Reply to Is this what it takes to be bipartisan?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Is this what it takes to be bipartisan? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/bipartisan-effort-begins-to-repeal-gambling-portion-of-big-beautiful-bill

--so there goes that $6k senior deduction

Via FrontOfficeSports.com, representative Dina Titus (D-NV) introduced the FAIR Bet Act on Monday. The law would restore the gambling deduction to 100 percent.

Titus is supported by representatives Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Troy Nehls (R-TX).

It’s not a tax break for gamblers. It’s a recognition of the reality that winning is always offset by losses. If someone wins $100,000 while gambling and loses $100,000 while gambling, nothing has been gained. Under the old law, the income would be zero. Under the big, beautiful bill, the gambler will be regarded as having $10,000 in income. It’s simply not fair, and it defies common sense.

“While I proudly voted for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which prevents the largest tax hike in American history, the Senate’s version contained a provision that I strongly disagree with,” Nehls told FrontOfficeSports.com in a statement. “Prior to the passage of the OBBBA, the tax code contained a 100% deduction for gambling losses and expenses up to the amount of the individual’s winnings. This deduction was not changed in the House-passed version of the bill.”

Nehls is being disingenuous. If he had a problem with the gambling provision of the version of the bill that came back to the House, he could have insisted that it be changed back — or he could have voted no.

Better known for celebrating the passage of the bill by smoking a cheap-looking cigar with both hands bandaged, Nehls also has proven the folly of the big, beautiful bill. With a massive collection of provisions jammed into one up-or-down bill that was being pushed by an administration that enjoys having Congress under its thumb, there will inevitably be provisions that some of the “yes” men (and women) would say “no” to, if those provisions were considered one at a time.

Which means that the cleanup process is beginning. Starting with the provision that makes it harder to be a professional gambler.

Of course, the effort to fix the flaws of the big, beautiful bill won’t be easy. Especially since Congress won’t be operating with the kind of hair-on-fire urgency that the chief executive demanded.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics