Gambling Winnings and Income Taxes for 2020. Taxable.
Gambling Winnings and Income Taxes for 2020. Taxable.
Gambling Winnings Federal Tax Rate - slotsforfree.info
US Gambling Taxes Guide 2020- Know what tax is applicable ...
Gambling Winnings Tax (How Much You Will Pay For Winning ...
Tennessee Gambling Taxes - Paying Tax On Gambling Winnings
Lottery Tax Calculator - How Lottery Winnings Are Taxed ...
What Is The Federal Tax Rate On Gambling Winnings? - Photo ...
What to Know About Gambling Income and Federal Taxes
Gambling Winnings & Taxes in US 2021 » Do I have to pay Taxes?
How Much State & Federal Tax Is Withheld on Casino Winnings?
federal income tax rate gambling winnings
federal income tax rate gambling winnings - win
Do You Have to Pay Taxes on Slot Machine Winnings?
We all love to read stories about big wins and imagine ourselves in the shoes of those winners. But, have you ever thought about what happens at that very moment after successfully beating the slot machine? Usually, the slot machine locks up and, in most cases, you hear the music and see the flashing lights on top of the machine. But one of the first questions every player asks is whether they have to pay taxes on casino winnings? Well, you’re about to find out!
Taxes on Slot Machine Winnings in USA
In the USA, when a lucky player hits a jackpot, there’s the option of receiving the winnings in cash or check. In case it’s a large sum, it’s usually paid by check. However, the IRS only obliges the casinos to report winnings that are larger than $1,200. Of course, all winners are obliged to show a proper identification— a valid ID or passport. When the casino checks for your identification they also look at your age to make sure you are officially and legally old enough to play. As the minimum legal age for gambling varies from state to state, be sure to check it out before you decide to play.
Do I Have to Report All Winnings?
All gambling winnings received from slot machines are subject to federal taxes, and both cash and non-cash winnings (like a car or a vacation) are fully taxable. Apart from slot machines, the same applies to winnings from lottery, bingo, keno, poker or other games of chance. So, if the amount won on a slot machine is higher than $1200, the casino is required to report it. In other words, all your gambling winnings have to be reported on your tax return as "other income" on Schedule 1 (Form 1040), line 8.
Slot Machine Winnings in W-2G Form
In case it happens to you and you snag that big win (which we hope one day you will), it’s useful to know that casino or other payer must give you a W-2G Form, listing your name, address and Social Security number. So, if the winnings are reported through a W-2G Form, federal taxes will be withheld at a rate of 25%. If, however, you didn’t provide your Social Security number (or your Tax Identification Number), in that case the withholding will be 28%. Either way, a copy of your Form W-2G should be issued, showing the amount you won alongside the amount of tax withheld. One copy needs to go to the IRS, as well. Aside from slot winnings, Form W-2G is issued to winners of the following types of gambling activities like:
bingo (for players who win $1,200 or more),
keno (for at least $1,500 worth wins)
poker tournament players (for the $5,000 win or more).
a horse track (if the winnings are 300x your bet)
However, not all gambling winnings are subject to IRS Form W2-G. For instance, W2-G forms are not required for winnings from table games like blackjack, baccarat, and roulette, whatever the amount. You’d still have to report your winnings to the IRS, it’s just you won’t need to do it through W-2G Form.
Are My Slot Losses Deductible?
The good news is that you can deduct your slot losses (line 28 of Schedule A, Form 1040), while the bad news is gambling losses are deductible only up to the amount of your wins. In other words, you can use your losses to compensate for your winnings. So, let’s say you won $200 on one bet, but you lost $400 on one or a few others, you can only deduct the first $200 of losses. Meaning if you didn’t win anything for a year, you won’t be able to deduct any of your gambling losses. In order to prove your losses, you need to keep good records and have suitable documents. So, whenever you lose, keep those losing tickets, cancelled checks and credit slips. Your documentation must include the amount you won or lost, a date and time, type of wager, type of your gambling activity, name of each casino/address of each casino you visited and the location of their gambling business. You may as well list the people who were with you.
Do State and Local Taxes Apply Separately?
Yes, you are required to pay your state or local taxes on your gambling winnings. In case you travel to another state, and snag some huge winning combo there, that other state would want to tax your winnings too. But don’t worry, you won't be taxed twice, as the state where you reside needs to give you a tax credit for the taxes you pay to that other state. Keep in mind though that some states like Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Ohio don't allow gambling losses.
Online Slot Taxes
Whether you usually spin the reels of your favourite casino games in land-based casinos in the US, overseas casinos, or online casinos, all income for the citizens of the US is taxable. As a US citizen, you are required to send Form W2G for all winnings from a slot machine (not reduced by the wager) that equals to or is more than $1,200.
Taxes on Slot Machine Winnings in UK
As a resident of the United Kingdom, your gambling winnings won’t be taxed. Unlike the USA mentioned above, you’ll be allowed to keep whatever it is that you have won and earned in Britain, even in case you are a poker pro. Then again, you won’t be able to deduct any losses you might collect. It doesn’t really matter if you win £5 or £5 million playing online slots, your winnings will be tax-free as long as you reside anywhere in the UK, be that in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland.
Taxes on Slot Machine Winnings in Canada
If you are a recreational player who lives in Canada, we have good news for you. When it comes to gambling, you don't have to pay taxes as your winnings are totally tax free. According to laws in Canada, gambling activities don’t fall under the category of constant source of income, therefore your winnings will not be taxed. Canadians don't even pay taxes on their lottery winnings. The only exception here are professional gamblers who make a living from betting and are, therefore, obliged to pay taxes. Keep in mind though, this is the current situation - laws in Canada change frequently, which may also include tax laws.
Taxes on Slot Machine Winnings in Australia
In case you reside in Australia and like to visit casinos from time to time, you’ll be happy to find out that your winnings in Australia will not taxed and here are 3 core reasons for that:
Gambling is not treated a profession (it's treated as a hobby)
The government doesn’t see profits from gambling activities as income, but as a result of good luck
The Australian government taxes casino operators and lottery organisers instead.
Of course, taxation varies from state to state.
Taxes on Slot Machine Winnings in New Zealand
Unlike in Australia, where even professional players can claim they are recreational, in New Zealand slot machine winnings (and any other winnings from casino games) are considered taxable income, in case the player has little income from other resources. But, apart from professional gambling, it is very unusual for winnings to be taxed in New Zealand. Most often, gambling is considered recreational and not income, so players can enjoy their gameplay as they do not have to pay taxes on their winnings.
Ronald Reagan is the 73-year-old Republican candidate and the current President. His running mate is current Vice President George Bush.
Walter Mondale is the 56-year-old Democratic candidate and the previous Vice President. His running mate is US Representative from New York Geraldine Ferraro.
Issues and Background
Within a year of taking office, President Reagan signed comprehensive tax reform legislation that exemplified his economic philosophy. The top marginal income rate was cut from 70% to 50%, and the rate on the lowest taxable bracket was reduced from 14% to 11%. The capital gains tax was reduced from 28% of 20%. Legislation in 1982, prompted by increases in the deficit, prevented the full tax cut aspirations of the 1981 legislation from going into effect. Reagan and his supporters credit his economic policies with the strong economic recovery since the beginning of 1983.
The last couple years have seen very large federal budget deficits, with the 1983 peak at a level unseen since immediately following World War II, even relative to GDP. Mondale has chosen to make this arguably his biggest domestic campaign issue. Mondale has argued that the "question of the deficit and getting interest rates down is the most important domestic problem of our time - nothing else compares with it." He has spoken in stark terms about the alleged stakes, saying:
The President's point that growth will cure the deficit is obviously not the case. The deficit will get worse even with growth. Thus it is a very severe problem that threatens our future, saddles our kids with a with a trillion dollars worth of debt, is making us into a debtor nation, is destroying our position in international commerce, driving up interest rates, and is making the budget increasingly unmanageable.
Further, Mondale has gone further in his gambit on making the deficit an election issue by pledging to raise taxes. In his nomination acceptance speech, Mondale said:
Whoever is inaugurated in January, the American people will have to pay Mr. Reagan's bills. The budget will be squeezed. Taxes will go up. And anyone who says they won't is not telling the truth to the American people. I mean business. By the end of my first term, I will reduce the Reagan budget deficit by two-thirds. Let's tell the truth. That must be done - it must be done. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did.
Specifically, the Mondale deficit reduction plan calls for $85 billion in new tax revenues and $105 billion in cuts in projected spending. The entirety of the new tax revenue is to be earmarked for a special fund to reduce the deficit. Any further new spending will be "pay as you go," requiring new revenue to cover the spending. The planned spending cuts are mostly decreases in the planned growth of spending, including for the military and Medicare, rather than outright cuts.
According to Mondale campaign advisers, a typical family of four with a gross annual income of $25,000 (OOC: ~$62,000 in 2020 dollars, same format for further parentheticals) will not see their taxes go up. However, by 1989, families making $25,000 to $35,000 (~$62,000 to $86,000) will see a tax increase of about $95 (~$200) families making up to $45,000 (~$111,000) will pay roughly $200 (~$500) more and families making $100,000 (~$250,000) will pay about $2,600 (~$6,400) more.
Republicans have of course criticized the Mondale plan sharply. Vice President Bush called it a "program for failure" that would stall the recovery. Reagan insists that deficit reduction must come through economic growth and reductions in wasteful government spending. Reagan describes a tax increase as a "last resort."
Religion and issues of morality have come up several times during this campaign. President Reagan favors a Constitutional amendment that would permit organized prayers in public schools that students can opt-out of. Mondale opposes the amendment. President Reagan also supports a Constitutional amendment banning abortions except when the life of the mother is at risk. Mondale is personally opposed to abortion but believes it should be a woman's individual choice. Mondale's running mate Geraldine Ferraro has received pushback for her statement that, "the President goes around calling himself a good Christian; I don't for a minute believe it," criticizing Reagan's policies as "unfair" and "discriminatory."
In fall 1983, following an internal power struggle in the country and pleas from other Caribbean nations, the United States invaded Grenada alongside several Caribbean nations. The invasion was successful, resulting in the establishment of a new interim government. Elections are intended to take place in the coming months. The Reagan Administration justified the intervention on the basis of protecting US medical students on the island. The UN General Assembly voted 108 to 9 to call the intervention a "flagrant violation of international law." Mondale raised questions about the invasion early on, but in the past couple months has spoken favorably of it.
The United States along with three European nations introduced a peacekeeping force into Lebanon in 1982, in the broader context of the Lebanese Civil War. US diplomatic and military forces have been the victim of a number of suicide bombings, in particular the 1983 bombings of Beirut barracks, killing 241 US military personnel. Mondale has been sharply critical of Reagan with respect to these bombings, arguing that there was plenty of warning to prevent them. Mondale has further argued that overall US policy in Lebanon has been marked by "unbelievable disorganization." In January, Mondale called for the withdrawal of US marines from Lebanon. Reagan argues that the US presence in Lebanon helped facilitate the withdrawal of Palestinian guerrilla fighters.
At no point in his first term thus far has President Reagan met with his Soviet counterpart, Konstantin Chernenko. Mondale has frequently criticized Reagan for this, and has promised he would hold annual summit meetings with Soviet leaders. Reagan has said that he would like a summit, but needs to feel sure it will produce results before it happens. More broadly, Reagan has described the necessary policy towards the Soviet Union as one of "credible deterrence and peaceful competition," though he has also not held back in his criticism of the Soviet Union, calling it just last year an "evil empire."
In 1979, the Sandinista National Liberation Front in Nicaragua overthrew the Somoza dictatorship and established a new government. Since then, counterrevolutionary forces including former pro-Somoza forces as well as disillusioned former Sandinistas, have engaged in armed conflict against the Sandinista government. Reagan cancelled economic aid to Nicaragua upon taking office, but has since said that there have been attempts to get along with the new government. However, Reagan has been sharply critical of Nicaragua's accused military buildup and "meddling" in El Salvador.
Mondale has criticized Reagan's "failed policies" in Central America and has promised that if elected, he would end all US military exercises in Central America, withdraw combat forces from Honduras, and "end the covert activities directed toward Nicaragua."
A CIA booklet became public this October which has raised questions about the nature of US covert activities in Nicaragua. As reported by the New York Times:
A Central Intelligence Agency document that became public this week tells Nicaraguan rebels how to win popular support and gives advice on political assassination, blackmail and mob violence. The 44-page booklet, titled ''Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare,'' is a primer on insurgency. Most activity of this sort in Nicaragua has been paid for by the United States through the C.I.A. The primer explains how to kidnap and kill officials, blow up public buildings and blackmail ordinary citizens.
Ferraro and her husband have come under intense media scrutiny over their financial history, with accusations ranging from tax avoidance to connections to organized crime, pornography, and gambling. In response, the couple has relented in releasing several years of tax returns, and Ferraro has allowed the media hours of her time to ask questions related to her and her husband's finances. Most accusations against them have proven to be exaggerated, though there are still lingering questions regarding certain accounting errors that were made. For more technical details, see coverage by the New York Times or Washington Post.
Particularly following what some considered to be a sub-par first debate performance, some Democrats are openly raising the question of whether Reagan, 73, is too old to continue serving as President. Asked at a White House event whether age should be considered a legitimate issue, Reagan said jokingly of Mondale, "I'll challenge him to an arm-wrestle any time." Reagan's more vigorous second debate performance has led to a diminishing of the age discussion.
In June 1981, the Associated Press and Los Angeles Times reported on a rare lung infection in 5 young previously healthy gay men in Los Angeles. Since then, over 6,000 cases of "acquired immune deficiency syndrome" (AIDS) have been reported to public health officials. In April of this year, the cause of the disease was discovered, a retrovirus known as HTLV-III. According to the CDC, "most cases have been reported among homosexual men with multiple sexual partners, abusers of intravenous drugs, and Haitians, especially those who have entered the country within the past few years." The case fatality rate is extremely high. Scientists say the virus is mainly spread through sexual contact. There were two major developments just recently in October. First, the New York Times reported that saliva may be a possible source of transmission, though it remains unlikely that it is a "key mode of spread." Second, under pressure from Mayor Dianne Feinstein, San Francisco public health officials ordered a number of bathhouses and sex clubs geared towards homosexual men closed. Officials at the Department of Health and Human Services argue that this disease has become a top research priority for them, and that they expect to spend many millions of dollars on research grants and other efforts. However, some groups like the National Gay Task Force have criticized the government sharply and say that not nearly enough is being done. Many criticisms of the government and other institutions and groups of people are covered in the essay from last year famous in the gay community, "1,112 and Counting" by Larry Kramer, published in the New York Native. Neither Reagan nor Mondale have spoken of this disease on the campaign trail. OOC Note: There is no indication that AIDS was an issue in the presidential election. Even gay newspapers from this time did not relate the crisis much if at all to the presidential election. To the extent that government policy was discussed, it was often local policy. Why mention it then? Well, it's a similar situation to Japanese internment and the 1944 election. I know some of you will bring this up no matter what, understandably, and so I'd like to at the very least calibrate the discussion to the year of the election with proper context and background.
Platforms (Important note if this is influencing your vote: These are just excerpts, not everything is included and inclusion of a point in one set of excerpts does NOT mean the other party took the opposing stance or didn't mention it; also, especially in the modern era, a Presidential candidate may disagree with the party platform) Read the full 1984 Republican platform here. 10 Excerpts:
"We reaffirm our conviction that State and local governments closest to the people are the best and most efficient"
"The Republican Party pledges to continue our efforts to lower tax rates, change and modernize the tax system, and eliminate the incentive-destroying effects of graduated tax rates ... We therefore support tax reform that will lead to a fair and simple tax system and believe a modified flat tax—with specific exemptions for such items as mortgage interest—is a most promising approach"
"The President is denied proper control over the federal budget ... To remedy this, we support enhanced authority to prevent wasteful spending, including a line-item veto"
"We need coordination between fiscal and monetary policy, timely information about Fed decisions, and an end to the uncertainties people face in obtaining money and credit ... The Gold Standard may be a useful mechanism for realizing the Federal Reserve's determination to adopt monetary policies needed to sustain price stability"
"The greatest danger today to our international trade is a growing protectionist sentiment"
"The Republican Party has deep concern about gratuitous sex and violence in the entertainment media, both of which contribute to the problem of crime against children and women"
"We Republicans emphasize that there is a profound moral difference between the actions and ideals of Marxist-Leninist regimes and those of democratic governments, and we reject the notions of guilt and apology which animate so much of the foreign policy of the Democratic Party"
"Stable and peaceful relations with the Soviet Union are possible and desirable, but they depend upon the credibility of American strength and determination"
"We ... reaffirm our support for a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children"
"We affirm our country's absolute fight to control its borders ... Those desiring to enter must comply with our immigration laws ... Failure to do so not only is an offense to the American people but is fundamentally unjust to those in foreign lands patiently waiting for legal entry ... We will preserve the principle of family reunification"
"Instead of runaway deficits, a Democratic Administration will pursue overall economic policies that sharply reduce deficits, down interest rates, free savings for private investment, prevent another explosion of inflation and put the dollar on a competitive footing"
"We will pursue international negotiations to open markets and eliminate trade restrictions, recognizing that the growth and stability of the Third World depends on its ability to sell its products in international markets"
"The Environmental Protection Agency should receive a budget that exceeds in real dollars the agency's purchasing power when President Reagan took office, since the agency's workload has almost doubled in recent years"
"After four years in which the roll of dishonor in the Administration has grown weekly and monthly—from Richard Allen to Rita Lavelle, from Thomas Reed to James Watt—it is time for an end to the embarrassment of Republican cronyism and malfeasance"
"Violent acts of bigotry, hatred and extremism aimed at women, racial, ethnic and religious minorities, and gay men and lesbians have become an alarmingly common phenomenon ... A Democratic Administration will work vigorously to address, document, and end all such violence"
"In the year made famous by George Orwell, we can see the realization of many of his grimmest prophecies in the totalitarian Soviet state, which has amassed an arsenal of weapons far beyond its defensive needs"
"Sadly, Mr. Reagan has opted for the all too frequent American response to the unrest that has characterized Central America-military assistance ... Over the past 100 years, Panama. Nicaragua, and Honduras have all been occupied by U.S. forces in an effort to suppress indigenous revolutionary movements"
"A Democratic President will pursue a foreign policy that advances basic civil and political rights—freedom of speech, association, thought and religion, the right to leave, freedom of the integrity of the person, and the prohibition of torture, arbitrary detention and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment—and that seeks as well to attain basic, economic, social, and cultural rights"
"We support tough restraints on the manufacture, transportation, and sale of snub-nosed handguns, which have no legitimate sporting use and are used in a high proportion of violent crimes"
"...the Reagan Administration has acted as if deficits do not count ... The deficits are huge and are expected to get larger—and they are a major negative factor in everything from high interest rates to the third world debt crisis"
It's full of curse words to make it more palatable. Google Doc Here President Endorsement: Joe Biden As a nation, we cannot continue to plummet into a fascist regime. The most change happens locally, and so please pay attention to the less sexy details. US Senate Louisiana Endorsement: Adrian Perkins Close your eyes and imagine a world where Mitch McConnell is not our majority leader. Feels good, right? Well, it is gonna be an uphill battle that starts with Adrian Perkins. To win this election over incumbent, Bill Cassidy, would be a multifaceted victory. Cassidy vehemently opposes climate change, medicare for all, abortion access, mail in ballots and continuing unemployment stimulus amidst Covid-19. Perkins has the exact opposite platforms. Perhaps, most importantly, he wants to overturn Citizens United. Holy shit. Now a girl can really dream. And finally, fun fact- if Perkins wins, he would be the first black senator to represent Louisiana since 1887. US House Louisiana District 2 Endorsement: Colby James Oh, what a gerrymandering mess the second congressional district is. The Republicans that drew out this district really wanted to pack all the minorities together essentially guaranteeing there is only one Democratic seat up for grabs in the House of Representatives. Since all this gerrymandering has pretty much ensured the incumbent and Democratic darling Cedric Richmond the election, I feel comfortable indulging the third party voter locked deep in my heart for this election -not a game I’m willing to play with the rest of the ballot. We all know that Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same bird that only serve the interest of the rich. That is why Colby James has caught my eye. James understands that you cannot truly fight corruption in government. He instead has a plan to work around the corruption to actually serve the people. The plan includes implementing new social aid programs, changing the federal tax code, and instituting a racial wealth divide audit. There I go dreaming again. Associate Justice Supreme Court 7th District Endorsement: Sandra Cabrina Jenkins Whoever wins this election will be the only black female to sit at the Supreme Court bench amongst the six white men. While there are three very capable candidates to fill the seat of the esteemed Chief Justice Johnson, Sandra Cabrina Jenkins is my favorite option. Piper Griffin seemed to rely too much on stock answers in the debate and seldom actually had details or formulated a well-rounded plan. Terri Love is a very compelling candidate, especially as she talks about holding transparency in the courtroom. Love understands the importance of community education and engagement. She wants to utilize social media to inform the public about judicial issues. This community outreach plan even involves “School House Rock like videos” to explain the issues in more palatable ways. Although I would love to see more dancing legal bills, it was not enough to stray my attention from Jenkins. Jenkins speaks in depth about the need to collaborate with legislation in order to obtain the real changes we seek in the justice system. This is particularly important for getting more funding allocated to the courts so that the financial burden of fines and fees can be taken off defendants. Furthermore, Jenkins wants to be present during legislature hearings in order to educate the policy makers on the issues within the judiciary branch. This is how we see real progressive reform.Ultimately I believe Jenkins is the best candidate to fill this seat because Griffin and Love talked of compromise with the other conservative judges, while Jenkins promised to always maintain her position and write powerful dissents that could eventually pave out the future we all deserve. I want a Justice with the balls to stand up to six white men. Orleans Parish District Attorney Endorsement: Jason Williams New Orleans has the highest incarceration and false conviction rate in the world. This alarming statistic is the fault of the District Attorney. Fuck crooked Leo Cannizzaro. We deserve better. One of the most important names on this ballot is Jason Williams. Something that reiterates throughout the debates is that he will not try a case that does not deserve to be on the desk of the prosecution. He says, ”just because we can win the case doesn’t mean we should try the case.” This means dropping menial cases that relate to mental health issues, drug addiction, nonviolent offenders, and unjust arrests through practices like stop and frisk.Williams goes on to denounce unjust arrests like incarcerating people for material witness – a practice of Leo’s that has been exclusively used against minorities. Furthermore, he is the only candidate who does not want to ever try juveniles as adults. He is also the only candidate to consistently condemn the death penalty. Arthur Hunter is not prepared. Keva Landrum is a vote for the status quo. Jason Williams is the candidate New Orleans deserves. Judge Civil District Court Division E Endorsement: Omar Mason Omar Mason is the incumbent and the chair of a committee that oversees the Covid procedures in the civil court. He has been endorsed by Forum for Equality, Voters Organized to Educate, Independent Women’s Organization, and Alliance for Good Government. Diane Alexander’s campaign website offers no compelling information that renders her more deserving of the job. Judge Civil District Court Division F Endorsement: Chris Bruno It ain’t often that an election for civil court gets juicy, but here we are. These two candidates found themselves in court over a heated fight regarding an attack ad. In this ad Jennifer Medley accused incumbent Chris Bruno of being a “deadbeat dad". Their day in court divulged into Bruno’s messy divorce, but did not produce enough evidence for Medley to be allowed to air the ad. But here is where things get good. Bruno’s defense was that Medley was carrying out revenge for fuckface Sidney Torres. Torres lost a case in Bruno’s courtroom last year, and has since been endorsing Medley. Torres called the ad “clear as day.” Anyone endorsed by a man who wants to put our entire city up for sale is not someone I want to vote for. Judge Civil District Court Division G Endorsement: Schalyece Harrison A neighbor of mine worked in close proximity with Schalyece Harrison at City Hall and fucking loved her. She describes Harrison as always prepared, respectful and competent. Not things you see often in City Hall. As the Administrative Hearing Officer, Harrison currently oversees safety and permits, short term rental violations, historic districts, and code enforcement. Think of all this as bootcamp. If she can stay prepared, respectful and competent with all this one her plate, Harrison can definitely run a courtroom. Judge Civil District Court Division I Endorsement: Elroy James Man, it is tempting to vote for Lori Jupiter solely because she was a research attorney for Chief Justice Johnson and so you know she has a sharp legal mind, but I would rather vote for a judge that emphasizes compassion. Jupiter has no promise on her campaign page to advocate for the disenfranchised. What she does have is an endorsement from the Sheriff and City Council, and so it is pretty clear that her candidacy is more of the same old status quo. Elroy Judge wants to “restore your faith in justice.” His campaign is centered around compassion and respect which is certainly something our courtrooms need more of. Judge Civil District Court Domestic Section 1 Endorsement: Bernadette D’Souza Bernadette D’Souza is the president of the National Association of Women Judge. She presented on “Integrated Domestic Violence Courts” at the United Nations Convention. For fucksake, she was invited by Pope Francis to speak on “Equal Access to Justice: The Importance of Civil Legal Aid and Delivery of Justice to Eradicate Poverty” at the First Pan American Judges Summit. Her opponent LaKeisha Jefferson might be good, but not that good. Judge Criminal District Court Section A Endorsement: Laurie White Dennis Moore is campaigning on “streamlining” and “modernizing” the courtroom. That was not enough to convince me that he is more qualified than the incumbent, Laurie White. White is a progressive judge who applies reasonable bonds, mental health care, and drug rehabilitation over just incarceration. In fact, she is in the midst of a three year, million dollar grant dedicated to drug treatment. While Moore might like to present himself as a more progressive candidate, there are obvious limitations to his plans. For instance, when asked about how he would uphold transparency of prosecutor case files, Moore said that he would allow the defense access to the prosecution's office. But what public defender has time to go to the prosecution's office? White puts the burden on prosecution to deliver this information. Moreover, White is much more realistic about repealing conviction fees. Moore wants to abolish these fees with no alternative plan on how to maintain the courts. White, while not opposing these fees, knows that the state legislature needs to allocate more money to the courts in order to alleviate this directly from the defendants who are often financially struggling. Essentially Moore is making false promises. Still, perhaps my favorite thing about White is that she has been a constant critic of crooked Leo Cannizzaro. Because, once again, fuck that guy. Judge Criminal District Court Section D Endorsement: Graham Bosworth Since there was no debate for this seat, I am following the endorsement by Nola Defenders for Equal Justice. “Graham has been an advocate for a fair judiciary throughout his career, as a public defender, and a Pro Tem judge in criminal district court. Graham has the legal training to make a knowledgeable judge. He serves as a Chair of the LA Bar’s criminal Justice Committee, and previously served as the Co-Chair of the Subcommittee on Incarceration Reduction. Graham understands how it feels to appear in front of a judge. He vows to treat everyone in his courtroom with respect.” Judge Criminal District Court Section E Endorsement: Derwyn Bunton Rhonda Goode-Douglas declined to partake in the debate, which gave me a full hour to listen to the soothing voice of Derwyn Bunton. The timbre of his voice aside, Bunton is an amazing candidate for judge. He refuses to accept the common mentality of a judge dismissing injustices in the courtroom as not their responsibility. New Orleans is both the incarceration and false conviction capital of the world. Bunton promises to withhold his signature from material witness arrests, fake subpoenas, illegal warrants, and hold prosecutors withholding evidence in contempt of court. These are all necessary measures to balance the scale currently tipped in the favor of prosecution to achieve true justice. Bunton has also promised to give five dollar bonds in nonviolent cases where the law mandates a bond. That’s freedom for the price of a footlong. So why did Goode-Douglas opt to skip this debate? Well there were still questions asked that were clearly meant for her. I guess she has a history of imposing conviction fees to punish those represented by a public defender. Judge Criminal District Court Section G Endorsement: Nandi Campbell Nandi Campbell is a career-long criminal defense lawyer. She understands the racial and financial injustices that are prevalent in the courtroom. While some of her plans for reform might seem overly idealistic, I would much rather see her win this seat than her opponent Lionel Burns. Burns has some very dangerous preconceived notions about equity in the courtroom. Most upsettingly, he is of the opinion that defendants requesting public defenders are “taking advantage of the system.” Burns insists that fifty dollars is too nominal of a fee for this service. By ”service” does he mean constitutional right to legal counsel? Burns goes on to say that defendants always have money for bail, and then go on to request a public defender as if it were a hand-out. So this dude is saying that if someone falls into the predatory system of bail bonds for sake of their freedom, they should have the money for private defense. That’s some bullshit. Finally, Burn’s demeanor in the debate is unprofessional. He takes little jabs at Campbell and shakes his head while she speaks. This is not how I want a judge to behave. Please vote for an idealist over an asshole. Judge Criminal District Court Section K Endorsement: Charles “Gary” Wainwright Yes, Wainwright's mustache might be unnerving, but he is the best candidate for this election. In his thirty years of experience in New Orleans courtrooms, he prides himself in being consistently liberal and tuned in to the intricacies of the system and its racial injustices. His plan to expedite the docket bogged down by Covid is to take all drug cases and “throw ‘em in the garbage.” In the middle of the debate, he holds up a handwritten sign that reads, “NO MORE DRUG WAR.” Meanwhile, the other candidates only provide vague information on plans, stock answers, and very much reflects the status quo of the system. It certainly also helps that Wainwright slams our crooked Leo Cannizzaro, and calls Trump “Criminal in Chief.” He sure is quotable. Judge Criminal District Court Section L Endorsement: Angel Harris Since there was no debate for this seat, I am following the endorsement by Nola Defenders for Equal Justice. “As a public defender and a civil rights lawyer, Angel has watched those in power disregard people simply because they were given the label ‘criminal.’ As judge, Angel will give every person the opportunity to stand before a judge who is impartial and fair. Angel will work to stop criminalizing poverty through the use of money bail and exorbitant fines and fees. Angel will expand the use of alternatives to incarceration, promoting a system rooted in rehabilitation, not mass incarceration.” Magistrate Section Criminal District Court Endorsement: Steve Singer Since there was no debate for this seat, I am following the endorsement by Nola Defenders for Equal Justice. “As a public defender and law professor, Steve has dedicated his career to the principle that money should not determine someone’s freedom. As judge, Steve will work to transform the Magistrate court from a system that processes people into incarceration to a court that works to serve our community. Steve will end money bail and incarceration first policies that criminalize poverty.” Judge Juvenile Court Section A Endorsement: Clint Smith Clint Smith is campaigning on putting the child first. He speaks on “engaging the family as a whole, as well as professionals and community-focused organizations, to collaborate across systems and support our youth before, during and after sentencing occurs.” This is a hell of a lot more than any of the other candidates. Kevin Guillory and Geraldine Baloney do not even have campaign pages. When you look-up Marie Williams all you get is a controversy in which the former Judge of this court, Frank Marullo, and her got caught up in a bribe. So if campaign style is any indicator of the work ethic that these candidates will invest in this job, the only suitable candidate is Clint Smith. Judge Juvenile Court Section F Endorsement: Tenee Felix Since there was no debate for this seat, I am following the endorsement by Nola Defenders for Equal Justice.”Tenne Felix is a brilliant, caring, competent professional. She thoroughly researches and litigates her cases and works tirelessly for her clients. Tenne is always prepared and organized for court. She forms strong relationships with the children she represents as well as with their families… she truly understands childhood development needs and obstacles.” Judge Municipal and Traffic Court Section A Endorsement: Meghan Garvey Incumbent Paul Sens does not deserve to even be a judge of a fucking dancing competition. The Inspector General has accused Sens of nepotism and is quoted, "I've never heard of a case where so many relatives of the leader of the organization were working at the organization." Sens shares a close relationship with Sheriff Marlin Gusman whose career goal was to expand the prison system. I have watched his demeanor in court which is aloof, at best. Sens seldom addresses the defendants and never asks for qualifying information from the prosecution or defense. Yet, he still manages to have a huge backlog on his docket. Meghan Garvey deserves the seat at that bench. Garvey wants to implement staggered subpoena times, hold remote courts in less accessible neighborhoods and develop childcare programs for parents attending court. These are three community focused ways in which she can begin to clean the mess of a backlog that Sens has created. Judge Municipal and Traffic Court Endorsement: Charlene Larche-Mason Since there is absolutely no campaign information available about Alexandre Bonin available online, by default my endorsement goes to Charlene Larche-Mason. It is kinda ironic because Larche-Mason is responsible for digitizing the city attorney’s office. She wants to apply similar technological innovations in this courtroom. With the looming threat of Covid, hurricanes, and government cyber-attacks (remember those?), it is imperative to have virtual courts done right. Member of School Board District 7 As a disclaimer, I only researched the school board election for my district. Endorsement: Jamar Wilson Nolan Marshall has had his seat on the board for eight years. Let’s knock out the incumbent with someone willing to do the work to actually create positive changes in schools. Jamar Wilson is that candidate. He openly supports that police officers in schools be replaced with social workers. He also wants to include parental and student voices on the accountability framework. I believe this promise, because his campaign has been significantly more engaging than the other two candidates. Amendment 1: No Right to Abortion Endorsement: No It fucking kills me to see the feminist legacy of the late Justice Ginsburg being thwarted by the nomination of Amy Coney Barret. This bill would essentially be undoing Ginsburg’s lifetime of work as a one-two punch. Denying women access to abortion is denying women equal rights and opportunity. Abortion is healthcare. With the federal threat of overturning Roe v. Wade under Barret, I urge you to protect women in Louisiana and vote no. Amendment 2: Include Oil and Gas in Tax Assessment Endorsement: Yes The idea behind this bill would be to allow tax assessors the ability to quantify the worth of a well, based on the production of oil and not the cost of building a replacement. Essentially, it is a more accurate way to assess property value. This bill has unanimously passed through our state House of Representatives and Senate without public criticism. Is it too optimistic to think this might elicit higher taxes on this billion dollar industry? Oil money, oil, money, oil money. Amendment 3: Use of Budget Stabilization Fund Endorsement: Yes Alright, so this bill would allow the legislature to use up to one third of the state’s “Rainy Day” fund, in the event of a federally declared emergency. It would still require a two-thirds majority vote through the House and the Senate to access this fund. Hurricanes are an obvious financial concern. Should this bill be denied, the State would have to continue to find the money needed for reconstruction somewhere else in the budget. And do you know what always gets cut first? Fucking education, social programs, and healthcare. Just let our politicians take the damn money from the “Rainy Day” fund instead. Amendment 4: Expenditures Limit Growth Endorsement: No Tax and expenditure limits are self-imposed restrictions that state governments create to restrict the amount they can tax or spend. Sounds sexy, right? Long term studies of states with expenditure tax laws in place do not actually have a positive impact on growth because of structural deficits and higher borrowing costs. Furthermore, critics of the bill fear that limiting growth will only hurt education and healthcare. Not so sexy now. Amendment 5: Payment in Lieu of Property Taxes Endorsement: No I am having trouble reading about this bill and finding any merit. What the politicians deem an “incentive” for manufacturers to conduct business in Louisiana really just seems like more corporate handouts. I mean, are we really proposing another way for businesses to get out of paying their fair share of taxes? And the cherry on top of this fucking bill is that it is supported by the Louisiana Sherriff’s Association. Amendment 6: Homestead Exemption Special Assessment Income Limit Endorsement: Yes Do you like old people? Do you want old people to be able to retire and not lose their homes? Cool, you’re a human. Special assessments freeze the property value on a home, so that their taxes cannot go up. This bill would expand this benefit to those making less than $100,000 annually. But old people are not the only ones who qualify. So do veterans, surviving spouses of veterans, and the totally disabled. Give these folks stability and peace of mind by voting yes. Amendment 7: Unclaimed Property Personal Trust Fund Endorsement: No Louisiana very well may owe you money. Every year, millions of dollars that you overpaid in taxes, insurance and bills goes to the State Treasurer’s Unclaimed Property Program. The purpose of this program is to find you and return your money. Perhaps, because of technological innovations, this program worked better than ever in 2019 and now the Treasurer is worried they are going to run out of money. But even with the increase in claims, there was still $12 million bucks left in the program. This bill would lock that $12 million in a trust just in case they run out of money instead of being allocated towards education and healthcare as the system currently allows. PW Authorize Sports Wagering Activities Endorsement: Yes We eat crawfish and wear cotton-blended shirts without fearing the wrath of god. Maybe it is okay to gamble on sports too.
The culture of the film industry is toxic and abuses the lowest man on the rung. Please help us better this culture and get fairer working conditions by spreading the word.
(TL:DR: While film/tv has gotten better for treatment of higher ups (#MeToo, etc), its entry level employees are constantly abused by an overdemanding work schedule, low pay, and harsh treatment) This is a longer post that is being made from a throwaway account, as I do not want my identity to be attached for fear of being blacklisted (never hired again) in the industry. I am a working production assistant in the New York City tv/film industry, and have been doing so regularly for over a year now. I, like many of my coworkers and friends in the industry, grew up being mesmerized by film and television, with the hope that I could somehow get into the business, make a living, and potentially achieve my creative dreams. I want to preface that I, and everyone else I know in my position, knows that we are in an ultra-competitive business, and that you need some mixture of luck, talent, and knowing someone to get even a sniff at creating your own content for the general public. That being said, the top powers in the industry know this too, and take advantage of the entry level worker. And they can--because it has the lowest barrier to entry across the film departments, and doesn't have any skill requirements outside of being a competent adult. That being said, it has gotten to the point where their treatment of the entry level worker has become borderline abusive, in the fact that it does not pay an equal rate, simply because there is no union for production assistants, so there is no pressure or need to pay above minimum wage. As a production assistant, our job is something of a punch line. Getting people coffee is, yes, one of our jobs. But to say that alone is our job is ridiculous. A production assistant is a valuable and integral member of the production department, which for clarification, is the department of the Assistant Director, or AD. For those of you unfamiliar, the AD's job is to run the logistics of the set essentially. They are responsible for planning the day, which can range from a single location to many, and a fragment of a scene to a full one. A better description of the AD role can be found here. As part of the AD department, the production assistant is essentially an extension of the AD. Our job is to follow through on their plan and orders, so that production runs smoothly. Nothing, and I mean nothing, burns money faster than a film set, so it is incredibly important that, logistically, no time is wasted. The slightest delay can cost a production millions of dollars, and ironically, the fate of preventing millions of dollars from going down the chute is left in the hands of an employee that is paid $15 an hour, and after eight hours, $22.50. My job has consisted of guiding 300 background extras half a mile to set, bringing your favorite actors from their trailer through a crowded New York area with poor directions to set, keeping track of over 200 walkie talkies, which comes out to over $20k in equipment, telling people getting off the Staten Island Ferry (which, when it lands, is roughly 100 or so) to wait a minute as we try and film a winter scene in the middle of summer, and their outfits will break continuity. It's constant planning, coordinating, and communication, and you're rarely out of the picture. For $15 an hour, with the fate of main cast members, thousands of dollars of equipment, and environmental elements in my hands, that doesn't seem sufficient. Now, in a suburban or rural setting, as a first or maybe even second job, that isn't a bad rate. But while there has been growth in some other areas (Atlanta, New Orleans, New Mexico), most of film happens in New York and LA, which are among the highest cost of living areas in the United States. Under normal circumstances, a normal work schedule of 40 hours a week, it would be impossible to afford New York City rent. But film sets don't work like a normal work schedule. We are a minimum 12 hour day (and it's rarely a minimum day) and often, to combat falling behind, a sixth day Saturday is instilled into the schedule. On average, we work roughly 65 hours a week (we being the whole set). But PA's are the first ones in, and the last one's out. Often, we're looking at 75+ hour weeks. Friday often ends at midnight or later. Your commute home is an hour. You're getting up at 12 on Saturday, and you're in bed by 9 on Sunday because you have to get up at 4:30 to get to work at 6 on Monday. Whatever gig you're working on isn't just a gig--it becomes your life. You know this going in, but that doesn't change the burnout that many PA's experience from long hours, consistent verbal abuse or condescending language on set, and minimum pay. For other departments, while the work schedule is daunting, they are at least being compensated at a rate that makes it "worth it". What do I mean by this? Well, the lowest ranking member of the other departments--camera loader, prop hand, grip, etc--makes roughly double what we make in a day (roughly $400 compared to $210--before taxes). So, if they aren't addicted to sports gambling, they want to take off a few months of work because of burn out, they have money put away to do so. This isn't the case with PA's. Rent is roughly $1000 a month. Groceries $200. Student loans are roughly $400, but most of us went to New York schools or in the tri-state area, so it's generally higher. All and all, bare minimum, you have $2k a month in necessities. When the most you can really possibly make in a month is about twice that, you're left with something around $1000 in savings, which is not even half of your next month's necessities. And when your average work day is 1.6ish times that of a "normal" worker, one month of work is really like 1.6, two is like three, and so forth. To add onto this, there are limited staffing positions. What is a staff PA compared to an additional? A staff PA works on only that project. An additional has more flexibility, and can work on multiple projects at once. But that doesn't mean multiple projects are looking for additional PA's. So consistent income opportunities are not plentiful. So if you're not lucky enough to get tapped for a staff gig consistently (I fortunately do, to a degree) you're scrambling each month to make your bill payments, and building nothing in terms of a future for yourself. This is in addition to awful physical and mental working conditions. While there are some kind souls in the industry, on average, as a PA, you're treated like a mule and are the butt of every joke. It's kind of like the movie Parasite with "the smell"--perhaps higher ups interact with you once in a while, but the power dynamics are clear, and most people are condescending or simply unresponsive to you. It is also an unspoken rule that you are not allowed to sit, as it is a showing of "laziness". So you're constantly standing for 14ish hours a day, outside of lunch and transportation to and from locations, which is terrible obviously for your feet, ankles, knees, spine, and so forth. But you have to do it, otherwise you'll get yelled at, or not asked to come back to work. In addition to that, while other departments get turnaround, which is a minimum amount of hours between when you wrap and when the next call is (it's usually 10), you don't get that. You're usually sticking around for 1.5 hrs afterwards to help wrap out, then you have roughly an hour commute home. So when you get home, it's 7.5 hrs to the next call. But your call is usually 1-1.5 hrs before call, so you have 5 hours to sleep, and then you're back out the door. When rest and free time does come on the weekend, you're aching all over and unable to have a normal life outside of your job. While some people may laugh and poke "oh, poor you for not being able to have a "social" life", I find it ridiculous that I (along with many others) exist solely for the purpose of working, without interests and creative projects of my own. When it really boils down to it, you're working to make connections, and by that I mean, the fat chance that someone in the department you're interested in takes a liking to you, and tries to bring you aboard. For most of us, our income does not increase unless this happens, or we become an AD, which on average, takes three years, as you need 600 days (in NY at least) to apply for the union. But there are 13+ departments on a set, and many people who join film aren't joining to be part of the logistical side. Really, it's about someone wanting to take a chance on you, or someone wanting to have sex with you. As far as someone taking a chance, that will always be given to the lucky sperm club (producer's friends/family, and down the line) before you can use whatever charm, wit, and charisma you have crafted to win someone over. As for the sex, female PA's are pretty consistently sexually harassed by someone. I'd go as far as to say that every female PA I know has a sexual harassment story from a higher up even. So while it's great that #MeToo exposed Harvey Weinstein's abuse towards major actresses, it hasn't done much for entry level workers who are at the mercy of the producer's couch and department heads. There is also, to no shocking avail, discrimination towards people of color still. My roommate is a person of color, and I am white. We began working at the same time. He has yet to receive a staff PA offer, while I have had four. And if I'm speaking objectively, he's much better with people, more positive, and is a better PA than I am. So yet again, while it's cool that on screen representation is better now, not that much has really happened on our end. COVID has really put things into perspective. Many PA's are avoiding going back to work for a number of reasons. While sets have created a new department--the COVID department--and have promised 10 hr days and safety precautions to PA's, it's mostly a sham. A friend of mine's first day back, he worked 15 hours, got home at 9, and had to be at work at 4:30 the next day. The Covid team yells "six feet!" and tells people not to congregate, but if you're any department aside from the AD department, you're ignoring them just like how you ignore PA's. People have died (here's one example two weeks ago). When you have no healthcare, are getting paid s*it money, and are being asked to put your health at risk during a global pandemic whose symptoms and effects we STILL don't understand, $15 is a slap in the face for us to make a producer or studio that already has millions and millions of dollars more money, especially when the federal government could afford to pay us more than our monthly take home. And it's not an economic thing either. Citing the Scriptnotes podcast, episode 463 or 462 (Development Hack), John August and Craig Mazin (whom I love) discuss WME agent assistants getting a pay bump from $15 to $18 an hour. And they laughed at how little that was, because they know how little they're underpaid. Well guess what--we're right there with them! The average movie budget over the last 19 years is $18 million. From 2014-2018, across different genres, the lowest median was in music, which was $7 million. The average production employs five staff PA's and a Key PA (captain of the PA's), and usually 3-5 additionals. Job length affects our pay, but a movie in this budget range is usually a month. Even if you doubled our pay, it would barely, and I'm not even sure if it would, occupy 1% of the budget. That's how little we're paid. Unionizing would be the ideal move, but since it is an entry level position without specialized skill requirements, it will not be easy. Young, fresh out of college kids with one or two connections will fill right in, believing that we're entitled because like we were, they will be enamored with the galore of Hollywood. But give it six months--most of them will be on our side. I don't have my name attached because if my identity is discovered, I will be blacklisted. The point of this post is to generate a buzz that I hope will lead to change in a toxic working environment, whether that be by forming a union or establishing better rates. I will end on this--there is no reason that, in an industry that makes a new millionaire everyday, that we can't afford to provide better working conditions for those of us who are simply trying to pay off our student loans and make a living for ourselves like anyone else.
Richard Nixon is the 47-year-old Republican candidate and the current Vice President. His running mate is US Ambassador to the UN and former US Senator from Massachusetts Henry Cabot Lodge.
John Kennedy is the 43-year-old Democratic candidate and a US Senator from Massachusetts. His running mate is US Senator from Texas Lyndon Johnson.
Issues
The scope and tensions of the "cold war" between the United States and the post-Stalin Soviet Union continue to fluctuate. Both candidates speak in dramatic terms of ideological conflict the world finds itself in, and both candidates argue that they are in a better position to guide the US through this conflict. Kennedy has argued that the United States has fallen behind during the Eisenhower Administration, while Nixon has defended the administration's foreign policy. Neither candidate can be unambiguously framed as "more" or "less" aggressive towards the Soviet Union, as evidenced by three campaign flashpoints on foreign policy:
In May, the Soviet Union shot down a US spy plane. This incident largely appears to have led to the collapse of the Four Power Paris Summit talks. The disagreement between Kennedy and Nixon on this topic is whether an expression of regret or apology by the US may have been appropriate. Kennedy has said:
The U-2 flights were proper from the point of view of protecting our security, but they were not in accordance with international law, and I said that I felt that rather than tell the lie which we told, rather than indicate that the flights would continue ... that it would have been far better that if we had expressed regrets, if that would have saved the summit and if the summit is useful and I believe it is.
Nixon has said:
We cannot afford an intelligence gap and I just want to make my position absolutely clear with regard to getting intelligence information. I don't intend to see to it that the United States is ever in a position where, while we're negotiating with the Soviet Union, that we discontinue our intelligence effort. And I don't intend ever to express regrets to Mr. Khrushchev or anybody else if I'm doing something that has the support of the Congress and that is right for the purpose of protecting the security of the United States.
At the very end of 1958, an armed revolt led by Fidel Castro succeeded in ousting the current Cuban government and replacing it with a socialist state. Kennedy and Nixon have disagreed on the extent to which it would be appropriate to intervene in Cuba. Just within the last month, Kennedy has made a point of sharply criticizing the Eisenhower Administration's policies and "failures" on Cuba, and even went so far as to issue a statement saying:
We must attempt to strengthen the non-Batista democratic anti-Castro forces in exile and in Cuba itself, who offer eventual hope of overthrowing Castro. Thus far these fighters for freedom have had virtually no support from our government.
Nixon sharply criticized this proposal in the final debate, saying:
I think that Senator Kennedy’s policies and recommendations for the handling of the Castro regime are probably the most dangerously irresponsible recommendations that he’s made during the course of this campaign ... We have five treaties with Latin America, including the one setting up the Organization of American States in Bogota in 1948, in which we have agreed not to intervene in the internal affairs of any other American country – and they as well have agreed to do likewise. The charter of the United Nations – its Preamble, Article I and Article II – also provide that there shall be no intervention by one nation in the internal affairs of another. Now I don’t know what Senator Kennedy suggests when he says that we should help those who oppose the Castro regime, both in Cuba and without. But I do know this: that if we were to follow that recommendation, that we would lose all of our friends in Latin America, we would probably be condemned in the United Nations, and we would not accomplish our objective.
A repeated topic in the debates has been the two small islands of Quemoy and Matsu. The islands are currently controlled by Chiang Kai-shek and the Republic of China. The islands are only 8 miles away from mainland China. The policy question for the United States is whether the United States should be prepared to defend the ROC's territorial claims to the island in the event of Communist China attempting to take them by force. Nixon has said (OOC: Formosa = Taiwan):
Now I think as far as Quemoy and Matsu are concerned, that the question is not these two little pieces of real estate, they are unimportant. It isn't the few people who live on them, they are not too important. It's the principle involved. These two islands are in the area of freedom. The Nationalists have these two islands. We should not force our Nationalist allies to get off of them and give them to the Communists. If we do that, we start a chain reaction, because the Communists aren't after Quemoy and Matsu, they're after Formosa.
Kennedy has said:
Well, the United States has on occasion attempted, mostly in the middle '50s to persuade Chiang Kai-shek to pull his troops back to Formosa. I believe strongly in the defense of Formosa. These islands are a few miles, five or six miles off the coast of Red China within a general harbor area, and more than a hundred miles from Formosa. We have never said flatly that we will defend Quemoy and Matsu if it is attacked. We say we will defend it if it's part of a general attack on Formosa, but it is extremely difficult to make that judgment. I think that we should protect our commitments. I believe strongly we should do so in Berlin. I believe strongly we should do so in Formosa and I believe we should meet our commitments to every country whose security we've guaranteed. But I do not believe that that line, in case of a war, should be drawn on those islands, but instead on the island of Formosa.
Both candidates have made a number of statements in support of civil rights and have at times emphasized the issue's importance. Still, arguments and differences have sometimes emerged.
While there is dispute about whether or not Lodge made a "promise," Nixon's running mate nonetheless made headlines when he said that "I will make this prediction ... if Richard Nixon is elected, there will be a qualified negro in the cabinet." It is unclear whether this statement was made with Nixon's approval, and more recently Nixon has stated that the best men must come to the top "regardless" of race, creed, or party background. Still, both Nixon and Lodge have floated the name of Ralph Bunche. Kennedy has responded by saying he will make no such promise, that to do so would be "racism in reverse and at its worst."
Both candidates generally have a pro-civil-rights record. As Vice President, Nixon met and discussed policy and rhetoric with civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., has helped push through civil rights legislation, and he has also headed a committee on government contracts that has attempted to push employers, especially those who do business with the government, to reduce or eliminate discriminatory practices. They have been successful in some cases - a case example would be convincing some refineries to stop having separate promotion lists for white and black employees. Still, critics have pointed out that the committee has not used the full weight of its power - since its creation in 1953, it has never asked a federal agency to cancel a government contract. As Senator, Kennedy has fairly consistently voted in favor of civil rights legislation and pro-civil-rights amendments to legislation.
Just in the last month, civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested after leading a sit-in protest in Atlanta. As has now been reported publicly, Senator Kennedy called Dr. King's wife with sympathy and a desire to help. While the details are unclear, the civil rights leader, now released, is of the understanding that Senator Kennedy may have done some work behind the scenes to help secure his release. Nixon appears to have been largely silent on King's arrest. On the question of an endorsement, King said:
I have been asked from many quarters whether it is my intention to endorse one of the presidential candidates. The organization of which I am president, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, from its inception and in its constitution has been non-partisan. Accordingly, as its titular head, I am unable to endorse a political party or its candidate. But for fear of being considered an ingrate, I want to make it palpably clear that I am deeply grateful to Senator Kennedy for the genuine concern he expressed in my arrest. When reactionary forces sought to crush our movement for desegregation by methods so unjust and unwise that millions were inflamed with indignation, Senator Kennedy exhibited moral courage of a high order. He voluntarily expresses his position effectively and took an active and articulate stand for a just resolution.
Nixon has faced debate questions and an attack ad from the Kennedy campaign related to comments by President Eisenhower in an August press conference. Pressed on what "big decisions" Vice President Nixon had participated in, Eisenhower said:
I don’t see why people can’t understand this: no one can make a decision except me if it is in the national executive area. I have all sorts of advisers, and one of the principal ones is Mr. Nixon.
Pressed further on the question of any major ideas Nixon had suggested that Eisenhower had implemented, Eisenhower delivered the line that has caused Nixon problems on the campaign trail:
If you give me a week, I might think of one. I don’t remember.
As with Al Smith decades ago, Kennedy's Catholic faith has at points been a campaign issue. In an attempt to tackle the issue head-on, Kennedy gave a speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association and said:
For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views -- in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
"The Republican Party asserts that the sovereign purpose of our foreign policy is to secure the free institutions of our nation against every peril, to hearten and fortify the love of freedom everywhere in the world, and to achieve a just peace for all of anxious humanity"
"The Republican Party reaffirms its determination to use every peaceful means to help the captive nations toward their independence, and thus their freedom to live and worship according to conscience"
Support for "broadly-based tax reform to foster job-making and growth-making investment for modernization and expansion, including realistic incentive depreciation schedules" and "spurring the economy by advancing the successful Eisenhower-Nixon program fostering new and small business, by continued active enforcement of the anti-trust laws, by protecting consumers and investors against the hazard and economic waste of fraudulent and criminal practices in the market place, and by keeping the federal government from unjustly competing with private enterprise upon which Americans mainly depend for their livelihood"
"Except in times of war or economic adversity, expenditures should be covered by revenues"
"We must resist assaults upon the independence of the Federal Reserve System; we must strengthen, not weaken, the ability of the Federal Reserve System and the Treasury Department to exercise effective control over money and credit in order better to combat both deflation and inflation that [slow] economic growth and shrink people's savings and earnings"
"We support the right of the Puerto Rican people to achieve statehood, whenever they freely so determine ... We support the right of the people of the Virgin Islands to an elected Governor, national representation and suffrage, looking toward eventual statehood, when qualified"
"Primary responsibility for education must remain with the local community and state ... The federal government should assist selectively in strengthening education without interfering with full local control of schools ... One objective of such federal assistance should be to help equalize educational opportunities
"The Republican Party is proud of the civil rights record of the Eisenhower Administration ... More progress has been made during the past eight years than in the preceding 80 years ... We acted promptly to end discrimination in our nation's capital ... Vigorous executive action was taken to complete swiftly the desegregation of the armed forces, veterans' hospitals, navy yards, and other federal establishments"
Pledge that "The Department of Justice will continue its vigorous support of court orders for school desegregation ... We will propose legislation to authorize the Attorney General to bring actions for school desegregation in the name of the United States in appropriate cases, as when economic coercion or threat of physical harm is used to deter persons from going to court to establish their rights"
"Immigration has been reduced to the point where it does not provide the stimulus to growth that it should, nor are we fulfilling our obligation as a haven for the oppressed ... Republican conscience and Republican policy require that ... The annual number of immigrants we accept be at least doubled"
"We shall continue to adhere to our treaty obligations, including the commitment of the UN Charter to resist aggression ... But we shall also seek to shift the emphasis of our cooperation from military aid to economic development, wherever this is possible"
"A primary task is to develop responsible proposals that will help break the deadlock on arms control ... Such proposals should include means for ending nuclear tests under workable safeguards, cutting back nuclear weapons, reducing conventional forces, preserving outer space for peaceful purposes, preventing surprise attack, and limiting the risk of accidental war"
"In the tradition of Cordell Hull, we shall expand world trade in every responsible way ... Since all Americans share the benefits of this policy, its costs should not be the burden of a few ... We shall support practical measures to case the necessary adjustments of industries and communities which may be unavoidably hurt by increases in imports"
"The national-origins quota system of limiting immigration contradicts the rounding principles of this nation ... It is inconsistent with our belief in the rights of man ... This system was instituted after World War I as a policy of deliberate discrimination by a Republican Administration and Congress"
"We Democrats believe that our economy can and must grow at an average rate of 5% annually, almost twice as fast as our average annual rate since 1953. We pledge ourselves to policies that will achieve this goal without inflation ... As the first step in speeding economic growth, a Democratic president will put an end to the present high-interest, tight-money policy"
"We pledge to raise the minimum wage to $1.25 an hour and to extend coverage to several million workers not now protected"
"We shall take positive action to raise farm income to full parity levels and to preserve family farming as a way of life ... We shall put behind us once and for all the timidity with which our Government has viewed our abundance of food and fiber"
"We believe that America can meet its educational obligations only with generous Federal financial support, within the traditional framework of local control ...The assistance will take the form of Federal grants to states for educational purposes they deem most pressing, including classroom construction and teachers' salaries"
"We believe, moreover, that except in periods of recession or national emergency, these needs can be met with a balanced budget, with no increase in present tax rates, and with some surplus for the gradual reduction of our national debt"
"The time has come to assure equal access for all Americans to all areas of community life, including voting booths, schoolrooms, jobs, housing, and public facilities ... The Democratic Administration which takes office next January will therefore use the full powers provided in the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 to secure for all Americans the right to vote"
Video Clips Debates: "I may actually watch one of the hour-long debates in full, which one should I watch?"
The first debate is only on domestic policy, and over 1/5th of the debate is taken up by lengthy opening and closing statements. Everyone is clearly adjusting to this "debate" thing. On the other hand, this was naturally the debate with the most viewers.
The second debate has no opening/closing statements, and no restrictions on questions.
The third debate has no opening/closing statements, and no restrictions on questions. Nixon and Kennedy spoke from two different studios, but the debate is presented without any lag in responses.
The fourth debate has opening and closing statements, and is limited to foreign policy.
I'm 34, making 73k salaried in my main job, and 18k (so far) this year from a gig job (Shipt). However, I've struggled with gambling addiction for over a decade and have a poor credit score and maxed out credit limits across the board. Despite having a Ch 13 Bankruptcy in my past (discharged 3 years ago), and multiple "fresh starts", I have repeated the same behavior over and over, and I still continue to struggle with gambling. I realize the solution is heavily dependent on stopping my addiction from taking over, and I'm currently working with a therapist to address the issue and understand how to manage my compulsive behavior. Stopping Gambling is the answer... no need to lecture on that. HOWEVER, I am looking for some advice on how to proceed with my current financial mess. I can't really afford an advisor at the moment so I thought I would see if Reddit might have some insight. My main concern is the tribal loan debt I have accrued over the past few months. In order to cover my recent heavy losses, I have resorted to taking out money from the only source that will give it to me - tribal lenders. At this moment I have over $19,344 owed to 7 different tribal lenders. I fully realize how insane that is, and I'm afraid my situation is a bit hopeless. I decided making just min payments on all these loans (which is all I can afford) is pretty futile, so I revoked auto pay authorization last week and for the first time today I missed my payment on all but 2 of the loans (which are due a little later next month). I'm trying to figure out how to move forward. I've called most of the lenders already, but they don't seem to want to cut any deals except for re-arranging payments that just extend the life of the loan and don't address the issue (which is interest rates ranging from 98% to 164%). Granted, some seemed to imply that I might have better luck negotiating with their collections departments once I go past due. I plan on staying on top of this and not severing contact with them (address the issue, don't ignore it). It's hard to find good information online about these types of loans, specifically how people have negotiated with them. Debt management companies do not work with tribal lenders, so I've had no luck finding advice or help from the traditional debt non-profits. I did find some reddit threads about people having success negotiating a lower interest rate and a realistic payment plan, but nothing too detailed. I fully intend to pay back what I borrowed, but I need the interest rates to be humane in order to do so. My fear is they may never agree to a lower interest rate, and the internet seems to suggest they would attempt to sue me, garnish wages, and all sorts of nasty business. Does anyone know what the actual "typical" outcome of not paying a tribal loan is? My hunch is they just sell the debt to a collector, but I have nothing to back that up. Also, NONE of these accounts report normal payments to my credit report... so would they suddenly appear as an account on my credit report once I'm late? I assume if it goes to collections it would appear on my reports, but I am not sure if the tribal lenders will suddenly start reporting *only* the negative information to the credit bureaus once you go past due (before it is sent to collections). And is there any recourse to get those negative marks removed from my credit report since the loans have astronomically illegal interest rates in both the state of Michigan and USA as a whole? There are so many questions involved in this, and I don't know if anyone is going to really have a response for me. But if you have any experience or advice, I'd love to hear it. More info for curious minds: I owe $12,354.29 to credit cards (all of which are maxed out) - Min monthly payment total is $478.99 I owe $19,344.19 to tribal loans - Min monthly payment total is $2,102.17 I owe $8,245.68 to student loans/family member (about $4100 owed to each) - Student loans are currently on covid deferment, and I'm paying $500 a month to the family member. I have $1607.70 in overdrawn checking account balances that will be taken care of within 2 weeks from now. Monthly take-home income from salary is $4,108 - gig income take home average is about $1,200 a month. I also owe $2450 in 2019 federal taxes, which has an extended due date moved back to November. I also owe close to $5000 in estimated taxes for my 2020 gig income earnings that I have *not* paid yet. I also have $11,005 in 2020 in taxable gambling jacking winnings that I did *not* withhold any state or federal taxes on. I will certainly be able to claim losses against 100% of that amount, but my overall tax liability will increase due to these winnings nonetheless. Monthly expenses outside of credit cards/loans: Rent- $500 (I rent a room in a friends house) Cell phone - $75 Pet supplies - $50 Car Insurance - $79 Food - $350 Gas - $80-$100 (I drive for the gig job so it's a little higher than normal) Misc - $100 (no car payment, no internet or utilities (included in rent), no health insurance premium, therapy sessions are covered by health insurance and HSA money) To do the math for you - Monthly required payments/expenses total $4235, against my monthly income of $5000-5300 on average. The surplus has historically gone to gambling as I often find myself with less than $100 in my checking account. I have $0 in savings or emergency funds. $36,000 in 401k (employer does NOT allow loans or early withdrawals on my plan, so that is *not* an option expect for an emergency distribution which requires a qualifying event). My immediate goals are to pay off the negative checking account balances (I'm currently using a separate checking account that is not overdrawn to receive direct deposit and pay bills), and to establish a basic savings. My BF has also agreed to hold on to $500 in emergency funds that I won't have access to, and hopefully I'll have that ready for him within a month or so. I am expecting nobody to have suggestions for me, so surprise me if you've read this far!
HOW DONALD TRUMP AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TURNED THEIR BACKS ON THE AMERICAN WORKER
HOW DONALD TRUMP AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TURNED THEIR BACKS ON THE AMERICAN WORKER
Enabled corporate wage theft-- Denied guaranteed overtime pay to 12.5 million workers, effectively transferring $1.2 billion from their paychecks to their bosses’ bank accounts.
Proposed a rule allowing companies with less than 250 workers to cease reporting workplace injuries and illness statistics to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) — and removed a list of Americans killed in workplace accidents from OSHA’s home page.
Refused to ban a pesticide that’s been linked to birth defects in the children of farmworkers, in defiance of EPA scientists’ advice.
Blocked workers’ access to the courts--Asked the Supreme Court to uphold the right of employers to include forced arbitration clauses in contracts, thereby denying workers the capacity to press complaints against their bosses in open court.
Tried to throw millions of working-poor people off of Medicaid, then, once that failed, deliberately engineered a spike in health-insurance premiums, out of sheer spite.
Appointed one Supreme Court justice who had ruled that a trucker could be justly fired for abandoning his broken-down vehicle, instead of honoring his contractual obligation to freeze to death with his cargo, and nominated another who’d found that San Diego SeaWorld could not be held liable in the death of an employee who was killed by a killer whale. (The former pick ended up producing a landmark decision that gutted funding for public-sector unions, in defiance of decades-old precedent.)
Threatened workers’ retirement savings--Repealed a rule that required retirement advisers to prioritize their clients’ financial interests over their own (thereby giving investment advisers permission to secretly gamble with aging workers’ savings).
Repealed a rule that had required companies to inspect mines for safety hazards (such as loose pieces of rock that might crumble and fall as they work) before workers began their shifts.
Proposed allowing hog-processing plants to run their lines at a speed greater than “1,100 hogs per hour,” a move that is all but certain to increase worker injuries.
Appointed two attorneys — who had made careers representing management in disputes with workers — to the National Labor Relations Board. Those appointees proceeded to overturn a series of pro-labor decisions, including ones that had buttressed workers’ rights to organize unions without their employers’ unlawful interference
Passed giant, regressive tax cuts that were written specifically to allow owners of capital to pay lower rates on their passive income than workers do on their hard-earned wages.
Canceled a scheduled pay “increase” for federal workers that would have merely allowed their existing salaries to keep pace with inflation.
Reduced oversight of abusive payday lenders and scam colleges.
Proposed a rule that would allow restaurant owners to steal their workers’ tips, and hid a study showing that this could cost waiters and waitresses billions of dollars.
Awarded billions in federal contracts to companies that violate wage laws-- Restored the right of serial labor-law violators to compete for government contracts.
Factory Job Losses Send New Warning Signal to Trump's on his huburistic Trade War--Total payrolls at factories contracted by about 2,000 in September 2019, when economists had expected a 3,000 gain.
Another 4,200 truck drivers lost their jobs in September as a recession slams America's $800 billion trucking industry--Truck drivers' earnings sank in 2019, and hundreds of trucking companies have gone bankrupt.
Exposed LGBTQ Americans to employer discrimination.
Erected barriers to prevent people with disabilities from working. Trump’s ongoing threats to Medicaid would end access to home- and community-based care services that allow many people with disabilities to live independently and work outside the home.
Eleven coal companies have declared bankruptcy since Trump took office
Soaring Bankruptcies in the Farm Belt --Farmer suicides skyrocket at the base of this dire trend?? Trump's Trade War--Which was supposedly good and easy to win as he tweeted in March 2018
The Labor Department loosens a rule on beryllium exposure--You haven’t heard of it since chemistry class, but beryllium is a chemical toxic to lung tissue
Trump nixes an Obama policy to reduce pay discrimination, the Obama administration made a final attempt to reduce the racial and gender pay gaps- changes were set to take effect in March 2018--Trump blocked it
USDA withdraws a protection for small farmers--The GIPSA rule--an Obama era rule—Made it easier for small contract farmers, like chicken growers, to sue meat-packing or processing companies that engage in anticompetitive practices--Trump blocked it
Franklin Roosevelt is the 54-year-old Democratic candidate and the current President. His running mate is current Vice President John Garner.
Issues
Economic despair continues, though there are signs of recovery. While again precise figures are largely unavailable, it is clear that a tremendous number of Americans are still out of work. President Roosevelt has signed many new laws and even some executive orders in attempting to combat various aspects of the current economic situation.
In early 1933, Roosevelt signed legislation to attempt to cut the deficit by reducing benefit payments to veterans and the pay of federal workers.
Also in 1933, Roosevelt created the Civilian Conservation Corps which provides natural resource conservation and development jobs to young men.
Also in 1933, Roosevelt issued an executive order dramatically restricting private ownership of gold.
Also in 1933, Roosevelt signed the Agricultural Adjustment Act which has had the government purchase livestock for slaughter and pay farmers to not plant crops on part of their land. The goal of this program has been to reduce agricultural surpluses and thus boost prices.
In 1933 and 1935, President Roosevelt signed two banking acts which established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, separated commercial versus investment banking, and reformed the Federal Reserve System.
Last year, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act which provides monetary assistance to the elderly funded by payroll taxes and also creates a system of unemployment insurance largely managed by the individual states.
Also last year, President Roosevelt created the Works Progress Administration, a massive public works program largely to build infrastructure.
Also last year, Roosevelt signed the National Labor Relations Act which dramatically strengthened protections for unions and collective action by workers in general.
While Alf Landon supports some aspects and principles of the New Deal, he has offered a general critique of how it has been implemented. For example, in his nomination acceptance speech he said the following:
Now it becomes our duty to examine the record as it stands. The record shows that these measures did not fit together into any definite program of recovery. Many of them worked at cross-purposes and defeated themselves. Some developed into definite hindrances to recovery. They had the effect generally of extending control by Washington into the remotest corners of the country. The frequent and sudden changes in the Administration's policy caused a continual uneasiness. As a result, recovery has been set back again and again. This was not all of the failure. Practical progressives have suffered the disheartening experience of seeing many liberal objectives discredited during the past three years by careless thinking, unworkable laws and incompetent administration. ... Judged by the things that make us a nation of happy families, the New Deal has fallen far short of success. The proof of this is in the record. The record shows that in 1933 the primary need was jobs for the unemployed. The record shows that in 1936 the primary need still is jobs for the unemployed.
Further, Landon has argued that the government must "amend the Social Security Act to make it workable," and that "mounting debts and increasing taxes" are undermining the aims of recovery. Landon has sharply criticized the Agricultural Adjustment Act mentioned in the previous section, saying that "the loss of markets, both at home and abroad, far outweighs the value of all the benefits paid to farmers" and that "Mother Nature cannot be regimented."
Roosevelt, as would be expected, has strongly stood by his New Deal programs and happily puts his administration's record up against the previous 12 years of Republican governance. Confident in his new electoral coalition, he also increasingly expressed comfort in openly rebuking certain elements of the business community. As he said in a speech just recently:
For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent. For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up. We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.
Landon has also criticized the amount of executive power that Roosevelt has assumed. He has said he will recommend to Congress the repeal of all legislation giving "autocratic powers to the chief executive." He has raised the stakes by saying that "the price of economic planning is the loss of economic freedom. And economic freedom and personal liberty go hand in hand."
The Supreme Court has struck down or undermined some of the New Deal legislation thus far, including the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the National Recovery Administration. In response, Roosevelt and the Democrats have expressed openness to "clarifying" amendments to the Constitution. Landon has hit Roosevelt on this point, saying, "let him tell us - and tell us before election day - just what amendments he has in mind." Landon has further argued that Roosevelt's lack of specificity on this subject "dodges" the "fundamental issue of this campaign ... whether he intends to change the form of our government"
Statement that "we dedicate ourselves to the preservation of [Americans'] political liberty, their individual opportunity and their character as free citizens, which today for the first time are threatened by Government itself"
Claim that "the New Deal Administration has dishonored American traditions and flagrantly betrayed the pledges upon which the Democratic Party sought and received public support"
Pledge "to maintain the American system of Constitutional and local self government"
Pledge "to preserve the American system of free enterprise, private competition, and equality of opportunity, and to seek its constant betterment in the interests of all"
Grievances against the Current Administration (The platform lists many claims against the Roosevelt Administration, including...)
"The powers of Congress have been usurped by the President"
"The integrity and authority of the Supreme Court have been flouted"
"Regulated monopoly has displaced free enterprise"
"It has insisted on the passage of laws contrary to the Constitution"
"It has been guilty of frightful waste and extravagance, using public funds for partisan political purposes"
"It secretly has made tariff agreements with our foreign competitors, flooding our markets with foreign commodities"
"It has destroyed the morale of our people and made them dependent upon government"
"Appeals to passion and class prejudice have replaced reason and tolerance"
Economy, Trade
Support for "abandonment of all New Deal policies that raise production costs, increase the cost of living, and thereby restrict buying, reduce volume and prevent reemployment"
Support for "withdrawal of government from competition with private payrolls"
Support for "elimination of unnecessary and hampering regulations"
Support for "federal grants-in-aid to the States and territories while the need exists"
Support for the "undertaking of Federal public works only on their merits and separate from the administration of relief"
Statement that "the unemployment insurance and old age annuity sections of the present Social Security Act are unworkable and deny benefits to about two-thirds of our adult population, including professional men and women and all those engaged in agriculture and domestic service, and the self employed while imposing heavy tax burdens upon all"
Support for an alternative program to Social Security with the following details:
"a pay-as-you-go policy, which requires of each generation the support of the aged and the determination of what is just and adequate"
"Every American citizen over sixty-five should receive the supplementary payment necessary to provide a minimum income sufficient to protect him or her from want"
"Each state and territory, upon complying with simple and general minimum standards, should receive from the federal government a graduated contribution in proportion to its own, up to a fixed maximum"
"To make this program consistent with sound fiscal policy the Federal revenues for this purpose must be provided from the proceeds of a direct tax widely distributed"
Pledge to "protect the right of labor to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of its own choosing without interference from any source"
Support for "the adoption of state laws and interstate compacts to abolish sweatshops and child labor, and to protect women and children with respect to maximum hours, minimum wages and working conditions"
Support for "a national land-use program, including the acquisition of abandoned and non-productive farm lands by voluntary sale or lease ... and the devotion of such land to appropriate public use, such as watershed protection and flood prevention, reforestation, recreation, and conservation of wild life"
Statement that "sufficient protection should be maintained at all times to defend the American farmer and the American wage earner from the destructive competition emanating from the subsidies of foreign governments and the imports from low-wage and depreciated-currency countries"
Pledge to "adjust tariffs with a view to promoting international trade, the stabilization of currencies, and the attainment of a proper balance between agriculture and industry"
Condemnation of "the secret negotiations of reciprocal trade treaties without public hearing or legislative approval"
Pledge to "employ the full powers of the government to the end that monopoly shall be eliminated and that free enterprise shall be fully restored and maintained"
Pledge to "balance the budget—not by increasing taxes but by cutting expenditures, drastically and immediately"
Opposition to "further devaluation of the dollar"
Foreign Policy
Pledge "that America shall not become a member of the League of Nations nor of the World Court nor shall America take on any entangling alliances in foreign affairs"
Support for "the great cause of international arbitration through the establishment of free, independent tribunals"
Pledge to "cooperate with other nations in the limitation of armaments"
Pledge to "use every effort to collect the war debt due us from foreign countries"
Other Issues
Support for "equal opportunity for our colored citizens" and pledge "our protection of their economic status and personal safety"
Condemnation of "the present New Deal policies which would regiment and ultimately eliminate the colored citizen from the country's productive life, and make him solely a ward of the federal government"
"To our Indian population we pledge every effort on the part of the national government to ameliorate living conditions for them"
Opposition "to legislation which discriminates against women in Federal and State employment"
"We hold this truth to be self-evident—that the test of a representative government is its ability to promote the safety and happiness of the people"
Statement that "government in a modern civilization has certain inescapable obligations to its citizens, among which are protection of the family and the home [and] establishment of a democracy of opportunity for all the people [and] aid to those overtaken by disaster"
"Dedicated to a government of liberal American principles, we are determined to oppose equally, the despotism of Communism and the menace of concealed Fascism"
"The Republican platform proposes to meet many pressing national problems solely by action of the separate States. We know that drought, dust storms, floods, minimum wages, maximum hours, child labor, and working conditions in industry, monopolistic and unfair business practices cannot be adequately handled exclusively by 48 separate State legislatures, 48 separate State administrations, and 48 separate State courts. Transactions and activities which inevitably overflow State boundaries call for both State and Federal treatment."
Economy, Trade
Statement that "we have safeguarded the thrift of our citizens by restraining those who would gamble with other peoples savings, by requiring truth in the sale of securities; by putting the brakes upon the use of credit for speculation; by outlawing the manipulation of prices in stock and commodity markets; by curbing the overweening power and unholy practices of utility holding companies; by insuring fifty million bank accounts"
Statement that "on the foundation of the Social Security Act we are determined to erect a structure of economic security for all our people"
Pledge to "act to secure to the consumer fair value, honest sales and a decreased spread between the price he pays and the price the producer receives"
Statement that "our people are entitled to decent, adequate housing at a price which they can afford"
Statement that "every encouragement should be given to the building of new homes by private enterprise; and that the Government should steadily extend its housing program"
"By the purchase and retirement of ten million acres of sub-marginal land, and assistance to those attempting to eke out an existence upon it, we have made a good beginning toward proper land use and rural rehabilitation"
"We have increased the worker's pay and shortened his hours; we have undertaken to put an end to the sweated labor of his wife and children; we have written into the law of the land his right to collective bargaining and self-organization free from the interference of employers; we have provided Federal machinery for the peaceful settlement of labor disputes"
"We have taken the American business man out of the red. We have saved his bank and given it a sounder foundation; we have extended credit; we have lowered interest rates; we have undertaken to free him from the ravages of cutthroat competition"
Pledge "vigorously and fearlessly to enforce the criminal and civil provisions of the existing anti-trust laws, and to the extent that their effectiveness has been weakened by new corporate devices or judicial construction, we propose by law to restore their efficacy"
Statement that "we have raised the public credit to a position of unsurpassed security" and that "the interest rate on Government bonds has been reduced to the lowest point in twenty eight years"
"Our retrenchment, tax and recovery programs thus reflect our firm determination to achieve a balanced budget and the reduction of the national debt at the earliest possible moment"
"We shall continue to foster the increase in our foreign trade which has been achieved by this administration; to seek by mutual agreement the lowering of those tariff barriers, quotas and embargoes which have been raised against our exports of agricultural and industrial products; but continue as in the past to give adequate protection to our farmers and manufacturers against unfair competition or the dumping on our shores of commodities and goods produced abroad by cheap labor or subsidized by foreign governments"
Foreign Policy
"We shall continue to observe a true neutrality in the disputes of others; to be prepared, resolutely to resist aggression against ourselves; to work for peace and to take the profits out of war; to guard against being drawn, by political commitments, international banking or private trading, into any war which may develop anywhere"
2020 Ballot Information Guide Welcome to the 2020 ColoradoPolitics Discussion on the Ballot Initiatives. Any news item related to these initiatives will be linked on the individual discussions located under the title for each measure. Please follow the subreddit rules, debates are encouraged, but focus your points on the initiative and not on individuals.
Voters will decide on seven citizen initiatives.
A veto referendum determining whether Colorado will join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is on the ballot. States in the NPVIC agree to give their electoral votes for the presidential candidate that wins the most votes nationwide if the compact goes into effect.
A veto referendum is a type of measure put on the ballot through citizen signature petition in an effort to repeal a law recently passed by the legislature. The National Popular Vote veto referendum is the first veto referendum to be certified for the Colorado ballot since 1932.
The state legislature referred a state statute to increase tobacco taxes and create a new e-cigarette tax to fund various health and education programs and two constitutional amendments: one concerning charitable games such as bingo and raffles and another to repeal the Gallagher Amendment.
Amends the Colorado Constitution to state that “only a citizen” of the U.S. who is 18 years old or older can vote in federal, state, and local elections, instead of the existing language that says “every citizen” who is 18 years old can vote.
Repeals the Gallagher Amendment of 1982, which limited the residential and non-residential property tax assessment rates so that residential property taxes amounted to 45% of the total share of state property taxes and non-residential property taxes amounted to 55% of the total share of state property taxes
Requires charitable organizations to have existed for three years before obtaining a charitable gaming license instead of five years; allows charitable organizations to hire managers and operators of gaming activities so long as they are not paid more than the minimum wage
Meta: Congratulations! You just won millions of dollars in the lottery!
Congratulations! You just won millions of dollars in the lottery! That's great. Now you're fucked. No really. You are. You're fucked. If you just want to skip the biographical tales of woe of some of the math-tax protagonists, skip on down to the next comment. To see what to do in the event you win the lottery. You see, it's something of an open secret that winners of obnoxiously large jackpots tend to end up badly with alarming regularity. Not the $1 million dollar winners. But anyone in the nine-figure range is at high risk. Eight-figures? Pretty likely to be screwed. Seven-figures? Yep. Painful. Perhaps this is a consequence of the sample. The demographics of lottery players might be exactly the wrong people to win large sums of money. Or perhaps money is the root of all evil. Either way, you are going to have to be careful. Don't believe me? Consider this: Large jackpot winners face double digit multiples of probability versus the general population to be the victim of: 1. Homicide (something like 20x more likely) 2. Drug overdose 3. Bankruptcy (how's that for irony?) 4. Kidnapping And triple digit multiples of probability versus the general population rate to be: 1. Convicted of drunk driving 2. The victim of Homicide (at the hands of a family member) 120x more likely in this case, ain't love grand? 3. A defendant in a civil lawsuit 4. A defendant in felony criminal proceedings Believe it or not, your biggest enemy if you suddenly become possessed of large sums of money is... you. At least you will have the consolation of meeting your fate by your own hand. But if you can't manage it on your own, don't worry. There are any number of willing participants ready to help you start your vicious downward spiral for you. Mind you, many of these will be "friends," "friendly neighbors," or "family." Often, they won't even have evil intentions. But, as I'm sure you know, that makes little difference in the end. Most aren't evil. Most aren't malicious. Some are. None are good for you. Jack Whittaker, a Johnny Cash attired, West Virginia native, is the poster boy for the dangers of a lump sum award. In 2002 Mr. Whittaker (55 years old at the time) won what was, also at the time, the largest single award jackpot in U.S. history. $315 million. At the time, he planned to live as if nothing had changed, or so he said. He was remarkably modest and decent before the jackpot, and his ship sure came in, right? Wrong. Mr. Whittaker became the subject of a number of personal challenges, escalating into personal tragedies, complicated by a number of legal troubles. Whittaker wasn't a typical lottery winner either. His net worth at the time of his winnings was in excess of $15 million, owing to his ownership of a successful contracting firm in West Virginia. His claim to want to live "as if nothing had changed" actually seemed plausible. He should have been well equipped for wealth. He was already quite wealthy, after all. By all accounts he was somewhat modest, low profile, generous and good natured. He should have coasted off into the sunset. Yeah. Not exactly. Whittaker took the all-cash option, $170 million, instead of the annuity option, and took possession of $114 million in cash after $56 million in taxes. After that, things went south. Whittaker quickly became the subject of a number of financial stalkers, who would lurk at his regular breakfast hideout and accost him with suggestions for how to spend his money. They were unemployed. No, an interview tomorrow morning wasn't good enough. They needed cash NOW. Perhaps they had a sure-fire business plan. Their daughter had cancer. A niece needed dialysis. Needless to say, Whittaker stopped going to his breakfast haunt. Eventually, they began ringing his doorbell. Sometimes in the early morning. Before long he was paying off-duty deputies to protect his family. He was accused of being heartless. Cold. Stingy. Letters poured in. Children with cancer. Diabetes. MS. You name it. He hired three people to sort the mail. A detective to filter out the false claims and the con men (and women) was retained. Brenda, the clerk who had sold Whittaker the ticket, was a victim of collateral damage. Whittaker had written her a check for $44,000 and bought her house, but she was by no means a millionaire. Rumors that the state routinely paid the clerk who had sold the ticket 10% of the jackpot winnings hounded her. She was followed home from work. Threatened. Assaulted. Whittaker's car was twice broken into, by trusted acquaintances who watched him leave large amounts of cash in it. $500,000 and $200,000 were stolen in two separate instances. The thieves spiked Whittaker's drink with prescription drugs in the first instance. The second incident was the handiwork of his granddaughter's friends, who had been probing the girl for details on Whittaker's cash for weeks. Even Whittaker's good-faith generosity was questioned. When he offered $10,000 to improve the city's water park so that it was more handicap accessible, locals complained that he spent more money at the strip club. (Amusingly this was true). Whittaker invested quite a bit in his own businesses, tripled the number of people his businesses employed (making him one of the larger employers in the area) and eventually had given away $14 million to charity through a foundation he set up for the purpose. This is, of course, what you are "supposed" to do. Set up a foundation. Be careful about your charity giving. It made no difference in the end. To top it all off, Whittaker had been accused of ruining a number of marriages. His money made other men look inferior, they said, wherever he went in the small West Virginia town he called home. Resentment grew quickly. And festered. Whittaker paid four settlements related to this sort of claim. Yes, you read that right. Four. His family and their immediate circle were quickly the victims of odds-defying numbers of overdoses, emergency room visits and even fatalities. His granddaughter, the eighteen year old "Brandi" (who Whittaker had been giving a $2100.00 per week allowance) was found dead after having been missing for several weeks. Her death was, apparently, from a drug overdose, but Whittaker suspected foul play. Her body had been wrapped in a tarp and hidden behind a rusted-out van. Her seventeen year old boyfriend had expired three months earlier in Whittaker's vacation house, also from an overdose. Some of his friends had robbed the house after his overdose, stepping over his body to make their escape and then returning for more before stepping over his body again to leave. His parents sued for wrongful death claiming that Whittaker's loose purse strings contributed to their son's death. Amazingly, juries are prone to award damages in cases such as these. Whittaker settled. Again. Even before the deaths, the local and state police had taken a special interest in Whittaker after his new-found fame. He was arrested for minor and less minor offenses many times after his winnings, despite having had a nearly spotless record before the award. Whittaker's high profile couldn't have helped him much in this regard. In 18 months Whittaker had been cited for over 250 violations ranging from broken tail lights on every one of his five new cars, to improper display of renewal stickers. A lawsuit charging various police organizations with harassment went nowhere and Whittaker was hit with court costs instead. Whittaker's wife filed for divorce, and in the process froze a number of his assets and the accounts of his operating companies. Caesars in Atlantic City sued him for $1.5 million to cover bounced checks, caused by the asset freeze. Today Whittaker is badly in debt, and bankruptcy looms large in his future. But, hey, that's just one example, right? Wrong. Nearly one third of multi-million dollar jackpot winners eventually declare bankruptcy. Some end up worse. To give you just a taste of the possibilities, consider the fates of:
Billie Bob Harrell, Jr.: $31 million. Texas, 1997. As of 1999: Committed suicide in the wake of incessant requests for money from friends and family. “Winning the lottery is the worst thing that ever happened to me.
William âBudâ Post: $16.2 million. Pennsylvania. 1988. In 1989: Brother hires a contract murderer to kill him and his sixth wife. Landlady sued for portion of the jackpot. Convicted of assault for firing a gun at a debt collector. Declared bankruptcy. Dead in 2006.
Evelyn Adams: $5.4 million (won TWICE 1985, 1986). As of 2001: Poor and living in a trailer gave away and gambled most of her fortune.
Suzanne Mullins: $4.2 million. Virginia. 1993. As of 2004: No assets left.
Shefik Tallmadge: $6.7 million. Arizona. 1988. As of 2005: Declared bankruptcy.
Thomas Strong: $3 million. Texas. 1993. As of 2006: Died in a shoot-out with police.
Victoria Zell: $11 million. 2001. Minnesota. As of 2006: Broke. Serving seven year sentence for vehicular manslaughter.
Karen Cohen: $1 million. Illinois. 1984. As of 2000: Filed for bankruptcy. As of 2006: Sentenced to 22 months for lying to federal bankruptcy court.
Jeffrey Dampier: $20 million. Illinois. 1996. As of 2006: Kidnapped and murdered by own sister-in-law.
Ed Gildein: $8.8 million. Texas. 1993. As of 2003: Dead. Wife saddled with his debts. As of 2005: Wife sued by her own daughter who claimed that she was taking money from a trust fund and squandering cash in Las Vegas.
Willie Hurt: $3.1 million. Michigan. 1989. As of 1991: Addicted to cocaine. Divorced. Broke. Indicted for murder.
Michael Klingebiel: $2 million. As of 1998 sued by own mother claiming he failed to share the jackpot with her.
Janite Lee: $18 million. 1993. Missouri. As of 2001: Filed for bankruptcy with $700 in assets.
So, what the hell DO you do if you are unlucky enough to win the lottery? This is the absolutely most important thing you can do right away: NOTHING. Yes. Nothing. DO NOT DECLARE YOURSELF THE WINNER yet. Do NOT tell anyone. The urge is going to be nearly irresistible. Resist it. Trust me. 1. IMMEDIATELY retain an attorney. Get a partner from a larger, NATIONAL firm. Don't let them pawn off junior partners or associates on you. They might try, all law firms might, but insist instead that your lead be a partner who has been with the firm for awhile. Do NOT use your local attorney. Yes, I mean your long-standing family attorney who did your mother's will. Do not use the guy who fought your dry-cleaner bill. Do not use the guy you have trusted your entire life because of his long and faithful service to your family. In fact, do not use any firm that has any connection to family or friends or community. TRUST me. This is bad. You want someone who has never heard of you, any of your friends, or any member of your family. Go the the closest big city and walk into one of the national firms asking for one of the "Trust and Estates" partners you have previously looked up on http://www.martindale.com from one of the largest 50 firms in the United States which has an office near you. You can look up attornies by practice area and firm on Martindale. 2. Decide to take the lump sum. Most lotteries pay a really pathetic rate for the annuity. It usually hovers around 4.5% annual return or less, depending. It doesn't take much to do better than this, and if you have the money already in cash, rather than leaving it in the hands of the state, you can pull from the capital whenever you like. If you take the annuity you won't have access to that cash. That could be good. It could be bad. It's probably bad unless you have a very addictive personality. If you need an allowance managed by the state, it is because you didn't listen to point #1 above. Why not let the state just handle it for you and give you your allowance? Many state lotteries pay you your "allowence" (the annuity option) by buying U.S. treasury instruments and running the interest payments through their bureaucracy before sending it to you along with a hunk of the principal every month. You will not be beating inflation by much, if at all. There is no reason you couldn't do this yourself, if a low single-digit return is acceptable to you. You aren't going to get even remotely the amount of the actual jackpot. Take our old friend Mr. Whittaker. Using Whittaker is a good model both because of the reminder of his ignominious decline, and the fact that his winning ticket was one of the larger ones on record. If his situation looks less than stellar to you, you might have a better perspective on how "large" your winnings aren't. Whittaker's "jackpot" was $315 million. He selected the lump-sum cash up-front option, which knocked off $145 million (or 46% of the total) leaving him with $170 million. That was then subject to withholding for taxes of $56 million (33%) leaving him with $114 million. In general, you should expect to get about half of the original jackpot if you elect a lump sum (maybe better, it depends). After that, you should expect to lose around 33% of your already pruned figure to state and federal taxes. (Your mileage may vary, particularly if you live in a state with aggressive taxation schemes). 3. Decide right now, how much you plan to give to family and friends. This really shouldn't be more than 20% or so. Figure it out right now. Pick your number. Tell your lawyer. That's it. Don't change it. 20% of $114 million is $22.8 million. That leaves you with $91.2 million. DO NOT CONSULT WITH FAMILY when deciding how much to give to family. You are going to get advice that is badly tainted by conflict of interest, and if other family members find out that Aunt Flo was consulted and they weren't you will never hear the end of it. Neither will Aunt Flo. This might later form the basis for an allegation that Aunt Flo unduly influenced you and a lawsuit might magically appear on this basis. No, I'm not kidding. I know of one circumstance (related to a business windfall, not a lottery) where the plaintiffs WON this case. Do NOT give anyone cash. Ever. Period. Just don't. Do not buy them houses. Do not buy them cars. Tell your attorney that you want to provide for your family, and that you want to set up a series of trusts for them that will total 20% of your after tax winnings. Tell him you want the trust empowered to fund higher education, some help (not a total) purchase of their first home, some provision for weddings and the like, whatever. Do NOT put yourself in the position of handing out cash. Once you do, if you stop, you will be accused of being a heartless bastard (or bitch). Trust me. It won't go well. It will be easy to lose perspective. It is now the duty of your friends, family, relatives, hangers-on and their inner circle to skew your perspective, and they take this job quite seriously. Setting up a trust, a managed fund for your family that is in the double digit millions is AMAZINGLY generous. You need never have trouble sleeping because you didn't lend Uncle Jerry $20,000 in small denomination unmarked bills to start his chain of deep-fried peanut butter pancake restaurants. ("Deep'n 'nutter Restaurants") Your attorney will have a number of good ideas how to parse this wealth out without turning your siblings/spouse/children/grandchildren/cousins/waitresses into the latest Paris Hilton. 4. You will be encouraged to hire an investment manager. Considerable pressure will be applied. Don't. Investment managers charge fees, usually a percentage of assets. Consider this: If they charge 1% (which is low, I doubt you could find this deal, actually) they have to beat the market by 1% every year just to break even with a general market index fund. It is not worth it, and you don't need the extra return or the extra risk. Go for the index fund instead if you must invest in stocks. This is a hard rule to follow. They will come recommended by friends. They will come recommended by family. They will be your second cousin on your mother's side. Investment managers will sound smart. They will have lots of cool acronyms. They will have nice PowerPoint presentations. They might (MIGHT) pay for your shrimp cocktail lunch at TGI Friday's while reminding you how poor their side of the family is. They live for this stuff. You should smile, thank them for their time, and then tell them you will get back to them next week. Don't sign ANYTHING. Don't write it on a cocktail napkin (lottery lawsuit cases have been won and lost over drunkenly scrawled cocktail napkin addition and subtraction figures with lots of zeros on them). Never call them back. Trust me. You will thank me later. This tactic, smiling, thanking people for their time, and promising to get back to people, is going to have to become familiar. You will have to learn to say no gently, without saying the word "no." It sounds underhanded. Sneaky. It is. And its part of your new survival strategy. I mean the word "survival" quite literally. Get all this figured out BEFORE you claim your winnings. They aren't going anywhere. Just relax. 5. If you elect to be more global about your paranoia, use between 20.00% and 33.00% of what you have not decided to commit to a family fund IMMEDIATELY to purchase a combination of longer term U.S. treasuries (5 or 10 year are a good idea) and perhaps even another G7 treasury instrument. This is your safety net. You will be protected... from yourself. You are going to be really tempted to starting being a big investor. You are going to be convinced that you can double your money in Vegas with your awesome Roulette system/by funding your friend's amazing idea to sell Lemming dung/buying land for oil drilling/by shorting the North Pole Ice market (global warming, you know). This all sounds tempting because "Even if I lose it all I still have $XX million left! Anyone could live on that comfortably for the rest of their life." Yeah, except for 33% of everyone who won the lottery. You're not going to double your money, so cool it. Let me say that again. You're not going to double your money, so cool it. Right now, you'll get around 3.5% on the 10 year U.S. treasury. With $18.2 million (20% of $91.2 mil after your absurdly generous family gift) invested in those you will pull down $638,400 per year. If everything else blows up, you still have that, and you will be in the top 1% of income in the United States. So how about you not fuck with it. Eh? And that's income that is damn safe. If we get to the point where the United States defaults on those instruments, we are in far worse shape than worrying about money. If you are really paranoid, you might consider picking another G7 or otherwise mainstream country other than the U.S. according to where you want to live if the United States dissolves into anarchy or Britney Spears is elected to the United States Senate. Put some fraction in something like Swiss Government Bonds at 3%. If the Swiss stop paying on their government debt, well, then you know money really means nothing anywhere on the globe anymore. I'd study small field sustainable agriculture if you think this is a possibility. You might have to start feedng yourself. 6. That leaves, say, 80% of $91.2 million or $72.9 million. Here is where things start to get less clear. Personally, I think you should dump half of this, or $36.4 million, into a boring S&P 500 index fund. Find something with low fees. You are going to be constantly tempted to retain "sophisticated" advisers who charge "nominal fees." Don't. Period. Even if you lose every other dime, you have $638,400 per year you didn't have before that will keep coming in until the United States falls into chaos. Fuck advisers and their fees. Instead, drop your $36.4 million in the market in a low fee vehicle. Unless we have an unprecedented downturn the likes of which the United States has never seen, should return around 7.00% or so over the next 10 years. You should expect to touch not even a dime of this money for 10 or 15 or even 20 years. In 20 years $36.4 million could easily become $115 million. 7. So you have put a safety net in place. You have provided for your family beyond your wildest dreams. And you still have $36.4 million in "cash." You know you will be getting $638,400 per year unless the capital building is burning, you don't ever need to give anyone you care about cash, since they are provided for generously and responsibly (and can't blow it in Vegas) and you have a HUGE nest egg that is growing at market rates. (Given the recent dip, you'll be buying in at great prices for the market). What now? Whatever you want. Go ahead and burn through $36.4 million in hookers and blow if you want. You've got more security than 99% of the country. A lot of it is in trusts so even if you are sued your family will live well, and progress across generations. If your lawyer is worth his salt (I bet he is) then you will be insulated from most lawsuits anyhow. Buy a nice house or two, make sure they aren't stupid investments though. Go ahead and be an angel investor and fund some startups, but REFUSE to do it for anyone you know. (Friends and money, oil and water - Michael Corleone) Play. Have fun. You earned it by putting together the shoe sizes of your whole family on one ticket and winning the jackpot.
Gambling losses are reported to the taxpayer on Form W2-G. W2-Gs are not requirefor winnings from table games such as blackjack, craps, pai gow, baccarat and roulette, regardless of the amount. The withholding rate for non-resident US is 30% and the tax rate for non-resident US is also 30%. What rate are gambling winnings taxed at? 24%Your gambling winnings are generally subject to a flat 24% tax. However, for the following sources listed below, gambling winnings over $5,000 are subject to income tax withholding: Any sweepstakes, wagering pool (including payments made to winners of poker tournaments), or lottery. In some cases, the casino will withhold a percentage of your winnings for taxes before it pays you at the rate of 24 percent. Casino Winnings Are Not Tax-Free Casino winnings count as gambling... Returns that are subject of federal income tax withholding requirement. To do this, your Social Security Number and the Form W2-G reporting your returns to the IRS is needed. The rate of 25% is usually withheld from your returns as deductible tax. Reporting your returns through Form W2-G does not apply to all betting returns. Form W2-G does not apply to winnings earned from table games like ... Effective for tax years after 2017, the federal withholding rate for gambling winnings of $5,000 or more is 24%. That’s a cumulative amount for the entire year, so even if you win $1,000 on five or more separate occasions during the year, you still need to report your winnings. Gambling winnings are subject to withholding for federal income tax at a rate of 24% as of 2020 if you win more than $5,000 from sweepstakes, wagering pools, lotteries, or other wagering transactions, or anytime the winnings are at least 300 times the amount wagered. Your gambling winnings are generally subject to a flat 24% tax. However, for the following sources listed below, gambling winnings over $5,000 will be subject to income tax withholding: Any sweepstakes, lottery, or wagering pool (this can include payments made to the winner (s) of poker tournaments). In most cases, the casino will take 25 percent off your winnings for IRS gambling taxes before paying you. Not all gambling winnings in the amounts above are subject to IRS Form W2-G. W2-G forms are not required for winnings from table games such as blackjack, craps, baccarat, and roulette, regardless of the amount. Gambling Winnings Federal Tax Rate; Federal Income Tax Rate On Gambling Winnings; After the thrill of collecting gambling winnings, comes questions about taxes.. Yes, gambling income, which includes winnings from slots, table games, horse racing, sports betting, lottery games, jackpots, and the like, is considered taxable income.As such, you are required to report them on your tax return. Depending on the number of your winnings, your federal tax rate could be as high as 37 percent as per the lottery tax calculation. State and local tax rates vary by location. Some states don’t impose an income tax while others withhold over 15 percent.
Gambling, The IRS and Taxes: How to Deduct Your Gambling ...
It might seem like gambling is one of those activities that the IRS has nothing to do with. But according to the US tax laws, the IRS considers gambling inco... Find out how gambling income and losses can affect your federal taxes. For more information, go to https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-w-2-g. #lot #tax... Today I would like to talk to you about Gambling Income and Losses as modified by the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2018. This is an area of the tax reform that is... From show dubbed "info-tainment television" here is another money saving tax tip for 2009. "The Tax Lady Sings" is the show where you get original songs, r&b... https://turbotax.intuit.com Have you recently won big at the poker table? Before you go spending your winnings, you should watch this video and determine how...
