ukaserex
ukaserex
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 262
Joined: Jul 12, 2015
Thanked by
onenickelmiracle
January 12th, 2016 at 7:38:14 AM permalink
Trump may own casino's - and since he's a business man, I'm sure he knows it makes sense to raise the threshold, not lower it, as the dollar isn't worth as much as it used to be. However, I don't think it will happen.

I think the W-2G requirement was put in place some time in the 1960s or 70s, before computers took over the slots and made $1,200 and up jackpots more common. And it's not fair that a table game player can leave a table ahead by thousands of dollars and be on the honor system to report those winnings. Worse, a table game player can win $2,000 in the morning, lose it in the evening and record a $0 net for the day.

The slot player, on the other hand, has to report the $2,000 win under income and report the $2,000 loss under miscellaneous deductions.

Makes me want to reconsider my joy of playing video poker and learn more blackjack strategy.
"Those who have no idea what they are doing, genuinely have no idea that they don't know what they are doing." - John Cleese
runspotwalk
runspotwalk
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 8
Joined: Jan 9, 2016
Thanked by
onenickelmiracle
January 12th, 2016 at 10:34:11 AM permalink
1978 the average annual salary was $10, 566 and the only exotic bet at race tracks was the Daily Double on 1st and 2nd races. That is when the IRS started taxing a $600 winning. And now 48 years later, that is still the threshold.
As for W2G . I think that requirement started in 1989 for casinos and racetracks. Prior to that on a big hit, you could pay someone else at the track to show their ID and cash your ticket. With W2G, it was harder to find someone, and more expensive.
MB
MB
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 86
Joined: Aug 20, 2015
January 19th, 2016 at 7:15:54 PM permalink
Come to Canada...no taxes on gambling winnings and, most importantly, you're 45% ahead!

Of course, we have our own problems up here...not to mention a 54% marginal tax rate for incomes over $200k.
BTLWI
BTLWI
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 476
Joined: Nov 6, 2013
June 28th, 2016 at 8:32:39 AM permalink
I never heard the final conclusion of the OP, I'm assuming it was shot down - obviously it's not in effect.

Hope it's not still pending.
BTLWI
BTLWI
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 476
Joined: Nov 6, 2013
djatc
djatc
  • Threads: 83
  • Posts: 4477
Joined: Jan 15, 2013
December 31st, 2016 at 12:25:58 AM permalink
I think adjusting for inflation when the rule first started back in the 70's, it should be $4800 or so this year..... Of course this won't happen anytime soon. Would be nice to play $1 VP without those pesky taxables.
"Man Babes" #AxelFabulous
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
  • Threads: 327
  • Posts: 9776
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
December 31st, 2016 at 4:18:37 AM permalink
Quote: BTLWI

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/12/irs_delivers_holiday_cheer_to_atlantic_city_slots.html.

It was still pending...



you device added a period which ruined the link

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/12/irs_delivers_holiday_cheer_to_atlantic_city_slots.html
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!”   She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
jml24
jml24
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 302
Joined: Feb 28, 2011
December 31st, 2016 at 10:32:15 AM permalink
One way that our tax system is unfair to gamblers is that you are always required to pay taxes on winnings, but you are only allowed to deduct losses if you itemize. The Trump proposal for tax reform includes an increase in the standard deduction, meaning fewer people will gain by itemizing and thus will be stuck paying taxes on that W2-G with no way to offset losses. The only fair way to tax gambling IMO is on net proceeds only (or not at all like most other countries, given the large amount of taxation on gambling establishments.) However, neither political party seems interested in adopting this stance. The Rs like to preach that gambling is evil, even though the new boss is a former casino owner. The Ds can't resist the income.
rsactuary
rsactuary
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 2315
Joined: Sep 6, 2014
December 31st, 2016 at 11:06:16 AM permalink
If we have to pay taxes on gambling winnings, I'd just rather everything up to a 10K win be non-taxable, everything over 10K be fully taxable with no deductions. Would be a lot easier... maybe not fairer to some high rollers, but better for most.

( or maybe 10K and at least 300-1 odds )
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
  • Threads: 170
  • Posts: 22700
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
January 3rd, 2017 at 12:52:57 AM permalink
Quote: rsactuary

If we have to pay taxes on gambling winnings, I'd just rather everything up to a 10K win be non-taxable, everything over 10K be fully taxable with no deductions. Would be a lot easier... maybe not fairer to some high rollers, but better for most.

( or maybe 10K and at least 300-1 odds )

300 to 1 is way too low.

It shouldn't be taxed on just the amount either.
If you play a 5k slot you would be getting seriously raped.

I guarantee if they make it $600 it will hurt the gaming industry tremendously. If they do this it would be wise for casinos to rework. .25 VP paytables tables to make Royals pay $500 and add low ball straight flushes to pay $500 as well.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
RS
RS
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8626
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
Thanked by
onenickelmiracle
January 3rd, 2017 at 1:29:44 AM permalink
It should be set to $5k, IMO.

How much do people go to the casino with to gamble? I read an article that said the average gamble has about $300 to $500 to play with. And from my experience as a dealer, that seems fairly accurate (although tables and machines are different...). But for a taxable to be $1200, which is 2.4x to 4x the amount someone has to gamble with, is pretty low. I mean, $1200 isn't some super huge amount to be won for a typical gambler. Yes, it's certainly nice to win $1200+, but it's not really jackpot-y.
djatc
djatc
  • Threads: 83
  • Posts: 4477
Joined: Jan 15, 2013
January 3rd, 2017 at 2:18:40 AM permalink
Quote: RS

It should be set to $5k, IMO.

How much do people go to the casino with to gamble? I read an article that said the average gamble has about $300 to $500 to play with. And from my experience as a dealer, that seems fairly accurate (although tables and machines are different...). But for a taxable to be $1200, which is 2.4x to 4x the amount someone has to gamble with, is pretty low. I mean, $1200 isn't some super huge amount to be won for a typical gambler. Yes, it's certainly nice to win $1200+, but it's not really jackpot-y.



I checked out the inflation calculator online and found that $1200 in 1979 is worth $3989.31.

Average median household per year was $15177 in 1979, or $1264.75/month.

Average median household per year is $53013 in 2014, or $4417.75/month

W2G taxables should be within the $4k range. It'll be the equivalent of hitting an average person's monthly pay, which is a pretty big hit. With the current laws it's like hitting your weekly pay, which is not a big deal.

The 300:1 payout trigging a taxable is not my favorite (such as hitting longshot sports parlays) but I understand the mentality. Although they should change it to if the 300:1 payout will exceed $4000.

I don't know how machines were back in the day but I'm assuming adjusting for inflation more people play higher denominations today then back then.
"Man Babes" #AxelFabulous
Nathan
Nathan
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 4427
Joined: Sep 2, 2016
Thanked by
onenickelmiracle
January 3rd, 2017 at 3:01:50 AM permalink
Quote: DRich

It would definitely reduce the handle some but the truth is that most players would still gamble. I believe it was Missouri that used to require all players to be tracked because they had a limit of how much you could lose per day. You couldn't play without the card and once you lost the amount mandated by the state you could no longer play that day.



Putting a limit on how much a person can lose in a day could cause big problems for gamblers. For example if the limit is $1000 and a guy lost it in really bad games, he cannot use the other $100 he still has to even attempt to get the $1000 back. That's a recipe for disaster and everyone knows that. Sure, the gambler is forced to leave with the $100 he still has which in theory is good, but in reality it could be treacherous(People have been known to do desperate things when they lose money in a casino and are not allowed to try to win it back,)
In both The Hunger Games and in gambling, may the odds be ever in your favor. :D "Man Babes" #AxelFabulous "Olive oil is processed but it only has one ingredient, olive oil."-Even Bob, March 27/28th. :D The 2 year war is over! Woo-hoo! :D I sometimes speak in metaphors. ;) Remember this. ;) Crack the code. :D 8.9.13.25.14.1.13.5.9.19.14.1.20.8.1.14! :D "For about the 4096th time, let me offer a radical idea to those of you who don't like Nathan -- block her and don't visit Nathan's Corner. What is so complicated about it?" Wizard, August 21st. :D
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
January 3rd, 2017 at 3:28:27 AM permalink
Quote: Nathan

Putting a limit on how much a person can lose in a day could cause big problems for gamblers. For example if the limit is $1000 and a guy lost it in really bad games, he cannot use the other $100 he still has to even attempt to get the $1000 back. That's a recipe for disaster and everyone knows that. Sure, the gambler is forced to leave with the $100 he still has which in theory is good, but in reality it could be treacherous(People have been known to do desperate things when they lose money in a casino and are not allowed to try to win it back,)

lol. Truth is if you need to win, you need to quit. Pretty sure they'll be better off with the $100 they have left and will have to learn not to spend the rent money for next time. You can't blame yourself because some guy robs someone or some girl becomes a prostitute. These kinds of laws probably help minimize the negative effects of gambling on lives more than a little extra profit helps the casino. If you need to win, you need to quit Nathan.
I am a robot.
Nathan
Nathan
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 4427
Joined: Sep 2, 2016
January 3rd, 2017 at 3:45:02 AM permalink
Quote: onenickelmiracle

lol. Truth is if you need to win, you need to quit. Pretty sure they'll be better off with the $100 they have left and will have to learn not to spend the rent money for next time. You can't blame yourself because some guy robs someone or some girl becomes a prostitute. These kinds of laws probably help minimize the negative effects of gambling on lives more than a little extra profit helps the casino. If you need to win, you need to quit Nathan.



I wasn't talking about me, I was talking about a report that a guy who lost his money in a casino and then began robbing other players at gunpoint . Luckily some people were lucky to have been able to escape unscathed.
In both The Hunger Games and in gambling, may the odds be ever in your favor. :D "Man Babes" #AxelFabulous "Olive oil is processed but it only has one ingredient, olive oil."-Even Bob, March 27/28th. :D The 2 year war is over! Woo-hoo! :D I sometimes speak in metaphors. ;) Remember this. ;) Crack the code. :D 8.9.13.25.14.1.13.5.9.19.14.1.20.8.1.14! :D "For about the 4096th time, let me offer a radical idea to those of you who don't like Nathan -- block her and don't visit Nathan's Corner. What is so complicated about it?" Wizard, August 21st. :D
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
  • Threads: 170
  • Posts: 22700
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
January 3rd, 2017 at 9:21:28 AM permalink
Quote: Nathan

I wasn't talking about me, I was talking about a report that a guy who lost his money in a casino and then began robbing other players at gunpoint . Luckily some people were lucky to have been able to escape unscathed.

Source Please
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
January 3rd, 2017 at 11:32:49 AM permalink
Quote: Nathan

I wasn't talking about me, I was talking about a report that a guy who lost his money in a casino and then began robbing other players at gunpoint . Luckily some people were lucky to have been able to escape unscathed.



I don't recall that story necessarily, but I have covered many casino-related crimes in various News & Notes Articles, and several of those crimes came as the result of people losing and getting desperate. I don't know that I recall any stories of someone losing THAT DAY and doing something crazy, but certainly after losing over time. Of course, I would say at least 25% of the theft-related things are either entirely or partially inside jobs, and those are the ones we know about.

With respect to daily loss limits, from 1992 until Proposition A ended it in 2008, the State of Missouri actually did have a, 'Loss Limit,' that applied to all gamblers. It certainly would have made high-limit play difficult as patrons could only buy in for $500 in the space of two hours with a daily limit of $6,000. Of course, going in with a non-gambler could effectively double those limits, if one so desired and had a willing party.

I lived in Kansas City prior to the passage of Proposition A, (Mid-2005 to Mid-2006, to be precise) but I do not recall what the table maximums were or the highest denomination slot machines available. I played poker exclusively during that time, and I think that I may have played one Blackjack session, ever, during that time as I was up by a significant amount for the day and said, 'What the hell.' I imagine that the maximums would have been low, but they technically could have been as high as $500, I suppose.

ADDED:

By the way, I disagree with your theory that such a loss limit is bad, per se, for the gambler. At worst, the guy has to wait until the next day to go in and probably lose his $100. I don't think very many people, if anyone, are going to go absolutely bonkers over the fact that the casino is making them leave with some of their money intact. Besides, if there was a loss limit of $1,000 (and the gambler knows that) why would he even bring in $1,100 expecting to be able to play it all to begin with?
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
BTLWI
BTLWI
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 476
Joined: Nov 6, 2013
January 3rd, 2017 at 1:55:09 PM permalink
In Iowa you could just find the little old lady that only brought $20 to gamble and ask her nicely for her punch card. And when that didn't work you simply looked in the trash for cards with buy-in amounts still unused.

Of course the lady I knew that did that (my mom's friend) eventually gambled her house into foreclosure, wrote untold number of bad checks to complete strangers at the casino and lost her husband's 401K. Very nice looking, well dressed lady in the friendly state of Iowa? Why wouldn't you take a $400 check from her...
BTLWI
BTLWI
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 476
Joined: Nov 6, 2013
January 3rd, 2017 at 2:02:28 PM permalink
I lost $500 in one bet on roulette at Flamingo in Kansas City back in 1998. That was the table max and it was the 9th black number in a row. It crushed my hopes and dreams of Martingale fortunes.

If you couldn't wait 2 hours there was Harrah's, Flamingo, and 2 Station Casinos all within 20 minutes of each other in the greater Kansas City metro. Was I the only one to ever board the Flamingo at 1 PM and be driving to Station by 1:20 PM because I'd already lost $500 and didn't want to sit around till 3PM? Probably not.
Gandler
Gandler
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1801
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
January 3rd, 2017 at 2:41:56 PM permalink
This would be crazy. When you play $5 and over slots, $600 hits are not uncommon. If you are a hardcore slot player on high limit slots, you would have your game interrupted a couple times an hour.

Slots are already absurd. But, when in addition to the terrible expected losses, you have to mess up you taxable income every time you win 600, you will be in a terrible position. It is crazy that you can win many Ks a hand on table games and not report anything, but now they are trying to make a bad game (slots) even worse for the players by increasing their losses (paying more taxes on the few wins you get)....
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
  • Threads: 170
  • Posts: 22700
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
January 3rd, 2017 at 3:05:01 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

I don't recall that story necessarily, but I have covered many casino-related crimes in various News & Notes Articles, and several of those crimes came as the result of people losing and getting desperate. I don't know that I recall any stories of someone losing THAT DAY and doing something crazy, but certainly after losing over time. Of course, I would say at least 25% of the theft-related things are either entirely or partially inside jobs, and those are the ones we know about.

With respect to daily loss limits, from 1992 until Proposition A ended it in 2008, the State of Missouri actually did have a, 'Loss Limit,' that applied to all gamblers. It certainly would have made high-limit play difficult as patrons could only buy in for $500 in the space of two hours with a daily limit of $6,000. Of course, going in with a non-gambler could effectively double those limits, if one so desired and had a willing party.

I lived in Kansas City prior to the passage of Proposition A, (Mid-2005 to Mid-2006, to be precise) but I do not recall what the table maximums were or the highest denomination slot machines available. I played poker exclusively during that time, and I think that I may have played one Blackjack session, ever, during that time as I was up by a significant amount for the day and said, 'What the hell.' I imagine that the maximums would have been low, but they technically could have been as high as $500, I suppose.

ADDED:

By the way, I disagree with your theory that such a loss limit is bad, per se, for the gambler. At worst, the guy has to wait until the next day to go in and probably lose his $100. I don't think very many people, if anyone, are going to go absolutely bonkers over the fact that the casino is making them leave with some of their money intact. Besides, if there was a loss limit of $1,000 (and the gambler knows that) why would he even bring in $1,100 expecting to be able to play it all to begin with?

KC definitely had $5 VP machines( good All American VP) .

They had that $500 or $600 Limit thing.
You had to go in over multiple days twith multiple prople to build up enough to play anything higher limit.

I cannot remember exactly how it worked now, but I know there was a way around it.

At one time KC was a gold mine for AP's.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
January 3rd, 2017 at 11:04:26 PM permalink
I've heard that it was great at one time, but I don't know anything about that specifically.

I'm sure there was a work-around, but I certainly never put much thought into it. I imagine that, if one wanted to gamble greater amounts and didn't mind returning to the casino multiple times (or being there without playing) a person could just keep re-buying for the $500 every two hours until the person has a stack of a sufficient size for them. I also imagine that a person could get a group of people to buy in for him/her as well, pass off the chips in the bathroom, something like that.

My understanding is that the limit was actually a, 'Buy-in,' limit rather than a loss limit in the strictest sense, so if you sauntered up to a table and already had more than $500 in chips, or had more money than that on a ticket, I should imagine there was nothing they could do to prevent you from losing all of it.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
January 3rd, 2017 at 11:10:49 PM permalink
Quote: BTLWI

I lost $500 in one bet on roulette at Flamingo in Kansas City back in 1998. That was the table max and it was the 9th black number in a row. It crushed my hopes and dreams of Martingale fortunes.

If you couldn't wait 2 hours there was Harrah's, Flamingo, and 2 Station Casinos all within 20 minutes of each other in the greater Kansas City metro. Was I the only one to ever board the Flamingo at 1 PM and be driving to Station by 1:20 PM because I'd already lost $500 and didn't want to sit around till 3PM? Probably not.



Ah, yes, the Isle of Capri NKC. Was it a dump even back then? I haven't been there in over a decade, but from what I hear, it's still every bit the dump it was in 2005 or 2006, whatever year it was I was there.

What did the Stations two eventually turn into? I always played poker at the Harrah's NKC, which, you're right, is probably not even twenty minutes from Isle of Capri.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Nathan
Nathan
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 4427
Joined: Sep 2, 2016
January 3rd, 2017 at 11:36:10 PM permalink
You would expect the IRS to raise the jackpot threshold, not lower it. The $1200 jackpot threshold is from the 70's where a $1200 surplus was much more extraordinary than it is today. Life is much more expensive in 2016/2017 than say 1976/1977. The threshold should be raised to $3000 in my opinion. That would be a reasonable threshold.
In both The Hunger Games and in gambling, may the odds be ever in your favor. :D "Man Babes" #AxelFabulous "Olive oil is processed but it only has one ingredient, olive oil."-Even Bob, March 27/28th. :D The 2 year war is over! Woo-hoo! :D I sometimes speak in metaphors. ;) Remember this. ;) Crack the code. :D 8.9.13.25.14.1.13.5.9.19.14.1.20.8.1.14! :D "For about the 4096th time, let me offer a radical idea to those of you who don't like Nathan -- block her and don't visit Nathan's Corner. What is so complicated about it?" Wizard, August 21st. :D
  • Jump to: