PlayStation Begins Collecting Amusement Tax From Chicago Users (chicagotribune.com) 165
schwit1 writes: PlayStation users in Chicago on Wednesday began paying a 9 percent tax on streaming content as the gaming company starts complying with a city levy. The Sony-owned company joins other streaming services including Spotify, Netflix and Hulu in complying with the charge, which took effect three years ago. The city's amusement tax, which used to apply mostly to concert and sporting event tickets, was extended to include streaming services in 2015. That includes charges paid for playing games, according to Chicago's Finance Department. Some tech companies have fought the additional 9 percent charge. Apple filed a lawsuit against the city in August alleging the tax on its music streaming services was illegal and discriminatory. That suit is pending in Cook County Circuit Court. Meanwhile, Apple is not collecting the tax. In 2015, a group of Netflix, Amazon Prime, Spotify, XBox Live and Hulu users sued Chicago in Cook County, alleging the tax violates federal law. The judge ruled in the city's favor in May, and the streaming service users appealed the decision. The case is pending in state Appellate Court.
Wrong name (Score:4, Funny)
Because Chicago users are not amused about this.
Re: (Score:3)
Because Chicago users are not amused about this.
If they're not amused they don't have to pay the tax. The tax is clearly only for those that are amused.
Re: (Score:2)
Finally a use for crippling depression?
Re: (Score:2)
Yea that's why I watch CNN because they are completely unbiased and would never cherry pick data! Moron.
Re: (Score:2)
But people living in Chicago voted for the politicians that did this.
Re:Wrong name (Score:5, Insightful)
But people living in Chicago voted for the politicians that did this.
That's not how the Chicago political machine works, or has ever worked. Quoth Wikipedia:
Chicago has a long history of political corruption,[11] dating to the incorporation of the city in 1833.[12] It has been a de facto monolithic entity of the Democratic Party from the mid 20th century onward.[13][14] Research released by the University of Illinois at Chicago reports that Chicago and Cook County's judicial district recorded 45 public corruption convictions for 2013, and 1642 convictions since 1976, when the Department of Justice began compiling statistics. This prompted many media outlets to declare Chicago the "corruption capital of America".[15] Gradel and Simpson's Corrupt Illinois (2015) provides the data behind Chicago's corrupt political culture.[16][17] They found that a tabulation of federal public corruption convictions make Chicago "undoubtedly the most corrupt city in our nation",[18] with the cost of corruption "at least" $500 million per year.[19]
Re: (Score:3)
But people COULD still vote for the other major party, or vote libertarian, or even independent. They keep voting for the corruption.
I know that the dead people in Chicago always vote for democrats, but I would like to think that the living outnumber the dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wrong name (Score:5, Funny)
I've always wondered how Obama managed to thrive in the Chicago political environment, rising through the ranks in Chicago from community organizer, to the State Senate (representing Chicago), then to the US Senate (and then of course on to President) and remain so squeaky clean.
Re: (Score:1)
Squeaky clean? Hardly, unless you're a dumbass who listens to CNN.
Barry was chock full of scandal and corruption. Nobody really cared that much, though, because we were coming off the worst presidency in the history of the country and the Dems had no one else to run but literal NPCs. The meme has it semi-correct; while the "HURR MEDIA GUY GIB PROGRAM" is asinine... The Dem field was a field of same-faced assholes, indistinguishable from one another, where one was as good as the next.
So the wiser heads
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've always wondered how Obama managed to thrive in the Chicago political environment, rising through the ranks in Chicago from community organizer, to the State Senate (representing Chicago), then to the US Senate (and then of course on to President) and remain so squeaky clean.
He wasn't squeaky clean, the media protected him immensely. Negative things like his pastor being a racist, his pics with Louis Farrakhan, IRS targeting political opponents, and other scandals were brushed aside or buried. If the media had an axe to grind with him the way they did with either the president before or after him he would look less capable than Carter.
citations
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/... [talkingpointsmemo.com] https://www.azquotes.com/autho... [azquotes.com] https://www.naturalnews.com/04... [naturalnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Trump beat that out with a single pussy grabbing tape before he was elected.
If Nixon were still alive he'd be jumping with joy at no longer being the most corrupt president.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the worst you can come up with? Trump beat that out with a single pussy grabbing tape before he was elected. If Nixon were still alive he'd be jumping with joy at no longer being the most corrupt president.
There are scandals at a personal level and there are scandals at a larger level. Womanizers like Trump, JFK, and Bill Clinton are personal level scandals. Not good but not as corrosive as gaining / maintaining power type scandals. Nixon, as well as Obama targeting political opponents via the IRS, are the latter and are far worse in the big picture / long run. That's why Nixon was properly considered so bad.
Re: (Score:2)
and remain so squeaky clean.
He was squeaky clean in the one way that mattered: the Clintons had nothing on him. The Clintons used their access through the presidency to get all the blackmail material that the intelligence agencies had on all potential rivals. Hillary should have had it easy in the 2008 primary, but Obama came out of nowhere.
If he was in someone pocket the whole time, that person was a freaking genius. But then, I doubt historians will ever discover who really has the power in America.
Re: Wrong name (Score:1)
It's obvious from the Iran deal and not ending the war, which we are still in and he had 8 years to fulfill that promise, that he is owned by the Muslim Brotherhood.
You can't tax your way to success (Score:2, Informative)
As if anyone who can isn't already trying to leave Chicago.
Re: (Score:1)
And it would not be just because of the tax itself, but because of what it implies about what is going on there, and what is yet to come.
Re: When your city taxes you for being amused (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a quote from a Ween song [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: End Goal (Score:1)
We will send firemen to 'disposition' books that have unpaid tax balances.
Could try..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Either slash the pensions to nothing (and yes that hurts people on it) to try to give the current people an economic chance or keep raising taxes (which also hurts people) until those who have money and/or mobile decide to simply leave making the situation worse (which based on numbers of people leaving being greater than those coming in seems to be their choice).
the USPS is forced to prefund its long-term pensio (Score:2)
the USPS is forced to prefund its long-term pension as well.
Maybe an federal level fix is needed
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhhh, you might want to stop for a minute and learn about the thing you're commenting on. Pensions aren't similar to welfare in any way shape or form. They'd be more similar to a 401K. It's a retirement plan. You work your entire life, and theoretically the company you work for is funding in to a pension which they then pay out to you in your retirement. Just because the company you work for is the government, that doesn't fundamentally change how pensions are SUPPOSED to work.
If you insist on eliminating my 401K for a UBI, well, we're gonna have problems, and they may become violent. I'm going to guess most would feel the same about their pension.
The police and fire pensions that let them retire lavishly are like welfare on steroids. Both are paid out of the public purse, unlike a 401k which you pay for largely on your own. Bankrupting cities is not serving or protecting anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
The tax on your 401k simply is adjusted to 98%. Easy-peasy.
There would be an actual revolution. The temptation will always be there of course for the US government to loot our savings, but it's not that corrupt, yet (nor is it totalitarian enough to getaway with it, yet). If things are ever that far gone, they'll likely loot university endowments and insurance pools first, so there will be warning.
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of like our current defense spending .
Re: (Score:2)
It is a federally guaranteed Insurance I am FORCED to pay for.
NOT an entitlement, except I should be entitled to collect on my unwilling investment.
The fact that the initial people under the program did not pay into it is completely irrelevant.
Straw man a burnin'!
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of like our current defense spending .
Meh, we pay more for medica* than for defense. We pay more for SS than for defense. And we're not funding either of those program fully - the unfunded liability for those programs combined is more than double the national debt.
Defense spending is the other way: we pay now for benefits accrued years down the road.
Re: (Score:2)
What are these benefits from defense spending? We started ridiculous budgets back during the Reagan administration. I'd rather have health care than another aircraft carrier bombing brown people in a 3rd world shithole.
Re: (Score:2)
Budgets are far below the Reagan years (adjusted for inflation). And the Pax Americana has lasted 70 years now. As we slip from hyperpower back to a superpower with peers, there will inevitably be a new world war, but it probably won't be a nuclear war that takes us back to the stone age. That's something.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It's also spilling more and more west as well. It's not enough the Dems have to ruin Chicago proper. They're trying to take everything in the surrounding area as well. The hilarious thing is, those that scream for more taxes fall generally in to two categories. 1). They're broke and don't qualify or get around the tax. 2). They're filthy rich and get around the tax. Basically, the only thing taxes do is gut out the middle and make them poor or they leave. Either way, you're just actively rotting yourself f
The good old Sin Tax. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just like taxes on Gasoline, Cigarettes, Alcohol and Gambling. This is just an other Sin tax, where we are taxing people for products that are deemed by society to be bad for it, but is too popular to ban.
The issue is, the Tax will raise the price of the product, but demand will not be affected by an amount, so it is just free money to the City. And if people just stop using such services, there isn't going to be a public outcry because they don't need it.
Re:The good old Sin Tax. (Score:4, Funny)
Just like taxes on Gasoline, Cigarettes, Alcohol and Gambling. This is just an other Sin tax
Petrol is a sin? When did this happen. I cant remember the part of the bible that said, "Thou shalt not engineer the combustion of internals".
The word you're looking for is "soft target". Gamers will not garner any sympathy from the majority, same as smokers, drinkers, gamblers and drivers. This makes it a soft target, not a sin.
Sin taxes refer explicitly to vices, drinking, smoking, gambling, pornography and the like.
The thing is, going after soft targets almost never gets as much cash as they hope for, in fact they rarely generate enough money to justify their existence like the "soft drink tax" here in the UK.
The Bible mentions harmful addictive acts (Score:3)
I don't think the bible specifically mentions anything about tobacco
You are correct. However, The Bible has plenty of warnings against intentionally harming your body and others' with addictive substances [jw.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for finding Revelation 11:18. Here's Sony's plan to reduce its ecological footprint [sony.net].
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it isn't "green." That is close enough to a sin these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Petrol usage creates pollution (volatile compounds and particulates which damage the brain and lungs, not just CO2). It also creates traffic which prevents other people from getting around the city. So taxing petrol to reduce usage is about the smartest thing to you can do. You take some of the damage and waste that driving does, and redirect that lost value to the city budget where it can do useful things (or allow other taxes to be reduced).
Re: (Score:2)
This is just an other Sin tax, where we are taxing people for products that are deemed by society to be bad for it, but is too popular to ban.
So the leftist lords of Chicago are really Cotton Mather?
The issue is, the Tax will raise the price of the product, but demand will not be affected by an amount, so it is just free money to the City.
Ah, there you hit on it ...
Re: (Score:2)
hmmm... not so sure about this.
I'd say that the 'net is both the new Soma [wikipedia.org] and the Telescrene [wikipedia.org]. Not in their interests to discourage use.
Ah good 'ole regressive taxation (Score:1, Insightful)
As an added bonus these taxes piss off working class people who then demand tax cuts. You then give tax cuts to billionaire elites and when there's the inevitable bu
Re: (Score:2)
Another good example is flat alcohol taxes. You'll pay the same tax on that 50 cent can of Pabst Blue Ribbon that your CEO pays on his $3000 bottle of Chateau de something-or-other.
In my city in Colorado, the sales tax on the beer would be about $0.03 and on the $3,000 bottle of wine ~$250. I'm not sure about the Federal alcohol tax.
See here (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's when you structure your taxes to disproportionately affect the poor and working class because your elected reps won't raise taxes on their wealthy donors. Another good example is flat alcohol taxes. You'll pay the same tax on that 50 cent can of Pabst Blue Ribbon that your CEO pays on his $3000 bottle of Chateau de something-or-other.
I see. So, Chicago, run by leftists for decades, is actually a regressive place run by fat cats?
Sorta (Score:2)
Again, this is why you, as a voter, need to demand better. Make No Corp PAC money a defining issue.
Sony is making the wrong call here (Score:2)
All of their powerful competitors are fighting this tax. It will probably be struck down. If it is, then Sony looks like not just an asshole for collecting it, but a dumbshit and abusive to users to boot. But even if it isn't, then Sony looks like the reason it isn't, and still looks like a pack of assholes. If the competition is refusing to collect the tax, then Sony should also refuse to collect it.
OFC, Sony does everything wrong, so this is my surprised face.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure it isn't the RIGHT call for Sony, especially if they DETAIL the tax on their billing.
I do not see where there is much of a legal argument that Chicago cannot assess taxes like this on their residents You would first have to prove that the basic tax itself was illegal, as applied to what it originally taxed - tickets to concerts, sports events, etc. Those have been largely held up to be legal; the precedent has been established, and only the definition broadened.
So the industry is tilting win
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yes, but those EVENTs were held physically in the area/state. These virtual ones are not...and usually house outside the state.
I know that laws are saying you can collect tax on sales of physical items you buy and are shipped to you, but a game is NOT a physical item, it is a moment in time online and not something you physically have to go to attend.
Re: (Score:3)
I do not see where there is much of a legal argument that Chicago cannot assess taxes like this on their residents
The argument is not that Chicago cannot assess taxes like this on their residents, but rather that they have no authority to force companies outside their own jurisdiction to serve as tax-collectors. If Chicago wants to assess a tax on the citizens of Chicago for playing Sony's games that is strictly between the Chicago government and the people who live there. Sony should have no obligation either to report on the people playing their games or to collect and remit the tax.
Juristiction... (Score:2)
I have never understood why the assumed jurisdiction for the sale is the location of the client , why not the location of the server from which the request comes.
or the location of the server where money is actually exchanged. If I call someone in china and buy something from them mail order with my visa card, where did that transaction occur? Pretty sure it wasn't my home state and I am really no certain why anyone would think otherwise. Or at least the state needs to stop expecting the 'vendor' to act li
Re: (Score:1)
I have never understood why the assumed jurisdiction for the sale is the location of the client , why not the location of the server from which the request comes.
Because we've already been down this road decades ago with mail-order catalogs. Now, if you are asking why that decision was made way back then, well, I do not have an answer to that.
I also do not have an answer to why some people think that, just because it is now "on the internet", the old rule of sellers having no obligation to collect sales tax unless they are in the same jurisdiction no longer applies.
lol (Score:5, Funny)
Young gamers look up from screen ...
"Hey, I thought socialism meant that other people paid more. WTF???"
It does (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't that depend on the game you buy? (Score:5, Funny)
There have been a number of games I've bought in the past that brought no amusement whatsoever.
I'm thinking something like a tax refund if the game you buy gets below 50% on Metacritic.
Voracious (Score:4)
You voted for it! You encourage voracious government for massive spending, as Shakespeare might have said, "As you like it!"
Times are better than ever before. Government spending should be shrinking. Yet it grows.
It's almost as if it has nothing to do with need and everything to do with buying votes!
I didn't vote for it (Score:2)
We all still want roads and schools. We want police and fire. But nobody seems to want to have to pay for it.
ROTFL (Score:2)
This is the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. Chicago city council, pay up.
Stop crying Chicago...you wanted it (Score:2)
This won't stand for long (Score:2)
What'll happen is this: similar to how many Chinese get around the the Great Firewall, people who can grok how to do it will do an end-run around the 'tax' by using a VPN, TOR, or something similar, if possible (depends on how the tax is levied).
Something else that might happen: people will say 'fuck this' and just not use the services th
Still zero tax on piracy (Score:2)
Just another thing to punish law-abiding citizens and make piracy more attractive.