Internet poker bill dies (1 Viewer)

[Tommy]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-internet-poker-bill-dies-20160901-snap-story.html

 

[manamongkids]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-internet-poker-bill-dies-20160901-snap-story.html

the funniest part of all this is that people who REALLY want to play online, play on Bovada/Ignite and yes they have decent games, but its completely unregulated in the US. The gov't could be making a substantial amount of revenue, but they are too dumb to realize whats going on.

The lawmakers are old white men who have no idea how the internet works, thats calling a spade, a spade.

 

[abby99]

Another case of legislators ignoring what's best for the taxpayers (who, btw, are paying their salaries) because of greed and deference to the wishes of special interests.

 

[PokerXanadu]

the funniest part of all this is that people who REALLY want to play online, play on Bovada/Ignite and yes they have decent games, but its completely unregulated in the US. The gov't could be making a substantial amount of revenue, but they are too dumb to realize whats going on.

The lawmakers are old white men who have no idea how the internet works, thats calling a spade, a spade.

Unfortunately, this is a false preposition.The amount of government revenue that would be generated from Internet poker licensing and regulation is nearly insignificant compared to the size of government state budget and spending. So much so, that the latest California bill actually gave away just about all the government revenues to the horse racing tracks (so they wouldn't block passage of the bill). It is really only the vested interests - the casinos and Internet poker providers - who will benefit significantly from the revenues. Only when the vested interests are aligned on passage of a bill will it happen.

 

[Mental Nomad]

Unfortunately, this is a false preposition.The amount of government revenue that would be generated from Internet poker licensing and regulation is nearly insignificant compared to the size of government state budget and spending. So much so, that the latest California bill actually gave away just about all the government revenues to the horse racing tracks (so they wouldn't block passage of the bill). It is really only the vested interests - the casinos and Internet poker providers - who will benefit significantly from the revenues. Only when the vested interests are aligned on passage of a bill will it happen.

You mean proposition... but I don't agree, because online poker is substantially different from physical racetracks.

There's no infrastructure cost to the state from online gaming, while racetracks come with a lot of physical structure and support needs - space, parking, utilities, traffic...

Electronic tracking and collections of the revenue is also easier than tracking everything at the tracks.

This one seems to me to be a low-hanging fruit, as far as state revenue generation is concerned!

 

[PokerXanadu]

You mean proposition... but I don't agree, because online poker is substantially different from physical racetracks.

There's no infrastructure cost to the state from online gaming, while racetracks come with a lot of physical structure and support needs - space, parking, utilities, traffic...

Electronic tracking and collections of the revenue is also easier than tracking everything at the tracks.

This one seems to me to be a low-hanging fruit, as far as state revenue generation is concerned!

You're not wrong. My only point is even with all this, the government revenues from Internet poker are of an insignificant size compared to the state general budget. There is little political motivation to pass Internet poker legislation on the basis of revenues alone. The legislators don't pass up this revenue because they are "stupid"; they pass it up because it is insignificant. There needs to be other political motivation, such as pleasing the vested interests for one reason or another.

 

[chkmte]

You're not wrong. My only point is even with all this, the government revenues from Internet poker are of an insignificant size compared to the state general budget. There is little political motivation to pass Internet poker legislation on the basis of revenues alone. The legislators don't pass up this revenue because they are "stupid"; they pass it up because it is insignificant. There needs to be other political motivation, such as pleasing the vested interests for one reason or another.

I don't agree. If legalizing online poker was about "not enough revenue ", then why wouldn't the state say, ok fine. Online poker is now legal in CA and we want half the rake. That is not insignificant revenue bro.

Maybe I'm missing your point though.

Tim

 

[PokerXanadu]

The California state budget is currently at $165Billion/year. The latest Internet poker bill in CA gave away the first $60 million dollars in state revenues each year directly to the horse racing tracks in CA as a payoff to support the bill. At the 10% taxation rate of the bill, this would mean that total rake of all the sites would have to exceed $600M in a year before the state would see a penny.The legislators were perfectly fine with this giveaway because to them $60M dollars is such an insignificant amount compared to the size of the budget.

They don't ask for half the rake for the state because then the vested interests (tribes, cardrooms and poker sites) would oppose the bill and it wouldn't pass. This bill is written by and for the vested interests. The problem is that they can't all agree on the terms. It has nothing to do with how much revenue the state gets.

And even it the state were to get 50% of the revenue, it still would be just a drop in the bucket - an insignificant addition to the state's general fund compared to the size of the budget.

So really my point is that the potential revenue from Internet poker does not by itself give the legislators any particular motivation to pass the bill. It shows the argument that legislators are stupid for passing up the revenue invalid. If it were a bill to also legalize Internet casino gambling, that would be a different story.