6 ms·

I wouldn't be against a law that prevented people from gambling large amounts of money unless they could prove the money was theirs. (ETA: whew, a quadruple neg

by ikeboy 10y ago

I wouldn't be against a law that prevented people from gambling large amounts of money unless they could prove the money was theirs. (ETA: whew, a quadruple negative.) The IRS could provide a form that confirmed that someone reported X amount of income, and you should only be allowed to gamble X-Y for some nominal value of Y. This wouldn't be that hard to enforce (the time isn't too significant when you're dealing with large amounts of money), and I don't think there's much public interest in being able to gamble unlimited amounts of money and keep it secret from the government. Is there some problem with the above? Is there a compelling reason this would harm civil liberties that I'm missing? It's not worse than banning gambling altogether, and should prevent most embezzling or gambling borrowed funds.

bduerst 10y ago
Well, the SEC [kind of] already does this with accredited investors :)
- ikeboy 10y ago
  Can you be accredited based on embezzled or borrowed money? Will it bring attention that will uncover it?
  - toast0 10y ago
    It's self accreditation, the party taking the investment gives the investor a questionnaire, and then says ok looks good to me.
- tunap 10y ago
  The other casino, where market participants pay for the gamblers' losses AND gains.
sanswork 10y ago
What happens when I show up from overseas to gamble? How do I prove I am from overseas and not just someone that isn't bringing their IRS form?
- ikeboy 10y ago
  Passport? I guess this would be hard to regulate, but even if foreigners were excluded from the regulation my proposal would still help some people.
tomjen3 10y ago
I have a huge horse in this fight, because I work for an online casino/slot machine manufacture. The following is my opinion, bl.a I know at least one physical casino where the tax authorities are very happy looking the other way, as patrons gamble tons of dirty cash. They do look very intently on the income and track it carefully because there is a percentage fee on gambling. Presumably that is why people are allowed to gamble freely. I can come up with a few arguments against your idea - on the balance it is sound, but what should the limit be on "nominal"? I can go to the cinema on a weekly basis, which with ticket prices, popcorn and other concessions can be quite an expensive hobby, or I can hit the casinos a couple times a year where I could spend the same amount of money - it is all entertainment and who is to say one is better for me than the other? I don't know any country that has a limit on how much alcohol you can buy at a time (most have age restrictions, some have time and place restrictions, some won't sell you if you are already drunk), yet there are alcoholics in any place. Should we ban or limit alcohol to some nominal amount? If not, why should we treat gambling differently? That said, I am all about making it easy for people to see how much they have spent, and of course be honest upfront.
- ikeboy 10y ago
  > Should we ban or limit alcohol to some nominal amount? If not, why should we treat gambling differently? No, because nobody steals $4 million to buy alcohol. Alcoholics don't tend to be spending anywhere near the numbers in OP. Even if nominal was 0, the proposal would still prevent stealing or borrowed money being gambled. It's not an essential part of the proposal. If tax authorities are overlooking theft being gambled because they get a cut, then incentives have not been lined up properly. Theft causes a negative externality greater than the thief's gain, so society should not want theft, and if it does then there's a problem.
  - tomjen3 10y ago
    However some alcoholics spend so much time getting drunk/being drunk they can't do their jobs and so end up on the street. I don't object that nobody should gamble on stolen or borrowed money (though some hedge funds may disagree), but that is different from having some nominal limit. For one how about savings? How about retired people with too much time and large pensions? How about saving up for a honeymoon in vegas?

by ikeboy 10y ago

bduerst 10y ago

Well, the SEC [kind of] already does this with accredited investors :)

ikeboy 10y ago
Can you be accredited based on embezzled or borrowed money? Will it bring attention that will uncover it?
- toast0 10y ago
  It's self accreditation, the party taking the investment gives the investor a questionnaire, and then says ok looks good to me.
tunap 10y ago
The other casino, where market participants pay for the gamblers' losses AND gains.

sanswork 10y ago

What happens when I show up from overseas to gamble? How do I prove I am from overseas and not just someone that isn't bringing their IRS form?

ikeboy 10y ago
Passport? I guess this would be hard to regulate, but even if foreigners were excluded from the regulation my proposal would still help some people.

tomjen3 10y ago

I have a huge horse in this fight, because I work for an online casino/slot machine manufacture. The following is my opinion, bl.a I know at least one physical casino where the tax authorities are very happy looking the other way, as patrons gamble tons of dirty cash. They do look very intently on the income and track it carefully because there is a percentage fee on gambling. Presumably that is why people are allowed to gamble freely. I can come up with a few arguments against your idea - on the balance it is sound, but what should the limit be on "nominal"? I can go to the cinema on a weekly basis, which with ticket prices, popcorn and other concessions can be quite an expensive hobby, or I can hit the casinos a couple times a year where I could spend the same amount of money - it is all entertainment and who is to say one is better for me than the other? I don't know any country that has a limit on how much alcohol you can buy at a time (most have age restrictions, some have time and place restrictions, some won't sell you if you are already drunk), yet there are alcoholics in any place. Should we ban or limit alcohol to some nominal amount? If not, why should we treat gambling differently? That said, I am all about making it easy for people to see how much they have spent, and of course be honest upfront.

ikeboy 10y ago
> Should we ban or limit alcohol to some nominal amount? If not, why should we treat gambling differently? No, because nobody steals $4 million to buy alcohol. Alcoholics don't tend to be spending anywhere near the numbers in OP. Even if nominal was 0, the proposal would still prevent stealing or borrowed money being gambled. It's not an essential part of the proposal. If tax authorities are overlooking theft being gambled because they get a cut, then incentives have not been lined up properly. Theft causes a negative externality greater than the thief's gain, so society should not want theft, and if it does then there's a problem.
- tomjen3 10y ago
  However some alcoholics spend so much time getting drunk/being drunk they can't do their jobs and so end up on the street. I don't object that nobody should gamble on stolen or borrowed money (though some hedge funds may disagree), but that is different from having some nominal limit. For one how about savings? How about retired people with too much time and large pensions? How about saving up for a honeymoon in vegas?