blonde poker forum

Just in case anyone is interested in the discussions ongoing re legality of poker clubs, there's an article in today's The Times, page 30, which includes some chat about Derek Kelly and Gutshot.... quite interesting

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1843322,00.html

'If poker is deemed to be one of skill, as are chess and bridge, it can remain available to players in members’ clubs. But if it is seen as one of chance, as are roulette and blackjack, it will legally be played only in licensed casinos'

The new Gambling Act appears to define poker as gambling as it includes games where superlative skill can overcome the element of luck - so the despite what happens in the Gutshot case, there will probably be another case in a couple of years.

If poker as classed as a game of skill doesnt that mean winnings will be taxed as they are in the States?

That's the first thing I thought as well. If they're gonna fight their case on a skill v luck thing they could be doing all winning players a massive disservice. The 80% skill quotes are complete nonsense, think of a number and get your name in the paper. Is there the same amount of luck in a deep stack NL cash game as there is in a 6 seat sng with rapidly escalating blinds?

interesting read,

i tend to the view that it is a game of skill coupled with luck.
 Generally skillfull players who developand learn the game as a trade  increase their chances so it has a large skill element(percentage is open to debate but more than 50 less than 80 i would say).
if it was purely a game of chance then why do we consistently see in the winners frame or in the money a large amount of the same players..kind of kicks that notion into touch as no one is that lucky!..

of course it also depends on how much the governement/taxman wants to get a hold of poker revenue what happens to the law and how it is changed interpreted.

can i write of my losses against investment or professional development ;D

Poker winnings are taxed in usa as gambling income as it (poker) is gambling. If it was reclassified here as a game of skill it would unlkely to change the situation gutshot is in.

I believe lottery winnings are also taxable in the USA.

As are any casino winnings at games of chance over a certain amount.

Guess Uncle Sam ain't too fussy when it comes to taxes  /:-|

the american taxman will take tax of anyone and anything , gambling and even prostituton although illegal , dont forget thats how they got al capone in the end even though his income was by foul means they still wanted their share
gambling will never be taxed in england - a logistic nightmare especially as we would be able to right our losses off and claim tax back

WRONG

the current government might have no intrest in taxing gambling but it wasnt so long ago that betting was taxed and people were not able to claim tax back on losses

now if poker legally becomes a game of skill rather than luck it would then mean that all poker winnings were taxable and ruin the live game in this country as 25% of the prize pool in a tourny would goto the government any winning session at a casino would be taxed a legistacal night mare in which casinos would turn there back son and close card rooms meaning the only place you will get a game is in unliecenced coffee shops which would also have tax problems and therefore find themselves evading the tax man and run by people with shady connections

the tax issue has nothing to do with the skill v luck argument.

However, why shouldn't poker winnings be taxed?

We all use the NHS and most of us make use of the state school system and I guess most of us will be happy to draw our state pensions (NI conts I know but why shouldn't Poker Players pay that as well).

I don't use a public shcool, i don't use the NHS, the only 'public' services i use are privatised. Does that mean i don't have to pay tax?

oh yes it does the reason poker inst taxed is because it it classed as a game of chance and therefore comes under the no tax on gaming winnings


as for why poker players should/shouldnt pay tax i beleive if a player claims to be a poker pro then they should pay tax
if the player actually has another form of income that is taxed then poker should be classed as a hobby and tax free

flushy you will be using the NHS when they finally get around to sectioning you.

oh and you will need the police if you ever try disrupting my argument again - note to flushy, police not yet privatised  :D :D :D

The skill argument has nothing to do with the tax situation. If I play chess or golf which are both recognised as games of skill but only played for side bets that income is still exempt as it is 'income from gambling'. There is no mention of 'income from gaming' (if I recall correctly) in tax legislation. The fact that poker whether skill or luck is still gambling doesn't change.

Quote from: The Truth on Today at 06:59:06 pm
the tax issue has nothing to do with the skill v luck argument.



oh yes it does the reason poker inst taxed is because it it classed as a game of chance and therefore comes under the no tax on gaming winnings


as for why poker players should/shouldnt pay tax i beleive if a player claims to be a poker pro then they should pay tax
if the player actually has another form of income that is taxed then poker should be classed as a hobby and tax free


not true iron - especially the last bit ,,when horse racing was taxed it was the government that was actually taxing the betting shops - they did it at 8 % and the bookies used to stick a couple of percentage on for their own greed and then passed it on to punters , the main reason for this dtopping was the set up of offshore bookies who paid tax and the government were forced to drop the betting tax - 
as for your last bit , utter garbage how can a poker pro pay tax on a sole income and then the recreational player not as its a second income , in fact the reverse would happen and the recreational player pay more tax on a second income if he declared, as his 1st income would have benefitted from nic and tax allowances
i have explaine dthe reason why it wont wont be taxed - if it ever was then every player would set up as a sole trader as a poker pro , then all expenses inc hotels petrol,even buy ins would be classed a legit expenses and be written off against tax and if worked corectly all would be able to get tax rebates from the IR - all online winnings could be hid and used to live on whilst live expenses would pocket you a fortune , THAT IS WHY IT WONT EVER BE CLASSED AS AN INCOME

exactly

The main reason why poker isn't taxed is generally in UK taxation also has allowances for losses. i.e if your business is loss making you can offset it against other income or future profits (or even carry it back in a business start up). Now most gamblers lose including in poker. If they taxed poker income they would have to alllow poker losses. Used to have this arguement often when in the Revenue as a lot of my client base were race horse owners in North Notts/ South Yorks.

Should it be taxed? I do have some sympathy with the view that all should contribute to society (If they can). I imagine the most a poker player contributes is tax on ciggies and booze  :D. It would just be a real bugger to collect/assess.