-
Last edited by Bluehorseshoe; 07-02-25, 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 -
Basically, if you are below 50% hit rate on sides at -110, this has no impact. If you are 50% or better, this hurts.
Say you make 200 plays and hit 50% (win 100 bets, lose 100 bets) and you bet 110 to win 100.
100 x 100 = +10000
-110 x 100 = -11000
You lose -1000 in actuality. But you can only deduct 90% of the -11000, so you can only deduct 9900 of losses, so they want to tax you on a $100 gain even the you lost $1000.
WTF
Comment -
Dina Titus is the typical lying politician. She has not done one thing for gamblers in her state and across the country.
You can lose 25 thousand dollars (total for the year) and still have to pay taxes on winners over 1200 dollars. So you hit for 15 thousand in taxable winners on machines and still have to pay income tax on this 15 thousand as part of your yearly income. Despite the fact you lost that 15 thou. back, along with the original recorded 25 thousand dollars.
This is a ''federal law''. But she and all the politicians in Nevada both sides of the isle will not challenge it because the Casinos donate so much of our money to them. This law is over 50 yrs old.Comment -
That's not true. You can deduct losses against the W-2g reported wins. There is a standard of proof for substantiating the losses, but they can be deducted. The one issue is that it forces you to itemize deductions, so if you wouldn't normally itemize, you can get screwed a bit that way if your non-gambling itemized deductions are less than the standard deduction.
Comment -
I will ask my tax guy about this. I do not have an itemized tax statement. But I will say that the days of picking up discarded losses from the sports books and claiming them on your tax are long gone.
This I know. I pay the taxes right there after a win so it is not added on to my total income (dividends, stocks, s.s. 401K, and any other income I show; even though I show a loss in gaming for the year.Comment -
Somebody is happy.Comment
