Oklahoma Senator Proposes Tax Incentive For Family-Friendly Games

GamePolitics reports on legislation proposed by Senator Anthony Sykes (R-OK) which would make video games eligible for the same tax breaks that apply to TV and film. The catch is that games with a mature rating would not be eligible for those breaks. Quoting: "While games are restricted to projects appropriate for those under 17, the only eligibility requirement placed on film content is that it be neither child pornography nor obscene. By that standard, R-rated films and MA-17 television programs would easily qualify for the tax break. ... '[Sen. Sykes]... would rather not include the ratings restriction. Unfortunately, as he went around to his fellow senators asking for their support, the first question out of their mouths was whether there would be ratings restrictions.'"

Re:no tax break for childporn!?

[wjh31]

that depends if the pornography falls under the entirely arbitrary, subjective category of obscene

Re:I'm not sure I understand the point...

[Opportunist]

I think the point is the same as with so many "incentives" the governments give out to encourage what they see as "agreeable action".

You see the same done with tax breaks for environmentally friendly cars, with tax breaks for people who better insulate their homes to use less fuel for heating and various other things that are economically not really interesting for the individual, but are interesting for the government. Less polution means more quality of life. Less fuel consumption for heating means fewer imports.

I don't really see it done often on "moral" grounds. Maybe his idea is that this way he can "ban" violent games without outright banning them. If it's economically more interesting for game studios to produce "Teletubbies in Lala-Land" than the next Soldier of Fortune (now with more gore), they will produce it. I just don't think that people would prefer the former, it just ain't the same, so I doubt that this tax break could be big enough to actually accomplish what it should. Like, well, so many of those tax breaks.

But if it keeps the thinkofthechildren crowd busy, I'm all for it...

No, it does not violate the 1st amendment

[Benfea]

If they banned everything but kid's games, then that would certainly be a violation of the first amendment, but this is not.

Re:No, it does not violate the 1st amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

And if the taxed all non-kid games at 1,000,000%, it would clearly be equivalent to a ban. Where do we draw the line?