Printable View
It seems to me a general lack of common sense that anyone who believes such a thing would not immediately recognize that, if there was a way to avoid paying taxes, the ultra wealthy would absolutely find a way to exploit it. Similar with people who buy into outlandish conspiracy theories.
And, I wouldn't have mentioned it were it not the latest of a thus ongoing litany of such mistakes. He just can't seem to utter anything mathematically or otherwise correct, even on his second, and third, tries. The reason for the unpleasant, and nutty, emotional attitudes, to try to overcompensate for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146
I guess that the only wizard he can be is the clown he is on an internet gambling forum that barely gained any thus relevance before literally disappearing from sight, to the Spike's, and AW's.
Yes, folkies, there is a God. Ha. And, no, I didn't focus on it, at all, I let nature (and Freddy) take their course.
Let's all pull out our peckers to pee on the "Wiz", especially while he continues to pee on you, Mr. Mission. You, too, have to get out more.
And, all hail the mighty VCT, where the Wizard has even less standing!
(Hey, did I make it to 12:27 yet? And, I didn't even "fowl" it up ... I don't think.)
I am sure you are being sarcastic with the skill comment, but starting out on such a shoe string bankroll very much is a grind! I didn't know it at the time but there are quite a few card counters that started out that way. Our beginnings were remarkable similar. I feel like it has to be more than just about the money for a player to go through that and stick with it. It has to be a passion to play and win and eventually support yourself by that. If it was just about the money, no one would put themselves through that.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
In my case I made so many mistakes that contributed to it being such a grind for so long, or maybe worsened the grind. I started out with $4300 and not having Qfits software to be able to come up with optimal spread and risk of ruin, I applied the very generic, pre-software rule of BR 100 x max bet. This meant a max bet of $40. With 8 deck games this meant a spread of $5-$40.
More importantly, it also meant I could only play $5 games which were only available certain times on weekdays. This is why it took me a couple years to begin to grow my bankroll. Had I had Norm's (Qfits) software, I would have been able to see that I could have spread $10-$60, fairly safely, or even $10-$80 with only moderate RoR. That would have meant a higher hourly rate but more importantly access to $10 tables, which were available all times Monday through Friday and even some on weekends. That would have been a game changer for me.
But in a way I feel like that early part of a players journey, in which he learns and figures out all these kinds of things, and begins to learn what is and isn't tolerated, not just limits, but style, is a really special part of a players journey. When my brother started out, I helped him with a bankroll enabling him to play green to black and almost feel like I deprived him of a valuable low limit learning experience that so many card counters go through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by soxfan
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawgAPs for years now have been saying that UNKewlJ is more of a minor video poker player than anything else.
And now we've had a couple verify the red green chip action in the presence of an obvious sugar daddy.
On top of that we have an admitted liar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawgThe better lies worn smooth through years of use.
The not so good lies? The ones UNKewLyingJ didn't have time to perfect.
But, all lies nonetheless.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
And MrV trying to justify such a boring life by pot, gambling, hi-fi music, and, posting (the same thus stuff over and over) on useless internet forums. Ha.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
P.S. I still read MDawg's posts. Like he wrote, even the most inured of us can't help but get a kick out of it.
Let me try an example to see if I understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdog
Your Aunt Louise visits her local once a month and plays penny slots. She plays until she's either up or down $100. Her record for the year is 3-9 for an overall loss of $600.
If she fails to report the "income" of $300, is she a crazy tax cheat who buys into outlandish conspiracy theories?
Well now hang on there. I was referring to paying federal taxes in general, not tax code as it applies to gambling wins/losses. Technically in this case Aunt Louise could report the losses to offset her win (but only if she got a W2G) <and> if she was able to benefit from itemizing her deductions. However most people do not, so in this case it would be entirely legal for her to not report anything when using the standard deduction. Especially since she would not have been issued W2Gs for the small wins anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Perignom
In the context of a recreational gambler the tax code is not fair IMO because it puts an unreasonable burden of proof on the taxpayer to document any losses than might offset (or completely negate) the win. So most people will not bother and just pay excessive taxes. We've discussed this before and I've voiced my disapproval of how our tax code handles gaming income.
I wish that the Dan Druff would label the kewl-J the compulsive, habitual liar on his profile, hey hey.
I could be misinformed, but afaik, it's required to report the total of winning sessions as income. In Aunt Lou's case, that's $300.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdog
Then the itemized loss would be limited to $300.
Cites:
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Artic...bling-session/
And here's an article quoting from a tax decision regarding session parameters:Quote:
U.S. taxpayers, with the exception of some professional gamblers, are not allowed to ‘net’ their wins and losses (that is, combine them and report only the total), but must add up their total wins from each gambling session and report the total as income (part of ‘Other Income,’ line 21 of Form 1040.) Losses in any year may be claimed, but only up to the amount of winnings reported that year, and then only if the taxpayer elects to itemize deductions rather than taking the standard deduction.
https://taxattorneyoc.com/blog/2019/...ur-tax-return/
No, I don't think so. You're only required to report/document when you're trying to offset wins, but then you're required to report everything, which is a bit much. But you would only do this if your win was reported to the IRS by the casino. You might want to read it again because I just edited the post you quoted, I didn't quite get it right the first time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Perignom
Hey garnabby, your list of things that help make up my "boring life" missed a few other things, e.g. home, yard and car repair and maintenance; working out daily at a health and fitness center; bike riding; reading books and magazines; traveling to New Hampshire to chill at the lake in the summer; spending time with family and friends as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Hit1derAnd MrV trying to justify such a boring life by pot, gambling, hi-fi music, and, posting (the same thus stuff over and over) on useless internet forums.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
So nice of you to care about me like you do...
Also please note that there is no "correct" way for one to live their life, we simply make choices which suit us; life has no "meaning" as Camus aptly pointed out.
This all more refers to how technically the gaming entries end up on a tax return. The end result is still essentially net, you just can't report them that way in the income section.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Perignom
It is not "essentially" net. It's very costly to forgo the standard deduction if you lack any other reasons to do so. And inflating your income can have many undesirable side-effects such as triggering the AMT alternative minimum tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdog
Back to my simple example, is Louise a tax cheat? Yes, she is. And the casinos are filled with Louises.
Here is the problem with that Soxfan. neither you, nor any of the other Haters/trolls that claim I have lied can prove any of what you claim. I have lied twice, once on this forum, about the lawsuit portion of my backroom incident last year to protect myself from information that was coming out and once 13 years ago, that would be 5-6 years before I even came to this forum, I lied, very similarly to protect myself after a robbery. I admitted both and as I have said a number of times now, if need be, I would lie again to protect myself and identity.Quote:
Originally Posted by soxfan
Now if you have proof that I have lied about anything else, you should provide that proof. And note what proof is. It is not just you saying I lied over and over. Proof means proof.
And I am talking about who I am, what I do for a living and have made over the years, where I live. Not necessarily talking about stupid troll stuff. If you are going to hold me accountable for stupid troll stuff, then Maxpen and Mdawg should also get this compulsive liar tag for the male prostitute and homeless comments they have each made hundreds of times. Which by the way, can be proven as lies. Dan Druff can verify my IP is not in the tunnels. And if we are going to go the compulsive liar tag route, you are going to need one hell of a big tag for Rob Singer.
Now by the same token, the things I have accused Mdawg and Singer of lying about have been proven.
-- It was proven that Singer didn't own the Newell he claims, which he claimed came from the double up bug winnings.
-- It has been proven that Singer's 1.5 million dollar jackpot claim last year was a lie and fake.
-- It was proven that Mdawg didn't win $500k over 7 months like he posted when he, himself, later wrote he was about even over that time period.
-- Some of the other claims it is the math that proves things they have said lies, like Mdawg saying he won 60 hands in a row of blackjack.
So please, I would like to hear from you all these lies I have told that you can prove.
The tax code in general is arbitrary and ambiguous. Have you tried to report foreign dividend income lately? Every year I dread it.
For corporations and wealthy individuals with complications, the entire process is a headache without clear yes or no answers.
Politically, the benefit of this system is that when you want to target an enemy, you can pretty much always find potential ammunition to do so.
No's she not lol. If the IRS was interested in Louise's wins as reported income then they would require all casinos to file W2s for everyone every year. They don't because they understand people generally lose money in casinos. I think this is the point you're missing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Perignom
I am pretty sure that someone claiming the tax code as written, especially in regards to gambling reporting is unfair (and it is) would not be much of a defense against charges of tax fraud. :cool:
In many cases I think I can agree with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Perignom
Absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Does the IRS convey such a sentiment somewhere in writing?Quote:
Originally Posted by jdogNo's she not lol. If the IRS was interested in Louise's wins as reported income then they would require all casinos to file W2s for everyone every year. They don't because they understand people generally lose money in casinos. I think this is the point you're missing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Perignom
By your theory, how does a gambler determine the income amount to be entered on line 21 of the 1040? Is it the total from the w2g's?