vpFREE2 Forums

US screws VP players with this years tax rebate

#1

Quite frankly, I am having a very, very hard time feeling a great deal
of sympathy for someone who obviously earns over $10,000/month
losing out on a portion of that tax "rebate" because of those W2G's.
There are thousands of people in my state who would stand in line,
all night long in the dead of winter if need be, for a job that pays twice
that amount in a YEAR.

- Brian in MI

**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)

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

#2

Marksalot300 wrote:

Quite frankly, I am having a very, very hard time feeling a great
deal of sympathy for someone who obviously earns over $10,000/month
losing out on a portion of that tax "rebate" because of those W2G's.
There are thousands of people in my state who would stand in line,
all night long in the dead of winter if need be, for a job that pays
twice that amount in a YEAR.

Everything is relative.

It's evident that the majority of non-gamblers have little empathy for
the tax complications introduced by gambling -- even when it comes to
the Social Security earning granny who ends up paying taxes on a $1200
jackpot, lacking sufficient other deductions from which to effectively
claim offsetting losses.

The AGI distortion of gaming income that results because offsetting
losses are taken "below the line" is aberrant, no matter what your
sensitivities toward a particular taxpayer are.

(FWIW, I viewed the original post as cautionary, not a cry for sympathy.)

- Harry

#3

Harry,

I agree with you on this post. Gambling income can have a negative
impact on high and low incomes via the AMT or lack of itemized
deductions. You might even call it arbitrary and capricious.

I think there are now enough recreational casino goers that this
issue could be part of the next attempt at some kind of tax reform,
if enough people get educated and complain. What reasonable person
thinks you should pay tax on a net gambling loss. Even non gamblers
should understand that much.

Chris

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:

Marksalot300 wrote:
> Quite frankly, I am having a very, very hard time feeling a

great

> deal of sympathy for someone who obviously earns over

$10,000/month

> losing out on a portion of that tax "rebate" because of those

W2G's.

> There are thousands of people in my state who would stand in

line,

> all night long in the dead of winter if need be, for a job that

pays

> twice that amount in a YEAR.

Everything is relative.

It's evident that the majority of non-gamblers have little empathy

for

the tax complications introduced by gambling -- even when it comes

to

the Social Security earning granny who ends up paying taxes on a

$1200

jackpot, lacking sufficient other deductions from which to

effectively

claim offsetting losses.

The AGI distortion of gaming income that results because offsetting
losses are taken "below the line" is aberrant, no matter what your
sensitivities toward a particular taxpayer are.

(FWIW, I viewed the original post as cautionary, not a cry for

sympathy.)

···

- Harry

#4

I don't think he meant he was earning over $10K a month - I think he
meant (and I may be wrong) that with his regular income and with
W2G's it looks like he was making that much but that the goivernemtn
was not allowing his gambling losses to be counted. Which of course,
would put him (probably) back to his orignal salary. I very possibly
misunderstood the post. if i did...then I apologize.

Quite frankly, I am having a very, very hard time feeling a great

deal

of sympathy for someone who obviously earns over $10,000/month
losing out on a portion of that tax "rebate" because of those

W2G's.

There are thousands of people in my state who would stand in line,
all night long in the dead of winter if need be, for a job that

pays twice

that amount in a YEAR.

- Brian in MI

**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL

Money &

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Marksalot300@... wrote:

Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)

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

#5

Well, I would venture to say that the majority of recreational
gamblers are never going to be educated on this subject. I have
talked to many of them just about playing a game and the normal
comment is - I am here to have fun...I don't care about that kind of
thing".

Harry,

I agree with you on this post. Gambling income can have a negative
impact on high and low incomes via the AMT or lack of itemized
deductions. You might even call it arbitrary and capricious.

I think there are now enough recreational casino goers that this
issue could be part of the next attempt at some kind of tax reform,
if enough people get educated and complain. What reasonable person
thinks you should pay tax on a net gambling loss. Even non

gamblers

should understand that much.

Chris

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@>
wrote:
>
> Marksalot300 wrote:
> > Quite frankly, I am having a very, very hard time feeling a
great
> > deal of sympathy for someone who obviously earns over
$10,000/month
> > losing out on a portion of that tax "rebate" because of those
W2G's.
> > There are thousands of people in my state who would stand in
line,
> > all night long in the dead of winter if need be, for a job that
pays
> > twice that amount in a YEAR.
>
> Everything is relative.
>
> It's evident that the majority of non-gamblers have little

empathy

for
> the tax complications introduced by gambling -- even when it

comes

to
> the Social Security earning granny who ends up paying taxes on a
$1200
> jackpot, lacking sufficient other deductions from which to
effectively
> claim offsetting losses.
>
> The AGI distortion of gaming income that results because

offsetting

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "kcace1024" <cy4873@...> wrote:

> losses are taken "below the line" is aberrant, no matter what your
> sensitivities toward a particular taxpayer are.
>
> (FWIW, I viewed the original post as cautionary, not a cry for
sympathy.)
>
> - Harry
>

#6

Grandma,

You don't need a majority to get elected president and you don't need
a majority to voice your concerns and get something done, but you do
need some critical number. I don't know the number, but perhaps some
social scientist out there could give an estimate.

You are correct about those that don't care and maybe they are the
majority. what percent of the total actually have received a W-2G
for a jackpot and gotten screwed on their taxes. I bet they care!

Chris

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

Well, I would venture to say that the majority of recreational
gamblers are never going to be educated on this subject. I have
talked to many of them just about playing a game and the normal
comment is - I am here to have fun...I don't care about that kind

of

thing".

>
> Harry,
>
> I agree with you on this post. Gambling income can have a

negative

> impact on high and low incomes via the AMT or lack of itemized
> deductions. You might even call it arbitrary and capricious.
>
> I think there are now enough recreational casino goers that this
> issue could be part of the next attempt at some kind of tax

reform,

> if enough people get educated and complain. What reasonable

person

> thinks you should pay tax on a net gambling loss. Even non
gamblers
> should understand that much.
>
> Chris
>
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Marksalot300 wrote:
> > > Quite frankly, I am having a very, very hard time feeling a
> great
> > > deal of sympathy for someone who obviously earns over
> $10,000/month
> > > losing out on a portion of that tax "rebate" because of

those

> W2G's.
> > > There are thousands of people in my state who would stand in
> line,
> > > all night long in the dead of winter if need be, for a job

that

> pays
> > > twice that amount in a YEAR.
> >
> > Everything is relative.
> >
> > It's evident that the majority of non-gamblers have little
empathy
> for
> > the tax complications introduced by gambling -- even when it
comes
> to
> > the Social Security earning granny who ends up paying taxes on

a

> $1200
> > jackpot, lacking sufficient other deductions from which to
> effectively
> > claim offsetting losses.
> >
> > The AGI distortion of gaming income that results because
offsetting
> > losses are taken "below the line" is aberrant, no matter what

your

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "kcace1024" <cy4873@> wrote:
> > sensitivities toward a particular taxpayer are.
> >
> > (FWIW, I viewed the original post as cautionary, not a cry for
> sympathy.)
> >
> > - Harry
> >
>

#7

I don't think he is asking for sympathy, but what does his base non
gambling wage earnings have to do with any of this? The point
illustrated is that he is losing a rebate based on an inflated AGI not
on actual net income. It's no different than those who have to pay
state income tax on net losses, because the state tax code does not
allow for a deduction of losses to offset W2Gs that inflate the AGI.

SB

Quite frankly, I am having a very, very hard time feeling a great deal
of sympathy for someone who obviously earns over $10,000/month
losing out on a portion of that tax "rebate" because of those W2G's.
There are thousands of people in my state who would stand in line,
all night long in the dead of winter if need be, for a job that

pays twice

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Marksalot300@... wrote:

that amount in a YEAR.

- Brian in MI

#8

Well, I will share this with all of you. perhaps those gambling/tax
gurus can figure out a way to address the issue as to why the rebates
are not being given on your taxable income not AGI. Go to this
website (with your 2007 tax return info)
http://www.irs.gov/app/espc/ and it will tell you that for those
that have their tax refund dircet deposited - you will get your
rebate faster.

I don't think he is asking for sympathy, but what does his base non
gambling wage earnings have to do with any of this? The point
illustrated is that he is losing a rebate based on an inflated AGI

not

on actual net income. It's no different than those who have to pay
state income tax on net losses, because the state tax code does not
allow for a deduction of losses to offset W2Gs that inflate the AGI.

SB

>
> Quite frankly, I am having a very, very hard time feeling a

great deal

> of sympathy for someone who obviously earns over $10,000/month
> losing out on a portion of that tax "rebate" because of those

W2G's.

> There are thousands of people in my state who would stand in

line,

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "spartanbuckeye21" <kobj21@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Marksalot300@ wrote:
> all night long in the dead of winter if need be, for a job that
pays twice
> that amount in a YEAR.
>
> - Brian in MI

#9

We are fortunate to have enough funds to play video poker. There are many who make considerably less that really need the $600 - $1200. In the faulty trickle down effect that basically gave all the benefits to those at the top. Now that those on the bottom are getting something, let them enjoy it. I have been told by my accountant that I will probably not qualify but I am sure that anyone here who plays regularly and is properly bankrolled (bankroll of at least 3 to 5 royals at your denomination) should not have to be concerned about an extra $600. I will have W2-G's and in fact, quite few, as a play a lot of multi-strike as well as non W-2G gambling wins that still end up in my AGI. Now there is a solution for those of you who VP is your main job; it is called schedule C. For the majority of us that are recreational, part time VP job, etc who cannot use a schedule C go out and hit another royal!

gamblinggrandma <gamblinggrandma@yahoo.com> wrote: Well, I will share this with all of you. perhaps those gambling/tax
gurus can figure out a way to address the issue as to why the rebates
are not being given on your taxable income not AGI. Go to this
website (with your 2007 tax return info)
http://www.irs.gov/app/espc/ and it will tell you that for those
that have their tax refund dircet deposited - you will get your
rebate faster.

I don't think he is asking for sympathy, but what does his base non
gambling wage earnings have to do with any of this? The point
illustrated is that he is losing a rebate based on an inflated AGI

not

on actual net income. It's no different than those who have to pay
state income tax on net losses, because the state tax code does not
allow for a deduction of losses to offset W2Gs that inflate the AGI.

SB

>
> Quite frankly, I am having a very, very hard time feeling a

great deal

> of sympathy for someone who obviously earns over $10,000/month
> losing out on a portion of that tax "rebate" because of those

W2G's.

> There are thousands of people in my state who would stand in

line,

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "spartanbuckeye21" <kobj21@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Marksalot300@ wrote:
> all night long in the dead of winter if need be, for a job that
pays twice
> that amount in a YEAR.
>
> - Brian in MI

---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

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

#10

Spartan, your 100% correct, the message is a warning - as I know a lot of relatively low income VP semi pro's who get over $60000/yr in W2G's per husband and wife and they are effected by this. and I think a lot of people here are missing the point. My $24,000 in W2G's represent only a $1000 profit for the year. VP is a only a hobby for me. I dont mind paying a tax on that, even though I already paid out over $50,000 in taxes to Uncle Sam and State ( NYC - highest cost of living in US ) for 2007!
None of my VP "hits" were over $4000, and had Craps been my game of choice , where a W2G is required only on cashouts of >$10,000 I would have received the entire $1200 rebate , not $200. The penalty, is due in part, to the $1200 W2G VP reporting rule and AGI processing calculations, which are insane.
BTW, Had I hit one more dollar royal ( $4000 ), my rebate would have been zero. The rebate is meant to help the economy, not necessarily poor people ..that's the spirit of the law. But it hurts many winning mid-roller VP players un-justly.

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "spartanbuckeye21" <kobj21@aol.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 8:02 AM
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] [vpFREE] Re: US screws VP players with this years tax rebate

I don't think he is asking for sympathy, but what does his base non
gambling wage earnings have to do with any of this? The point
illustrated is that he is losing a rebate based on an inflated AGI not
on actual net income. It's no different than those who have to pay
state income tax on net losses, because the state tax code does not
allow for a deduction of losses to offset W2Gs that inflate the AGI.

SB

#11

I am completely in agreement with this tax situation being unfair. I guess the obvious question is why not stop playing if this is so painful for you.

tomflush <tomflush@nyc.rr.com> wrote: Spartan, your 100% correct, the message is a warning - as I know a lot of
relatively low income VP semi pro's who get over $60000/yr in W2G's per
husband and wife and they are effected by this. and I think a lot of people
here are missing the point. My $24,000 in W2G's represent only a $1000
profit for the year. VP is a only a hobby for me. I dont mind paying a tax
on that, even though I already paid out over $50,000 in taxes to Uncle Sam
and State ( NYC - highest cost of living in US ) for 2007!
None of my VP "hits" were over $4000, and had Craps been my game of choice ,
where a W2G is required only on cashouts of >$10,000 I would have received
the entire $1200 rebate , not $200. The penalty, is due in part, to the
$1200 W2G VP reporting rule and AGI processing calculations, which are
insane.
BTW, Had I hit one more dollar royal ( $4000 ), my rebate would have been
zero. The rebate is meant to help the economy, not necessarily poor people
..that's the spirit of the law. But it hurts many winning mid-roller VP
players un-justly.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "spartanbuckeye21" <kobj21@aol.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 8:02 AM
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] [vpFREE] Re: US screws VP players with this years
tax rebate

I don't think he is asking for sympathy, but what does his base non
gambling wage earnings have to do with any of this? The point
illustrated is that he is losing a rebate based on an inflated AGI not
on actual net income. It's no different than those who have to pay
state income tax on net losses, because the state tax code does not
allow for a deduction of losses to offset W2Gs that inflate the AGI.

SB

---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

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

#12

tomflush wrote:

None of my VP "hits" were over $4000, and had Craps been my game of
choice, where a W2G is required only on cashouts of >$10,000 I would
have received the entire $1200 rebate , not $200. The penalty, is
due in part, to the $1200 W2G VP reporting rule and AGI processing
calculations, which are insane.

There's some inaccuracy here.

There is no W-2G reporting for table games. However, if your total
cash transactions in the casino within a day exceed $10,000, they'll
file a CTR (currency transaction report) with the Treasury Dept.

The CTR is used to track cash transactions, but isn't an income
reporting document in itself (it can be triggered, in part or in
whole, by buy-ins, not just cash-outs). Of course, the CTR can signal
an expectation that you would report some gaming income, but not
necessarily the full amount of the CTR.

The point is that your 1040 income reporting requirement for table
gaming is no different than slot play -- thus the same wager/win
activity in either case is expected to produce the same reporting of
gaming information on your tax return. (Of course, undocumented table
wins yields a greater opportunity to fraudulently report that activity.)

(A distinction might be drawn when it comes to netting session losses
against reported W-2G winnings within the same session -- there's a
certain amount of ambiguity in instructions. However, it's been
reasonably established here that some filers have successfully
performed such netting, fully documenting the W-2G's that are included
in that reporting.)

- Harry

#13

hedonist144 wrote:

I am completely in agreement with this tax situation being unfair. I
guess the obvious question is why not stop playing if this is so
painful for you.

Spurious reasoning. Should I imagine that the next time someone
obnoxiously cuts you off in traffic and you steam a bit that you'll
cut up your driver's license?

- H.

#14

Just a nit...

Driving with a valid driver's license is often taken to be a required activity for some of us;
playing VP is not.

..... bl

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:

Spurious reasoning. Should I imagine that the next time someone
obnoxiously cuts you off in traffic and you steam a bit that you'll
cut up your driver's license?

- H.

#15

bornloser1537 wrote:

Driving with a valid driver's license is often taken to be a required
activity for some of us; playing VP is not.

Doesn't weaken the point ... because someone is aggravated with an
aspect of an activity isn't a rationalization for suggesting that they
should give it up -- no matter what their motivation in engaging in it.

- H.

#16

We can agree to disagree.

..... bl

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:

... because someone is aggravated with an
aspect of an activity isn't a rationalization for suggesting that they
should give it up

- H.

#17

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

>
> Spurious reasoning. Should I imagine that the next time someone
> obnoxiously cuts you off in traffic and you steam a bit that you'll
> cut up your driver's license?
>
> - H.
>

Just a nit...

Driving with a valid driver's license is often taken to be a required

activity for some of us;

playing VP is not.

It's not??? Where else would I go when I'm driving :wink:

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@> wrote:

#18

A more complete answer from me should have included all the pros and cons of playing under these conditions. For each person the decision may differ.

···

Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net> wrote: hedonist144 wrote:

I am completely in agreement with this tax situation being unfair. I
guess the obvious question is why not stop playing if this is so
painful for you.

Spurious reasoning. Should I imagine that the next time someone
obnoxiously cuts you off in traffic and you steam a bit that you'll
cut up your driver's license?

- H.

---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

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

#19

Silly me! Of course! LOL

..... bl

···

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

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@>
wrote:
>
> Driving with a valid driver's license is often taken to be a required
activity for some of us;
> playing VP is not.

It's not??? Where else would I go when I'm driving :wink: