Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/6937

Bill Overview

Title: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the information reporting threshold for slot winnings.

Description: This bill provides that no tax information return for winnings from one slot machine play shall be required unless the winnings are at least $5,000 (without reduction for the amount wagered). This threshold amount is adjusted for inflation for calendar years beginning after 2023.

Sponsors: Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals who play slot machines

Estimated Size: 53000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Casino Floor Manager (Las Vegas, NV)

Age: 34 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy will likely see more people winning larger amounts tax-free, which might attract more tourists.
  • I don't gamble frequently enough for this to personally affect my tax situation.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

Retired (Biloxi, MS)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Raising the threshold reduces hassles of tax paperwork for small wins.
  • This makes my casino visits more enjoyable without worrying about taxes.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 6 5

Bartender (Atlantic City, NJ)

Age: 26 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Minimal personal impact as I do not play slots often.
  • Could potentially increase tips during big wins as patrons are less stressed.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

Professional Gambler (Tampa, FL)

Age: 41 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Positive change saving time on tax filings for small wins.
  • This should allow me more focus on my strategies and gameplay.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 6

Teacher (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 60 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • No real impact on me as I don’t gamble much.
  • However, I’ve heard others in my community excited for easier tax filing.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 8

IT Specialist (Chicago, IL)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Though most of my play is online, this could lead to increased participation in land-based casinos.
  • Not sure I'll benefit directly immediately, but less tax paperwork is great.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

Retired Nurse (New York, NY)

Age: 72 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Less paperwork makes my casino trips more about fun and less about administration.
  • I think this will make wins feel like pure wins.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

Casino Host (Reno, NV)

Age: 37 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I see this mostly benefiting frequent players; it simplifies their tax management.
  • Overall, it's good for business, might bring more high-roller plays.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 6 5

Marketing Manager (Miami, FL)

Age: 47 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 6.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Gambling trips will be slightly less stressful with less tax paperwork concerns.
  • It’s a positive minor change but nothing life-altering.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 7

Student (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 25 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Unlikely to have any personal impact, since I’m not a consistent gambler.
  • However, useful for discussions in my study groups on impact of tax policies.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)

Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)

Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)

Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)

Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)

Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)

Key Considerations