degenerasian wrote:it is like capital gains and losses?
we don't have a gaming tax here.
It should be like capital gains and losses, but I'm not aware of an official form that would show your losses.
Moderators: Shirley, Sabo, brian, rass, DaveInSeattle
degenerasian wrote:it is like capital gains and losses?
we don't have a gaming tax here.
govmentchedda wrote:brian wrote:The Sybian wrote:brian wrote:I still haven't seen the specifics but I've read the gambling losses deduction is either capped or repealed. I've been Googling furiously but curiously can't find anything. If it were completely repealed for the 2017 tax year (which I don't think is possible -- I'm assuming even if passed this would apply to the 2018 tax year?) it would cost me something like $80,000. Which obviously I don't have.
What??? How much do you have to gamble to get an $80,000 deduction??? If you can't afford to lose the tax deduction for your gambling losses, you may need to look at your gambling as less of a hobby and more as a problem. Not trying to be preachy or joke, but that is an astounding sum. OTOH, why the hell should the tax code encourage gambling by offering a deduction on gambling losses? I realize people can't claim a gambling loss deduction without claiming winnings, but this is just bizarre to me. But, I imagine the gaming industry has some lobbying power in Washington, so of course we have a gambling losses deduction.
As with anything in tax law/code there are myriad issues here. The biggest one is that the IRS forces casinos to report any jackpot of more than $1200 as "income". At a lot of machines, $1200 is frankly not that much (the law began in 1977 and has never been raised for inflation).
So in a given year like last year and probably this year, I had about $250K in "income" from hand-paid jackpots that generated forms for the IRS. If I can't deduct my losses the IRS thinks I "won" $250K which of course didn't happen. So that's why the gambling losses deduction exists in the first place. If the IRS thinks I won $250K then my taxes on that amount would be about $80K. As it is my "income" costs me a couple thousand extra on taxes even with being able to deduct because the original income boosts my tax bracket on all my income.
Yeah, think about how people were talking about the Vegas shooter and how he was a high roller because of how much he won. Nobody mentioned all of the losses that he may have had. Brian, I'm curious how you (anyone) substantiates your gambling losses? It's not like you get a 1099-G, that would counter your W-2G.
brian wrote:govmentchedda wrote:brian wrote:The Sybian wrote:brian wrote:I still haven't seen the specifics but I've read the gambling losses deduction is either capped or repealed. I've been Googling furiously but curiously can't find anything. If it were completely repealed for the 2017 tax year (which I don't think is possible -- I'm assuming even if passed this would apply to the 2018 tax year?) it would cost me something like $80,000. Which obviously I don't have.
What??? How much do you have to gamble to get an $80,000 deduction??? If you can't afford to lose the tax deduction for your gambling losses, you may need to look at your gambling as less of a hobby and more as a problem. Not trying to be preachy or joke, but that is an astounding sum. OTOH, why the hell should the tax code encourage gambling by offering a deduction on gambling losses? I realize people can't claim a gambling loss deduction without claiming winnings, but this is just bizarre to me. But, I imagine the gaming industry has some lobbying power in Washington, so of course we have a gambling losses deduction.
As with anything in tax law/code there are myriad issues here. The biggest one is that the IRS forces casinos to report any jackpot of more than $1200 as "income". At a lot of machines, $1200 is frankly not that much (the law began in 1977 and has never been raised for inflation).
So in a given year like last year and probably this year, I had about $250K in "income" from hand-paid jackpots that generated forms for the IRS. If I can't deduct my losses the IRS thinks I "won" $250K which of course didn't happen. So that's why the gambling losses deduction exists in the first place. If the IRS thinks I won $250K then my taxes on that amount would be about $80K. As it is my "income" costs me a couple thousand extra on taxes even with being able to deduct because the original income boosts my tax bracket on all my income.
Yeah, think about how people were talking about the Vegas shooter and how he was a high roller because of how much he won. Nobody mentioned all of the losses that he may have had. Brian, I'm curious how you (anyone) substantiates your gambling losses? It's not like you get a 1099-G, that would counter your W-2G.
I keep an Excel spreadsheet with wins and loss totals from all sessions. It's kind of a pain, but necessary. Any kind of a "diary" or spreadsheet of wins and losses is allowable by the IRS.
Gunpowder wrote:My taxes and especially the gf's taxes are going up. Poor people are getting a slight deduction - someone who makes $25K will save about $800 or so. (This is just in a vacuum and not accounting for other things). Which is just fine, and I would be perfectly ok with it, if it wasn't coming with a huge cut to corporate taxes.
So the coal miners, et al who voted for Trump will get a slight cut in their taxes so they'll continue their rabid support ("Trump delivered!"), all the while people in Bentleys are gonna be saving gajillions.
It's actually pretty smart from a political perspective.
Steve of phpBB wrote:Gunpowder wrote:My taxes and especially the gf's taxes are going up. Poor people are getting a slight deduction - someone who makes $25K will save about $800 or so. (This is just in a vacuum and not accounting for other things). Which is just fine, and I would be perfectly ok with it, if it wasn't coming with a huge cut to corporate taxes.
So the coal miners, et al who voted for Trump will get a slight cut in their taxes so they'll continue their rabid support ("Trump delivered!"), all the while people in Bentleys are gonna be saving gajillions.
It's actually pretty smart from a political perspective.
Mine are probably going up a chunk. Which would also be fine with me if that money were being used to feed poor people. But I'm not thrilled about my taxes going up to feed rich people.
Unless they were going to feed the rich people *to* the poor people.
Gunpowder wrote:My taxes and especially the gf's taxes are going up. Poor people are getting a slight deduction - someone who makes $25K will save about $800 or so. (This is just in a vacuum and not accounting for other things). Which is just fine, and I would be perfectly ok with it, if it wasn't coming with a huge cut to corporate taxes.
So the coal miners, et al who voted for Trump will get a slight cut in their taxes so they'll continue their rabid support ("Trump delivered!"), all the while people in Bentleys are gonna be saving gajillions.
It's actually pretty smart from a political perspective.
A_B wrote:Gunpowder wrote:My taxes and especially the gf's taxes are going up. Poor people are getting a slight deduction - someone who makes $25K will save about $800 or so. (This is just in a vacuum and not accounting for other things). Which is just fine, and I would be perfectly ok with it, if it wasn't coming with a huge cut to corporate taxes.
So the coal miners, et al who voted for Trump will get a slight cut in their taxes so they'll continue their rabid support ("Trump delivered!"), all the while people in Bentleys are gonna be saving gajillions.
It's actually pretty smart from a political perspective.
Coal miners make a lot more than 25k. You may have just been going for the generality of trumps base, but generally you hire in inexperienced at 40k or so.
sancarlos wrote:Trump's base must love that oil and gas providers are clear winners in he new tax proposal, while credits for electric cars, wind and solar energy get fucked.
I'm guessing that in 20 years, historians will shake their heads about this prioritization.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
Johnnie wrote:Not only that, the idea that we have other more important things to spend what we do have taxed is also bullshit. We have spent $250M per day in the war on terror.
You mean to tell me that we can't afford healthcare, a living wage, free education, and conceivably anything else? BULLSHIT. FUCKING BULLSHIT.
Pruitt wrote:sancarlos wrote:Trump's base must love that oil and gas providers are clear winners in he new tax proposal, while credits for electric cars, wind and solar energy get fucked.
I'm guessing that in 20 years, historians will shake their heads about this prioritization.
The USA has just surrendered the 21st century to China and other nations that understand that change is inevitable.
Pruitt wrote:Rand Paul Assaulted
Pruitt wrote:Rand Paul Assaulted
By a middle aged Doctor who is - yep - a Democrat.
Fox News just came in its pants.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
Johnnie wrote:Pruitt wrote:Rand Paul Assaulted
By a middle aged Doctor who is - yep - a Democrat.
Fox News just came in its pants.
In Bowling Green.
#neverforget
A Facebook account that is alleged to be maintained by Boucher was found to contain multiple anti-Trump postings.
mister d wrote:Do libertarians believe in calling the cops?
tennbengal wrote:Shout out to Rand Paul’s doctor neighbor. Also, note to self, never get Howard pissed at me IRL.
A_B wrote:tennbengal wrote:Shout out to Rand Paul’s doctor neighbor. Also, note to self, never get Howard pissed at me IRL.
You're givin a shout out to the guy who assaulted someone? Am I missing something?
Joe K wrote:Johnnie wrote:Not only that, the idea that we have other more important things to spend what we do have taxed is also bullshit. We have spent $250M per day in the war on terror.
You mean to tell me that we can't afford healthcare, a living wage, free education, and conceivably anything else? BULLSHIT. FUCKING BULLSHIT.
That is a righteous rant. And the point you made that I quoted above is the #1 thing that I wish more politically-savvy Americans understood. Conservative politicians and billionaires like Pete Peterson, the Kochs, etc. have masterfully convinced people that we "can't afford" things like universal health care, increases in the working wage, and a robust social safety net. Even Democrats have bought into that fallacy. When in fact, these so-called concerns about spending or the deficit are always used to justify right-wing political goals, and especially policies that continue the shift of wealth upward. It's funny how the deficit is a big deal whenever anyone suggests progressive economic redistribution, but hasn't been a problem when it comes to tax cuts, heavy handed law enforcement tactics, or the trillions of dollars that our Middle Eastern wars will cost.
howard wrote: (or as middle aged)
tennbengal wrote:https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/927641651044024320
sancarlos wrote:tennbengal wrote:https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/927641651044024320
Yeah, it happens. My wife is ready to nuke the neighbors behind us over a similar issue. (But, they aren't politicians.)
tennbengal wrote:https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/927641651044024320
tennbengal wrote:https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/927641651044024320
Rex wrote:tennbengal wrote:https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/927641651044024320
Ok, so the story is now awesome...
tennbengal wrote:https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/927641651044024320
A_B wrote:Is it still OK to assault him when he's potentially just an asshole neighbor?
A_B wrote:tennbengal wrote:https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/927641651044024320
Is it still OK to assault him when he's potentially just an asshole neighbor?
A_B wrote:I guess you guys are just real, honest to goodness badasses.