|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 10/6/2008 4:42:51 PM PACIFIC |
 ARNOLD ???????, Roy Elsey, 25. Nov 2003 17:21 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I've read that the new governor of California ,intent to charge with income tax,to casino games. What are the odds,and how much that can affect , The casino or the poker player?.(and also he can do it ?) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: ARNOLD ???????, Erik67, 25. Nov 2003 18:57 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| As a CA resident and a poker player, I've been following this issue. Arnold has said that either Indian casinos start paying taxes or he'll open it up to everybody, ie Nevada and Mississippi. Nevada casinos pay taxes off of their billions, why shouldn't everybody else? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: ARNOLD ???????, noiseboy, 26. Nov 2003 09:39 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I'm against this, the whole point of Indian reservations was that we took about 99.9% of their land away already, and decimated them economically by killing off the Buffalo, forcibly moving them off of good land etc..., so let's be nice and let them have tiny little "nations" of their own where they can live in peace. As sovereign entities, they have their own tribal laws and their own tribal governments which work within the framework of our Federal Government, but are not technically subject to the same laws as California. This is why you can have casino gambling on Indian land but not in California. So here's the deal, if we go back on what little independence and sovereignty we've given them, basically we are following in a long tradition of white people giving Indians the shaft and breaking every single treaty and agreement we've ever had with them. In addition, I found it interesting how the Schwartzenegger campaign seemed to be scapegoating the Indians for the State's budget problems and accusing his opponents of pandering to special interests while at the same time, he was getting millions from big corporate donors. Apparently, if you take money for your campaign from rich Indians, it's special interest money, if you take it from rich mostly white republicans, that's just fine. Finally, there are plenty of other non-Indian tax dodgers to worry about. For example a lot of corporations do most of their business in California, but they will have a small office in Delaware or Nevada where they incorporate so they can pay low state taxes. So they are profiting from all the infrastructure and state education expenses here, but aren't contributing much to our government that provides them. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: ARNOLD ???????, gary ford, 26. Nov 2003 11:42 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 26. Nov 2003 09:39 noiseboy wrote: > I'm against this, the whole point of Indian reservations was that we took about 99.9% of > their land away already, and decimated them economically by killing off the Buffalo, > forcibly moving them off of good land etc..., so let's be nice and let them have tiny > little "nations" of their own where they can live in peace. > > As sovereign entities, they have their own tribal laws and their own tribal governments > which work within the framework of our Federal Government, but are not technically subject > to the same laws as California. This is why you can have casino gambling on Indian land > but not in California. So here's the deal, if we go back on what little independence and > sovereignty we've given them, basically we are following in a long tradition of white > people giving Indians the shaft and breaking every single treaty and agreement we've ever > had with them. > In addition, I found it interesting how the Schwartzenegger campaign seemed to be > scapegoating the Indians for the State's budget problems and accusing his opponents of > pandering to special interests while at the same time, he was getting millions from big > corporate donors. Apparently, if you take money for your campaign from rich Indians, > it's special interest money, if you take it from rich mostly white republicans, that's > just fine. > > Finally, there are plenty of other non-Indian tax dodgers to worry about. For example a > lot of corporations do most of their business in California, but they will have a small > office in Delaware or Nevada where they incorporate so they can pay low state taxes. So > they are profiting from all the infrastructure and state education expenses here, but > aren't contributing much to our government that provides them. You are apparently a dedicated liberal Democrat, and like most are shaping the facts to your own beliefs. I suggest you contact Dr, Nelson Rose, the leading expert on gambling and the law ,for an update on the indian and California state gaming questions. Yuo are welcome to your political philosophy but try to keep your facts accurate. P.S. I am a native Californian | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: ARNOLD ???????, noiseboy, 26. Nov 2003 13:48 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Actually, I'll admit to being part-Indian, so I do have a bit of bias there; however, I am nowhere near a Democrat, so I don't think I have any bias towards the slimy machine politicians in Sacramento. However, I do find it funny the way Schwartznegger sold himself as an "outsider" when he's got Pete Wilson, Mr. "Energy deregulation is good for CA", on the payroll. Anyway, I personally don't want them to increase taxes on Indian casinos because I don't think it's right unless we negotiate with them rather than just violating whatever agreements we already have with them in writing. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: ARNOLD ???????, Raodwarior, 26. Nov 2003 12:05 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Uhh....sorry where you have your main office located has little to no bearing on the taxes that a company pays to other states it has offices in. Some Corp taxes can be lessened ie. stock taxes and such, but income, payroll, property and other state taxes are still levied and paid to the state in which an office is located. Your opinion you are entitled to and I can respect you for that, but please state it as such. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: ARNOLD ???????, noiseboy, 26. Nov 2003 14:00 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Right, I'm not saying that these corporations are escaping all taxes by locating in Delaware, but the fact is that they aren't doing it for the weather there. I'm just pointing out that there are bigger fish to fry than the Indian tribes. We could seriously reduce the state deficit by going after all the shady energy companies which screwed us out of billions, but I don't think that the Terminator is up for the task of taking on Bush/Cheney and all of their energy buddies. Before you accuse me of being a democrat, I'm perfectly aware that before the crisis, Davis was getting tons of cash from Enron and other companies as well, which is probably why he never bothered to do anything until it was much too late. Considering the major choices on the recall election, I found myself sorely tempted to vote for a joke candidate like Gary Coleman or that porn star. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: ARNOLD ???????, Raodwarior, 27. Nov 2003 08:49 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| My wife is 1/4 Indian as well and I personally believe that we need to honor the treaties that were made. That said I have no problem with opening up gambling rights to all, or the tribes could choose to pay some sort of royalty or tax for exclusivity. I don't not agree with a law mandating the tax, and I really don't see such a law passing federal judicial review anyway. As for the energy situation, power, gas, and fuel are commodities and priced as such. There is inherent right to cheap power or fuel. Noone screwed anyone in CA, you had the demand and they priced the supply. Conservation would work much better than legislation, but some people have this idea that they are entitled to things they are not. As a stock holder, I want the companies that I own stock in to maximize their profit and increase my dividends or the price of my stock. Now I also think that increased competition in the field would reduce many of these cost swings, however, for that to happen much of the government regulation would have to be done away with and that doesn't look to happen anytime soon. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: ARNOLD ???????, noiseboy, 1. Dec 2003 09:19 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Ok, you are definitely right about the income taxes being based on where the income is earned; however, there definitely are some other taxes that companies avoid by incorporating in NV. Sometimes I listen to talk radio to hear the other side, and this weekend I heard this commercial "Incorporate in Nevada and save thousands...". So I think we were both somewhat right. I'm all for corporations maximizing profits within the law and the confines of a competitive capitalistic system. However, what happens when you get too much deregulation is that competition is crushed by unfair and monopolistic business practices which end up costing everyone money except the CEOs. I think we can both agree that healthy competition is good for the economy and practices like price collusion and creative accounting are bad. Unethical business practices are a lot like cheating in poker, somebody has to lose the money that is stolen and it's usually the consumer. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: ARNOLD ???????, Robert M, 26. Nov 2003 12:50 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Taxes will not make the already AFFLUENT Native American casino board members poor. Casino's already have one of the biggest gaps between gross profit and overhead. It is the net profit that will be taxed. And the net profit is all gravy. In other words, if they are taxed they will still make plenty of money, AND we could take a nice little chunk out of our state deficit. And that will help both us and them in the long run. And I have no problem with starting a sentence with "And," 3 times in one paragraph. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: ARNOLD ???????, noiseboy, 26. Nov 2003 13:50 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| LOL yep, conversational English. I'll have to start proofreading or something. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: ARNOLD ???????, Palinya, 26. Nov 2003 12:55 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Vegas Casinos seem to be doing well even after paying taxes. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: ARNOLD ???????, noiseboy, 26. Nov 2003 13:52 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| This is true, my point is that we already have agreements with these tribes, written down contracts by which both parties are supposed to comply. What do we do, just tear them all up? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: ARNOLD and Tribal Gaming Compacts, mkpoker, 26. Nov 2003 14:00 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I might not know squat about Poker, but my business is politics and policy, so I can (finally) speak with authority on something! Noise is right that the state of CA has agreements (called "compacts") with the tribes. Neither Arnold nor anyone else can simply tear them up. What the Gov. has proposed is to renegotiate those compacts, giving the Tribes the ability to expand operations (predominatly slot machine operations) in exchange for contributing a portion of their profits to the state. Like any contract renegotiation, it must be approved by both sides. The problem is that the previous Governor gave the tribes almost everything they wanted...so they're not exactly itching to reopen those compacts. For that reason, Arnold will likely find his overtures rejected by most tribes. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: ARNOLD and Tribal Gaming Compacts, noiseboy, 26. Nov 2003 15:21 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Well, I think if he dangled some carrots at the end of the stick rather than trying to strong arm and scapegoat the tribes, I think he could work something out with them. The tribes want better access to major markets, and I think he should give them what they want in exchange for some major dough into the state treasuries. I think you are right on target that the previous administrations were not particularly good negotiators since they were getting so much money from the tribes for their campaigns. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: ARNOLD and Tribal Gaming Compacts, KJo, 26. Nov 2003 21:31 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| There's a little more to it than that- the threat that Schwarzenegger is making is to allow slot machines in designated racetracks and card rooms if the tribes don't renegotiate the compacts. This "threat" would be placed on the ballot as an initiative. The revenue from the racetracks/card rooms will of course be heavily taxed. Here's the rub- if the tribes no longer have a gaming monopoly (which is what would happen if slots were allowed in non-Indian places), it is in their compacts that they would no longer have to pay the current fees/taxes that they're paying. So some of the tribes are supporting Schwarzenegger's "threat," since the money they would save from not paying these taxes would be greater than the business they would lose to the racetracks/card rooms. 6 of one, half dozen of the other, tax revenue-wise, but I for one don't want to see thousands of slot machines in places like Hollywood Park and Commerce. Eli on 26. Nov 2003 14:00 mkpoker wrote: > I might not know squat about Poker, but my business is politics and policy, so I can (finally) speak with > authority on something! > > Noise is right that the state of CA has agreements (called "compacts") with the tribes. Neither Arnold > nor anyone else can simply tear them up. > > What the Gov. has proposed is to renegotiate those compacts, giving the Tribes the ability to expand > operations (predominatly slot machine operations) in exchange for contributing a portion of their profits > to the state. Like any contract renegotiation, it must be approved by both sides. > > The problem is that the previous Governor gave the tribes almost everything they wanted...so they're not > exactly itching to reopen those compacts. For that reason, Arnold will likely find his overtures > rejected by most tribes. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: ARNOLD and Tribal Gaming Compacts, noiseboy, 1. Dec 2003 09:21 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| hmmm, complicated this issue is. I'm with you on not wanting slots in poker rooms. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: ARNOLD and Tribal Gaming Compacts, gary ford, 1. Dec 2003 09:39 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 1. Dec 2003 09:21 noiseboy wrote: > hmmm, complicated this issue is. I'm with you on not wanting slots in poker rooms. WHY? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: ARNOLD and Tribal Gaming Compacts, stock53, 1. Dec 2003 10:14 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Since this is a poker forum, I don't think a policy debate is totaly appropriate. Nevertheless, there is a side to this which concerns us, poker players. It would seem to me that allowing casinos on non-Indian lands would be beneficial since it would create competition and make casinos try to entice us to come, instead of their current "we're the only game in town" motto. I, for one, would like greater choice. As far as retribution to the Indians idea: casinos on Indian lands have been allowed for years now. Have they really had a positive impact on Indian population in the U.S.? I am not so sure. I recall an aricle in WSJ, about half-a-year ago, about Indians living in reservations and having extremely low living standards and life expectancy. The article said something to the effect: "Indians continue to constitute a minority that is the worst off in today's America." stock53 | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: ARNOLD and Tribal Gaming Compacts, noiseboy, 2. Dec 2003 12:12 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Well, as much as I like to have people who play slots, ie suckers, in my game, what I fear would happen is that the slot machines will take over. Poker can't really compete with slots on a profit per square foot basis, so often casinos will gut their poker rooms in favor of more slots. Maybe with the ever-expanding poker boom, I shouldn't worry so much, but slots are just invincible when it comes to taking the most money from the customers and for some reason, people keep feeding them. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: ARNOLD and Tribal Gaming Compacts, Palinya, 1. Dec 2003 10:01 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I like slots close to the poker room. It's great when the slot players decide to try their hand at poker and since they are used to playing slots, they are going to the table expecting to lose everything they bring to the table anyway. I am more than willing to help them out with that. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: ARNOLD and Tribal Gaming Compacts, Boftx, 1. Dec 2003 15:26 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I have mixed feelings about slots and poker tables. On one hand, it gives my wife something to do while I am playing what to her is a boring game of cards. On the other hand, it gives my wife something to do with the money I am winning at what to her is a boring game of cards. (She is now learning to play HE so it might not be so bad in the future lol) Jim | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: ARNOLD and Tribal Gaming Compacts, KJo, 2. Dec 2003 14:29 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Except that slot players really are a different breed, and one reason slots are so popular in casinos is because people are intimidated by table games. Now they're confronted by a poker table, which is infinitely more intimidating than a blackjack table. I don't see much crossover business. Instead I see a scenario like posted above where tables lose floor space to slots. Eli on 1. Dec 2003 10:01 Palinya wrote: > I like slots close to the poker room. It's great when the slot players decide to try their hand at poker and since they > are used to playing slots, they are going to the table expecting to lose everything they bring to the table anyway. I > am more than willing to help them out with that. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|