View Full Version : I'm all for modifying the tax code but...
spiketoo
06-17-2015, 01:24 PM
This is why I cannot take the NTRA seriously. Waldo was disingenuous at best. Did 'many' of you spend $600 on your super wager???
"It is very likely that many of the individuals holding winning Derby superfecta tickets won little or no money when considering the full cost of their superfecta wager, only to find themselves standing in line at an IRS window due to the fact that the wager paid $634.10 on a single winning combination of one dollar..."
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/92616/waldrop-testifies-on-wagering-tax-reporting
EMD4ME
06-17-2015, 01:29 PM
This is why I cannot take the NTRA seriously. Waldo was disingenuous at best. Did 'many' of you spend $600 on your super wager???
"It is very likely that many of the individuals holding winning Derby superfecta tickets won little or no money when considering the full cost of their superfecta wager, only to find themselves standing in line at an IRS window due to the fact that the wager paid $634.10 on a single winning combination of one dollar..."
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/92616/waldrop-testifies-on-wagering-tax-reporting
Not a good example to use.
He could've picked so many other examples or at the least been more detailed.
If I spent $200 and got back $634.10, even that would illustrate the point better. He didn't even do that.
How about stating that there are players that wager $1,000 into a Pick 6. Hit it and get back $700 if all chalk comes in. They lost $300 but are taxed on the "winnings".
thaskalos
06-17-2015, 01:33 PM
Waldrop dropped the ball, IMO. What he SHOULD have said is that the profit ratio on some of these exotics bets is so small that no tax form should have to be filled at the mutuel window. When a player wagers $108 on a superfecta ticket, and gets back $634...then his profit return is less than 5/1...not the 633/1 that the IRS suggests.
EMD4ME
06-17-2015, 02:52 PM
Waldrop dropped the ball, IMO. What he SHOULD have said is that the profit ratio on some of these exotics bets is so small that no tax form should have to be filled at the mutuel window. When a player wagers $108 on a superfecta ticket, and gets back $634...then his profit return is less than 5/1...not the 633/1 that the IRS suggests.
Well said Thaskalos.
May I nominate you to represent us? Please???
Stillriledup
06-17-2015, 03:02 PM
Well said Thaskalos.
May I nominate you to represent us? Please???
They treat winning tax wagers like the lottery, when you buy a mega millions ticket for example, all the tickets are individual, so if you hit, you hit it ice cold. You're right I would nominate Gus or Barry meadow or mike Maloney.
EMD4ME
06-17-2015, 03:09 PM
They treat winning tax wagers like the lottery, when you buy a mega millions ticket for example, all the tickets are individual, so if you hit, you hit it ice cold. You're right I would nominate Gus or Barry meadow or mike Maloney.
I am a fan of the 25% FED withholding. It's sort of like a bonus doing my taxes in April.
I am NOT a fan of living in NYC. NYS and NYC do NOT allow me to write off my gambling losses to the fullest extent possible.
That, IS a f'n joke.
Wish they would address that more than anything else.
I have no issue with the FED so to me it's almost irrelevant what they accomplish but what's right is right, I hope they change some of these archaic laws.
Dave Schwartz
06-17-2015, 03:23 PM
I'm all for modifying the tax code but...
But what?
It needs changing.
Who cares if you spent $20 or $800? The point is that you're being withheld and taxed on the total return minus $2 instead of what is fair.
spiketoo
06-17-2015, 05:05 PM
But what?
It needs changing.
Who cares if you spent $20 or $800? The point is that you're being withheld and taxed on the total return minus $2 instead of what is fair.
The 'but' was Waldo's presentation. I agree with all in here that the WH rules should be changed, but again I thought his example I quoted was ridiculous. Others have provided more salient examples of how it should have been presented.
Dave Schwartz
06-17-2015, 05:31 PM
Ah... Thanks for clarifying.
Get it now.
:ThmbUp:
Tor Ekman
06-17-2015, 05:34 PM
I am a fan of the 25% FED withholding. It's sort of like a bonus doing my taxes in April. But it's really an interest free loan that you are making to Uncle Sam - - why would you be a fan of that?
AndyC
06-17-2015, 05:58 PM
Waldrop talks about the realities of today but then he doesn't use them in his arguments. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of money bet is done through account betting. As such a bettor should be 1099ed at the end of the year for any net profit in their account instead of on a bet-by-bet basis. Also they should be required to withhold 25% of the net winnings in the account if winnings exceed $5,000. So if your account showed winnings of $40,000 on June 30 there would be $10,000 held in reserve for taxes. If by December 31 the winnings had dropped to $10,000 the reserve would be dropped to $2,500. People not using an account should be subject to the current rules.
If the above rules were adopted, people would pay tax on true winnings. Unnecessary tax filings would be eliminated and excessive withholding would not exist.
Stillriledup
06-17-2015, 06:05 PM
But it's really an interest free loan that you are making to Uncle Sam - - why would you be a fan of that?
BEcause its money you cant lose back, its like theyre keeping it safe for you until a rainy day lol
EMD4ME
06-17-2015, 06:15 PM
But it's really an interest free loan that you are making to Uncle Sam - - why would you be a fan of that?
So that they don't audit me!!! I figure if they make money off me, they'll leave me alone!!!
I have zero to hide. I pay 40% in taxes but the whole audit process is super annoying.
Plus I actually like looking forward to April every year.
No one ever said I was normal :lol:
EMD4ME
06-17-2015, 06:17 PM
BEcause its money you cant lose back, its like theyre keeping it safe for you until a rainy day lol
That too!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
I actually asked an ADW to withdraw 5% of my W-2 G's and send it directly to the state for every W-2 G. I was told it can't be done.
I wish they did and could.
Robert Goren
06-17-2015, 07:26 PM
But it's really an interest free loan that you are making to Uncle Sam - - why would you be a fan of that? Beats lending money to anybody else at the race track with or without interest.
EMD4ME
06-17-2015, 11:09 PM
Beats lending money to anybody else at the race track with or without interest.
You are 1000% right and I forgot about that!
rastajenk
06-18-2015, 06:42 AM
Waldrop uses the Derby as an example because a) it's the sport's signature event, b) it's recent, c) it had 23 separate pools, and d) the payout was smallish, for a super, but big enough to make his point.
But you can't take him or the NTRA seriously because he didn't use better examples. Did you read his entire prepared remarks? He covered the same issues others on this thread have raised, and have raised repeatedly on different threads over the years.
But he's a bum, and we want thaskalos as our representative? :confused: I guesss I don't see that as helping the cause at all.
spiketoo
06-18-2015, 10:47 AM
Waldrop uses the Derby as an example because a) it's the sport's signature event, b) it's recent, c) it had 23 separate pools, and d) the payout was smallish, for a super, but big enough to make his point.
But you can't take him or the NTRA seriously because he didn't use better examples. Did you read his entire prepared remarks? He covered the same issues others on this thread have raised, and have raised repeatedly on different threads over the years.
But he's a bum, and we want thaskalos as our representative? :confused: I guesss I don't see that as helping the cause at all.
But he really obfuscated his point when he implied that many bettors made 'little or no money' on a $614 payoff. That implies that 'many' bettors wager was near to or > $460 and I find that hard to believe.
And yes I did read his prepared text and if you can find the 9 page NTRA attachment on other examples, I'd like to see that also. Additional comments like this just lead me to believe that this could have been presented in a more cohesive (and frankly a more honest) manner as he references as justification for asking for the repeal the comments of 'one commentator':
'And this antiquated policy is costing the horse racing industry a lot. One commentator estimated that the current policy of considering only the cost of the single winning ticket is costing the racing industry hundreds of millions of dollars every year by taking money out of circulation that
otherwise would have been repeatedly re-bet, and by driving high-end players away from the game entirely.'
I feel as if the former stmt is correct but find the latter hard to believe as rebate shops probably cover the takeout issue. But I'm guessing a table full of IRS staffers wouldn't know much about rebate shops.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.