Taxing Bets; or why it may be good to smoke a peacepipe

[The Bart]

So a lady co worker comes to work yesterday and announces that she got a "royal flush" on a poker slot machine down at one of the local Native American casinos on Sunday. She says she gets paid 1,000.00 for the win.

I asked " how much did you have to wager?" She says "5 quarters got her the dough." I said "congratulations!!" "Do you go to the casino often?" She says "about once or twice a month." I say "how many signers have you had like that one?" She says "signers??" "What's signers?" I ask, "have you ever had a win that big before?" She says "no this is the biggest." I say, "Didn't they make you show your SS card and fill out a W-2G form?" She says "no." I say "you just took your money and left?" She says, "yeah, I had it up to like 4300 quarters, but decided I wouldn't leave with less than a grand." "It took me nearly 2 hours later but I left with a grand, actually 980.00 if you count the original 20 I put in which I never put anymore in the machine." I say "great but I think they made a mistake and should have given you a W-2G." She says "I didn't get one."

I just spoke with another co worker who goes to the casino regularly I guess, and she says her husband won a grand a couple of times, over the years, betting a buck and never got a W-2G.

What's up with this?

[Bob B]

$1200 on slot machines to get a W2G. If you look next time you're at a casino, you'll see some slot machines with a top jackpot of $1199.00 for this very reason.

[The Bart]

$1200 on slot machines to get a W2G. If you look next time you're at a casino, you'll see some slot machines with a top jackpot of $1199.00 for this very reason.

Ok thanks. I believe pari mutuel wagers are still taxed at 300 to 1 and over 600.00, correct? (I wish I had experiential knowledge, but I haven't had a signer, since Bill redefined the word "is"). If pari mutuel wagers are still taxed at the above rates, then I believe we have unequal taxation (not unlike unequal protection, under the law). If pari-mutuel wagers are still taxed at 300 to 1 and over $600.00 and since the taxation is done at the Federal level as well as the states, shouldn't someone or some organization bring this to the attention of the Feds so that the Feds and the States can at least correct the discrepancy and increase the payout threshold levels for those that win via pari mutuel to,at least, the level enjoyed by casino patrons?

Of course, I guess one could always argue that the payout requirements are different because more people hit the taxable levels, more often, in a casino game than pari mutuel betting.

[Andyc]

Ok thanks. I believe pari mutuel wagers are still taxed at 300 to 1 and over 600.00, correct? (I wish I had experiential knowledge, but I haven't had a signer, since Bill redefined the word "is"). If pari mutuel wagers are still taxed at the above rates, then I believe we have unequal taxation (not unlike unequal protection, under the law). If pari-mutuel wagers are still taxed at 300 to 1 and over $600.00 and since the taxation is done at the Federal level as well as the states, shouldn't someone or some organization bring this to the attention of the Feds so that the Feds and the States can at least correct the discrepancy and increase the payout threshold levels for those that win via pari mutuel to,at least, the level enjoyed by casino patrons?

Of course, I guess one could always argue that the payout requirements are different because more people hit the taxable levels, more often, in a casino game than pari mutuel betting.

If you win $2 it is taxable. It isn't the sign up that makes it taxable. All winnings are taxable. If you bet $1000 on a 50-1 horse to win and it won you would still owe tax on the $50,000 of winnings even though it wouldn't qualify as a signer.

[The Bart]

Ok thanks. I believe pari mutuel wagers are still taxed at 300 to 1 and over 600.00, correct? (I wish I had experiential knowledge, but I haven't had a signer, since Bill redefined the word "is"). If pari mutuel wagers are still taxed at the above rates, then I believe we have unequal taxation (not unlike unequal protection, under the law). If pari-mutuel wagers are still taxed at 300 to 1 and over $600.00 and since the taxation is done at the Federal level as well as the states, shouldn't someone or some organization bring this to the attention of the Feds so that the Feds and the States can at least correct the discrepancy and increase the payout threshold levels for those that win via pari mutuel to,at least, the level enjoyed by casino patrons?

Of course, I guess one could always argue that the payout requirements are different because more people hit the taxable levels, more often, in a casino game than pari mutuel betting.

If you win $2 it is taxable. It isn't the sign up that makes it taxable. All winnings are taxable. If you bet $1000 on a 50-1 horse to win and it won you would still owe tax on the $50,000 of winnings even though it wouldn't qualify as a signer.

Ok, alright:

Change the word "taxed" to "reported to the government agency known as the IRS" and the word "taxation" to "reporting to the government agency known as the IRS" then take out the wording "and since the taxation is done at the Federal level as well as the states" The "," stays. Then of course remove the words "payout" and "taxable" and in their place add the word "reporting."

Better??