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.
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.
Of course, we have our own problems up here...not to mention a 54% marginal tax rate for incomes over $200k.
Hope it's not still pending.
Quote: BTLWIhttp://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
( or maybe 10K and at least 300-1 odds )
300 to 1 is way too low.Quote: rsactuaryIf 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 )
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.
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.
Quote: RSIt 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.
Quote: DRichIt 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,)
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.Quote: NathanPutting 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,)
Quote: onenickelmiraclelol. 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.
Source PleaseQuote: NathanI 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.
Quote: NathanI 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?
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...
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.
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)....
KC definitely had $5 VP machines( good All American VP) .Quote: Mission146I 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?
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.
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.
Quote: BTLWII 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.