logo
Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill' could spell trouble for gamblers: What to know

Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill' could spell trouble for gamblers: What to know

The Hill4 days ago
A gambling tax provision in President Trump's megabill that passed Congress earlier this month is ruffling feathers on both sides of the aisle.
Tucked into the approximately 1,000-page tax and spending cuts plan is a measure that experts say will make it more expensive for gamblers to lose, and that some Republicans say they weren't even aware of until after it passed.
Here are a few things to know about the change to the gambling tax.
What does the gambling tax provision do?
A major component of the plan passed by Republicans earlier this month was to extend expiring tax cuts enacted by Trump's signature 2017 tax law.
But among the host of added tax changes in the plan, was a provision that reduces the tax deduction for gambling losses from 100 percent to 90 percent. The plan would take effect at the start of next year, absent congressional action.
Asked about the plan in recent days, some GOP senators have downplayed the impact of the bill on their constituents. But members on both sides have pointed to the swift pace at which Congress moved to get Trump's tax agenda across the finish line.
'There was a reason I wanted a conference once we actually had language, and before we had motion to proceed, I wasn't granted that conference,' Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, said Tuesday.
'I knew we had all kinds of provisions that we had never discussed about in conference, and I wanted to discuss it,' he said. 'I wanted to wait.'
Who is affected?
Experts say the measure could wind up meaning big trouble for professional gamblers.
'It doesn't affect the population broadly, but this could have a very, very large impact on casino operators and the big group of people that we see this affecting are professional gamblers,' Adam Hoffer, director of excise tax policy at the Tax Foundation, said in an interview this week.
Hoffer said the measure would lead to gamblers having to pay more when they break even, describing a scenario in which a professional spends a million dollars a year buying into poker tournaments.
'Over the course of that year, they also win, they cash out a total of a million dollars,' he explained. 'Now that's break even. They didn't actually make any money there. And in previous years, before this tax provision change, they wouldn't owe any net income.'
'However, with this change, instead of being able to deduct the million dollars that they spent on buying into poker tournaments, they're only allowed to deduct $900,000,' he said.
He and others have also raised concerns that legislation puts at risk a growing sports betting industry and incentivizes offshore gambling.
How did it get in the bill?
The Senate's chief tax writing committee said the provision made it into the plan due to the strict rules governing the complex process Republicans used to pass the package.
Under the wonky maneuver known as budget reconciliation, Republicans were able to greenlight the major tax bill through Congress without Democratic support in the Senate, bypassing the 60-vote threshold needed for most legislation to make it out of the upper chamber.
But the process comes with limitations.
A spokesperson for the committee said to comply with reconciliation rules, every provision from the president's 2017 tax law 'needed to be modified to create a budgetary effect.'
'In order to retain the gambling loss provision, it was changed to 90 percent,' the spokesperson said.
What will it save?
An estimate from the Joint Committee on Taxation that pegs the projected revenue generated from the provision at about $1.1 billion over roughly the next decade.
By contrast, experts have pointed to overall estimates of the package, which project the plan would add more than $3 trillion to the nation's deficits over the same timeframe.
Much of the cost comes from the tax proposals in the plan. At the same time, the new law includes major changes that could lead to hundreds of billions dollars in reduced spending for Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, new restrictions for student loan borrowers and the phaseout of multiple popular repayment plans, and changes targeting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding.
'The tax burden doesn't fall on the industry itself and has no tax implications for the gambling industry,' Lucy Dadayan, a principal research associate with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said in an email.
'Still, the gambling industry is concerned the reduced profitability for players could dampen demand and push players into the unregulated gambling markets.'
Will Congress undo it?
Some Democrats have already been sounding alarm over the measure, which Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) unsuccessfully sought to undo earlier this month.
'It will do irreparable harm to our nation's gaming industry if it takes effect — especially in Nevada,' the Nevada Democrat said at the time, warning it would 'disincentivize' gamblers.
The Senate Finance Committee said Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) is 'open to receiving feedback from affected stakeholders and learning more about industry reporting and compliance.'
'While the committee heard from gaming associations on other provisions after the Finance Committee's text was released on June 16, there were no concerns raised with lowering the threshold,' they added.
Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), top Democrat on the Finance Committee, was pressed on Tuesday whether negotiations on the matter have reached leadership level as some Republicans have expressed interest in bipartisan tax action this year.
Wyden said Cortez Masto immediately talked to him about the matter and that he intends to 'help in any way that I can,' calling it a 'very important issue to her constituents.'
'The Republicans did, according to my colleague, great damage to the economy of her state simply because they didn't consult with anybody,' he argued. 'They rushed it through.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Gifford fire burns 30,000 acres in Los Padres National Forest
Gifford fire burns 30,000 acres in Los Padres National Forest

Los Angeles Times

time12 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Gifford fire burns 30,000 acres in Los Padres National Forest

The Gifford fire has scorched more than 30,000 acres in less than two days in Los Padres National Forest as firefighters struggle to quell the blaze in the Sierra Madre mountains. Wildland firefighters were continuing to battle the blaze Saturday along Highway 166 in rural Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties, about 20 miles east of Santa Maria, according to the U.S. Forest Service and Cal Fire. But fire crews were faced with challenging conditions such as high temperatures, dry vegetation and rugged terrain. As of Saturday evening, the fire was 5% contained and continuing to chew through the tall, dry grass and chaparral that covers the steep hills and mountains. Evacuation orders and warnings were issued for agricultural lands near the unincorporated community of Garey. Although the fire is on federally managed land, Cal Fire crews joined the response to assist with more ground personnel and firefighting aircraft. Criticized on the social media platform X for the fire's explosive growth, Gov. Gavin Newsom's press office reiterated that the fire was not on state land. 'The #GiffordFire started on Trump's federally managed land in the Los Padres NATIONAL Forest,' read the post. 'While Trump just gutted wildfire funding, @CAL_FIRE is now stepping in to clean up what federal mismanagement helped fuel.' Newsom has criticized President Trump for cutting funding for forest management, including activities such as prescribed burning, a process that reduces the risk of explosive fires by proactively burning vegetation in a controlled environment. As of Saturday evening, a California Interagency Incident Management Team — composed of federal, state and county firefighters from various agencies, including the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, Cal Fire, the state's Office of Emergency Services and county-level fire departments — was tasked with taking command of the incident. The fire was first reported about 2 p.m. Friday near Los Padres National Forest's Gifford trailhead, not far from the perimeter of the recently extinguished Madre fire. According to Cal Fire, the blaze had multiple start points along Highway 166. The cause of the fire remains under investigation.

Trump's ‘Slap in the Face' Puts Neutral Switzerland in Trade-War Crossfire
Trump's ‘Slap in the Face' Puts Neutral Switzerland in Trade-War Crossfire

Wall Street Journal

time27 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

Trump's ‘Slap in the Face' Puts Neutral Switzerland in Trade-War Crossfire

MEZZOVICO-VIRA, Switzerland—When Nicola Tettamanti looked at his phone Friday morning, his first reaction was disbelief: Overnight, President Trump had slapped Switzerland with close to the highest tariffs of any country in the world. Tettamanti is the chief executive of a 55-year-old precision toolmaking business nestled in this mountain-hugged town. He had planned in the near future to expand further into the U.S. by opening an office in Indiana.

Trump tells Schumer to 'GO TO HELL' over Senate nominee deal funding demands after negotiations collapse
Trump tells Schumer to 'GO TO HELL' over Senate nominee deal funding demands after negotiations collapse

Yahoo

time28 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump tells Schumer to 'GO TO HELL' over Senate nominee deal funding demands after negotiations collapse

Hours of tense negotiations to strike a deal on President Donald Trump's nominees blew up Saturday night, and now lawmakers are headed home. Senate Republicans and Democrats were quick to point the finger at one another for the deal's demise, but it was ultimately Trump who nuked the talks. Pirro Confirmed As D.c. U.s. Attorney Amid Partisan Clash As Dem Nominee Blockade Continues In a lengthy post on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump accused Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., of "demanding over One Billion Dollars in order to approve a small number of our highly qualified nominees." "This demand is egregious and unprecedented, and would be embarrassing to the Republican Party if it were accepted. It is political extortion, by any other name," Trump said. "Tell Schumer, who is under tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the Radical Left Lunatics, to GO TO HELL!" "Do not accept the offer," he continued. "Go home and explain to your constituents what bad people the Democrats are, and what a great job the Republicans are doing, and have done, for our Country. Have a great RECESS and, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!" Read On The Fox News App Dems Dig In, Trump Demands All: Nominee Fight Boils Over In Senate As Gop Looks For A Deal Instead of finding a pathway to vote on as many as 60 of the president's nominees, all of which moved through committee with bipartisan support, lawmakers rapid-fire voted on seven before leaving Washington until September. But Schumer treated Trump's move as a victory for Senate Democrats. He countered that it was the president who gave up on negotiations while he and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., worked to find a bipartisan solution, "provided the White House and Senate Republicans met our demands." "He took his ball, he went home, leaving Democrats and Republicans alike wondering what the hell happened," Schumer said, standing next to a poster-sized version of the president's post. "Trump's all-caps Tweet said it all," he continued. "In a fit of rage, Trump threw in the towel, sent Republicans home, and was unable to do the basic work of negotiating." But prior to the president's edict, both sides of the aisle believed they were on the verge of a breakthrough to both meet Trump's desire to see his nominees confirmed and leave Washington. Thune said that there were "lots of offers" made between him and Schumer over the course of negotiations. "There were several different times where I think either or both sides maybe thought there was a deal in the end," he said. Senate Democrats wanted the White House to unfreeze billions in National Institute of Health and foreign aid funding, in addition to a future agreement that no more clawback packages would come from the White House. In exchange, they would greenlight several of Trump's non-controversial nominees. Recess On Ice As Republicans Hunker Down For High-stakes Nominee Blitz Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., accused Schumer of going "too far" by upping the price tag on his demands. "We've had three different deals since last night," he said. "And every time it's been, every time it's 'I want more,'" Mullin said of Schumer's demands. He said that Republicans weren't caught off guard by Trump's call to halt talks, and noted that the White House had been heavily involved in negotiations. "You get to a realization that there was, it was never about making a deal," he continued. "They want to go out and say the President's being unrealistic, and because he can't answer to his base to make a deal like we have in every other president in history." Now, Republicans won't pursue recess appointments, but Mullin noted that moving ahead with a rule change to the confirmation process when lawmakers return in September was going to happen in response. "The asks evolved on both sides quite a bit over time," Thune said. "But in the end, we never got to a place where we had both sides agree to lock it in." Senate Democrats, on the other hand, countered that their offer never changed, and that Republicans kept increasing the number of nominees they wanted across the line, and attempted to include more controversial, partisan picks. Schumer wouldn't reveal the details of his demands, but charged that any changes to Senate rules would be a "huge mistake," and urged Trump to work with Senate Democrats moving forward, particularly as Congress hurtles toward yet another deadline to fund the government in September. "They should stop listening to him," Schumer said. "If they want to do what's good for the American people, they shouldn't be in blind obeisance to Donald Trump."Original article source: Trump tells Schumer to 'GO TO HELL' over Senate nominee deal funding demands after negotiations collapse

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store