George Krikorian Drops Bombshell at CHRB Meeting

[iamt]

The figures in the blog posting were after backing every runner in every race in 2013.

Most tracks operate WPS takeouts higher than 16% which throw the numbers off to start with. The query he provided looked to use all starters which may treat members of a coupling as separate betting interests.

I'm sure the figures were meant to be a simple investigation only but those adjustments would get losses to around 23% on an 18% takeout. That's all ball parked but a truer representation beyond the headline.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

In your golf game, are you trying to make money to cover your costs?

If you respond yes thru gambling then I hope you're in a state where gambling on golf is legal.

Trying to make money to cover your costs is not the definition of a business.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

....I mean WHO gave the STATE the right to tax gambling.....did we all vote on that one...?

Do you think money earned through labor should have a lower status than money earned by gambling? Why do people think that gambling should get a tax pass?

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Do you think money earned through labor should have a lower status than money earned by gambling? Why do people think that gambling should get a tax pass?

The money used for gambling has already been earned through labor and taxed....Yeah, let's just keep taxing already taxed net wages until the State/Fed has it all..

[airford1]

Originally Posted by AndyC

And it is a hobby! Should my playing golf be a write-off? Should owning a boat be a write-off? The timing of write-offs does not determine the success or failure of a business.

Golfers on the PGA and other professional tours can.

If you are hauling to towing with that boat.

Please let us know the Business you own.

Now if you were smart and don't get me wrong Andy I'm not saying you are smart, you let the State know that as a horse owner they can't tax my winnings or force me to buy a License along with insurance because it's a hobby.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by airford1

Golfers on the PGA and other professional tours can.

If you are hauling to towing with that boat.

Please let us know the Business you own.

Now if you were smart and don't get me wrong Andy I'm not saying you are smart, you let the State know that as a horse owner they can't tax my winnings or force me to buy a License along with insurance because it's a hobby.

You need a license and insurance to drive a car. Does that mean driving a car is a business? I want the state to tax horse winnings! Much preferred over them taxing income earned from labor.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

The money used for gambling has already been earned through labor and taxed....Yeah, let's just keep taxing already taxed net wages until the State/Fed has it all..

They are not taxing the money already earned, they are taxing the additional money earned, the winnings. Just like interest income on a savings account. Income that is taxed twice is dividends received from stocks. Taxed at the corporate level and then again at the shareholder level.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by iamt

The figures in the blog posting were after backing every runner in every race in 2013.

Most tracks operate WPS takeouts higher than 16% which throw the numbers off to start with. The query he provided looked to use all starters which may treat members of a coupling as separate betting interests.

I'm sure the figures were meant to be a simple investigation only but those adjustments would get losses to around 23% on an 18% takeout. That's all ball parked but a truer representation beyond the headline.

Ok. I can buy that.

But losses around 23% on an 18% takeout still leaves us trying to sell the new fan making that all important very first visit to a race track on a gambling game that's the equivalent of Roulette with (what) ELEVEN AND A HALF ZEROES on the wheel instead of TWELVE?

Does anyone seriously not see the folly in that?



-jp

.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Do you think money earned through labor should have a lower status than money earned by gambling? Why do people think that gambling should get a tax pass?

The fact that Canada doesn't tax horse race winnings like the US shows clearly what a skim scam it is.....Uncle Sam, yeah Uncle Sam, who knows really where this skim money goes...last time I checked the Fed still just prints up money anytime they think they need to....yeah, Uncle Sam is a legal counterfeiter, and a theif on top of it all....

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

The money used for gambling has already been earned through labor and taxed....Yeah, let's just keep taxing already taxed net wages until the State/Fed has it all..

All money is taxed multiple times, Randall.

Obviously successful gamblers should pay taxes. The way we do it now is dumb (a small tax on the pools would raise the same amount as we do now without all the record keeping and evasion), but there does need to be a tax.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

The fact that Canada doesn't tax horse race winnings like the US shows clearly what a skim scam it is.....Uncle Sam, yeah Uncle Sam, who knows really where this skim money goes...last time I checked the Fed still just prints up money anytime they think they need to....yeah, Uncle Sam is a legal counterfeiter, and a theif on top of it all....

What Canada does or doesn't do is irrelevant. My beef is not that gambling winnings are taxed, but how it is taxed. How Uncle Sam "skims money" is really not a persuasive argument to leave gambling winnings untaxed while taxing wages.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

All money is taxed multiple times, Randall.

Obviously successful gamblers should pay taxes. The way we do it now is dumb (a small tax on the pools would raise the same amount as we do now without all the record keeping and evasion), but there does need to be a tax.

Of course, it's a no-brainer that money is taxed multiple times and obviously that wasn't my point. I'll give an example of a roulette player who walks up and hits a $100 straight-up bet on number 17. The player is pushed $3500, takes his original $100 bet off the table and goes to the cage to cash-out. At the cage, he receives $3600 and simply walks away, nothing to sign.

Now we have a pick-4 player at the track, who puts in a $100 pick-4 ticket and hits for $3600. Goes to a cashier to collect his winnings and has to show ID and sign for the $3600, yet the monies were already taxed with the vig being anywhere from 15-20%.

I know I'm not stating anything new here, and this situation is currently being addressed with the NTRA tax reform in Congress, but at some point, this tax hypocrisy has to stop somewhere, before the total implosion of horse racing comes to pass.....It's that critical, right now.

[ReplayRandall]

Let me take my above post one step further without the roulette player example. Why does a pick-4 player, who bets a $100 ticket and hits for $3600 have to sign, when a WIN bettor bets the same $100 on a 35-1 that hits and doesn't have to sign at all?....It's nothing but sheer hypocrisy.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Let me take my above post one step further without the roulette player example. Why does a pick-4 player, who bets a $100 ticket and hits for $3600 have to sign, when a WIN bettor bets the same $100 on a 35-1 that hits and doesn't have to sign at all?....It's nothing but sheer hypocrisy.

I completely agree and unfortunately the NTRA did not really solve this problem. Any signing for winnings should be based solely on the amount of net winnings and not on the type of bet made. The other big issue, which will become an even greater issue with the proposed "tax reform", is how losses are written off for non-professional players. Unless losses are allowed to be netted against winnings there will not be a way to write off losses. Currently losses can be written off as an itemized deduction (terribly unfair for many bettors) which provides some relief but has its own set of problems.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Let me take my above post one step further without the roulette player example. Why does a pick-4 player, who bets a $100 ticket and hits for $3600 have to sign, when a WIN bettor bets the same $100 on a 35-1 that hits and doesn't have to sign at all?....It's nothing but sheer hypocrisy.

I mean, the historical reason was an attempted distinction between lottery-style windfalls and ordinary bettors cashing bets,

When the exotic wager that routinely paid 300 to 1 and which could be profitably played was invented, that distinction broke down.