Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This link says it all http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13121768

Now what are we supposed to do at 3am instead of writing essays for University/work

The goverment should make online poker sites. Thay earn more money, we get our entertainment. Problem solved

Most online poker sites are shady. For example, Poker Stars is infamous for "revisiting chip values" when they have lots of credits on deposit (basically devaluing large amount of player credit). Recently they have also started taking unofficial rakes from players that win a lot, sometimes as high as 75%.

I just couldn't imagine gambling online. Too easy for the company to rig the game.

Also, you live in the UK, there should be plenty of UK or EU based online gambling sites.

According to a radio broadcast i heard. Online gambling in u.s. has always been kind of illegal, they advertise play for free on t.v. but then offer the pay for play tables once your you have an account etc. They went on to say the f.b.i cut a deal with full tilt and pokerstars, that they can have the .com back (as they were .net) if they work out a way to give any american money in player accounts back to those players (not money lost just whats left in their accounts). and they can continue to gamble for money outside the u.s. The free tables will of course still be offered. don't know if they're up and running again yet though.

biccat wrote:I just couldn't imagine gambling online. Too easy for the company to rig the game.

So long as you aren't playing against the house it isn't that bad. Though you do need to keep a close eye on your bank account. My buddy, who basically earns his living playing online poker, has a separate account that he transfers into in order to play, so he mitigates any fraud losses that way.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:I just couldn't imagine gambling online. Too easy for the company to rig the game.

So long as you aren't playing against the house it isn't that bad. Though you do need to keep a close eye on your bank account. My buddy, who basically earns his living playing online poker, has a separate account that he transfers into in order to play, so he mitigates any fraud losses that way.

That's assuming that the other players aren't cheating. There was a link in the bbc article about a scam on one of the poker sites.

Anyway, I'm not sure what the aversion to gambling is in the US. Obviously the gov't doesn't like it because it's immune to taxes, but I don't understand the strong popular position against it. Maybe people just aren't sophisticated/savvy enough to understand the games, or there's too much of a risk that people will bet it all.

biccat wrote:
That's assuming that the other players aren't cheating. There was a link in the bbc article about a scam on one of the poker sites.

You can macro any given site, but that's no different than playing the same way in person; eg. fold under Q7. Most of the other cheating stuff tends to be pro players who aren't used to improbable events (you play more hands, you get more bad beats).

biccat wrote:
Anyway, I'm not sure what the aversion to gambling is in the US. Obviously the gov't doesn't like it because it's immune to taxes, but I don't understand the strong popular position against it. Maybe people just aren't sophisticated/savvy enough to understand the games, or there's too much of a risk that people will bet it all.

Ahtman has a quote in his sig that addresses this beautifully. Something by H.L. Menken that is to the effect of "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

Thing is, you can tax gambling. It's not only possible, it's easy and a huge money earner for government. Here in Australia in some states there are pokie machines in every club and bar, and they cause all kinds of social problems as a significant portion of users are problem gamblers... but governments won't get rid of the things because the revenue stream is too important to give up.

I don't think there's any more of a moral opposition to gambling than exists elsewhere in the world.

I think the US being really strict about gambling is just one of those weird things, where no group has quite been organised enough to drive reform.

biccat wrote:Anyway, I'm not sure what the aversion to gambling is in the US. Obviously the gov't doesn't like it because it's immune to taxes, but I don't understand the strong popular position against it. Maybe people just aren't sophisticated/savvy enough to understand the games, or there's too much of a risk that people will bet it all.

Gambling isn't immune to taxes unless the government works to make it underground. Nevada makes a ton of money from casinos, the IRS collects taxes on gambling winnings (and would collect more if online gambling in the US was above-board), and most countries that allow online gambling tax it to some degree.

You have three major groups that oppose legal gambling in the US:

1. Religious groups, mostly right-wing. They oppose gambling on moral religious grounds, they think it's a sin, and that it leads to destroyed families (and less money going to televangalists)

2. Nanny state supporters, mostly left-wing. They oppose gambling because people can get addicted to it, and can spend too much, and it preys on poor people and the like.

3. Casinos, big-money-wing. They don't like online gambling because it's competition for them; if someone can get their gambling fix at home, they don't really need to drive/fly to vegas, atlantic city, etc and and stay in hotels. Online poker isn't really the big issue for them, since poker is pretty marginal income for casinos, it's the slot machines that they have to protect. Slots are basically a skinner box that uses money for the reward, and these days they're mostly electronic, so you could really get the same experience at home if it was legal to do so.

The thing is, it's easy for democrats to score points if they make concessions to their 2 crowd, or republicans to their 1 crowd, or to cross over and win points from the other side on a compromise (the non-religious part of the opposition is basically the same for both). Combine that with casinos throwing lots of money in direct lobbying or indirectly to help groups 1 and 2, and it's very hard to pass laws making it legal in the US. I think most European countries don't have the same religious opposition so don't really have group 1, 2 doesn't gain as much traction because of better safety nets, and casinos aren't as focused and strong as they are in the US.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

biccat wrote:Anyway, I'm not sure what the aversion to gambling is in the US. Obviously the gov't doesn't like it because it's immune to taxes, but I don't understand the strong popular position against it. Maybe people just aren't sophisticated/savvy enough to understand the games, or there's too much of a risk that people will bet it all.

Gambling isn't immune to taxes unless the government works to make it underground. Nevada makes a ton of money from casinos, the IRS collects taxes on gambling winnings (and would collect more if online gambling in the US was above-board), and most countries that allow online gambling tax it to some degree.

Sorry, I should have been more specific: online gambling is virtually immune to taxes. Obviously it's easy to tax profits on US-based businesses, but foreign owned sites can easily avoid taxation by refusing to cooperate with the IRS. The sites can't be easily shut down for failing to pay taxes if they're hosted offshore.

Is anyone else of the opinion that legalising gambling across the whole of the USA might provide a valuable shot in the arm for the American economy?

Assuming the gambling was taxed, sure.

I mean it's another addiction and is detrimental to its users without (usually) being directly detrimental to everyone else, so might as well.

Gambling doesn't bankrupt people, people do. Or something.

Melissia wrote:Assuming the gambling was taxed, sure.

Just out of curiosity, how would more tax revinue actually help the economy?

Melissia wrote:I mean it's another addiction and is detrimental to its users without (usually) being directly detrimental to everyone else, so might as well.

There are people who are addicted to Warcraft, perhaps we should make some MMO legislation banning it the US as well.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:Assuming the gambling was taxed, sure.

Just out of curiosity, how would more tax revinue actually help the economy?

By creating another, potentially large, revenue stream to pay down some of the national debt, which in turn would improve the long-term outlook of the USAs credit rating, thus ensuring that the country is able to borrow money at a lower rate than would otherwise be the case - i.e. it would mitigate possible increases in the deficit.

That's one way it could potentially help, as undramatic as it sounds. It might be a good idea to monetise the millions of people who smoke pot, too. That could be a potentially huge windfall, all things considered.

Well that answers your question for me...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Melissia wrote:I mean it's another addiction and is detrimental to its users without (usually) being directly detrimental to everyone else, so might as well.

There are people who are addicted to Warcraft, perhaps we should make some MMO legislation banning it the US as well.

Not necessarily. But a tax has already been discussed in congress.

Albatross wrote:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:Assuming the gambling was taxed, sure.

Just out of curiosity, how would more tax revinue actually help the economy?

By creating another, potentially large, revenue stream to pay down some of the national debt, which in turn would improve the long-term outlook of the USAs credit rating, thus ensuring that the country is able to borrow money at a lower rate than would otherwise be the case - i.e. it would mitigate possible increases in the deficit.

So we could get the same result by cutting government spending?

Nope, because most kinds (non-pork) of government spending historically improves the economy.

Melissia wrote:Nope, because most kinds (non-pork) of government spending historically improves the economy.

So then the boost to the economy from creasing a new avenue of tax revinue wouldn't be due to "improv[ing] the long-term outlook of the USAs credit rating", but rather due to the increased ability of the government to spend?

Also, if government spending improves the economy, why doesn't pork spending improve the economy?

Melissia wrote:Nope, because most kinds (non-pork) of government spending historically improves the economy.

That's the kind of thinking that got this country its deficit......

Because obviously there's no such thing as government spending that's actually restrained towards things that work, right?

Honestly you people and your loaded questions, they're getting annoying.

Melissia wrote:Because obviously there's no such thing as government spending that's actually restrained towards things that work, right?

Honestly you people and your loaded questions, they're getting annoying.

I'm trying to understand your argument.

If more tax revinue = good because it improves debt to income ratio, then we can get the same effect by reducing spending?

If more tax revinue = good because it allows the government to spend more, why do we need more taxes, the government is already engaged in deficit spending, what's another few billion?

If government spending = good because it improves the economy, why is pork spending bad? These are simply targetted spending towards specific projects and specific districts. If government investment has value, why can't it have value when targetted to a specific district?

I disagree with the idea that more tax revinue or more government spending are necessarily good.

edit: Also, what do you mean 'you people'? Is it because I'm black?

biccat wrote:I'm trying to understand your argument.

I'm not convinced....

My position on the topic is not simple. But none of these assertions are inherently contradictory:

1: Extra tax revenue will assist the government in paying off its debts (thus my suggestion to tax gambling and marijuana, much like alcohol and tobacco are taxed)

2: Paying off government debts is generally good for the economy (our dollar is fiat, that is, it's based off of the government's influence and how much the government says it's worth, and governments which are loaded with tons of debt typically have diminished influence compared to those which are financially sound; with the Yuan on the rise, we need to keep the dollar strong.)

3: Government spending geared towards improving the economy generally works (To what extent it works depends on the program and the situation at hand, as well as the level of corruption within the program-- IE, government spending "restrained towards what actually works" assists the economy as I noted above)

4: Cutting government spending of the programs that can be categorized in number 3 is counterproductive when the purpose of the cuts is to help the economy through lessening the national debt. Cutting wasteful programs (such as, in my belief, the overwhelming majority of Pork programs based off of my knowledge of them from the Texas state government)

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:I'm trying to understand your argument.

I'm not convinced....

OK then.

Melissia wrote:My position on the topic is not simple. But none of these assertions are inherently contradictory:

I didn't say they are contradictory, just that they're not good. Something can be internally consistent and a bad idea. Like murder.

Melissia wrote:1: Extra tax revenue will assist the government in paying off its debts (thus my suggestion to tax gambling and marijuana, much like alcohol and tobacco are taxed)

2: Paying off government debts is generally good for the economy (our dollar is fiat, that is, it's based off of the government's influence and how much the government says it's worth, and governments which are loaded with tons of debt typically have diminished influence compared to those which are financially sound; with the Yuan on the rise, we need to keep the dollar strong.)

I agree with these, at least in principal. Adding a new tax stream would reduce the deficit and paying off government debt is good for the economy.

Melissia wrote:3: Government spending geared towards improving the economy generally works (To what extent it works depends on the program and the situation at hand, as well as the level of corruption within the program-- IE, government spending "restrained towards what actually works" assists the economy as I noted above)

I would also agree with this in part. Government spending towards an end does work. For example, if the government gave half of the unemployed people jobs digging holes and the other half jobs filling them in, the money spent would reduce unemployment. But it is not an effective use of government money because the return on investment (wealth created) is lower than the cost.

Melissia wrote:4: Cutting government spending of the programs that can be categorized in number 3 is counterproductive when the purpose of the cuts is to help the economy through lessening the national debt. Cutting wasteful programs (such as, in my belief, the overwhelming majority of Pork programs based off of my knowledge of them from the Texas state government)

I think this is where we would disagree. Cutting inefficient programs is helpful to the economy because the wealth is returned to the private sector where it can be used to create value, and therefore create real and sustainable jobs.

Pork spending may be more wasteful than some of the other government programs you approve of, but it's a difference in scale, not in kind.

biccat wrote:I think this is where we would disagree. Cutting inefficient programs

No, we don't disagree then. It's just our definitions of "inefficient" and our beliefs on what actually works is different.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:I think this is where we would disagree. Cutting inefficient programs

No, we don't disagree then. It's just our definitions of "inefficient" and our beliefs on what actually works is different.

Fair enough. I think any government program that costs more than it helps is inefficient. But I think we would agree that such a program would "work" to solve the problem they were seeking to cure (see e.g. cash for clunkers and auto sales).