IRS Accepting Comments Regarding Lowering W-2 Threshold to $600
Poll
 | 2 votes (5.4%) | ||
| | 3 votes (8.1%) | ||
| | 4 votes (10.81%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 2 votes (5.4%) | ||
| | 23 votes (62.16%) | ||
| | 4 votes (10.81%) | ||
| | 6 votes (16.21%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 2 votes (5.4%) |
37 members have voted
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=IRS-2015-0006-0001
Commenting is open until June 2.
This is a description of what the regulations cover from the document:
"The proposed regulations would update and simplify the existing information reporting requirements under § 7.6041-1 of the Temporary Income Tax Regulations under the Tax Reform Act of 1976 for persons who make reportable payments of bingo, keno, or slot machine winnings."
(Does a government agency saying they are going to "simplify" sound scary?)
Here are some bullet points from the a group against the proposal that I found on another forum. The group is the AGA; I assume the represent the gambling industry in some way:
--The IRS could soon force casino guests to dramatically increase the level of paperwork, which would severely undermine the customer experience.
--Specifically, the IRS may consider lowering the tax reporting threshold on slot machines from $1,200 to $600.
--Not only has this $1,200 threshold existed since 1977, but when accounting for inflation indexing the threshold should actually be nearly $4,700 today.
--This potentially burdensome requirement, for taxpayers and for the IRS, would cost states and cities significant tax revenues that pay for vital public services, such as teachers, firefighters and road improvements.
--Please tell the IRS not to reduce the slot gaming winnings threshold from $1,200 to $600 because it would severely harm the customer experience and reduce state revenues.
Quote: PaigowdanThe threshold should be $6K, - and it should be trigger on a cash-out DEPARTURE, not during in in-session uptick.
I'm on the record for saying this sort of thing before the IRS floored me by this new suggestion of going in the opposite direction.
Not sure what the dynamics are; maybe politicians urged this behind the scenes, to squeeze more money in the form of campaign donations from the gambling industry?
If it comes to pass, it'll be interesting to see the effect on slots and VP players. Speaking for myself, I can see it being the last time I ever play video poker.
However, having worked close to the political process regarding Social Security reform for ten years, I can say that anything that looks, tastes, or smells like a tax increase is much less politically attractive than adding new taxes or changing tax rules, as in the case here, to generate more revenue.
In this case, lowering the W2G limit would be an enormous burden on casinos and only complicate the taxes more on the people that generate the W2G. Typical way to increase tax revenue. I'm sure some bean counters at the IRS estimated how many millions such a rule change would bring in and that got deficit hawks in Congress excited. None of these people likely ever earned a W2G or worked for a casino.
I won't go so far as to say that gambling winnings shouldn't be taxable, but I think the W2G limit should be quite high. I'm thinking over $20,000 (any more than a royal on a $5 machine). However, I would support any increase to the current $1200 and oppose any decrease.
That's my two cents.
I can't believe game manufacturers are happy unless they think the casinos will ask for newly designed slots
It will mostly affect .25 players on especially on VP Royals, I suggest casinos make .25 machines that have $500 A-5 str8 flushes and $500 Royals.
Now $5 VP will be a pain in the ass.
"However, advances in technology in the nearly four decades since the existing rules were adopted may overcome the compliance concerns that prompted the higher reporting thresholds and may warrant reducing the thresholds for bingo, keno, and slots to $600, consistent with other information reporting thresholds under § 6041(a). Accordingly, the IRS and Treasury will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the existing (and proposed) reporting thresholds, and may propose to reduce those thresholds at a future time. Comments are specifically requested regarding the proposed reporting thresholds, including the feasibility of reducing those thresholds to $600 at a future time, whether electronically tracked slot machine play should have a separate reporting threshold, and whether the amounts should be uniform for bingo, keno, and slot machine play."
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=IRS-2015-0006-0001
They'll say now that they are not reducing the threshold at this time from the $1200 limit but that they are changing reporting to make it somehow more "fair"...then they will go to round two and drop the limit to $600 once they have everyone using the new limit. They will have a bit of a fight now and most people won't be as interested in the second fight because that is just how we are--we let the government slip things in on us that don't help anyone.
--Rant begins-- I'll go the record as standing with the Wizard on not being against new taxes that really do something to help us--better education, less poverty, better roads, etc. The issue I have is that the Federal government is an inefficient entity and cannot properly handle the tax money we now give them. All of our talk here about more taxes, less taxes, more fair taxes, etc. are really not the important thing--we've got a bloated bureaucracy not doing what needs to be done and we continue to support people who will not do anything about it...and we sit by mostly mute after the elections pass and let them get away with it. --End of rant--
Quote: RonC
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=IRS-2015-0006-0001
Commenting is open until June 2.
My brain broke trying to read through the 12 examples they give at the bottom of that link.
for money. They don't care what we say,
it'll pass. People won't care because
filling out the form isn't immediate money
out of their pocket. They just want the
$600 right now so they can give it back
to the casino. I never play slots, never will.
I also see this as one of those low-hanging fruit things, which won't affect many/most of the people making the decision. Very like taxes on cigarettes that don't have anything to do with smoking. For example, when I lived in Washington State, there was a .25/pack dedicated tax to clean up Puget Sound (on top of many other taxes). Worthwhile cause, but why was it up to the smokers to pay for the water polluters? Because the people who made the decision to pass the tax were not going to pay it, for the most part. And because many people make a moral judgment about smoking, there was some small-minded satisfaction in imposing an unrelated penalty. Same thing here.
PC/do-gooders imposing crap on other people. Bleah. That was the only thing I wasn't sorry to leave behind in the Pacific Northwest. It's almost a disease. Definitely contagious.
Quote: beachbumbabsAnd because many people make a moral judgment about smoking,
Hell yes I make a moral judgement, every time
some selfish smoker lights up next to me in
the casino. I feel like farting in his face to see how
he likes breathing in my toxic fumes.
I think I would find an entertainment tax more acceptable (just throwing this out there)
The calculation would be something like the machines return calculated against every hour of play. But even if they didn't do something like that, just a general entertainment fee might be preferable.
But more w2 paperwork -- blech.
As babs explained with the smokers tax increase, people will just say, "well screw those smokers they should pay". I don't see people making a rational decision of adjusting for inflation, taxables should be $4700.
Let's start taxing more on alcohol, I don't drink, so I don't care. Let's start taxing soccer mom minivans, I don't care. Let's start taxing high end luxury automobiles, I don't care. This is a slippery slope.
EDIT: I love this country I just hate paying taxes.
CT, IL, IN, MA, MI, OH, WV
do not allow for deductions of gambling losses.
If you walk into Aria and put 5 grand in their 5 grand slot and get three blanks you "win" $5,000, exactly what you paid. But in those states you still get taxed on it as income.
I don't like taxes but accept them as part of living in a civilized society, but paying "income" tax when you didn't make any income is incredibly onerous.
Income tax is probably one of the "fairest" taxes there is. If I was going to respond, I would suggest they tax capitol gains as regular income. Convert all income tax's to a flat tax and tax all imports until the national debt is paid off.
Make hiring Americans cheaper than outsourcing, until the balance of trade equals out. Stop stealing from citizens.
Fat chance. I just got my first w-2G. It was for a AZ. scratch ticket. It is so much better to have 4-500 dollar winners than one 2500 dollar winner, it isn't even funny.
Quote: petroglyphIf everyone comments to the IRS that they don't want to pay taxes, does that mean they will stop collecting them?
Not likely. But people shouldn't just resign themselves to the fate of a fly in spider web. At least struggle a little bit!
There's a lot more people gambling now outside of Vegas than there was 20-30 years ago, because there are more brick & mortar casinos as well as online gambling.
So, there may be a lot more people interested in the outcome than some may expect.
Quote: rxwine... At least struggle a little bit!
It was rhetorical.
I did the tax exempt bit in the 70's.
Audited 5 out of 8 years in the 80's. Three of them settled with "no change". It doesn't bother me as much as it used to, but is still pisses me off when my wife hits a scratchy for 2500 and it is considered "profit", hahaha. Yeah, right.
I've been at the struggle for a long time.
I want people to realize that their choices are mostly and illusion. The first step to recovery is admitting there is a problem.
Quote: EvenBobPeople won't care because
filling out the form isn't immediate money
out of their pocket.
A lot of people [who should] don't even file taxes. Maybe you're right
The IRS would look at this as no additional burden on the player, so any arguments in that light are not useful. I think we have to focus on the casino administrative burden.
Quote: rsactuary
The IRS would look at this as no additional burden on the player, so any arguments in that light are not useful. I think we have to focus on the casino administrative burden.
The IRS mentioned technology improvements and players cards as reasons to change the amounts, so I think that in the future player cards are going to be the key and the days of paper W2Gs will become history. Not going to happen next year, but maybe by 2020.
Quote: zoobrewThe IRS mentioned technology improvements and players cards as reasons to change the amounts, so I think that in the future player cards are going to be the key and the days of paper W2Gs will become history. Not going to happen next year, but maybe by 2020.
That's it right there. Your players card is going to "become" your W2G. All activity reported and netted out in a win or loss for the year. In other words electronic reporting. I can see a day not far off where playing without a players card isn't an option at all. Everybody wants the data...the casino, the IRS, the marketing companies the casinos sell your info to. There is no benefit to playing unrated. Except to the player wishing to remain anonymous. Those days are numbered, I'm afraid. Big brother is everywhere.
Quote: vendman1That's it right there. Your players card is going to "become" your W2G. All activity reported and netted out in a win or loss for the year. In other words electronic reporting. I can see a day not far off where playing without a players card isn't an option at all. Everybody wants the data...the casino, the IRS, the marketing companies the casinos sell your info to. There is no benefit to playing unrated. Except to the player wishing to remain anonymous. Those days are numbered, I'm afraid. Big brother is everywhere.
Which means they will soon be after anyone who wins at table games or other things, too.
It is a perfect scenario for them--you can deduct only losses up to total winnings; they can tax you any wins over losses. Fairness would say that you should be able to deduct all losses if they can tax all wins. Fairness? Not part of their plan.
Quote: vendman1That's it right there. Your players card is going to "become" your W2G. All activity reported and netted out in a win or loss for the year. In other words electronic reporting. I can see a day not far off where playing without a players card isn't an option at all. Everybody wants the data...the casino, the IRS, the marketing companies the casinos sell your info to. There is no benefit to playing unrated. Except to the player wishing to remain anonymous. Those days are numbered, I'm afraid. Big brother is everywhere.
It's almost as if they don't know how easy it is to manipulate your cards win/loss.
Quote: rsactuaryI think people are looking at it this the wrong way. The IRS code says you have to report ALL winnings to the IRS, not just the ones that result in a W2G. So if your net win for the year is $5.. and you don't have any W2Gs, you're supposed to report that. I think the IRS is thinking that by dropping to $600 they are moving towards better capturing the revenue they are already supposed to be getting.
The IRS would look at this as no additional burden on the player, so any arguments in that light are not useful. I think we have to focus on the casino administrative burden.
If this was true then w2gs would not matter. If you go to the casino 1 time with 1k. You win a 2k jackpot but blow every penny and leave that day with $0. You would not only lose your 1k but yu will have to pay taxes on that 2k. You can not write them off unless you are already itemizing.
So let's say your jackpot was 12k and you still lose it all. You now have lost your 1k, but you can itemize because of the 12k loss. However, since you didn't have enough prior to this "win" to itemize, you will pay taxes on the first 6400 or whatever the standard deduction is so you are still out another $1200.
It has now cost the tax payer $2200 for the pleasure of losing $1k
A possible externality is the demand for non-US casinos, maybe in the Bahamas, Canada, mexico, Macau- we may see gamblers preferring to take trips to these locations, meaning money being pulled out of economies like vegas and AC.
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Gambling-Winnings-Are-Always-Taxable-Income
"You cannot write them off unless you are already itemizing". I think that is an incorrect statement in that you can choose to itemize in any year. I agree that that may be disadvantageous to the winner, resulting in a higher tax burden because of that. Your statement implies that you had to be itemizing in the prior year, and that's not the case.
I overpay my Fed. withholding taxes every month and get back a sizeable return at the end of the year. I know it is poor tax planning, but allows me to be fairly inattentive to tax issues until end of year.
My wife won a scratch off ticket in AZ. for 2500 and since I was in Phoenix, I drove into the office and got a check from them. I was surprised that they didn't withhold anything, just gave me a check for 2500, and a W2G.
That is one difference between the two of us. She see's it as a 2500 win. I see it as maybe 16-1800 dollar "win" after tax. And that isn't entirely correct. I have no idea how many thousands of dollars "invested" it took to get that "winner".
My question is, I know I am overpayed to the feds already. Am I supposed to do something with this W2G other than file it at the end of the year?
Gambling in general is supposed to be fun isn't it? Win an occasional jackpot and a whoo-hoo, it shouldn't be such a giant PITA, maybe I should have stayed with stocks and precious metals? You can definitely carry a loss forward on pm's.
At least it cuts out all the middlemen.
(do I hear screaming?)
EDIT, it works pretty much like every sales tax transaction. Don't know who bought what, but the sales tax covers the transaction for tax purposes.
Most countries tax Gambling on the Casino or other Gambling establishement more heavily than in the US to compensate. And of course the casinos and other establishements pass down the cost to the customer through worse odds.
Although such a thing might be unfair as the cost is passed down to both winners and losers, is a much more easily enforced tax with a lot less administration and less potential for tax evasion.
I cannot imagine how in the US a civilian gambler is supposed to know his aggregate wins and losses for the year to report them. The whole idea of gambling is to have fun and you can not expect a half drunk gambler to get out his diary to record his win or loss at the end of the session and keep an accurate tally for the whole year. The best he can do is play rated and ask for Win/Loss statement for all casinos he played during the year (if he remembers all the places he gambled). And I understand that such Win/Loss statements especially for table games are not accurate. So even a civialian whith the best intentions to report everything to the IRS will inadverterly not make an accurate declaration.
Quote: AceTwoThe US is one of the very few countries that tax Gambling Wins. I actually do not know any other country that taxes Gambling Wins.
Most countries tax Gambling on the Casino or other Gambling establishement more heavily than in the US to compensate. And of course the casinos and other establishements pass down the cost to the customer through worse odds.
Although such a thing might be unfair as the cost is passed down to both winners and losers, is a much more easily enforced tax with a lot less administration and less potential for tax evasion.
I cannot imagine how in the US a civilian gambler is supposed to know his aggregate wins and losses for the year to report them. The whole idea of gambling is to have fun and you can not expect a half drunk gambler to get out his diary to record his win or loss at the end of the session and keep an accurate tally for the whole year. The best he can do is play rated and ask for Win/Loss statement for all casinos he played during the year (if he remembers all the places he gambled). And I understand that such Win/Loss statements especially for table games are not accurate. So even a civialian whith the best intentions to report everything to the IRS will inadverterly not make an accurate declaration.
The whole concept of the IRS is too defraud and extort money from you.
Quote: IbeatyouracesThe whole concept of the IRS is too defraud and extort money from you.
Yep
So like in my example above. I go in with 1k. I win a jackpot for 5k, but lose all my money before I leave the casino. So not only will I pay 1200 in taxes on my loss of 1k, but the casino will get taxed 55 percent on my 1k loss.
In summary
I lose 2200 yet the casino only makes $450 and there are $1750 generated in taxes. What's wrong with that picture.
To make it clear, I am not anti tax nor anti government but the casino tax issue gets on my nerves.
Quote: IbeatyouracesThe whole concept of the IRS is too defraud and extort money from you.
quote of the month/year/century
I actually would prefer a bet won relative to bet made ratio. I'm not too sure on the specifics but don't table games have a W2G for 600 to 1 bets? This way all $1 slot games would have to hit for more then $600 to get a taxable, if it was a $1 bet. $3 max bets on single lines would have to be $1800. This way for video poker if you played $1 for $5 max bet $3000 would be the threshold.
Quote: IbeatyouracesThe IRS needs to go. I'm for a graduated national sales tax based on item cost.
Regardless of item cost, in my opinion, but yes...and perhaps...item category. I don't necessarily care that someone pays 10% as opposed to 8% because he selected the $109.99 shoes over those that were $99.99...but something like a boat...unless you are in some sort of business that requires the use of a boat, that's a luxury item 100% of the time and should be presumed to have been purchased with disposable income.
https://wizardofvegas.com/article/reduced-jackpot/
Quote: Mission146I also wrote an article about this issue, should anyone be interested:
https://wizardofvegas.com/article/reduced-jackpot/
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/03373c05c46b5e9a6eb445537/files/REG_132253_11.pdf
Make sure you read all of these examples and understand them all.
"Example 2. Between 11 a.m. and 11 p.m. on the same day, B places five wagers of $20 each at casino Q on slot machine play that is not electronically tracked. B wins a total of $1,600 during that period of time as follows: an $800 win on the first play, no win on the second play, no win on the third play, a $600 win on the fourth play, and a $200 win on the fifth play. Under paragraph (b)(2)(i)(C) of this section, winnings from slot machine play that is not electronically tracked are not combined to determine whether the reporting threshold is satisfied. Therefore, none of B’s winnings is a reportable gambling winning and Q is not required to report winnings from slot machine play that it pays to B. "
Quote: Ahighhttps://gallery.mailchimp.com/03373c05c46b5e9a6eb445537/files/REG_132253_11.pdf
Make sure you read all of these examples and understand them all.
I'm sure I would have. That was published just a few days prior to my publication of the article and I had not seen it yet.
Quote: Mission146I'm sure I would have. That was published just a few days prior to my publication of the article and I had not seen it yet.
Nobody likes the IRS, so it's easy to propagate lies, such as the lie that the hand pay will be reduced to $600 in all cases for video slots.
It is, in fact, a lie. It has, in fact, been propagated. So much so that, generally speaking, everyone believes (assuming the IRS were to enact these proposals) that an $1,199 win on 12:01am of January first will be a hand-pay. It won't. Not in a single instance that I can come up with. And the only way you would pay taxes on that win is if you won for the entire year and were using your player card and won more than $600 for the year.
What the IRS is doing is clearly wrong. But battling the IRS by spreading lies just isn't much better.
From my understanding, the only player who would get dinged would be the player who, using player tracking while playing, won between $600 and $1,199 for the year. And that player would suffer taxes on an additional $600 to $1,199 of gambling winnings that would not have normally been a taxable event.
And in every case that I see, you can ALWAYS come up with losses to offset your wins (and people will continue to document "untracked" losses).
The main difference is that the casinos have to adapt their player accounting systems to report to the IRS. And that's what most of the kick-back is.
The players, in my view, stand to benefit from not worrying about taxes or hand-pays if they just use their player cards. This could be very good for players who are religious about using player cards, but are not as good at documenting their gambling habits for tax-time.
The other benefit to the player is that the IRS is bringing light to the fact that gamblers, generally speaking, are losers. Some players when faced with the reality that they are losing will stop gambling. This is very helpful to players, but not to the IRS or the casinos or the manufacturers.
But it makes sense that the industry wants to turn the IRS into the bad guys talking about how often a hand-pay would be required now. It's just a lie. That's all.
Quote: rsactuaryI think people are looking at it this the wrong way. The IRS code says you have to report ALL winnings to the IRS, not just the ones that result in a W2G. So if your net win for the year is $5.. and you don't have any W2Gs, you're supposed to report that.
Theoretically, if you won a $ 1000 Jackpot in January, and you lost $ 1000 in February, wouldn't you still have to report the $ 1000 Jackpot even though the net win/loss is Zero ?
Quote: rsactuary
The IRS would look at this as no additional burden on the player, so any arguments in that light are not useful. I think we have to focus on the casino administrative burden.
Doesn't the IRS have anything better to do ?
Quote: rsactuaryI think people are looking at it this the wrong way. The IRS code says you have to report ALL winnings to the IRS, not just the ones that result in a W2G. So if your net win for the year is $5.. and you don't have any W2Gs, you're supposed to report that. I think the IRS is thinking that by dropping to $600 they are moving towards better capturing the revenue they are already supposed to be getting.
The IRS would look at this as no additional burden on the player, so any arguments in that light are not useful. I think we have to focus on the casino administrative burden.
Oh come on! It's not that what you are saying is technically incorrect, and is in fact what the IRS will say publicly. But the IRS knows damn well people don't report things like winning $1000 on a given day for a bunch of reasons. The most legitimate of those reason being very few people at the $600 threshold will be overall winners any given year . Those people, overall losers, who report all this screw themselves in many ways, especially those who use the standard deduction. You, sir, must know this.
Now they would be forced to screw themselves whether they know better or not.
You report all your little winnings I suppose? Or do you gamble?
Quote: AhighAnd the only way you would pay taxes on that win is if you won for the entire year and were using your player card and won more than $600 for the year.
To me the issue is getting W2-Gs at all, which I avoid to the best of my abilities. It's not just that I would be able to show that I lost more than I won if I kept good records [I wouldnt be able to show that last year btw, or this year so far either, without lying]
You need to read Mission's article?
Quote: odiousgambitTo me the issue is getting W2-Gs at all, which I avoid to the best of my abilities. It's not just that I would be able to show that I lost more than I won if I kept good records [I wouldnt be able to show that last year btw, or this year so far either, without lying]
You need to read Mission's article?
No I read his article. But until the mistakes are corrected, there's no point in following through to the conclusions.
If you can come up with the scenario where, under the current proposals, MORE not FEWER W2-G's are required, can we talk about that?
My understanding is that nothing changes for the untracked player. AT ALL.
The case where you win $601 while being tracked and cash out for the year, I don't know if you have to accept the W2-G when you hit the cash-out button, or if they mail it to you after December 31st. Do you know?
Quote: AhighIf you can come up with the scenario where, under the current proposals, MORE not FEWER W2-G's are required, can we talk about that?
Maybe I don't understand, I avoid W2-gs and have never gotten one. This may make me ignorant.
Under current rules, I was thinking that if you won $1200 at, say, VP, you were getting a W2-g. The machine would stop and paperwork would happen. Thus, at $600, you get more.
*you wouldn't get more?
*under some circumstances unknown to me you can just blow these off as it is now?
one thing I can say for sure, each one has to be reported on your tax return.
Quote: odiousgambitMaybe I don't understand, I avoid W2-gs and have never gotten one. This may make me ignorant.
Under current rules, I was thinking that if you won $1200 at, say, VP, you were getting a W2-g. The machine would stop and paperwork would happen. Thus, at $600, you get more.
*you wouldn't get more?
*under some circumstances unknown to me you can just blow these off as it is now?
one thing I can say for sure, each one has to be reported on your tax return.
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/03373c05c46b5e9a6eb445537/files/REG_132253_11.pdf
Read and understand all the examples in the above link, then ask your question again.
99.99% of the discussion on this topic is just uninformed nonsense.
It would be awesome to have more than one person that I know who is not in the IRS actually understand these proposals.
I just posted this link along with an example where you can win more than $600 without a hand pay on this thread yesterday.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/22046-irs-accepting-comments-regarding-lowering-w-2-threshold-to-600/4/#post458529
Quote: AhighNobody likes the IRS, so it's easy to propagate lies, such as the lie that the hand pay will be reduced to $600 in all cases for video slots.
It is, in fact, a lie. It has, in fact, been propagated. So much so that, generally speaking, everyone believes (assuming the IRS were to enact these proposals) that an $1,199 win on 12:01am of January first will be a hand-pay. It won't. Not in a single instance that I can come up with. And the only way you would pay taxes on that win is if you won for the entire year and were using your player card and won more than $600 for the year.
What the IRS is doing is clearly wrong. But battling the IRS by spreading lies just isn't much better.
From my understanding, the only player who would get dinged would be the player who, using player tracking while playing, won between $600 and $1,199 for the year. And that player would suffer taxes on an additional $600 to $1,199 of gambling winnings that would not have normally been a taxable event.
And in every case that I see, you can ALWAYS come up with losses to offset your wins (and people will continue to document "untracked" losses).
The main difference is that the casinos have to adapt their player accounting systems to report to the IRS. And that's what most of the kick-back is.
The players, in my view, stand to benefit from not worrying about taxes or hand-pays if they just use their player cards. This could be very good for players who are religious about using player cards, but are not as good at documenting their gambling habits for tax-time.
The other benefit to the player is that the IRS is bringing light to the fact that gamblers, generally speaking, are losers. Some players when faced with the reality that they are losing will stop gambling. This is very helpful to players, but not to the IRS or the casinos or the manufacturers.
But it makes sense that the industry wants to turn the IRS into the bad guys talking about how often a hand-pay would be required now. It's just a lie. That's all.
This post show a lack of tax code or demographical knowledge. For over 50% of taxpayers a W2G would generate additional taxes, even if they are net losers, because they are using some of their standard deduction to cover their W2G instead of using it lower their AGI. The 50% figures comes from the number of taxpayers who don't itemize and if you analyze the demographics of itemizers and slot players the 50% is actually very much too low, for example only 33% of taxpayers making between 40-50k itemize and the rates are even much lower for lower income taxpayers. Also while I can't find the data, I would bet that a home mortgage is one of the main drivers of itemization and I would also bet that the average slot player is less likely to have mortgage, largely due to age factors.
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/higher-income-taxpayers-are-most-likely-claim-itemized-deductions
Quote: zoobrewThis post show a lack of tax code.....
I think that is part of the issue here, ie, MANY people don't understand the tax code exactly, including me. So simple would be better. I don't think anyone here believes this IRS proposal is a step in that direction.
Quote: JohnnyQI think that is part of the issue here, ie, MANY people don't understand the tax code exactly, including me. So simple would be better. I don't think anyone here believes this IRS proposal is a step in that direction.
I agree, there is a good reason why there is a multi billion dollar business just to figure out our taxes. However, some of it is just marketing hype, do you really need a tax preparer for 1040EZ.
