-
Last edited by Bluehorseshoe; Today, 03:30 PM. -
Thx for the note. Insane. Any semi-serious gambler knows how tight the margins are in gaming:
*Sports: You want to seek out 16-cent juice. Anything > 20-cents is outrageous.
*Poker: Spokesman Daniel Negreanu has talked about how tough it is to carve out a consistent profit. Rake/fees need to be small. Can't keep ripping $$ off the table.
Will see how this plays out. If the fees/taxes are too much, reasonable minds will go elsewhere.Where's the fuckin power box, Carol?Comment -
Great video by Galfond. The language on gambling-law has always been poorly worded.
Surely there are lawyers getting ready to protest this bill.Where's the fuckin power box, Carol?Comment -
It was not clear who lobbied for this provision to be included in the bill, or why. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the new gambling tax provision would raise $1.1 billion over eight years.
Dina Titus, a Democratic Congresswoman from Nevada, wrote on X, “Buried within the BS Republican Budget bill is a provision that harms poker players and those who gamble by limiting loss deductions. I’m working on a legislative fix that fairly treats gaming losses in the tax code.”
Insanely stupid if this passes. The question is if this is only for itemized deductions or if it will affect people who are actually filing as professionals and doing a schedule C.
Go Dina Go!
Comment -
Props on the replies in this thread. A few follow-ups:
1) How desperate is the US govt for new income streams?
2) This law defies logic and destroys accounting basis for tax payments.
3) If it DOES pass, good luck enforcing this. Follow Galfond's example. If a guy clears $200k Net, the law would tax on $700k. 40% * $700k = $280k. So, he couldn't even pay if he wanted to.Where's the fuckin power box, Carol?Comment -
I'd also like to understanding the logic for taxing 100% of wins and only 90% of losses.
There has to be a math reason to justify it?.Comment
