The robot actually hit one. If they’re calling gambling a profession then there shouldn’t be a push or subsidized losses. That’s reserved for maintaining production and yields in necessary industries. This really falls in line with the nationalization of online gambling and it’s pending epidemic.

Das ist ein interessantes mathematisches Paradox, aber wie soll man dann ein fairen Spielverlauf definieren, wenn man die Gewinne und Verluste gleich behandelt?

The only people using this break even system are professional or habitual gamblers. A majority of nonprofessional individuals lose and a much smaller number statistically win. The small population of professional gamblers may need to adjust their strategies and are well equipped for it.

It's not about subsidizing losses, this law actively penalizes gambling. If you lose $100 and win $100, this bill makes it so that your net taxable income is $10, despite you not making any money.

I’m not sure you understood what I was saying. It was curbless before and let you subsidize yourself and now it’s taxing it more with the rise of legal online betting. Your losses for a professional should just be looked at as a government rake. The house does it and this is prize picks timely.

Gambling earnings were already taxed as ordinary income, there was no subsidy. When you do something professionally, you get to deduct your costs from your revenues. Why is gambling different?

To track the proliferation of gambling and prevent the population from claiming they’re gambling professionals in a phone app. The small population of WSOP members could start a class action lawsuit challenging the law just like instagram travel loggers could challenge the 50% travel meal expense.

I'm sorry but "this change in how deductions are handled is good because it will help prevent misreporting (somehow) and also people who are affected should just sue over it" is a legitimately insane take.

Neither was said. Are you worried about people misreporting? Saying it’s an insane take in your opinion means nothing and disregarding reduced itemized deductions exist in other categories is your personal choice. The law will still exist tomorrow.