Not good at all. Here's how to voice your opinion:
http://robison.casinocitytimes.com/
Not good at all. Here's how to voice your opinion:
http://robison.casinocitytimes.com/
I don't really see a problem with lowering the threshold to $600, esp. if it's in-line with lotteries etc. Professional gamblers won't care, and everyone else just needs to decide if they want to continue gambling or not. My guess is people will gripe & whine, then they will go right back to their slots or poker machines and keep feeding them, knowing a tougher more challenging fate awaits them at tax return time.
Oddly, they are doing this at the sane time as the horse industry is making a strong push to increase the threshold over $602. This is the first time that it looks like we have even a small chance of getting the increase, or at least the way that it is determined. In racing, tax, or more accurately reporting, comes in at odds of 300 to 1. So on a $2.00 bet, that's a payoff of $602.
The fallacy to this is that most people don't just bet $2.00 into whatever the pool is. For example, they may invest $10 or $20 on various $2.00 trifecta tickets in the same race. If one of those hits, they have actually invested $20---not $2.00, so 300 to 1 odds would be $6,020, not $602. A few senators are on board with this and a big push is being made.This would be huge for a horse player, especially here in Illinois where we are taxed on the gross winnings with no deduction for losses unless we turn pro. Fingers are crossed.
Lowering the threshold to $600 for W2G will cause a big problem for the casinos with any video poker machine at the $5 denomination or higher. For players it would mean moving down to $2 VP to avoid most W2Gs.
I can't imagine the American Gaming Association not opposing this. Casinos don't want floor people writing W2Gs constantly.
Rob can probably tell us how when he plays high denomination VP that there can be a floor person standing behind him with a yellow legal pad keeping track of "jackpots." But I am sure the casino doesn't want to tie up an employee to do this for someone playing $10 VP and even $5 VP.
I do not believe people would stay away from the $5 machines just because of $625 quads. Like I said, they'll whine and complain all about it up front, but when it comes time to face it for real they will not get that same thrill up their leg playing the $2 machines.
I believe there's a better, more efficient way of recording W2G hits than having a scorekeeper sit behind you for $5 vp--like they do on the $100 machines but only by request. You simply provide ID one time, hit something, wait for them to come by, they record the win, turn the key to crank out your credits, and you keep playing if you want. It takes a little longer than having a spotter, but not a big deal unless you're one of these nervous "advantage players" who plays for points, slot club status, and as we've seen from RS (the anonymous WoVer--not the real one) recently....for , eh em, OFFERS!
Rob I think what you're missing is the actual "shortage" of floor people in casinos these days. Sometimes you have a long wait for someone to come by even if you have signed up in advance for them to keep a running ticket of your W2Gs.
At Caesars, for example, when I've played $5 machines and I hit my first W2G I am asked if I want individual W2Gs or I would like them to keep a running tally. I ask for the individual -- because I don't know if I am going to stick around.
Wait times to me is irrelevant. Others (most players, that is) can't stand to wait. They NEED the action to keep on coming. So for them, more waiting because of casino belt-tightening on its number if employees, is unacceptable.
If a player likes to play the $5 machines, just play four credits. A royal still pays $5k, which is more than a regular $5 player can usually hope for.
Rob, this is not about any need for action. This is about casinos cutting back on staff and it's a real problem. They are trying to automate as much as possible and the last thing any casino wants is a new regulation requiring W2Gs starting at $600. And who do you think pays for the paperwork and the mailings and the record keeping? It's not going to be the IRS or the Treasury Department. It's going to be paid for in the pay tables and the perks and the comps.
The reality is that the IRS has never treated gambling favorably. It's considered a "sin" and it is taxed like a sin.
Correct, and none of it will matter to the players because of the reasons I stated. They'll gripe about it, they'll say they won't play any longer or that they'll go for lower denominations. Then they'll go right back to doing what they've always done. The IRS wins again, at the expense of everybody.
Rob just don't turn this into an attack on players who don't follow your system of not doing things the "casino way." This is an attack on the casino business, period.
That has nothing to do with it. Players will not change because they will not care what the IRS does when it's playing time. They'll simply take it. Casinos won't feel any effect, other than making their employees work a little bit harder and smarter.
Rob imagine you run a casino (I know that's hard) but you were just notified that you had to issue W2Gs for every win of $600 or more. What would you do? Hire more workers? Lower paytables to pay for them? Cut comps to players to help cover the new costs? Hire more in bookkeeping, add to your postage budget to send out statements at the end of the year, add accountants....? And the list goes on.
Now for the players, they have more paperwork to shuffle at tax time, and they will find their AGI going higher each year which will impact their overall taxes.
Even you Rob -- though you said you did not pay taxes on your wins -- you probably still had an increase in your AGI unless you didn't report any of your wins. Now many more players will have a higher AGI to deal with.
I understand all that. The casinos will do whatever they have to do for their own good. That's fine with me. It's the player's choice whether to play if the threshold goes down. The whole thing to me is a non-issue. More papers to shuffle around at tax time? What's new?
These last few years there's been no way around my having to pay taxes on my winnings. Even creative filing and multiple passes couldn't overcome those big wins. I no longer file schedule C you know.
I know you are far above the rest of us mortal players. Just understand that you might not be impacted by this -- but the rest of us will be.
Of course I'll be impacted by this if it goes thru, probably more than most because I play a lot of SDBP & TBP+. But, IF I choose to. You see, it's the player's choice and not the casino's. You and everyone have the same decision to make as I do. We all made it nicely following the massive reduction of 100% games and cutbacks in cash back etc. I'm sure everyone, including the fearful complainers, will also make it thru this if they so choose.
I'm not clear on what you mean. Are you saying you won't be able to handle it if casinos reduce things even further to pay for this change? Or are you just upset with it and willing to take it up the behind?
Last edited by Rob.Singer; 05-20-2015 at 07:22 PM.
I think the bigger problem is the bread and butter players. Many of them will not be able to deduct their losses from their new taxes. Some states don't allow it either. This means thousands, if not millions, of players would have added taxes. Lots of them will cut back or stop gambling when this occurs. All quarter RFs would be taxable. Even quad aces/kicker on 50 cent DDB. The list is endless.
I can't imagine casinos are not fighting this. It could mean lots of bankruptcies.
First of all, the IRS says all wins must be reported --- not just W2G wins.
Secondly, the IRS allows you to offset your wins with your losses.
I would think that most states would follow the federal tax rules???? Arc, are you saying that there are states that do not let you offset your wins with your losses? California certainly does. In fact, California's tax is based on your federal return + what are known as "California adjustments."
But I agree with Arc. This will have a detrimental impact on all players, casinos and the employees of casinos.
Alan--as I stated above, in Illinois we are taxed on the gross. We do not get to deduct any loss. So W-2G's are a big deal for state tax purposes.
To avoid sticker shock at the end of the year, I have them withhold state tax on all signers
Yikes!!!!Originally Posted by regnis
In 2011 I had $1.29-million in W2Gs. I had a yearly loss. But Illinois would have bankrupted me.
The IRS now generally looks at yearly wins. Now, people who never got W2Gs might start to get many of them.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Not always and only if you itemize. Most people don't itemize.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Yup, as Regnis just mentioned. They are far from the only one.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote