When Politicians Tax Violent Video Games 315
talien79 writes "Taxing video games has a storied history in state legislatures. The reality is that video games, violent or otherwise, simply make too much money to be stopped. But taxing them is a viable compromise, a 'sin tax' of sorts similar to that levied on cigarettes. This article reviews the time-honored tactic of politicians pandering to their base: taxing violent video games."
but but but, it's for a good cause!! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure ALL the tax revenue will go towards educating kids on the dangers of violent video games and/or to the victims or violent video game inspired violence, right?
RIGHT?
Re:but but but, it's for a good cause!! (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sure ALL the tax revenue will go towards educating kids on the dangers of violent video games and/or to the victims or violent video game inspired violence, right?
No, sir, you see, it's on my contract here. The money comes to me.
Yours Truly,
--Dr. A. Linhares, Senior Vice President, AIG.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most of the money give to AIG actually went to other banks that had contracts with AIG, even foreign banks such as UBS and Deutsche Bank. Most of the money went to banks located outside the United States.
German and French banks got $36 billion from AIG Bailout [businessweek.com]
Don't forget that all of these bailouts combined ($12.8 trillion) are nearing the United States entire GDP. [bloomberg.com]
Re:but but but, it's for a good cause!! (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, that's exactly what's going to happen.
They plan on showing them computer simulations of violent acts to illustrate how bad violence is.
I've seen the prototype of the simulation. It's pretty neat. It's from a first person perspective of someone running around killing people and being shot at. And it progresses. First you get to see what the horrors are of killing people with a pistol. Then you pick up a shot gun and see how horrible it is. Then you pick up a machine gun and see that atrocity.
There's even a little number at the top that keeps count of how much you've learned.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:but but but, it's for a good cause!! (Score:5, Insightful)
My biggest problem with this has nothing to do with where the money is spent. It's with the concept that violence is OK, as long as you're willing to pay extra for it. So next time I pick up a hooker, it'll be OK if I beat her on top of screwing her, as long as I give her an extra $40 or so? Or If I send an extra $40 to the government as a "sin tax"?
If you take the ideas of these brain-dead lawmakers and their brain-dead constituents, this is the logical conclusion.
Also, while we're at it, let's tax movie tickets on a sliding scale based on their rating. G? Pay the sales tax. PG? Pay 2 x sales tax. PG-13? 3 x sales tax. Etc.
Re:but but but, it's for a good cause!! (Score:5, Insightful)
So next time I pick up a hooker, it'll be OK if I beat her on top of screwing her, as long as I give her an extra $40 or so?
You might want to OK the beating with him/her first. Otherwise her pimp Sugar might get wind of it and give you a really bad day.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it is OK, so long as she agrees to accept $40 for providing the service of punching bag... prostitution is about paying for what you want... it just so happens most people want sex.
Re:but but but, it's for a good cause!! (Score:5, Funny)
I thought the lesson of video games was that if you beat up the hooker, you got your $40 *back*.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Basically he suggests get rid of all specialty taxes, and all specialty tax breaks. Make it simple.
Everyone pays a percentage of their income (they get the benefits of having a government, they ought to at least chip in a little bit), and those who make more can pay a higher percentage. Taxes would be significantly easier to calculate (currently tax preparation and processing, if all the labor that goes into it were actually counted, w
Re: (Score:2)
No shit, sherlock.
Sometimes I get to make the funny posts, sometimes I get to make the set up for others to make the funny posts. It's a share-alike comedy strategy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I completely disagree. What sin taxes do is ensure that the wealthy get to exercise their individual freedom, while the poor do not.
If you really believe that everyone should have the personal freedom to drink alcohol, or to play violent video games, why would you make exercise of that right dependent on money?
S
Re:but but but, it's for a good cause!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:but but but, it's for a good cause!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay I am on the opposite side of most people when it comes to video games. I have no problem with mandatory age restrictions on video games. I have no issue with taxing cigs and alcohol. But I have an issue with extra tax on video games. Yes I see how Left4Dead would be unhealthy for an 8 year old to play but for a normal adult it is just fine. Violent video games are no worse than violent movies or books.
If you want to tax a game how about golf? Golf Courses do a huge amount of damage to the environment. How about a $5 a round tax on golf and a $1.00 a ball tax on golf balls.
Of course who will pay the sin tax on game America's Army?
Re: (Score:2)
and, Just because something exists doesn't mean that is justified to tax it.
The only things that should be directly taxable are those things that directly lead to government spending.
An interesting philosophy. While this makes some sense, I can't imagine it working in practice. Many legitimate government expenses can't be directly tied to specific spending. (legislative activities, military, criminal court proceedings...) There must always be some generalized tax (income, sales, property, etc) to pick up these government expenses.
To further complicate things, you don't want to generate your taxable income from some activities. Being poor is no excuse for crime, but if every crimin
stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:stupid (Score:5, Funny)
Uh-oh, March is gonna be screwed come tax time.
Re:stupid (Score:4, Funny)
No, we beware those.
That makes no sense (Score:2)
how does it make sense to only tax what is physical?
My income is electronic. People buy the games using electrons, and those electrons change a number on a hard disk that denotes my earnings.
Nothing physical gets made, moved or exchanged.
But that doesnt mean my income shouldnt be taxed just the same as someone who lays bricks or grows food.
Work is work, whether the outcome of it is digitally encodable or not.
Not that I agree in this tax. I wouldnt mind (I make non violent games) if it was consistent with ta
This is how government controls us. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is how government controls us. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To some extent, you're damn right. There's a very fine line between taxing to encourage certain behavior, and taxing to punish people you don't like.
Unfortunately, the only way to get around this issue is to abolish taxes completely. Since that's an impossibility (both for bureaucratic and for survival reasons), we're stuck with trying to walk this fine line.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think "control" is giving the process a bit too much credit. I don't see it as being that planned out. This seems to be mostly going on at the state legislature level. Whether it's driven by elected state legislators who themselves foolishly believe that society needs saving from cheap violent videogames or if it's driven instead by elected state legislators who merely exploit those who think that way I don't know. But at the heart this is about moral grandstanding, not "control."
Example: FTA
In Louisiana, Rep. Robert Billiot (BILL-yot) proposed a one percent sales tax on televisions and video game equipment. Money from the tax would flow into a "No Child Left Indoors Fund" to pay for programs and activities to mitigate the effects of childhood obesity. The implication being that video games, not poor parenting, is somehow responsible for making kids fat.
He's not
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The best example is smoking. It's now so expensive to be a smoker that almost everyone is quitting, though I know a number of people who have bought tobacco seed and are now growing thei
Movies? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but how about how the bible erodes the family unit cause Adam was originally with Lilith and then dumped her for Eve.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Lilith made the final cut for the modern Christian bible. Once upon a time, I read the King James version and don't remember her in Genesis.
but I could be wrong...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Take a good look at all those biblical epics Hollyweird produced in the late 1940s through the 1950s: The Robe, Ben Hur, Samson and Delilah, The Ten Commandments, and others. Hollyweird used those to defeat the censors. It's hard to complain about all those HOT JEZIBELLES and all the MURDER AND VIOLENCE when it all originated in the Bible or in christian fiction. I mean, it's good for the children to see this stuff, cuz' it's from the Bible. So all you censors can just STFU
Re:Movies? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They just want more taxes (Score:2)
..for whatever reason.
"Protecting the children" is often a convenient one, but there are others.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Keep pushing (Score:2)
Violent games are never good (Score:5, Insightful)
Good for them. It's not like violent games ever show [wikipedia.org] justified violence [wikipedia.org], or even semi-realistic portrayals of current foreign combat. It's not like there is ever a point of the violence.
Violence is always bad [wikipedia.org]. It's never a good way to put an end to problems [wikipedia.org] people may face.
Of course, why not.. (Score:2)
It's causing quite the health epidemic. It's amazing how it was once popular and even fun! Now, it's known to be a carcinogen and causes other diseases.
Wait.. games.. right? We're talking about video games here? And what the @#$@ is "violent" anyways? Anything that shows any blood? Anything to do with guns? How about anything that depicts fighting or harsh language?
Boost your tax revenue in a few easy steps! (Score:2)
2. ????
3. Propose tax as a solution
4. ???
5. Profit ?
Re: (Score:2)
Cigarettes are demonstrably harmful; Games aren't (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Smokers add no extra costs to the health care system over their lifetimes. Everybody dies of something. Lung Cancer is an average-cost way to die.
I don't think you want to go there (Score:2)
For decades, cigarettes were sold as healthy, by doctors (or at least actors in white coats) and their users denied any harmful side-effects even when their lungs were 50% tar and 50% cancer.
Do you REALLY want to link the denials of smokers and the tobacco industry witht the denials of gamers and the game industry?
In my mind, that just ain't smart. Not only are you by association making yourself suspicious of being in denial, you also show that the only way to curb an activity harmful to some (who cares i
Sin tax? (Score:2)
Can you please explain what part of playing a violet game is a sin?
I can understand a tax on tobacco and alcohol, both have a clear and quite direct negative side effect on you and the people around you.
But what makes a violent video game different from a other video game? The simulated violence? How about real violence shown on the news and "reality" shows? Isn't real violence worse than simulated violence?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
See and this is a problem with "sin taxes." A sin tax is just a tax on a socially unpopular item. It's not meant to be a fine, which is a punishment that's used to discourage people from breaking the law.
The reason why sin taxes target socially unpopular items is "divide and rule." In other words, if everything gets a sales tax, everyone complains. If violent video games get a sales tax, only video game players complain. If they aren't a big enough block to vote out the taxers, and the tax holds up in
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
All the purple prose in the dialog.
Re: (Score:2)
The term "sin tax" refers to a ban on any presumed-deviant action -- meaning any behavior which a majority of politicians and their constituents won't admit to. It rarely has anything to do with morality or ethics, much less the religious concept of "sin" for which it's named.
Constitutional? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would the Supreme Court find a content based tax constitutional? I can see how states would get away taxing all video games, but taxing one type of video game based on its content seems like a first amendment issue. Are there other types of media that get this treatment?
Re:Constitutional? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, tax laws can apparently be used to punish you for something you did before the law was passed (see AIG bonuses), so why would the Constitution apply in this case?
Re:Constitutional? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or to put it a different way: since the Congress is now passing blantenly unconstitutional bills of attainder (see AIG bonuses), are there any cases in which the Constitution still applies?
Re: (Score:2)
Well the Constitution has two types of tax: Direct and indirect. There has only ever been one direct tax that I know about, so we'll put that out of view.
The indirect tax (excise or tariff) is on the happening event. It can only be evoked when someone or something is doing something. Your current oil and tobacco taxes are on the manufacture or importation of these things. These specific two examples also have transfer liability clauses that allow the tax liability to be transferred to the buyer, thereby mak
Re: (Score:2)
Addendum.
That was for federal taxes. (For video games, the Federal government could claim authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution or the First-Sale Doctrine, if coming in from outside the US, and additionally subject to tariffs)
The states can do whatever they want as long as it does not violate their own state constitution.
A viable compromise to what? (Score:2)
You know, I could see taxing alcohol and cigarettes in proportion to the societal burden it incurs and if it were applied in a systematic way to pay for healthcare, prevention and education programs, extra police, etcetera instead of being thrown in the general fund and cranked up everytime they "need" more money.
However, violent video games have a neglible (perhaps even positive as a cathartic release) societal burden. This is just a money grab on an unpopular group o
Pirating = Tax Evasion too? (Score:2, Interesting)
You can't "copy" cigarettes, but you can (but not legally in most cases) with digital media.
If said digital media has a "tax" on it, and someone makes a copy, then could that be made into an additional crime of tax evasion?
Re: (Score:2)
yea great idea.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I would also point out that taxing doesn't reduce the amount of violence in the game..
Sounds as effective as the Green tax tbph..
Ahem... (Score:5, Funny)
This is a perfect example of a sin tax error.
Thank you, I'll be here all night.
first they came for... (Score:2)
Then they came for Tobacco; and I do not smoke, so I did not speak out.
Now they've come for video games; and I don't play them...
I see a pattern emerging here. Who cares if they tax video games. Thanks for the extra revenue that does not have to come out of my paycheck.
Taxing for taxes sake. (Score:4, Interesting)
A sin tax? Are we serious? What's next? Will confessionals become toll booths? What constitutes a sin and by whos guage?
And targeting this? Why don't you call it what it is. "Wow, you make too much money, we need to figure out a way to tax you more."
I'll tell you what's a sin here. Re-electing these morons back in office. Give me a break. How about we look to tax lawmakers who fail to show up for work?
Freaking morons.
New Tax Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's just tax bad parents. You let your kid fail spelling? That's a hundred bucks. You let your kid fail math? That's two hundred. You let your kid fail PE? Well, celibacy is it's own tax plus, he/she won't be squishing out any more sedentary, garbage pile producing crotchfruit to compete with the resources of other, more fit people. TAX PARENTS.
Politics 101... (Score:2)
If you can't beat them, tax them.
Wait... (Score:2)
Is the submitter suggesting "sin" taxes are a good thing?!
If so, who gets to decide what activities and products are deserving of such penalties? How does this not quality as government-sponsored policing of morality? And who's system of ethics is ultimately the correct one?
Obviously taxes are necessary to fund the cost of government and it's services, but abusing the system to punish those who aren't harming anyone is completely ridiculous. Look at the outlandish cost of cigarettes smokers are subjected to
Re: (Score:2)
I paraphrase the great Doug Stanhope.
"Where do you get off exacting a 'sin tax' anyway? Whatever happened to separation of church and state? How do you legislate 'sin'? Fuck vice laws. Maybe a hooker and some blow gets me through my weekend, who am I hurting? Why not tax some Jesus while you're at it. I may wake up with spots on my dick and a nosebleed, but that's hurting *me*! The Catholic church left a lot more bodies in its wake than I or video games ever will."
"viable compromise"? (Score:2)
What two viable positions is that supposed to be a "viable compromise" between?
Wasn't that found unconstitutional? (Score:2, Interesting)
I think a "vice tax" on violent games has already been found an obstruction to free speech (how is it free speech if you're taxed depending on what you say?) and thus unconstitutional.
Letting that aside, "vice taxes" are a terrible idea, it basically means the richer you are the more vices you're allowed to have. To someone with a 200000$/year income the tax carries a completely different weight than to someone who earns 20000$/year. If vice taxes are supposed to make people use something less then they sho
Um.... (Score:3, Insightful)
What is our government now? The mafia? Seriously. They are essentially saying "Hey, look, we like you, but you're in trouble. Now, if you make sure we're taken care of, nothing bad will happen to you."
When did this become the job of the state?
This was predicted years ago (Score:2)
They have to do it. If the cigarette tax works then fewer people smoke. Tobacco tax money goes towards more things than health. It even goes towards road maintenance. So a lot of things the government does relies on that money and they won't give it up. If it comes to
Re: (Score:2)
"The US is in an incredible amount of debt and it has to be paid off some how."
Bernanke will just print it, have no fear.
Excuse me? (Score:2)
Ok, I RTFA'd and it doesn't seem that this is going Federal yet (and I'm Canadian). But lets' say it does.
Talk about the pot in the kettle! The same people that want to tax violent video games are the same ones that want to sent 18-year-old 'kids' (I'm 30 .... anyways) away to war to get shot at and kill people. No matter where the conflict or the reason, its beyond me why its okay to kill people in a warzone at the age of 18, yet you have to 'pay extra' to do it in a virtual world even if you're under 18.
Cigarette Tax eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
So when you buy that $7.00 pack of cigs, you know that $6.00 of it is taxes right?
So, we can look forward to paying $350 for a boxed title that goes for $50 now?
Fuck that noise.
Re:Tax my Toilet (Score:4, Funny)
When will they eventually get to the point of taxing what comes out of my butt?
Unless you make more than $250,000, you have nothing to worry about. Obama said so:
"Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
Maybe you'll have to take your pay stub into the store to prove that you make less than a quarter mill' a year. I'm still waiting for my cigarette tax refund paper work to come in the mail I paid the extra $1.00 tax recently and I don't make more than $250,000/yr.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe they'll find a way to pass on the taxes to only those people who make more than 250,000 - a version of that already exists in India.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is an example of the fallacy that consuming energy requires one to expel carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
For counterexample, check out the promising new 'photosynthesis' technology that the plant world has been working on.
the part where the plant "consumes" energy is not photosynthesis.
Re: (Score:2)
He's already broken it.
With the absolutely crazy tax on cigarettes, which are popular across all financial/socio-economic demographics (except maybe genetic) most lower income will have to give it up or smoke themselves into the poor house.
I guess Obama didn't like the idea of poor people doing along with himself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Anyway taxing smokers is smart, because smokers have health problems that taxpayers end up subsidizing through medicare/medicaid. Raising taxes on smokers results in fewer smokers, which results in a lower tax burden for nonsmokers. This is one where the "lower my taxes" crowd should be creaming their jeans, and instead they're whining about it.
Actually you're wrong. A non-smoker on average costs more over their life in medical costs than a smoker. Sure smokers get cancer and emphysema, but the treatments are fairly straight forward for these and usually a smoker dies much younger. Non-smokers tend to get more exotic/costly diseases and in the end cost the tax payers more.
This has been known for some time as this was published in 1997: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/337/15/1052 [nejm.org]
There have been more recent studies that back this up publish
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Infact, it seems that withdraw from video games kills you. Ask those Chinese people (in China) that walked out of internet cafes after 24hr+ gaming sessions and died. They should have kept playing.
(Totally tongue-in-cheek)
Re: (Score:2)
With rising prices of fuels and improvements in biogas production technology, you never know when that might happen...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
These are tax proposals by STATE legislatures.
learn2federalism.
Which part of "...not any of your taxes" did you not understand?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Tax my Toilet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure anyone except for people who are trying to nitpick non-issues knew that Obama was only talking about Federal taxes. There are plenty of good reasons to bash Obama, this one is just flat out stupid.
Yes. I will gladly admit that it is a nitpick and a case of RTFA. The cigarette tax part was not a nitpick, but could be considered off topic.
You win this time, Gravity!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh no, I got it. Obama has no control over state and local taxes. However, he should has specified that when he said "...not ANY of your taxes..." He could have said, "...not any of your FEDERAL taxes." or "not any of your INCOME taxes." He didn't. He said, "not ANY of your taxes".
This is a classic case of a straw man. Pretty much everyone understood the context this was in. Except you decide to remove context, ascribe intent to lack of context, and go on your merry flaming ways.
Nice try.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no, I got it. Obama has no control over state and local taxes. However, he should has specified that when he said "...not ANY of your taxes..." He could have said, "...not any of your FEDERAL taxes." or "not any of your INCOME taxes." He didn't. He said, "not ANY of your taxes".
This is a classic case of a straw man. Pretty much everyone understood the context this was in. Except you decide to remove context, ascribe intent to lack of context, and go on your merry flaming ways.
Nice try.
Strawman? Yeah, probably. I can see that. I would call it a nitpick as another poster did. When I read NO taxes, I expect NO taxes, but I live in a practically NO tax state.
So, I'll give you strawman. Not on the cigarette taxes though, although that is Off Topic.
Ah, here we go. The scarecrow has come to life:
http://news.cnet.com/Video-games-in-Congress-crosshairs/2100-1028_3-6079654.html [cnet.com]
While not exactly taxes yet, it is not something that is out of the question. You can bet that if legislative restr
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
*sigh* Obama's powers are at the federal level so it was IMPLICIT that he was talking about federal taxes, just like when someone tells you the year is 2009 you do not need to ask BC or AD. Unless you want to look like a total doofus.
Re:Tax my Toilet (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I earn less than $250,000 a year and Gordon Broon has just announced a raise in my taxes. I think President Obama should be ashamed of this tax raise out of his jurisdiction!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh no, I got it. Obama has no control over state and local taxes. However, he should has specified that when he said "...not ANY of your taxes..." He could have said, "...not any of your FEDERAL taxes." or "not any of your INCOME taxes." He didn't.
Who the HELL are you talking about? Who is this Obama and why is he in charge of anything tax related?
Actually, I got it. You mean President Barack Obama. However, you never specified that when you said, "Obama." You could have said "United State President Barack Obama." You didn't. You said, "Obama."
Dude, seriously. When the candidate for a federal office says the word "tax" the fact that it is a federal tax is assumed by everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tax my Toilet (Score:5, Funny)
We've heard that before [wikipedia.org], though, haven't we?
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly the response I expected from someone who doesn't understand federalism.
Hint: When a FEDERAL government official says that no taxes will be raised, it's implicit in the statement that it means FEDERAL taxes. The FEDERAL government has no control over what your STATE charges you.
See also Constitution, United States.
This is exactly the sort of response I'd expect from someone with no sense of humor...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"When will they eventually get to the point of taxing what comes out of my butt?"
Been done already. "Municipal sewage fees."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When will they eventually get to the point of taxing what comes out of my butt?
Unless you have your own septic tank, they do.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it would be a 69% tax.