Originally Posted by RI Tony

This is essentially the equivalent of walking outside and handing a random American on the street $100 each week to bash us over the head with a hammer.

Yup. I think that this is one reason that some professional poker players sometimes don't pay their taxes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0OJEFlq7A

Just received the following letter from my bank:

"Pursuant to the unlawful internet gambling enforcement act of 2006 and regulation GG, "restricted transactions such as those in which a person accepts credit, funds, instruments or other proceeds from another person in connection with unlawful internet gambling are prohibited from being processed through your account or relationship with our institution".

Are they just trying to protect themselves with this letter or is this basically GG in even trying to use them?

Im assuming most banks are going to send out something similar to this letter before the December deadline...this was from [bank name edited] in NY.

welcome to last week.....go find jennifear's post about a week ago and that will explain everything...i would find it for you, but im stoned, lazy and playing in a tourney

Thank u for just combining the two threads as the actions are essentially the same. I understand that my bank is threatening me, am I reading correctly that I might still be able to continue to make these withdrawls if I space them out? So if they aren't coming often they won't come after me as hard essentially?

I also understand that I need to open a second acct to maintain relationships w/ multiple banks to avoid running into trouble w/ one. Does anyone have any suggestions as to which banks are friendlier towards these wires/checks? Are local credit unions less likely to inquire/threaten to close accts bc they need the business? or more bc they're smaller and have the time on their hands to look into these items?

I read as much of the lengthy thread as possible and I noticed that all bank names are redacted when referring to a bank that has made a statement/inquiry directed at a player so flame away if it has already been established that we can't use banks names whatsoever. I'm just looking to find a "friendlier" bank towards my wires (chks if I have to) so that I can continue to withdraw funds after dec 1 if nothing is resolved by then.
thx

I didn't get a chance to read all the responses, but I did briefly read the update. I was wondering what the bank meant by risky activities. I know they don't condone or necessarily want to be a part of funding your online poker account, but what is their interest in you accepting/receiving a wire transfer from a poker site? How is receiving a wire transfer from a poker site considered risky business? Although you told them you were a professional player/coach, essentially you could do anything for the site, (i.e. chat moderator, software developer, or an I.T. worker). Did the bank explain this or why it's risky for them to allow you to receive a wire transfer?

Being that I bank with a smaller, local credit union do I have less to worry about come Dec. 1st? I've never had a problem with the processing of wire transfers and or checks and I've definitely yet to receive any letters or notifications citing any upcoming change of protocol come Dec. 1st.

thx for your opinion, doubt v many will agree but its an open forum...

bump in hopes several of the most recent posts about clarification of how to proceed now and after dec 1 might get answered by the friendly fellow/lass out there that has any/all answers for those in the dark :-/

 

Originally Posted by jetsjets1028

What if the candidate that "supports your rights" to play Online Poker, also supports the government's right to tax the everloving shit out of your profits?

Would you have a problem with that?

Why does everyone view tax as an awful thing? I <3 new roads, police, firemen, schools. Btw Jets, we understand you're a republican, we get it yo.

 

Originally Posted by jetsjets1028

Not a Republican, but thanks for guessing tho.

The tax thing was just an example. The quickest and most relevant example I could think of.

I have no problem with an acceptable level of tax. I do have a problem with the my Government thinking that simply because I make more money, I owe more of it to them.

My point was simply that Jen is WAY too smart to be a single issue voter. Willy is correct. The online poker issue is not something that came out of nowhere.

I just guessed you were republican judging by all the hateraid bashing threads about obama you make in OT! Sorry!

Continue.

 

Originally Posted by jetsjets1028

FWIW, he gives Democrats a bad name.

Nice opinion brah,

but i'm done debating politics in PD back to OT

O and fwiw, you just admitted you were republican woops!

 

Originally Posted by jetsjets1028

Not because he is a Democrat and I am a Republican.

We pay a lot less in taxes than much of the industrialized world. Obama is not a socialist. He's not trying to turn this country into a socialist regime. It's just not happening. The health care plan is NOT unified healthcare. It is a reform of the current system that isn't working for us. Conservatism pisses me off because YOU CAN'T STAY IN THE FUCKING PAST/PRESENT!!!! The only direction is the future, so stop thinking that life is going to stay the same way IT'S NOT! It will change and the sooner you realize this the faster you can get over the stupid idea that you're going to get your "old america" back. Take your paranoid Glen Beck BS back to OT.

 

Originally Posted by jetsjets1028

What if the candidate that "supports your rights" to play Online Poker, also supports the government's right to tax the everloving shit out of your profits?

Would you have a problem with that?

You'd have to define "everloving shit", compare it to the other party's tax views, and define what they would be spending my money on.

But unless this politician had something absurdly drastic in mind, then I would be voting for the candidate that supported my right to play online.

 

Originally Posted by Jennifear

Yes. Under those circumstances, I would vote for Palin.

Wow, OK.

Obv that was a hypothetical scenario but I'm surprised that you feel this way.

FWIW, I agree almost 100% with where you assign the blame for the UIGEA. That said, I think both parties are not helping us out in an honest moment. The Democrats just have to play nicer than the Republicans in public since more of their base is against the UIGEA.

 

Originally Posted by jetsjets1028

I think both parties are not helping us out in an honest moment. The Democrats just have to play nicer than the Republicans in public since more of their base is against the UIGEA.

I agree that the Dems aren't making this a high enough priority, but there is at least significant hope for Frank's bill. We have to make sure that this one gets through and that our representatives on both sides of the aisle are behind this bill and our cause. The way to do this is to be as vocal as possible. Please join me in fighting hard!