Logout

Question of the Day - 18 October 2025

Q:

Conspiracy theory … Could the casino bosses actually be behind the new tax law that allows gamblers to declare only 90% of losses against winnings? Advantage players such as Bob Dancer have already said they would possibly stop gambling. This would potentially save the casinos millions of dollars in losses.

A:

[Editor's Note: This opinion piece is written by our business blogger David McKee. And of course, his opinions are his own.]

We love a good conspiracy theory, but … this one seems a bit of a stretch. Like COVID, casino executives were likely to have regarded the tax hike as a bad thing, only to embrace it.

The author of this abomination is Mike Crapo, a U.S. senator with a suitably scatological name for authorship of a measure that would flush your dollars down the toilet. The craptacular Crapo hails from Idaho, a state without private-sector casinos. 

While gamblers have been up in arms about Crapo’s tax change, the C-suites have been conspicuously silent, undoubtedly welcoming the shift of onus onto their customers. Not only was their complicity bought with a series of major tax cuts, they’re obviously not eager to take up the cudgels on behalf of the average player. Never have, never will.

However, had the forces of industry been behind the tax increase (for that's what it is), they would have lowered the boom on Nevada’s congressional delegation. Not only is it unanimously against Crapo’s provision, both Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto and Rep. Dina Titus have introduced legislation to claw it back. Being major sources of Nevada campaign cash, the industry is in an excellent position to call off the dogs. So far it hasn't, at least as far as circumstantial evidence indicates.

That doesn’t mean the industry isn’t rubbing its hands together with glee. Higher taxes are going to come out of your pockets, not theirs. And they certainly won't take a stance on the issue, since the gambling industry is a favorite Capitol Hill whipping boy. No, they lucked out on this one. The industry will leave it to players and their outnumbered Washington, D.C., allies to duke it out in Congress. 

Titus’ amendment to append her FAIR Bet Act (restoring the previous state of taxation affairs) failed in the House Rules Committee 9-4. The lopsidedness of that vote makes us very pessimistic that anyone in our nation's capital, along with the casino bosses, will do players a solid.

 

No part of this answer may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without the written permission of the publisher.

Have a question that hasn't been answered? Email us with your suggestion.

Missed a Question of the Day?
OR
Have a Question?
Tomorrow's Question
Where did casino shills work in the '70s and '80s and how much did they earn?

Comments

Log In to rate or comment.
  • Randall Ward Oct-18-2025
    advantage players
    my theory is the casinos secretly like the advantage players putting out info that games are beatable, gives the casual player hope with very little effect on revenue. 

  • Hoppy Oct-18-2025
    Impacted by Crapo
    Crapo only drops 90% of his business and still doesn't understand why he's not a floater.

  • Gene Brown Oct-18-2025
    Side Effects 
    In my opinion the Casino Bosses are playing Chess in this instance and the questioner and those who think similarly, are playing “checkers”. Again, in my opinion, you’ve got to know when to hold’em and when to fold’em. This is a time for the players to act and not the Casino Bosses. Instead of the players stepping up to their representatives in DC one on one for whatever reason they see fit regarding this situation and its impact. The side effect, if you decide to step gambling, is a positive outcome. Just maybe 95% of you who “SMOKE” will stay away from casinos for the rest of my lifetime.

  • Lucky Oct-20-2025
    Holdout
    I think, eventually, the fair act, or something like it will be adopted.  It will be a part of another bill, and will become a bargaining chip, just like the CCW reciprocity bill they are supposedly working on. With the government shut down, everything is pushed back.  The 90% max deduct would have been removed before the end of the year in the budget bills, if the shutdown had not happened.  Since the repeal of the 90% max deduct is pretty bipartisan, one side or the other will use it as a tool to get something else, as they want more taxable income (they think that everyone who gambles has money to burn, why not take some of that).  In the end, I feel it will be eliminated, and go back to the 100% losses deductible.  And maybe the W2G threshold will be raised over the supposed $2000 is may go up to next year.