vpFREE2 Forums

United Front

Currently there is an e-mail circulating the web re uniting to drive down the price of gas. Regardless where you stand on this issue, it brings up a point germane to gamblers the world over. Long have I held the belief that the internet is a powerful force for change, if only harnessed.

And here's my question: How many of you have said to yourself that the current $1200 rule for W2-G is hopelessly outdated in light of today's machines (multiple play and high denomination) and in the same breath lamented, "But what can one person do about it? It would take a law change and no politician seems interested in tackling this."

Now, from personal experience I know that a politician, if he/she receives as much as a few e-mails on any particular subject, knows it represents many more who feel the same way but are uncompelled to write. (The current conventional wisdom is that one letter represents 100 more who feel the same way.)

So here's my proposal: You yourself e-mail your federal and state politicians (their favorite form of communication) and urge them to up the W2-G limit to $5,000. The feds addresses are easily found at www.usa.gov., the State's likewise, www. (state name). gov.

But wait, there's more--also e-mail everyone in your address book that gambles (or not--you don't have to gamble to be a change-maker) and urge them to do likewise. If this doesn't get something going, lets do it again every month until it does.

We can do this. Gamblers of the world unite. We have nothing to lose but our yokes of oppression...

Hi Dan,

I think your idea is very good and I also think it is not quite hopeless and we should not resign and say "There is nothing we can do about this".

Because of your message, I have just sent the following email to the Senator of Nevada, John Ensign and I intend to sent more to the others.

···

===========================================
Las Vegas, May 17, 2007

Dear Senator,

My wife and I are retired and have to live on a relatively small, fixed income. However, we like to gamble and do this every day. As you know, when you gamble a lot eventually you hit a jackpot even on 25 cent machines. As you also know there is no such a thing as winning in a casino for small time gamblers.

This is our problem: The limit to get a W2-G form is 1200 Dollars and this has been the case for many years, never adjusted for inflation. This low limit is killing us financially.

What has been a sufficient limit many years back to protect small time gamblers from getting into the clutches of the IRS is now a nightmare to us because the "Adjusted Gross Income" does not include the net winnings of gambling but the gross winnings, that means you are being taxed for income you did not get and on top of that you lose all your old age benefits and your Social Security Income gets taxed up to 80 %. Other people spend their money on a cruise or other vacation and get the benefits, the gamblers stay home for entertainment and get clobbered. Is that fair? Can you, or do you want to, to do something about this?

If this limit of 1200 Dollars would be increased to 5000 $ it would eliminate the W2-G's for most people who do not pay taxes on winnings anyway because there are no Small Fish winners. The whales who play big time and may indeed win would still get the W2-G's.

Please try, a lot of people would be grateful to you.

Helmut and Lucy

============================================
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Dan Nowak
  To: vpFREE
  Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 8:58 PM
  Subject: [vpFREE] United Front

  Currently there is an e-mail circulating the web re uniting to drive down
  the price of gas. Regardless where you stand on this issue, it brings up a
  point germane to gamblers the world over. Long have I held the belief that
  the internet is a powerful force for change, if only harnessed.

  And here's my question: How many of you have said to yourself that the
  current $1200 rule for W2-G is hopelessly outdated in light of today's
  machines (multiple play and high denomination) and in the same breath
  lamented, "But what can one person do about it? It would take a law change
  and no politician seems interested in tackling this."

  Now, from personal experience I know that a politician, if he/she receives
  as much as a few e-mails on any particular subject, knows it represents many
  more who feel the same way but are uncompelled to write. (The current
  conventional wisdom is that one letter represents 100 more who feel the same
  way.)

  So here's my proposal: You yourself e-mail your federal and state
  politicians (their favorite form of communication) and urge them to up the
  W2-G limit to $5,000. The feds addresses are easily found at www.usa.gov.,
  the State's likewise, www. (state name). gov.

  But wait, there's more--also e-mail everyone in your address book that
  gambles (or not--you don't have to gamble to be a change-maker) and urge
  them to do likewise. If this doesn't get something going, lets do it again
  every month until it does.

  We can do this. Gamblers of the world unite. We have nothing to lose but
  our yokes of oppression...

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"Helmut" <hewolf@...> wrote:

About W2-G's killing them financially. Unfortunately, the government
requires reporting the winnings even if there is no W2-G so the effect
would be the same. The letter, as written, leads one to believe that
we wouldn't have to report the session winnings and net out the losses
if the limit was raised. From what I understand, that is not the case.

I think the idea of writing our politicians is a good one though we in
Illinois have had a few campaigns to allow the deduction of losses in
calculating the state income tax and have been royally laughed at.
They see it as a "sin tax" and they love taxing gamblers and the
casinos, it's a major source of state income.

If I'm wrong for some reason, and we do not have to report gross
winnings even without W2-G's, I'd be very pleased to hear it ...

Lavona Rann

In my opinion, one should be "lobbying" for a situation whereby "(total won) - (total bet)"
accummulated over the entire year is what is entered on our 1040 as "gambling income".
Should that difference be less than zero (that is, when our losses exceed our bets), then a
zero would be entered.

.....bl

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Lavona Rann" <lrann2@...> wrote:

"Helmut" <hewolf@> wrote:

About W2-G's killing them financially. Unfortunately, the government
requires reporting the winnings even if there is no W2-G so the effect
would be the same. The letter, as written, leads one to believe that
we wouldn't have to report the session winnings and net out the losses
if the limit was raised. From what I understand, that is not the case.

I think the idea of writing our politicians is a good one though we in
Illinois have had a few campaigns to allow the deduction of losses in
calculating the state income tax and have been royally laughed at.
They see it as a "sin tax" and they love taxing gamblers and the
casinos, it's a major source of state income.

If I'm wrong for some reason, and we do not have to report gross
winnings even without W2-G's, I'd be very pleased to hear it ...

Lavona Rann

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@...>
wrote:

In my opinion, one should be "lobbying" for a situation

whereby "(total won) - (total bet)"

accummulated over the entire year is what is entered on our 1040

as "gambling income".

Should that difference be less than zero (that is, when our losses

exceed our bets), then a

zero would be entered.

.....bl

Just curious, how many filers would have something
North of 0?

Among the people who play the state lottereies...not many! <smile>

.....bl

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "worldbefree22001" <krajewski.sa@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@>
wrote:
>
> In my opinion, one should be "lobbying" for a situation
whereby "(total won) - (total bet)"
> accummulated over the entire year is what is entered on our 1040
as "gambling income".
> Should that difference be less than zero (that is, when our losses
exceed our bets), then a
> zero would be entered.
>
> .....bl

Just curious, how many filers would have something
North of 0?

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "worldbefree22001" <krajewski.sa@...>
wrote:

Just curious, how many filers would have something
North of 0?

See the VPFree poll.