Taxation Of Online Gambling - Poll

[dfmaicher 0]

Hello fellow FCP members,I am currently finishing my MBA degree at Indiana Wesleyan University and writing my thesis on the case study “Taxation of Online Gambling”. I am polling a few general questions to everyone surrounding past and current legislation in congress looking to make changes to online gambling, and in the case of forum members here, poker specifically. If you happen to find time, I would appreciate responses to include in the paper.1. Do you believe card playing is a skill, and if so, how can this be proven to lawmakers?2. Currently the United Stated chooses to ignore online gambling and the possibility of taxing the institution. Would legalizing online gambling, or possibly just poker, provide a proper course for creating revenue streams that could be used at the state level?3. Do you believe that the legalization and taxation of online gambling will detract from revenue currently received at the state level from local casinos?4. What do you believe is the main reason for the United States’ stance towards online poker? Example: Ethical, moral, political, ignorance, or it is correct

[David_Nicoson 1]

Hello fellow FCP members,I am currently finishing my MBA degree at Indiana Wesleyan University and writing my thesis on the case study “Taxation of Online Gambling”. I am polling a few general questions to everyone surrounding past and current legislation in congress looking to make changes to online gambling, and in the case of forum members here, poker specifically. If you happen to find time, I would appreciate responses to include in the paper.1. Do you believe card playing is a skill, and if so, how can this be proven to lawmakers?Yes. Point out Doyle Brunson? This seems pretty obvious to me.2. Currently the United Stated chooses to ignore online gambling and the possibility of taxing the institution. Would legalizing online gambling, or possibly just poker, provide a proper course for creating revenue streams that could be used at the state level?I don't think the United States is ignoring online gambling. They're fighting it.I find the ethics of gambling a difficult issue. However, the state clearly has no place running a lottery. If it's a legitimate business, then they should tax private businesses. If it's evil, then the state should not coerce its constituents into supporting it.The reality is that the state is abusing it's power to control the flow of wealth for individuals through kickbacks.3. Do you believe that the legalization and taxation of online gambling will detract from revenue currently received at the state level from local casinos?In the long term, no. People like to learn the games at lower stakes than are economical to run in a B&M.4. What do you believe is the main reason for the United States’ stance towards online poker? Example: Ethical, moral, political, ignorance, or it is correctThe U.S. doesn't really have an opinion like a person. Some lawmakers oppose it for moral or ethical reasons. They vote with those who are attempting to control the gambling industries for their own benefit.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Hello fellow FCP members,I am currently finishing my MBA degree at Indiana Wesleyan University and writing my thesis on the case study “Taxation of Online Gambling”. I am polling a few general questions to everyone surrounding past and current legislation in congress looking to make changes to online gambling, and in the case of forum members here, poker specifically. If you happen to find time, I would appreciate responses to include in the paper.1. Do you believe card playing is a skill, and if so, how can this be proven to lawmakers?It is Gambling. Ever have your aces cracked by suited connectors? Yes you can be better than others, but it is still gambling.2. Currently the United Stated chooses to ignore online gambling and the possibility of taxing the institution. Would legalizing online gambling, or possibly just poker, provide a proper course for creating revenue streams that could be used at the state level?Taxing on-line gaming is just a sub-set of the issue. We like to focus on the Gaming/Poker aspect, but the notion of Taxing Internet transactions is a HUGE issue - at the Federal and Local levels. There is a very valid point to be made that the States lack jurisdiction to tax interstate and especially international transactions. US legislators have been wrestling with the issue of how to tax/regulate Internet transactions for over a decade. I believe that the taxation of on-line gaming needs to be taken in context of taxing ALL Internet transactions, and then we run into a huge Pandora's Box3. Do you believe that the legalization and taxation of online gambling will detract from revenue currently received at the state level from local casinos?Irrelevant. The real issue to me is that on-line gaming providers are not forced to play on the same field as their B&M competition, thus taking away revenue from the B&M and ultimately from the States.4. What do you believe is the main reason for the United States’ stance towards online poker? Example: Ethical, moral, political, ignorance, or it is correctI believe that an unregulated international billion dollar industry is a BAD thing. I welcome legislation for many reasons - but the Taxation issue (as stated above) is going to dominate the discussion and ultimately bog down the ability to craft a solution. Once we start taxing one industry/transaction, we open the door for taxing all transactions such as catalog sales.

[Scanner313 0]

1. Do you believe card playing is a skill, and if so, how can this be proven to lawmakers?I believe there is a lot of skill involved, but lawmakers don't care.2. Currently the United Stated chooses to ignore online gambling and the possibility of taxing the institution. Would legalizing online gambling, or possibly just poker, provide a proper course for creating revenue streams that could be used at the state level?Of course it would open revenue streams, and it will in the future when the internet gambling ban is repealed so that American casinos can offer it.3. Do you believe that the legalization and taxation of online gambling will detract from revenue currently received at the state level from local casinos?Absolutely, which is why it is currently prohibited.4. What do you believe is the main reason for the United States’ stance towards online poker? Example: Ethical, moral, political, ignorance, or it is correctThe American casino industry was losing out on all the money being made by the overseas gambling sites. While they definitely saw an overall increase in their business, the amount they were missing out on was leaps and bounds beyond those increases. The American casino lobby successfully "paid off" Bill Frist and many others who snuck legislation through that very effectively scared off most of the overseas sites. Once the dust settles, the casino lobby will pay off the government to legalize on-line gambling with government regulation. They will then effectively steal all of the customers the overseas sites once served in good faith, and our government will have effectively crushed all outside competition to a US industry, thereby undermining the very idea of Capitalism and fair markets. Our government officials are tools of corporate industry, period!

[cdipierr 0]

1) Yes. I think lawmakers need an education in statistics/probability. Recently, an appeals court in my state ruled that poker is a game of luck, citing an example where one player had a 91% chance to win with a single card to come and subsequently lost the hand. They used this to "prove" the game was chance. Somehow the court confused 9% with a 0% chance of winning in my opinion. It should be shown that it is possible to consistently get your money in "good" and when doing so, statistically you will be a winning player.2) It would seem like it would be a good revenue stream, but I'm not an economics major. I don't think it's possible to do on the state level though as the Federal government has gotten involved in the matter, therefore it's now a Federal issue.3) Yes and no. It's possible it'll hurt states like NV and NJ, but if done properly it would distribute new revenue to other states that currently have no gambling tax income.4) A combination of everything. Certainly the current morale stance of the Federal government prohibits gambling on all levels, not just online gambling. Politically, I'm sure the "big" casino lobby helped sway influence, and finally as with most issues, I suspect if you polled those who voted on the bill there'd be widespread ignorance as to what it did and why.

[barrec 0]

1. Do you believe card playing is a skill, and if so, how can this be proven to lawmakers?yes, it is a skill. a skill i desire. and i don't think that can ever be "proven" to lawmakers. but i don't that matters. even if they recognized it as a skill, they would recognize it first as a way america is losing money to other countries.2. Currently the United Stated chooses to ignore online gambling and the possibility of taxing the institution. Would legalizing online gambling, or possibly just poker, provide a proper course for creating revenue streams that could be used at the state level?i would like to hope so. due to the extremely high volumes of players and amounts of money contained in online bankrolls, i doubt the online poker companies would lose a significant amount of money paying tax.3. Do you believe that the legalization and taxation of online gambling will detract from revenue currently received at the state level from local casinos?yes, but only a small amount. i think the lost money at the casino will be more than made up for via online gambling.4. What do you believe is the main reason for the United States’ stance towards online poker? Example: Ethical, moral, political, ignorance, or it is correctother - MONEY.

[....Ian.... 0]

1. already is prioven2 state level? no...its a interstate playground (possible trickle down effect of money thru tho)3. no4. what stance? u keep refering to a stance. the stance that doesnt address it? the stance that DOES NOT explicitly make it illegal, didnt MBAs used to mean something?

[checkymcfold 0]

Hello fellow FCP members,I am currently finishing my MBA degree at Indiana Wesleyan University and writing my thesis on the case study “Taxation of Online Gambling”. I am polling a few general questions to everyone surrounding past and current legislation in congress looking to make changes to online gambling, and in the case of forum members here, poker specifically. If you happen to find time, I would appreciate responses to include in the paper.1. Do you believe card playing is a skill, and if so, how can this be proven to lawmakers?most anyone who plays the game will contend that poker is indeed a game of skill. the problem is that the nature of poker is such that, at least for the short term, results can be so erratic that any semi-competent observer will find resources to argue otherwise. the best bet in other situations of this kind is usually to bring in "expert testimony" before congress in some manner, and the requisite "experts" for poker would be any mathematician who works on game theory. anyone who holds a PhD that works on game theory would hold that poker is ultimately a game of skill.2. Currently the United Stated chooses to ignore online gambling and the possibility of taxing the institution. Would legalizing online gambling, or possibly just poker, provide a proper course for creating revenue streams that could be used at the state level?this would seem logical, yes?3. Do you believe that the legalization and taxation of online gambling will detract from revenue currently received at the state level from local casinos?uh, no, especially considering that most casinos that i know of are actually arguing to the contrary. but casino execs are the ones that pay business people to answer those sorts of questions--ask them.4. What do you believe is the main reason for the United States’ stance towards online poker? Example: Ethical, moral, political, ignorance, or it is correctit's been pretty well documented that the piggybacking of the gambling stuff onto the port authority bill was done largely to appease the christian right, the largest contingent of the conservative voting base. but stuff like that happens all the time, and by both parties, so meh. this is the first time that such a bill has directly affected my lifestyle, so i'm pissed about it, but that's how democracy works in america--be passive until you get all riled up by the law, then fight to change it.

[dfmaicher 0]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts and opinions. I find them very interesting and will certainly help with the paper. Please keep them coming if you can, or at the very least vote.

[3A 0]

1. Do you believe card playing is a skill, and if so, how can this be proven to lawmakers?Card playing is a skill, to prove it you would need to show a winning players statistics over a long period of time. Also showing an example of a favorite hand winning over a period of time. For example AA vs KK preflop ran out over 1,000 times. If you show a price range that you are playing at and the amount won at that paticular level. Point out that you would lose 18% of the hands, but the net profit in doing this far exceeds that of pure gambling such as roulette.2. Currently the United Stated chooses to ignore online gambling and the possibility of taxing the institution. Would legalizing online gambling, or possibly just poker, provide a proper course for creating revenue streams that could be used at the state level?There are always ways to tax something, especially when they are made legal. It opens the door for more businesses to try to run that type of venture also. In fact if the US goverment wanted to really get a piece of the action they could set up there own online gaming network for poker or whatever else they thoguht would be profittable. Although it would take away from the private sector more poker players would be inclined to accept this alternative rather then not have it available. Further more if the government owned the online gambling, they could keep track of winnings and losses more accurately as to assess them for tax purposes. These taxes however, would most likely not be available at a state level. I am not really in favor of the government owning online poker, I just think it is a viable option for them to control and tax.3. Do you believe that the legalization and taxation of online gambling will detract from revenue currently received at the state level from local casinos?Not at all. There were a moderate amount of players before online poker and poker on TV got popular. When the poker boom took off because of these the casinos reaped the rewards of having the average Joe interested in playing live. Now the money itself from sitting at the tables isn't extremely profittable for the casinos. It's the players who make a big score and blow a good portion of it at the table games in a casino. More or less I'm saying the more available online poker is to the average Joe the more likely he/she will try to take a show playing at a B/M thus making the casino's more money.4. What do you believe is the main reason for the United States’ stance towards online poker? Example: Ethical, moral, political, ignorance, or it is correctObviously this is a mostly political stance. If this stance were based on ethics or morality how hypocritical would we be as a nation to allow the consumption of alcohal. Several people believe if they ban online gambling they will swing enough votes to help them win an election, its possible but not likely. Poker can be regulated as anything and if the government really wants their cut they will invest time to find out properly how to do it. Most of us know realistically if they did ban online gambling all together then they would most likely go after Casino's also and that just isn't the case, it is too profittable for everyone involved, including the government.I would be very interested to see what the canidates for the primary think about this issue. Not specifically taxation of online gambling, but gambling in general. I know in a few places in the bible gambling happens, I don't recall the scriptures at the moment, but people were drawing lots. A game of chance to decide who will be doing something, whether it is for money, freedom, land, food or for recreation. Gambling has been part of the world for quite some time as all things, use in moderation.Good luck with your paper.

[psujohn 0]

1. Do you believe card playing is a skill, and if so, how can this be proven to lawmakers?Poker is a game of mixed skill and luck. Of course the same could be said about blackjack. The difference is that since poker is played against other players and not against the house it is possible to have a positive expectation.To "prove" this ... run a computer simulation of a poker game where any basic strategy runs against random plays and see who wins in the long term.2. Currently the United Stated chooses to ignore online gambling and the possibility of taxing the institution. Would legalizing online gambling, or possibly just poker, provide a proper course for creating revenue streams that could be used at the state level?Of course taxing online gambling would create a new revenue stream. Quite possibly the easiest way would be to legalize only US based poker sites and then tax the corporation at the federal level and at the state where they are incorporated. States could easily "license" an online casino to operate in their state for a percentage of the revenues generated from that state.3. Do you believe that the legalization and taxation of online gambling will detract from revenue currently received at the state level from local casinos?I think that the casino's believe that but they are mistaken. The vast majority of people live with no ready access to a B&M casino. Look at the largest population concentration in the US - the east coast from Boston to Washington D.C. The only legal casinos in the area are in AC which is an hour or more from any major city.In terms of poker in particular I believe that a decent majority of people now playing in the B&M would never have played there had they not had a chance to learn the game online. Online poker is cheap, easy and anonymous - virtually embarrassment free.4. What do you believe is the main reason for the United States’ stance towards online poker? Example: Ethical, moral, political, ignorance, or it is correctPolitics - it's all about appearances. Politicians feel the need to appear as if they are protecting the moral fiber of the country. Not one of them really gives a damn but they have to appear to care. Plus US gambling interests lobby against online gambling and online (offshore) sites are unable to lobby. IE the bribes from the US based interests were better.

[dfmaicher 0]

Great comments... and what it is coming down to is that "poker" entirely separate issue from gambling. In an activity that is considered gambling, with no skill, there is no guarantee about the outcome. The games of chance are established to always be profitable and for people to never be at a 50/50 or better situation of winning.I think in the cause to set poker as being different from "gambling" there are a few points that I would think would be used to explain why it can be associated with basketball, and other games of skill.First, everything aside, and with all participants being the same, the game and the chance factor would have everyone breaking even over a long period of time. Why it's skill is that a person's abilities against others can change the outcome, whether it be knowing odds better, knowing psychology, reading tells, applying pressure. Just like a person can shoot a basketball better with practice.Second, as stated in Daniel's book, a poker room in brick and mortar is really just people renting a room to perform this activity... just like people rent a hall to host a chess tournament.I think lawmakers don't understand, or will not explore this, and instead of making a positive out of an opportunity, "even with just poker", they choose to ban all methods of funding an activity.In my case study I am trying to cover all angle of "taxation of online gambling" and this is just one of them. I would personally change all forms of gambling, but poker being true to my heart, I want to set this aside as a different section of the paper. Thank you everyone. DonDon

[mrdannyg 274]

Haven't read responses, but in terms of #3, I'd suggest simply doing a survey of casino revenue, casino poker revenue, and the growth of online poker. I think it's far more likely that online poker will increase B&M casino business rather than decrease it.Although, it may move players from high-revenue table games towards low-revenue poker. This could have an overall negative effect on casino revenue. While that seems unlikely, if it is the case, I'm sure you could word your results creatively and not make that fact obvious.

[dfmaicher 0]

Haven't read responses, but in terms of #3, I'd suggest simply doing a survey of casino revenue, casino poker revenue, and the growth of online poker. I think it's far more likely that online poker will increase B&M casino business rather than decrease it.Although, it may move players from high-revenue table games towards low-revenue poker. This could have an overall negative effect on casino revenue. While that seems unlikely, if it is the case, I'm sure you could word your results creatively and not make that fact obvious.

I understand what your saying, and yes in my finance aspect of the paper I will be outligning the percentage gains over the years in revenue brought in compared to the growth of online gambling revenue.

[David_Nicoson 1]

Great comments... and what it is coming down to is that "poker" entirely separate issue from gambling. In an activity that is considered gambling, with no skill, there is no guarantee about the outcome. The games of chance are established to always be profitable and for people to never be at a 50/50 or better situation of winning.

Will in New Haven made a post on rec.gambling.poker with a contrary opinion. I tend to agree.The same forces would fight against gambling on chess if it were a big market. (Chess lacks the necessary variance to keep the fish interested.)

[dfmaicher 0]

Will in New Haven made a post on rec.gambling.poker with a contrary opinion. I tend to agree.The same forces would fight against gambling on chess if it were a big market. (Chess lacks the necessary variance to keep the fish interested.)

I don't think there is any question about the Chess point... I would agree that it isn't a large enough market for those people to control or worry about hurting whatever it is that they believe in. I can understand people trying to protect others from loosing money on something they will never have the skill to be good at.

[Balloon guy 158]

Hello fellow FCP members,I am currently finishing my MBA degree at Indiana Wesleyan University and writing my thesis on the case study “Taxation of Online Gambling”. I am polling a few general questions to everyone surrounding past and current legislation in congress looking to make changes to online gambling, and in the case of forum members here, poker specifically. If you happen to find time, I would appreciate responses to include in the paper.1. Do you believe card playing is a skill, and if so, how can this be proven to lawmakers? Site California cases.2. Currently the United Stated chooses to ignore online gambling and the possibility of taxing the institution. Would legalizing online gambling, or possibly just poker, provide a proper course for creating revenue streams that could be used at the state level? No the real issue is the internet, online poker is one very small subset of a larger issue3. Do you believe that the legalization and taxation of online gambling will detract from revenue currently received at the state level from local casinos? No, previous examples of the rise of internet poker saw increases in all other forms of gambling4. What do you believe is the main reason for the United States’ stance towards online poker? Example: Ethical, moral, political, ignorance, or it is correct

Harrah's entertainment wants gambling in their casinos, and anything they can do to make it harder to gamble anywhere else is in their best interest. so they bribed Frist.In the future it will be a money issue

[dbcoyotes23 0]

1. Poker is a skill, otherwise, long term we would all break even (minus rake!)2. Taxing online gambling will create a new revenue stream. The difficulty is in implementing a tax on a business model that does not limit itself to county, state, or national scope. Do you tax the US based company, the US based player, all players (US or International) on a US site, etc. How the tax is set up will go a long way to determining if the poker site will be sucessful. Under the WTO the government may not be able to allow US players to play on US approved sites but not international sites. (See Antigua)3. A Tax on onling gaming will likely affect local casinos. However, it may also bring additional clientele interested in gaming. 4. The US stance is based partly on ethical/moral views (gambling=sin), politics (big casinos pressuring Congress), terrorism (foreign sites=terrorism funding), and ignorance (internet=tubes). When it comes to new business models on the internet, many governments are not able to apply their usual models for regulation, enforcement and taxation. I think poker has just slipped into this void.

[xzanos 0]

I haven't read the responses, but poker has been proven to be a game of skill, which is why it's legal to play in rooms in California.

[finztotheleft 0]

1. Do you believe card playing is a skill, and if so, how can this be proven to lawmakers?Poker is a skilled based game. Although luck does play a role, it is not the main factor. As a proof, I would suggest a series of 10 man sng's, involving myself and 9 big pros. Out of 100 matches (or 1000 or more), if luck was the deciding factor, I would expect to win 10% of the matches. I've been playing 40+ hours per week for 3 years and I can say with complete certainty, that I would win 0% of the matches. The state of California has determined that poker is primarily a skill based game. I can understand why a state might choose to make laws more stringent than the federal requirements, but I do not understand how the federal government can contradict the rulings made in a state with no compeling evidence to support their claim that poker is luck.2. Currently the United Stated chooses to ignore online gambling and the possibility of taxing the institution. Would legalizing online gambling, or possibly just poker, provide a proper course for creating revenue streams that could be used at the state level?If online gambling were regulated by the US government, we would be issued W2's for our profits/losses. I do not know the statistics for what percentage of current players players report their earnings on their taxes, but the impression that I have from reading several online forums is that the vast majority do not report, or underreport their earnings.3. Do you believe that the legalization and taxation of online gambling will detract from revenue currently received at the state level from local casinos?My state does not have casinos, so online gaming in no way detracts from my states revenue. Since I have started playing poker online, I have made several trips to casinos in other states for the sole purpose of playing poker. There are many others like me who do not have the option to play in a casino on a regular basis. I believe that my state is missing out on significant revenue because online poker is not regulated by the US government. The majority of players that I know who have easy access to a casino prefer to play in the casino, not online, because they prefer the experience of playing live.4. What do you believe is the main reason for the United States’ stance towards online poker? Example: Ethical, moral, political, ignorance, or it is correctI believe it is due to political reasons and corporate lobbying. I believe that there was not an uproar from the general public about being stripped of another personal freedom because of their ignorance on this issue and for many, their own moral standards regarding gambling.

[dfmaicher 0]

1. Do you believe card playing is a skill, and if so, how can this be proven to lawmakers?Poker is a skilled based game. Although luck does play a role, it is not the main factor. As a proof, I would suggest a series of 10 man sng's, involving myself and 9 big pros. Out of 100 matches (or 1000 or more), if luck was the deciding factor, I would expect to win 10% of the matches. I've been playing 40+ hours per week for 3 years and I can say with complete certainty, that I would win 0% of the matches. The state of California has determined that poker is primarily a skill based game. I can understand why a state might choose to make laws more stringent than the federal requirements, but I do not understand how the federal government can contradict the rulings made in a state with no compeling evidence to support their claim that poker is luck.2. Currently the United Stated chooses to ignore online gambling and the possibility of taxing the institution. Would legalizing online gambling, or possibly just poker, provide a proper course for creating revenue streams that could be used at the state level?If online gambling were regulated by the US government, we would be issued W2's for our profits/losses. I do not know the statistics for what percentage of current players players report their earnings on their taxes, but the impression that I have from reading several online forums is that the vast majority do not report, or underreport their earnings.3. Do you believe that the legalization and taxation of online gambling will detract from revenue currently received at the state level from local casinos?My state does not have casinos, so online gaming in no way detracts from my states revenue. Since I have started playing poker online, I have made several trips to casinos in other states for the sole purpose of playing poker. There are many others like me who do not have the option to play in a casino on a regular basis. I believe that my state is missing out on significant revenue because online poker is not regulated by the US government. The majority of players that I know who have easy access to a casino prefer to play in the casino, not online, because they prefer the experience of playing live.4. What do you believe is the main reason for the United States’ stance towards online poker? Example: Ethical, moral, political, ignorance, or it is correctI believe it is due to political reasons and corporate lobbying. I believe that there was not an uproar from the general public about being stripped of another personal freedom because of their ignorance on this issue and for many, their own moral standards regarding gambling.

Thanks for your response. I am certain to include the casions not in your state and you play online and other states. I think that is a very good point along with some factual data in that online gambling has increased revenue for brick and mortar establishments. You views are very much in line with what I was thinking, but I will also take other contraditions....Thanks for the good poll results as well as the comments everyone. Don

[SpiderGuard 0]

Thanks for your response. I am certain to include the casions not in your state and you play online and other states. I think that is a very good point along with some factual data in that online gambling has increased revenue for brick and mortar establishments. You views are very much in line with what I was thinking, but I will also take other contraditions....Thanks for the good poll results as well as the comments everyone. Don

Just a heads up, you likely won't be able to use any of these responses without approval from your school's Institutional Review Board. Human subjects and all that good stuff. There's probably some paperwork you have to do, but it's not a big deal. Just want to make sure you have your T's crossed and your I's dotted.Good luck with the project, sounds interesting.