US fined 100 billion dollars over internet gambling ban

SBR_John · 10-14-07, 11:48 PM

The US will not pay anywhere close to that.

I would put the Over/Under at $1 billion. And probably $500 million is about right.

LLXC · 10-15-07, 02:09 AM

I wish this would mean the US will lift the online gambling ban...

Dark Horse · 10-15-07, 03:47 AM

Who would be paying that fine? Hint. Not the political reich-wingers behind the ban. That money comes out of our pockets! We could at least have gambled it away. What was the yearly amount flowing offshore? About 6 billion? So now this genius government is fined 16x that amount...

To overstate the obvious: We don't need protection from ourselves, as this government would have it ('click your mouse, lose your house' ?!?!). We need protection from this government.

SBR Lou · 10-15-07, 03:49 AM

The hate is for our freedom!

tacomax · 10-15-07, 03:54 AM

Originally posted by SBR_John

The US will not pay anywhere close to that.

I would put the Over/Under at $1 billion. And probably $500 million is about right.

If you're setting the line, then I'd hammer the over.

Here's a little more detail on the story:

Dire data destruction creates security nightmare

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/62937,us-faces-us100-billion-fine-for-web-gaming-ban.aspx

Organisations are putting themselves at risk by not properly deleting files before selling on old computers according to new research.

Panellists at a trade forum levelled harsh criticism at the US, focusing on a burgeoning trade clash between the US and Europe over internet gaming.

The forum believes that the US could be liable for up to US$100 billion in trade concessions to European industries after placing illegal discriminatory trade restrictions on European gaming operators.

The disputed concessions arise from Antigua's victory earlier this year when the WTO ruled that the US violated its treaty obligations by excluding online Antiguan gaming operators, while allowing domestic operators to offer various forms of online gaming.

Instead of complying with the ruling, the Bush administration withdrew the sizeable gambling industry from its free trade commitments.

As a result, all 151 WTO members are considering seeking compensation for the withdrawal equal to the size of the entire US land-based and online gaming market, estimated at nearly US$100 billion.

The European Union, along with India and five other countries, has filed notice that it intends to seek compensation.

"The US decision is a major threat to a rules-based international trading system," said Nao Matsukata, former director of policy planning for the Office of the US Trade Representative.

"If more countries follow the US lead and do the same thing, the entire WTO system could implode and that would be extremely dangerous for US economic interests and for free trade generally.

"Part of what makes the US such a formidable opponent in international negotiations is its credibility. That credibility is now at stake for the US government not just in the trade area but in foreign relations generally."

Lode Van Den Hende, a trade lawyer at Herbert Smith in Brussels, criticised the US for prosecuting foreign online gaming companies while letting domestic online gaming interests operate with impunity.

"This is absolute discrimination against foreign operators that the WTO has found to be illegal," he said.

"It is exactly the kind of practice that the WTO was set up to eliminate, and now the US is violating this very basic principle that it fought hard to put in place at the inception of the organisation."

tacomax · 10-15-07, 03:55 AM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

Who would be paying that fine?

Got it in one.

tblues2005 · 10-15-07, 04:02 AM

Wow, that is getting hammered $100 billion dollars!! I agree with SBRJohn on that it will not be close to that but I think it will be higher than he thinks though. I still believe that after Bush is out of office then there may be some changes on this terrible law but it will be after he is out of office before anything is done.

Rollins08 · 10-15-07, 06:02 AM

The law will never change. Outside of the gambling forums nobody is even talking about this.

swifty · 10-15-07, 06:40 AM

win or lose I am saving alots of money for not gambling online . save over 3K in the last year.

gotsteam · 10-15-07, 08:03 AM

If you believe the USA will not pay or will only pay a small fraction you need to give your head a shake

As the world becomes a smaller place the other economies combined depend less and less on the USA

In the end the USA will pay in the form of losses, tariffs, penalties, and stiff trade concessions among other remedies.

They will further lose the ability to settle disputes they are having with economic giants like China.

While I doubt the next administration will conduct itself in the rogue fascist manner the current Neo Nazi like administration does, it will not "lift" the ban. - rather they will negotiate settlements with these 151 WTO members seeking compensation.

Even a settlement at 10 cents on the dollar which would be a bargain for the USA is still 10+ BILLION dollars!

Once again the USA taxpayers will be left holding the proverbial bag for this huge settlement due to the incredible stupidity of the deemed illegal protectionist practices of their elected USA government

Rollins08 · 10-15-07, 08:12 AM

10 Billion is nothing for the US. Thats why this is the greatest country in the world.

gotsteam · 10-15-07, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Rollins08

10 Billion is nothing for the US. Thats why this is the greatest country in the world.

10 billion is not much for the USA and the USA USED TO BE one of the greatest countries in the world

Willie Bee · 10-15-07, 10:52 AM

As much as I wish this country would coagulate its feces with regards to on-line gambling and several other issues, and as much as I've always embraced different cultures, it's situations just like this that make me want to show the rest of the world my backside and flip 'em off.

jjgold · 10-15-07, 11:03 AM

USA will throw them about 500 million to go away and they will.

Yes the ban has saved many from losing lots of money and probably saved some families too.

louisvillekid · 10-15-07, 11:09 AM

wasn't the original bill that got passed last year, on the back end of some other bill. i thought it got added on to some port security act bill. i was thinking i remember reading something about that. like it got added at the end of a bill that had no relation to it, but because whoever proposed it, knew the other bill was going to pass ,so they added it on at the last moment. thats one of the things that pisses me off about bills , is that some other bill gets added to another bill that has nothing in common with the original.
i think the main thinking behind these right-wing Christian zealots was that there was alot of people gambling online playing table games and poker, and since it was so easy for them to sit at their computer and use a credit card, they were going in debt. oh, and plus the fact that the US ain't getting there taxes from it. which brings me to this. it bothers me that the US would use, not being able to tax it as one of the excuses, i'm pretty sure that if i go over to Caesars Indiana, i don't have to fill out a tax form unless i win over $600 on a slot machine, in one shot, like a jackpot. but i could easily win $100 here and $100 there, and walk away and not be asked to report it. i'm just pissed about the who thing in general, the whole ****in thinking behind it and the lack of logic.

jjgold · 10-15-07, 11:11 AM

WTO is corrupt, the top execs will pocket money

Rollins08 · 10-15-07, 11:26 AM

The real reason for the ban as everyone know is that the winnings can't be taxed, also the Vegas Casino's have a lot of money and power and of course are against online gambling unless they get a stake in it. At the same time the gambling ban makes politicians look good with the religious nuts. Politicians are never going to claim its because they can't tax it or because of lobbyist so its convenient to hide behind being "for the family" Its all a bunch of BS. But if people really wanted online gambling then the politicians would be forced to deal with it, the fact is that the majority of the population doesn't even care or doesn't want it. At the same time you can't knock the whole country just because of this one issue. Gambling is nothing compared to the bigger issues like Iraq. People fail to look at the good thing in this country - and there are tons of them. And at the same time, like JJ said, I'm sure families and lives have been saved by the ban. A true gambler will find a way to place bets anyway.

mv09 · 10-15-07, 12:29 PM

I read an article that the US counter offered with a fine of $100,000.

You think they will pay 100 billion??? No chance in hell. I dont want them to either. Why should they have to pay 100 billion, which essentially comes out of my pocket, instead of doing things that might benefit american citizens.

WTO is stupid for even thinking the US would consider paying.

bigloser · 10-15-07, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by mv09

I read an article that the US counter offered with a fine of $100,000.

You think they will pay 100 billion??? No chance in hell. I dont want them to either. Why should they have to pay 100 billion, which essentially comes out of my pocket, instead of doing things that might benefit american citizens.

WTO is stupid for even thinking the US would consider paying.

the 100 billion is in trade concessions. The US will not be able to decide to pay or not. The other countries will just withdraw their obligations under other agreemements and US business will suffer. to the value of 100 billion

bigloser · 10-15-07, 01:05 PM

It is out of the hands of the US

Willie Bee · 10-15-07, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by bigloser

the 100 billion is in trade concessions. The US will not be able to decide to pay or not. The other countries will just withdraw their obligations under other agreemements and US business will suffer. to the value of 100 billion

Not necessarily. If they were to raise import tariffs on some goods or services from the USA, a big chunk of that increase will be borne by the end consumer, not the American company. The US company might lose business and, in turn, dollars that way. But part of that $100 billion will eventually be passed on to the consumers in the European Union, India, Antigua and other countries who do this.

jon13009 · 10-15-07, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by louisvillekid

wasn't the original bill that got passed last year, on the back end of some other bill. i thought it got added on to some port security act bill. i was thinking i remember reading something about that. like it got added at the end of a bill that had no relation to it, but because whoever proposed it, knew the other bill was going to pass ,so they added it on at the last moment. thats one of the things that pisses me off about bills , is that some other bill gets added to another bill that has nothing in common with the original.
i think the main thinking behind these right-wing Christian zealots was that there was alot of people gambling online playing table games and poker, and since it was so easy for them to sit at their computer and use a credit card, they were going in debt. oh, and plus the fact that the US ain't getting there taxes from it. which brings me to this. it bothers me that the US would use, not being able to tax it as one of the excuses, i'm pretty sure that if i go over to Caesars Indiana, i don't have to fill out a tax form unless i win over $600 on a slot machine, in one shot, like a jackpot. but i could easily win $100 here and $100 there, and walk away and not be asked to report it. i'm just pissed about the who thing in general, the whole ****in thinking behind it and the lack of logic.

Think about the real source of behind the anti-gambling movement, the real power behind that movement, and I think you can understand why legal on-line wagering for US accounts has been dampened by a shady and ill conceived law.

The REAL people and money behind the anti-gambling law are the sports leagues (NFL, NBA, MLB). Who else has the raw money, power, lobbyist groups.... to get Congress to do anything they want (and not to do anything they want as well) when it is in the League's best interests. Vegas would love on-line gambling (if they controlled it), and (I feel) the moralists are just a small legitimate faction (or a nice front for the sports leagues) of the lobbying efforts against on-line gambling.

The sports leagues will squash any reasonable attempt to pass legal on-line betting in the US - so hope it stays as bad as it is right now, because it can only get worse for US on-line bettors. (see the "opt-out" clauses in the current proposed Frank legislation that could potentially "legalize" but kill over 90% of on-line US gambling (if implemented by off-shore books) - The Frank proposal is something to be really worried about)

The sports leagues could care less about the millions of US taxable dollars flowing to off shore books that could be collected for the US Govt. if it means compromising the legitimacy of their business. Interesting that the NBA doesn't mind playing NBA pre-season games in Europe though?

Perhaps the WTO's actions are meant as a warning to the US Govt to back off and stop trying to dictate world financial matters that suits the US Govt. Hopefully the US Govt will think twice before passing laws (or attacking the WTO's authority) that affect international treaties in a shady, poorly thought out and self-serving manner through this action. Regardless if the US pays a fine of some sort, the WTO's message is clear and that is a good sign for International on-line gamblers.

As for US on-line accounts, the future is still unclear because the only ones who wants (US bettors) are the off shore on-line books looking for US dollars (being the source of the discrimination?). If the WTO decides to sacrifice US bettors for the sake of International concerns in this matter, watch out, because the life line may be cut for US off-shore book accounts at that point.

Since the US law (UIGEA)'s regulations that were just submitted by the Treasury Dept. are apparently unenforceable by the banks and full of loopholes, this means US on-line bettors are just burdened by having to find more creative methods regarding their deposits and withdrawals from creditable on-line books....for now.

My bottom line (being a US account): Keep only an amount of money (in a good on-line book) you can afford to lose if the whole thing shuts down tomorrow.

Seattle Slew · 10-15-07, 03:52 PM

I don't think problem gamblers have stopped or been saved by the online ban. If anything, they likely lose more money because you'll lose more at a casino/racetrack than betting sports online any day of the week.

Originally posted by jjgold

Yes the ban has saved many from losing lots of money and probably saved some families too.

bigloser · 10-16-07, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by Willie Bee

Not necessarily. If they were to raise import tariffs on some goods or services from the USA, .

Why would they do that? Plenty of other options that would lower prices to none US consumers. The biggest by far of course would be copyright issues

Willie Bee · 10-16-07, 09:41 AM

You're right, big loser, lots of ways to play this game, and different ways for American companies to play as well. Violating copyright and patent concerns could also open the other countries up to WTO fines or restrictions on imports into US. The USA could also pay a portion or all of the fine and then recoup part or all by withholding certain forms of economic aid to some countries that want to play hardball.

bigboydan · 10-16-07, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Willie Bee

You're right, big loser, lots of ways to play this game, and different ways for American companies to play as well. Violating copyright and patent concerns could also open the other countries up to WTO fines or restrictions on imports into US. The USA could also pay a portion or all of the fine and then recoup part or all by withholding certain forms of economic aid to some countries that want to play hardball.

All true Willie, however the bottom line is that we will end up paying more taxes when it's all said and done.