me about taking dirty money and changing it into clean money via gambling. I am confused, please explain.
In Louisiana in the past the Mafia owned hotels in New Orleans That is the way they laundered dirty money into clean money. Their hotels were “always full” even though they were not. They used the dirty money as income to the hotels for the rooms that were really not used. They paid taxes on this dirty money and then used it to invest in totally legitimate business investments.
My ex worked for a very legitimate bank in New Orleans circa 1972.. One of their major customers was Carlos Marcello. He had big loans from this bank and all very legitimate. That was his clean and legal money. This was his clean money just doing legitimate business.
So the way it works is if you win a large amount of money (say a $15,000 jackpot on $5 video poker), the casino gives you a tax form and reports the winnings to the IRS.
So a money launder could take $100,000 cash into the casino, gamble for a while, and collect documentation that he “won” $90,000. That gets reported to the IRS as income even though the gambler actually lost $10,000.
I agree with Ann Coulter. There is no way someone made a multi-million dollar annual income on video poker. The tiny number of professional video poker gamblers report incomes of around $80,000 and would love to make more except they can’t because there aren’t enough games/machines with over 100% payout.
He was also playing quarters. Paddock was playing big money. The guy in the article balked at $1 games because you need a big bankroll. Paddock apparently had a big bankroll. Also, the guy in the article avoided the $1 games because of taxes. Paddock needed the taxes to clean the money. (??)
“....if you win more than they think that you should they will ban you.”
I think you have it all backwards - win millions of dollars a year from a casino like Paddock did, and they comp you all the nice rooms and stuff so you’ll keep coming back to win even more money from them! /s
Hmm - His burger, soup, bagel and two Pepsi for $48 - no wonder they can afford to comp him a room! (Anybody know - meals aren’t comped I guess?)
Originally published: March 2003
In the absence of any proof otherwise, money laundering is probably the most logical scenario - Arms dealing, drugs?? He was involved in two of the most likely ways to launder money, real estate and gambling. Added to that, he worked for the IRS and also did accounting, so he would know the ropes in hiding paper trails. He owned planes, necessary in either arms dealing or transporting drugs. Granted none of this gives a motive, just explains source of income. Read up on how to launder money through real estate and gambling - far better than through a business where you have to provide detailed receipts of cost doing business that match a IRS profile for that particular type of business. Go in with a million - lose 100000 - turn in chips - get 1099 W2g for the IRS - deduct losses from “winnings” - pay taxes on balance - presto - clean money
“In the solitary world of video poker, Stephen Paddock knew how to win.”
Steve Paddock had X-Men type powers-telepathy.
Steve could alter the machines code with his mind.
That’s the only way the lame stream media’s theory works
The article also said that the particular machines he played payed out over 100%. IF that was once true it’s not now. They are set to something like 97.5% pay out. The longer you play the more you succumb to the law of averages.
Could not afford her? So he mows down over 50 people and wires her over $100,000, and he is worth over $5M??? Not seeing it.
BINGO!
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.