[luke warm]

y66, on 2011-April-17, 08:42, said:

The problem with internet gambling is figuring out how to tax it. Everything else is pretty much irrelevant.

why should it be taxed at all?

[Foxx]

chasetb, on 2011-April-17, 12:03, said:

I have a great example of how to save money - it currently costs more to produce a US penny or nickel than that penny or nickel is worth. Cut back or stop altogether on making them, and you are showing a profit.

Count me as someone who wouldn't mind if the government decided to "color up" pennies

[blackshoe]

luke warm, on 2011-April-18, 15:58, said:

why should it be taxed at all?

Government has the power to tax. Therefore, anything the government can tax, must be taxed.

[y66]

luke warm, on 2011-April-18, 15:58, said:

why should it be taxed at all?

Governments tax stuff to cover operating costs.

[kenberg]

luke warm, on 2011-April-18, 15:58, said:

why should it be taxed at all?

Tom makes his living playing poker, Dick makes his living fixing cars, Harry makes his living selling stock market advice. Tom should be exempt from taxes why? If we only tax people who do something useful then surely only Dick pays.

[luke warm]

kenberg, on 2011-April-18, 17:19, said:

Tom makes his living playing poker, Dick makes his living fixing cars, Harry makes his living selling stock market advice. Tom should be exempt from taxes why? If we only tax people who do something useful then surely only Dick pays.

not taxing tom says nothing about taxing (or not taxing) dick and harry... as you know

[kenberg]

Correct, in that we will no doubt be taxing the others whatever we decide about Tom. But I think taxing Dick and Harry says something about taxing Tom. If I were Dick or Harry I would see no reason for Tom to get a free lunch. If I pay, he pays.

Speaking strictly, if taxing Dick and Harry implies we tax Tom then, by contraposition, not taxing Tom implies we not tax at least one of Dick and harry. But not for the first time I don't regard this logical point as persuasive. It's just a matter of fair play. We tax earnings and poker winnings are earnings. We sometimes exempt earnings to encourage a particular form of behavior but I don't see encouraging poker playing as being a national priority.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2011-April-19, 03:56, said:

not taxing tom says nothing about taxing (or not taxing) dick and harry... as you know

I could have sworn that you were in favor of simplifying the tax code, a natural corallary of which is that Tom, Dick, and Harry all pay taxes on their income, regardless of whether it was made by gambling, repairing cars, or capital gains...

It might seem strange, but to me the default case is that people pay taxes on income
Those people who think that they deserve an exception are the ones who need to prove their case

Please note: I am strongly in favor of dramatically simplifying the tax code and removing distortions like mortgage income deductions, tax breaks for having children, etc.
Its illogical to bundle these activities with income tax in a society where income is so skewed.

I do, however, favor taxing negative externalities such as carbon emissions and direct payments for activities that you want to promote.

[cherdano]

I guess Jimmy's default assumption is that nobody pays taxes.

[ArtK78]

I believe that some of the recent discussion on this thread has gone off the rails.

The issue of taxation of internet poker has little to do with the taxation of players' profits. It has everything to do with the taxation of the business of internet poker.

Players are subject to taxation on their winnings under existing law.

[luke warm]

cherdano, on 2011-April-19, 06:51, said:

I guess Jimmy's default assumption is that nobody pays taxes.

nope, i'd prefer something like 15% of all income over $50K (no deductions) on individuals/families (including tom), with corporations/businesses paying a flat 15% of profit... i believe those that have will pay more than they now do, increasing revenue... it's more complicated than that, of course, but we could get real complicated real quick if we don't watch out... gotta figure some way out of all the barter that's sure to go on... maybe put some of the out of work irs agents on it?

[Echognome]

It's obviously a very complicated system. Taxes are used as much as anything to elicit social behavior (encourage some activities, discourage other activities). That's where you have to throw the economics out of the window, since it comes down to politics. Of course the economic base is about solving the public goods problem. The progressivity of tax system depends on a lot more than the federal tax rate. You also have to include state and local taxes, sales/use taxes, customs taxes, property taxes, etc.

[y66]

House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank calls out the Justice Department:

Quote

"What an incredible waste of resources," Frank said in an interview with The Hill regarding last Friday's crackdown, which saw the FBI and Justice Department shut down the three largest online poker sites in what appears to be the largest sting to date on illegal online gambling.

Frank mocked the seizures as the administration "protecting the public from the scourge of inside straights," and lamented that the Justice Department is more focused on prosecuting online poker sites than those responsible for the mortgage crisis and financial meltdown.

"Go after the people responsible for empty houses, not full houses," Frank added. "I'm not saying violate the law, but to give this priority in law enforcement over some other things I think is a terrible idea and I think the administration is wrong on this."

I love this guy.

[kenberg]

Whether we are speaking of alcohol, marijuana, prostitution or gambling or something else, I think it is not a good thing to have laws on the books that we don't enforce. People get to thinking that the law is not really the law and then get indignant when the law is applied. Further, it invites grandstanding. A politician wants to divert attention from some failure of his office? Go raid something.

Should gambling, online or otherwise, be legal? I dunno. I have never had much interest in telling other people what they ought to do for fun but.... I think of the gambling scene as a large number of guppies who see their purpose in life as becoming food for the big fish. I suppose that's their right. As with other sins mentioned above, at least some of the impetus for criminalizing it is to try to stop people from ruining their lives. But the self-destructive among us can be very determined so these good intentions don't work out so well.

Taxing it so that we get our cut has its attractions.

[blackshoe]

"so that we get our cut". How did this cut become "ours"? What right have we (society) to a share in the endeavors of our members?

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-20, 12:55, said:

"so that we get our cut". How did this cut become "ours"? What right have we (society) to a share in the endeavors of our members?

Taxation is part of the social contract... In the case of the United States, section 8 of the Constitution starts out

Quote

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

If you don't like it, you are welcome to withdrawl from said social contract either by

1. "Going Galt" and moving someplace without taxes
2. Staying here in the US and refusing to play your taxes

I wish you luck with whichever choice you decide to go with (and respectfully suggest that you're gonna need it)

[blackshoe]

It is interesting that a group has the power to say to an individual "here's your contract, live by it or we'll throw your ass in jail", giving the individual no say in the details of said contract. I note that "has the power to" is not the same as "has the right to". On balance, living with the contract others have imposed is probably a better choice than the alternatives, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-20, 13:21, said:

It is interesting that a group has the power to say to an individual "here's your contract, live by it or we'll throw your ass in jail", giving the individual no say in the details of said contract. I note that "has the power to" is not the same as "has the right to". On balance, living with the contract others have imposed is probably a better choice than the alternatives, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

I seem to recall that the social contract includes provisions for modification...
I think that they are called "ammendments" to the Constitution.

Said contract also includes provisions for you to piss and moan to your heart's content (however, theirs no gauruntee that listener's will take you seriously)

I even seem to recall that said contract provides by a trial by jury before your ass gets thrown into jail.
In fact, you can ignore whatever law you want and then try to convince the jury that you shouldn't be be punished.

What you don't get to do is take advantage of the benefits of living in a society while reserving the right to do whatever you damn well please.

If this is what you want, there are plenty of ways for you to withdrawl from society and be free to do whatever you want.
You've made a deliberate choice that the costs of doing so outweigh the benefits.

Grow up and get used to this rather than bitching that life isn't perfect.
It gets old after a while.

What's truly remarkable is the following:

In another thread I referenced the following quote from Heinlein:

Quote

"Citizenship is an attitude, a state of mind, an emotional conviction that the whole is greater than the part . . . and that the part should be humbly proud to sacrifice itself that the whole may live."

Why is it that you view putting life and limb at risk so positively, yet paying taxes is viewed so negatively?

I suppose that the obvious response is that the soldiers volunteered to join the military, but there wasn't an afirmative decision to pay taxes.

I'd argue in turn that your decision not to withdrawl from said contract is an afirmative decision...

Ted Kaczynski lived a happy little life up in Montana. I'm sure that you can find your own little patch of heaven somewhere in the wilds of upstate New York.

Alternatively, if you prefer a more urbane environment, grab yourself an M15 and try to establish your own little empire south of the border. Plenty of opportunities in the cartels for a man with a dream and military training.

The sky's the limit...
The only thing holding you back is YOU!
Happy trails, buckaroo!

[kenberg]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-20, 12:55, said:

"so that we get our cut". How did this cut become "ours"? What right have we (society) to a share in the endeavors of our members?

Can we tax people? That's not going to be resolved on this thread. Sometime, I think around 1917, we decided that we could tax income. I accept this. Can a group make decisions about what each individual can do? Well, it certainly can and I even think we must.

[blackshoe]

16th Amendment, 1913.

There have to be limits on what the group can force individuals to do (or not do).