119th Congress or Red Wave In Adult Land
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
I’m fine with a reality check for people going into massive debt to try to find jobs that aren’t there in gender studies and whatnot, but all this shit about needing to get back to the factories and trades and away from a computer screen (which implies an actual job actual businesses pay actual money for already) rings hollow when these same privileged elites fundraise and campaign on the American Dream and upward mobility.
While it’s admittedly shameless for a Senator to vote to kick a bunch of people from every state but hers off Medicaid, Murkowski is not responsible for whether or not Thune is willing to exempt her state, and I’d argue it’s actively her job to vote for such an amendment that benefits her direct constituents. The anger is being greatly misplaced here.
acesfull86
Well-known member
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profo...eautiful-bill-may-have-ugly-side-for-gamblers
The so-called big, beautiful bill may lead to an ugly outcome for gamblers.
Various online accounts of the Senate version of the massive piece of legislation that has ping-ponged back to the House of Representatives indicate that a change to the tax rules for gambling could make it much harder to ultimately turn a profit.
Apparently, deductions to gambling winnings will (under the Senate’s version of the bill) be limited to 90 percent of losses. Which means that, to put it very simply, $100,000 in winnings against $100,000 in losses will be treated for tax purposes as if the losses were only $90,000.
Which also means that, even if it’s a wash for the gambler, taxes will be owed on $10,000 that the gambler didn’t actually earn.
—————
I thought I hated this bill enough…guess I was wrong
The so-called big, beautiful bill may lead to an ugly outcome for gamblers.
Various online accounts of the Senate version of the massive piece of legislation that has ping-ponged back to the House of Representatives indicate that a change to the tax rules for gambling could make it much harder to ultimately turn a profit.
Apparently, deductions to gambling winnings will (under the Senate’s version of the bill) be limited to 90 percent of losses. Which means that, to put it very simply, $100,000 in winnings against $100,000 in losses will be treated for tax purposes as if the losses were only $90,000.
Which also means that, even if it’s a wash for the gambler, taxes will be owed on $10,000 that the gambler didn’t actually earn.
—————
I thought I hated this bill enough…guess I was wrong
