Texas Senator Proposes Game Tax

Via 1up, an article at the Brownsville Herald detailing a proposed tax on videogames. From the article: "The McAllen Democrat said on Wednesday he plans to propose a 5 percent tax on videogames when he and other members of the Senate Finance Committee meet this weekend to discuss a series of tax bills. It would raise about $65 million every two years and be designated for new schools and building upgrades at poor school districts, he said. 'You have all these kids buying videogames, and sometimes they are good, some are bad and that's not my call,' Hinojosa said. 'But I think that we can generate (money) to put toward the schools they go to.'"

Comments

In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Texas gamers propose switching to mail-order, never buying video games from a brick and mortar store again

Re:In other news

[MBraynard]

He's a Democrat in a heavily Republican legislature and state. His ideas for taxation carry as much weight as John Kerry's ideas on Iraq. Nilch.

Leave it to Zonk to get the slashherd spooked for nothing.

Nothing to see here. Move along. Go back to your tentacle pr0n and doughnuts.p

Re:In other news

[GmAz]

Exactly. One other question...does Texas have a sales tax? If not, then its not so horrible. We Californians pay seven and a quarter sales tax. I would be pissed if they stacked another tax on top of that.

better idea

[Nesetril]

Always gotta come after the little man, huh? How about a 5% tax on high end multi-GPU 512MB DDR3 KO-edition video cards instead?

Oh, man. I wish I was still in school...

[HaloZero]

'Stop playing that game and finish your homework!' 'Wait! Dad! I'm... uh... helping... fund... the school! YEAH!' 'So that's what that new tax is. [laugh] Alright, kid. Go for it.'

from the wtf dept

[MoFoQ]

wtf.....why not a tax on stupid proposals and on stupid politicians.

you know...if these politicians took a 5% pay-cut (or just forgo a raise for a year), I'm sure they can collect the funds to help the schools....or tax the Texan oil companies that are forcing families to choose between school supplies, gas, and food.

heck...if Chenney would donate some of his return, damn...that's alot of money for a po' person like me and old Oprah.

Re:from the wtf dept

[Guppy06]

"you know...if these politicians took a 5% pay-cut"

There are 181 members of the Texas Legislature (31 Senators and 150 Representatives). Each one earns $7,200 a year (really!) , your 5% pay cut idea would save the state $65,160.

In 2005, the amount of money the Texas Legislature appropriated for general education was $13 Billion. So you'd be increasing that by 0.000005%

Nice try, thanks for playing.

"(or just forgo a raise for a year)"

This is a state proposal, not federal. The Texas Legislature cannot raise its own salary ("cost of living" or otherwise) without the matter first being put before the voters (which is why they're stuck at $7,200 to begin with).

"if Chenney would donate some of his return"

1. He's from Wyoming, not Texas, otherwise Texas couldn't vote for the Bush/Cheney ticket.
2. He owed the IRS money, to the tune of over $500,000
3. Even if he donated every cent he made in 2005 (around $2 million), you'd still be increasing educational spending in Texas by 0.00015%.

"that's alot of money for a po' person like me and old Oprah"

But a drop in the bucket in the budget for one of the most economically vibrant states in the Union.

Re:from the wtf dept

[superwiz]

A better idea is to have a 5% tax on sponsoring all interactions with publicly elected officials. Took a congressman to dinner -- pay 5% of the price of the dinner to umm... help schools. Taxing an activity is a way to supress it... so why not supress bribery... I mean lobbying, of course.

Re:from the wtf dept

[sumdumass]

You know, texan oil companies don't pay taxes, they push all thier taxes off onto the consumer. This is basic business, they all do that. This is why liberal taxing schemes usualy result in inflation. So if you taxed the texan oil companies, you would most likley be paying more for gas and chosing it over even less food and school supplies.

Now what is going on is the exact same model the cigarette tax made. When a state wants to take money from the people and get re-elected, they now can comfortably do it by only taxing a certain portion of the state at a time. What they have learned is that when a reletive small percentage of people (say 1/4 the population) do or use something regularly, a tax on that product will generaly yeild steady result. Of course they expect some people to quit using that product but the majority will continue. Then a year or so later, they will segregate another portion of the population and do it to them.

I remeber some states rushing out to spend the money from the cigarette settlement and then complaining that it wasn't there two or three years later when people quit smoking. But thats what the settlment was supposed to doo right? make people quite smoking? nahh, it was just a learning experience for those wanting to tax us. Now when my state (not texas) got the lotery, they said half of it would goto the schools, Then one of the papers found that money already going to the schools was diverted to something else and the lotery money was very little more then what was alrerady being spent. So, I'm wondering if this tax is going to raISE money for the schools in adition to what they already have budgeted (plus existing projected budget increases)or if it will just displace the source of some existing revenue so it can be spent on somethign else. Either way, to me, it sounds like a scam from the start

Re:from the wtf dept

[Guppy06]

"You know, texan oil companies don't pay taxes, they push all thier taxes off onto the consumer."

Ah, but most of those consumers live outside of Texas, so it's still a net gain.

Re:from the wtf dept

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that the politicians taking a 5% pay cut would only raise $65,160 and that is just a 'drop in the bucket'. Well how much would taxing games earn? How much more would that accomplish?

Re:from the wtf dept

[Guppy06]

In 2005 the video game industry earned $10.5 billion in the United States. Texas has about 7.4% of the population of the United States, so it can be assumed they're responsible for a similar percentage of video game sales, giving us around $778 million to play with. If we use the same 5% figure used in the parent as our sales tax value, that would give Texas around $39 million. It would only raise the education budget by around 0.2%, but it's still several orders of magnitude more than either of the ideas offered by the parent.

Re:from the wtf dept

[Anonymous Coward]

How DARE you sully this outrage over taxes with your "facts" and "logic". For shame. Don't you know that all taxes are bad, and all politicians are greedy and stupid? How dare you.

Re:from the wtf dept

[MoFoQ]

wow...were things that cheap in Texas?
Hmm...but according to the paper, Ken Lay's condo in Houston cost him 4mill (and cost the American ppl billions).

ANYWAYS...what about OTHER politicians?
You know, city officials, mayors, Senators and Reps....
And why apply the 5% to their "official" pay? Why not apply it to their kickbacks^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcontributions?

As for Cheney, yea...I know he's not from Texas...but he SURELY does business in Texas. Actually, he did donate 6.87mill to charity...why not a few schools too? or rallied to get richer ppl to help too?

Re:from the wtf dept

[recursiv]

Cheney donated over $6,000,000 of his ~$9,000,000 income in 2005.

Re:from the wtf dept

[MoFoQ]

I've already said that....in another post....at least his "official" income...who knows what other benefits he may got from the oil companies, big HAL, and for shooting his lawyer friend. ;)

Re:from the wtf dept

[lgw]

He's from Wyoming, not Texas, otherwise Texas couldn't vote for the Bush/Cheney ticket.

How many people these days know that piece of constitutional trivia? Nice!

Re:from the wtf dept

[sumdumass]

Your missing the point, All it will do is make the products cost more. And usualy, those product shiped outside the state aren't subjected to taxes within the state. It will still just be more charged for the products being taxed.

Re:from the wtf dept

[Guppy06]

"And usualy, those product shiped outside the state aren't subjected to taxes within the state."

And you're missing the point; the parent mentioned taxing the oil companies directly. While Texas may not be able to collect taxes from gasoline sold in Florida, they can tax the income the corporation receives from that sale, so it's a net gain for Austin.

Re:from the wtf dept

[sumdumass]

Net gain at the expense of consumers most likely in that state. Oil companies have point of nexus (does enough business to implement thst states tax code or actualy has a presence)in other states to the point that thier income is taxed into those other states. Keeping with your example, any oil company selling to florida or operating in florida will amas it profits from there in florida and those profits won't be subject to a texas tax until it is distributed to the benefactors (EG personal income tax.) All the oil in the US is controled by 5 parent oil companies. 4 of wich operate in any given state at one time. Any small oil company will have to sell to one of these bigger companies wich will trip the taxing texas oil into a taxing only texans.

So taxing texas oil is most likley only going to be a tax on texans. It isn't neccesarily that simple but it is most likley what would happen. Microsoft and IBM have the same setup. Washington doesn't see tax on every penny microsoft makes as well as IBM divides thiers up into several states too. It is just how it works.

Rings a bell

[Anonymous Coward]

You have all these kids buying videogames

Kids being taxed? Have kids been granted the right to vote when I wasn't looking? I seem to recall Americans having a bit of a problem with taxation without representation.

Can somebody explain to me why kids aren't allowed to vote? Sure, they can be easily swayed by dumb slogans, but hey, if that was the reason for not letting people have the vote, hardly anybody would have it.

Re:Rings a bell

[agent_no.82]

I can't vote and I would deny my peers the ability to vote, if such a decision was ever put before me.
I understand many adults are stupid too, but kids haven't finished school(Social Studies classes in particular), and have not had the opportunity to be exposed to new ideas.

Re:Rings a bell

[iminplaya]

Sure, they can be easily swayed by dumb slogans...

Not nearly as much as the adults who do vote.

Re:Rings a bell

[Anonymous Coward]

kids haven't finished school(Social Studies classes in particular), and have not had the opportunity to be exposed to new ideas.

Translation, their programming by the public school system hasn't been completed yet.

________________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself

Re:Rings a bell

[Anonymous Coward]

What about immigrant adults that got totally brainwashed as children? Are they "more educated" and thus better able to vote?

No, I think kids aren't allowed to vote basically because they don't have the rights and responsibilities that adults do.

Re:Rings a bell

[Mikeytsi]

The "representation" part comes from the person that is suggesting this tax.

The United States is a representative democracy, which means we elect people that we (supposedly) trust to make certain decisions for us. If the US was a full democracy, there would be no legislative branch, all people would vote on ALL issues.

Before the formation of the country, some dude that lived on the other side of a large body of water made decisions about our daily lives without our input or authorization, which we had some issues with.

Minors lack certain rights, as well as being protected from certain responsiblities. It is the parent or legal guardian's responsibility in that case to make votes and decisions that will act in the minor's best interest.

Minors are not granted the right to vote because it has been determined that they are not emotionally or mentally capable of handling certian responsibilities, like making informed voting decisions. 18 is kind of an arbitrary number, but it is assumed that most people are capable of making informed and responsible decisions by this age. There are some exceptions to this (emancipation being one of them).

Re:Rings a bell

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States is a representative democracy, which means we elect people that we (supposedly) trust to make certain decisions for us. If the US was a full democracy, there would be no legislative branch, all people would vote on ALL issues.

You missed my point. I wasn't arguing that everybody should vote on every topic. I was pointing out that the people targeted by this tax are people with no duly elected representative.

Before the formation of the country, some dude that lived on the other side of a large body of water made decisions about our daily lives without our input or authorization, which we had some issues with.

And what input or authorisation do kids have regarding this tax?

It is the parent or legal guardian's responsibility in that case to make votes and decisions that will act in the minor's best interest.

If that were the case, then the parent would recieve additional votes to cast on the child's behalf. As it is, a family of eight individuals (two parents, six children) have the same voting power as a family of two individuals (two parents, no children). Minors are entirely powerless and not represented at all by USA "democracy". Taxing children is taxing people without representation.

Minors are not granted the right to vote because it has been determined that they are not emotionally or mentally capable of handling certian responsibilities, like making informed voting decisions.

Determined by what studies and reasoning? I truly believe a significant number of adults would also fall foul of such studies and reasoning. Would it also be right to deprive those adults of the vote too?

More money for schools

[Kohath]

Because $10000 per child per year isn't enough. Because dumping bucketloads of money on schools has such a tremendous track record of success. Do it for the children (who actually won't be getting the money because it'll go to higher salaries for people who already work at the schools).

Re:More money for schools

[jtshaw]

Ya... because teachers and administrators in public schools are so overpaid...

The problem isn't that the money goes to people who WORK at the schools, it goes to useless government employees that DON'T WORK at the schools and over price supplies that seam to evaporate into thin air.

It is sad that my first job out of college after undergrad paid more then then public school teachers in some states with 25+ years of experience. It would probably be a lot easier to draw a large number of good teachers (and administrators) if they could provide some reasonable salaries...

Re:More money for schools

[bunions]

Your post does not contradict the post you reply to. There is no point in throwing good money after bad. The schools are broken and more money won't fix them. Exactly where the breakage is I can't say, but the assertion that simply funnelling more money to the schools will not fix them is true.

Re:More money for schools

[ElleyKitten]

Ya... because teachers and administrators in public schools are so overpaid...

Teachers aren't overpaid... but administrators are. At least at the district my husband works in, the administrators make much more than the teachers, and they, unlike teachers, cannot be laid off. Seriously, his district lays off teachers every year (driving up class sizes more and more), and when they finally passed a levy, guess what they did. Hired more administrators.

Schools need smaller classes and better teachers. Everything else is just fluff.

Re:More money for schools

[VGR]

I wouldn't count on it. Programmers and web authors get paid pretty well, and ... well, the proliferation of badly designed web pages, badly designed apps, and unstable drivers speaks for itself.

Politicians get paid pretty well, but nearly all of them suck at doing their job.

And there's the increasing number of medical doctors who do their job with all the passion of a fry cook. They don't seem to be interested in helping patients as much as belting out a diagnosis and getting them to go away.

I'm not saying public schoolteachers don't deserve more money. In most cases they do. I'm just saying, higher salaries won't make a difference in the quality of teachers.

Re:More money for schools

[amuro98]

Administrators are certainly overpaid. When I was still in school, one of the board's favorite cost-cutting measures was to encourage the early retirement of their older administrators. Then everyone got a promotion. This included taking some seasoned teachers and offering them an entry-level administration job.

The idea behind this was that an administrator with many years on the job was making much much more than an entry level administrator, who in turn makes much much more than a newbie teacher fresh out of college. This was supposed to "save money" but in reality, ended up starving the school system of the thing it needed the most - experienced teachers.

If you offered such a promotion and turned it down, you were guaranteed to be left to rot in your classroom. I was lucky enough to have some teachers that turned down the promotions and stayed where they could have the most impact - in the classrooms. Unfortunatly, I also saw a lot of good teachers take the promotion (not that I blame them!) and never teach another class again.

Of course, I also went to school in a city where the school board members were driven around the city by chauffers and made 6 figure salaries (for what, I wonder?), while each teacher was provided with a single piece of chalk as the total sum of their teaching supplies. If you were favored by the board, you even got a new piece of chalk.

Re:More money for schools

[Anonymous Coward]

more money could and probably would draw more potential teachers, more to choose from, perhaps more quality people. it does tend to work that way.

I won't always be cowardly

What's the difference?

[ameoba]

I just love how our legislators feel that video games need to be treated differently than movies, books, music or any other form of entertainment. Any argument that can be made for taxing games is going to be equally valid to any other entertainment medium.

Re:What's the difference?

[RedWizzard]

I just love how our legislators feel that video games need to be treated differently than movies, books, music or any other form of entertainment. Any argument that can be made for taxing games is going to be equally valid to any other entertainment medium.

The difference, at least for movies and music, is the power of the industry lobby groups. You think the RIAA or MPAA would stand for senators proposing taxes on movies or music? No chance. But the video game industry doesn't have so much power. That's why sex and violence in video games is getting so much attention while the same thing in Hollywood or on TV is blithely ignored.

Re:What's the difference?

[drachenstern]

Ah but a little dab here, and a little drop there. On the left you make a stroke, and on the right you touch a dab. Up above a smidge, and down below a glob, and pretty soon, you have a painting. But did you make it appear all at once? No.

Same thing here. Tax a little portion of the market, then let them get used to paying it without thinking about it. Next, tax a little more. So first it's video games, pretty much a luxury item. Next it'll be a 2% tax on all movies rented and a 3.5% tax on all movies purchased. But wait, you say, we can't pay a tax on that. Why not, you're already paying it on video games? Oh, okay then, I guess if you say it's not going to make that big a dent.

So now then, you were saying?

Re:What's the difference?

[Bastian]

Don't forget the age-old "Please, think of the children!" argument that comes from clueless parents who still haven't figured out that most of the video game market is legal adults.

Re:What's the difference?

[PMuse]

Any argument that can be made for taxing games is going to be equally valid to any other entertainment medium.

As with every sin tax, the argument is "video games are bad for you, so we will tax them so that . . ." What I've never been sure about is whether it's so that (a) you'll stop playing or so that (b) we'll make lots of money off your addiction.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? So where's the setting to make my PS2 only play games rated E or younger?

Oh, there isn't any, like there are mandatory ratings for TV stations and systems in place to allow parental control in DVD players and TVs? Oh, I guess you're just totally wrong!

so it will raise about $30 million a year

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

and how many millions will it cost to propose, consider, publish, and implement?

Well...

[GundamFan]

On one hand more money for poor schools is a good thing.

On the other video games are a luxury item and many other luxury items are taxed.

I'm fine with this and I don't think it is incramentalism, after all they are taxing all games not just the "bad" ones.

Re:Well...

[ADRA]

Why not just tax DVD movies? They'll probably raise a hell of a lot more money. What do you mean the taxation isn't representative of the audience? Well, so are video games, you insensative clods! If you're taxing video games then tax any and all forms of entertainment. Their hypocracy (Tax everything I don't buy) is disappointing.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

"On one hand more money for poor schools is a good thing.

On the other video games are a luxury item and many other luxury items are taxed."

Shouldn't those two points be on the same hand?

Re:Well...

[tansey]

I doubt that a congressman really cares if the 10-20 max DVDs that he buys a year ends up costing him $100 more. I think the idea here is more "Tax anything that my constituents don't buy." When you consider that the majority of gamers are young, most young people don't vote, seniors tend to vote in massive numbers, and very very few seniors play videogames, this is an almost transparent tax to the people that matter to the congressman from Texas. In his mind, he's happy to let the 25 crowd bitch all they want about paying $52.50 instead of $50 for a videogame, as long as the dominant voting force doesn't care. The part about it going to schools will also help assauge the fears of parents who have to pay the 5% tax for their kids' games, because after all--it's going straight to their kids' schools anyway.

So on the surface it appears to be a very popular idea across the board. The only issue I would have with it is how long will it actually be used solely for schools? What will it take for the funds to be 'temporarily diverted' for some 'emergency need' which seems to last just long enough so people forget the original purpose of the tax, and just accept it?

idiots and politicians

[Toby The Economist]

There are ways to tax and there are ways to tax.

Most are highly inequitious - such as this tax.

Why should people buying software be paying for schools?

Is there some link here? of course not.

There are well-known principles of general taxation which are equitious and minimize the discouragement caused by taxation to industry. These need to be followed at all times.

ANYONE suggesting tax should be done otherwise is a complete idiot with regard to economics and should be kept WELL away from any such decisions.

Would you have a politician making design decisions for particle accelerators? of course not - you know full well that simply being a politician doesn't make you a physicist.

In EXACTLY the same way, being a politician does not make you an economist - and if politicians are then making economic decisions, their decisions will lead to an economy in the exact same state as the particle accelerator they would otherwise have built.

Tax is too complicated and too closely related to freedom to be used to implement political policy.

Re:idiots and politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's the case, then why do we have about a billion types of tax? Tax can be used to implement economic policy. Otherwise we would just have one generic income or sales tax.

I do agree with you that games are not related to education and it doesn't make sense to take from the games industry and give it to education.

Re:idiots and politicians

[bunions]

How is this -in any way- insightful?

"Why should people buying software be paying for schools?"

Why should people playing the lottery be paying for schools? Why should people buying yachts be paying for public parks? Why should people buying gum be paying for welfare?

"Tax is too complicated and too closely related to freedom to be used to implement political policy."

exactly what 'political policy' does the (stupid) proposed game tax implement?

Re:idiots and politicians

[TLouden]

It seems people are forgeting two things:
1) politics have long used economics to justify their actions and are (stupidly you should argue) allowed to make economic decisions.
2) the opposite is not true of economics and in fact any economics which go against politics are generaly ignored or, in more unstable situations, destroyed.

Re:idiots and politicians

[jonwil]

Just follow australia.
We just have the 10% GST on everything except certain food and other essentials plus a special tax on a couple things like alcohol & cigarettes.

Re:idiots and politicians

[Toby The Economist]

> > "Why should people buying software be paying for schools?"

> Why should people playing the lottery be paying for schools? Why should people
> buying yachts be paying for public parks? Why should people buying gum be paying
> for welfare?

What I was getting at is why should people buying software *particularly, and in excess of all other people*, be paying for schools?

If you accept that general taxation should pay for schools, why should that burden fall that much more on people who buy software?

> > "Tax is too complicated and too closely related to freedom to be used to
> > implement political policy."

> exactly what 'political policy' does the (stupid) proposed game tax implement?

Not an explicit policy in this case, unless perhaps that people buying software are wealthy and can afford to pay more? but there is an implicit policy - that tax can be placed on fairly arbitrary transactions on the basis they raise revenue for "good causes", which is appalling.

Re:idiots and politicians

[bunions]

"What I was getting at is why should people buying software *particularly, and in excess of all other people*, be paying for schools?

If you accept that general taxation should pay for schools, why should that burden fall that much more on people who buy software?"

First, it's not all software, it's games. Second, my guess is because a typical video game consumer is still in school, and therefore the child should support his school.

"Not an explicit policy in this case, unless perhaps that people buying software are wealthy and can afford to pay more?"

Luxury taxes have been around a long, long time.

"but there is an implicit policy - that tax can be placed on fairly arbitrary transactions on the basis they raise revenue for "good causes", which is appalling."

I'm not a big fan of the concept myself, but 'appalling' is kind of melodramatic, don't you think?

Re:idiots and politicians

[Toby The Economist]

> > If you accept that general taxation should pay for schools, why should that
> > burden fall that much more on people who buy software?"

> First, it's not all software, it's games. Second, my guess is because a typical
> video game consumer is still in school, and therefore the child should support his
> school.

According to the Wiki, the average age of a game player is now 30.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game#Popularity

But that masks the underlying issue here; even if it were that the age were low, *why* does buying computer games mean you *must* give an additional part of your income to support schools?

I see this as arbitrary.

That kid probably uses playgrounds, too, and walks down the street on the pavement. Do we also tax him for playgrounds and road maintenance? if not, *why not*, given we accept taxing for schools? on what basis would we object? and doesn't that kid also get helped if we pay some tax to keep the homeless off the streets?

And if that *kid* is benefitting in this way, well, what about adults, too? why not tax them, when they buy food, to help provide benefits to small grocery businesses, which keep going out of business.

You can make up an infinite array of causes which would "benefit" from being given money. The problem is that that money comes from tax and the more you tax, the more you hammer the economy *and* personal economic freedom until things are totally and utterly borked.

I mention personal economic freedom in particular here because if say half my income is taken in tax - which it is, as it happens - I am just as effectively prevented from buying a new house or car or holiday as if the State had restricted my *actual personal freedom* and passed laws banning me from buying a new house, car, or taking a holiday.

Economic freedom is as vital as personal freedom and taxation directly erodes economic freedom.

> > Not an explicit policy in this case, unless perhaps that people buying software
> > are wealthy and can afford to pay more?"

> Luxury taxes have been around a long, long time.

So have fraud, larceny, theft and religion. Being around for a long time doesn't make something valid and correct.

Speaking as free marketier, I abhor luxury taxes. They distort the economy, making it allocate the available capital less efficiently and so reducing the overall growth of wealth that is the key to making us all better off.

> > but there is an implicit policy - that tax can be placed on fairly arbitrary
> > transactions on the basis they raise revenue for "good causes", which is
> > appalling.

> I'm not a big fan of the concept myself, but 'appalling' is kind of melodramatic,
> don't you think?

Unfortunately no - consider the general case and the problems of definition; *who* decides exactly *what* is a "good cause"? and who decides what to tax? do we end up taxing in a way which minimizes the discouragement to industry, or do we end up taxing in ways which are politically acceptable? and how much do we end up taxing? what happens if the taxes keep increasing?

As Americans I'm sure have noticed, Congress spends the entire tax take *plus a little bit more*, which is why taxes keeping rising and the country is permanently in debt.

The notion that we can then throw even more taxes on the heap, for these dubious and almost certainly politically inspired "good causes", fills me with disgust for the corrupt and incompetent political process we are lumbered with.

Re:idiots and politicians

[bunions]

But that masks the underlying issue here; even if it were that the age were low, *why* does buying computer games mean you *must* give an additional part of your income to support schools?

because as a school-age person, you use the school system more than someone who ... you know, doesn't go to school and should therefore pay more for them. Or, more accurately, get your parents to pay more for them.

I won't go into the rest of your post because I simply disagree with most of it. I do not think that very low taxes contribute to the greater good in our current system. It sounds very neat and tidy to just yell "free market solves everything" but it doesn't - a balance between engineering and evolution has to be struck.

Re:idiots and politicians

[Toby The Economist]

> > But that masks the underlying issue here; even if it were that the age were low,
> > *why* does buying computer games mean you *must* give an additional part of your
> > income to support schools?

> because as a school-age person, you use the school system more than someone who
> ... you know, doesn't go to school and should therefore pay more for them. Or,
> more accurately, get your parents to pay more for them.

If this is the reason used, then why is tax only being applied to the parents of those children who buy games? surely it should be based on those parents who have kids who go to school?

I am completely in favour of people paying according to their use - but this tax does not achieve that goal anywhere near as properly as simply charging people for school services.

Why all this messing about with games?

Don't forgot, BTW, that this tax they pay for using schools - it is in no way a voluntary transaction. Parents are obliged to send their children to the local schools; they are *not* permitted to choose which school to use, no matter how appalling their local school is. In other words, they are forced by law to pay for something they have no choice over; and here we have another tax, reinforcing that situation!

Re:idiots and politicians

[bunions]

If this is the reason used, then why is tax only being applied to the parents of those children who buy games? surely it should be based on those parents who have kids who go to school?

I never said it was a great idea. I am merely trying to point out that there is some rationale behind it.

bah new taxes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just say no to new taxes. They are just a way for the goverment to spend more of your money. All the while 'claiming' its for the children.

So this one taxes children for the children. Thats ironic!

How about a tax on...

[Nom du Keyboard]

The McAllen Democrat said...

How about a tax on Democrats who don't think there are enough taxes? Maybe we could tax them out of existence.

And it's not even a tax on the kids, but on their parents. Just another school tax being described as something other than it really is (i.e. I'm taxing kids who buy video games to pay for their schools.)

Or we could tax stupidity. That would put the Democrats out of business before the Republicans -- but not by much!

Re:How about a tax on...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or we could tax stupidity.

We already have that in every state. It's called the lottery.

Re:How about a tax on...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's already a tax on stupidity... it's called the Lottery. Can't say for Texas, but most states have them. It takes money from thousands (millions?) of people who failed mathematics and sometimes even gives money back to one or two of 'em.

Just redirect some of the funds from that into your state's education budget, and you're set!

The only drawback I can see is if all these people start learning basic statistics, fewer will be left to play the game. Of course, this means less money into education from the ticket sales... so more stupid people... more sales... ooh, it's cyclical! Of course, those people unfortunate enough to be caught in the "stupid" part of the cycle are screwed, but you can't have everything.

Re:How about a tax on...

[acidrain69]

> Or we could tax stupidity. That would put the Democrats out of business before the Republicans -- but not by much!

Um, no, have you read the news lately? Paid attention to foreign and domestic policy? Democrats are not in charge.

Re:How about a tax on...

[Deagol]

I thought it was cigarette taxes.

Re:How about a tax on...

[nanowired]

I have a better idea. A tax on people who blame other parties for problems their own party cause.

Re:How about a tax on...

[macshit]

More realistically: more taxes on (1) cars, or (2) cheeseburgers.

Think of the insane revenues you could raise with those...

And who are those unpatriotic commies complaining?!? Can't they see it's for the kids???

Re:How about a tax on...

[Alsee]

How about a tax on Democrats who don't think there are enough taxes? Maybe we could tax them out of existence.

The only thing worse and than tax-and-spend Democrats are the tax-cut-borrow-and-spend Republicans.

Or we could tax stupidity. That would put the Democrats out of business before the Republicans -- but not by much!

What could be stupider than expanding the federal government and expanding spending at an astronomical rate far beyond anything Democrats have ever done, and then living in some total delusion that taxes are the problem and that tax cuts magically fix the problem.

Are you aware that your taxes are 50% higher than they should be because of interest on the national debt? That an extra 50% is being taken away from you and everyone else in taxes simply to pay interest? That that extra 50% is being collected primarily from the poor and middle class and simply being given to the weathiest and shipped out of the country? Who do you think collects those interest payments? The debt is held by the rich, and held by foriengers.

-

Re:How about a tax on...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like were not already being screwed. My home owners tax is based on a 50 thousand dollar home they value at 65 thousand. My neighbor straight across the street recently sold his home valued at over 65 thousand by the tax accessor for 50 thousand and he didn't get a tax refund. Every time they try to pass an increase for school funding it gets defeated so they raise property values and taxes beyond there actual value.

define "videogame" in the form of law

[LostCluster]

Would Windows be considered taxable because it afterall contains Solitare and Minesweeper which clearly are games?

Re:define "videogame" in the form of law

[poopie]

Oh, and if your cell phone has a game on it, does that mean that you need to pay a game tax on your cell phone? ... and if a business owner purchases a videogame for a retail location, does it get taxed?

If you load a webpage with a java applet that embeds a game in it, and you play it, would you need to voluntarily send in a your videogaming tax fee?

If a software vendor makes serious software that someone finds a way to use for gaming purposes (like tracking gaming odds in spreadsheets), does that software need to be taxed as it might be complicit in the playing of video games?

This is a totally absurd proposal. Next think you know, someone will want to tax information crossing state borders!

Re:define "videogame" in the form of law

[Nahor]

Would Windows be considered taxable because it afterall contains Solitare and Minesweeper which clearly are games?

Obviously, Politics(tm) is a great game, all Politicians(tm) seems to enjoy it very much, even when they don't understand it (which most don't). Hopefully Politicians(tm) will be taxed. And since it look like a MMORPG type of game, they should be taxed monthly. At 5% their salary each month, schools won't have any budget problem for quite a while.

Re:define "videogame" in the form of law

[Wizarth]

Hear, hear!

Re:define "videogame" in the form of law

[drachenstern]

If you load a webpage with a java applet that embeds a game in it, and you play it, would you need to voluntarily send in a your videogaming tax fee?

That depends on how much you payed for the privilege of playing the video-game on that web-site and which state they do business in.

Re:define "videogame" in the form of law

[tapo]

The question I have is, would my $15 a month World of Warcraft subscription be taxed?

It is a game, after all.

Kids only?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fine if he wants to make the kids pay taxes, but what about us single adults who are buying games? I don't really care about funding public schools; I'd rather have 5% cheaper games. Let the parents pay for their kids' schools.

Well

[Anonymous Coward]

They tax cigarettes, gas, alcohol and the food we eat... heck, here in Virginia, we're taxed on the stuff we already bought and own (annual property tax and car tax), why not slap it on video games? After all, why let some bastion of self-enjoyment go untaxed? Next comes consoles, PC sales, PC peripherals (you need a new monitor? Extra 6% for us locals, alright?), audio/video equipment, car stereos.. the list goes on and on! This out-of-control problem of disposable income in the the middle class MUST be addressed! They're starting to think about closing the gap! Soon they'll be wanting to live next to this honest Good-ol'-boy in Texas! Shameful!

Re:Well

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

They tax cigarettes, gas, alcohol and the food we eat... heck, here in Virginia, we're taxed on the stuff we already bought and own (annual property tax and car tax), why not slap it on video games?

On a more serious note, the reason is that Video Games are already taxed via VAT/Sales tax. Any extra special "video game tax" is either a double tax or an excise duty. This is essentially the former in practice, but the latter in genesis as excise duties are usually used to discourage certain behaviours.

More idoitic nonsense from US politicians

[OmegaBlac]

Why oh why does this crap even come up when there are more pressing issues to deal with. We can try to vote these idiots out but they are replaced with more bought or idiot canidates. Why doesn't he propose taxing all that money the US oil companies are bringing in? Have them help fund schools. If you are going to propose a tax on video games because some of them may be "bad" and alot of kids buy video games, then why not tax violent movies for that matter(leave the pr0n alone though...wait I don't pay for that anyways) or even family movies--alot of people watch that crap. Games are getting more expensive with each new generation of consoles now we can possibly pay even more. Geez...

Re:More idoitic nonsense from US politicians

[denidoom]

Why doesn't he propose taxing all that money the US oil companies are bringing in?

Because he's from Texas, duh! No way he is going to tax his buddies.

Re:More idoitic nonsense from US politicians

[Alchemar]

It is the more pressing issue. The current method of taxing for schools was declared uncostitutional (state constitution) They are having a special session to figure out where to get the money for next year before the judge's order kicks in, and they lose the school funding.

A better way to raise money.

[no_pets]

Instead of taxing games to pay for schools, how about the schools just sell games instead of candybars, magazines, coupon books, etc. It's mainly the kids' families that buy that stuff anyway.

BTW, I say we should tax campaign contributions.

Why not...

[darkhitman]

Put a tax on, oh, say, food? That would generate more revenue than a tax on games.

Or better yet, pornography.

"Hey kids! Your new playground is sponsored by taxes from hotaction.com! They've even put up a few promotional posters to encourage you!"

Works both ways!

Re:Why not...

[tansey]

Put a tax on, oh, say, food? That would generate more revenue than a tax on games.

Food qualifies as a necessity, and different states do have taxes on it. However, some states have their tax structure setup specificially so that necessities aren't taxed. So such a proposal would require several states to restructure their whole tax system. Good luck there.

Re:Why not...

[Anonymous Coward]

People BUY porn?

Stupid

[metamatic]

I already pay taxes to support schools. I just got my 2006 notice, and I'm paying $4,414.44 this year to support Texas schools. Somehow I don't imagine that figure is going to go down if this stupid proposal passes, it's just an attempt to get more school funding in a way most people won't notice enough to whine about.

Democrats just need to face the fact that most Texans don't want to fund schools. If they did, they wouldn't keep voting for Republicans. So quit trying to save people from themselves, and give them what they're asking for: low taxes and chronically underfunded schools.

Dividend Taxes

[dthulson]

Didn't we just extend a tax cut on dividend income? Wouldn't that generate a lot more income than taxing a kid who spends his Wendy's salary to buy a $45 game? I guess a senator (who probably owns a lot of stock) wouldn't even notice that games cost more, and parents (who at least own more stock than their kids) could see it as a good thing since their kids would be less likely to play as many games if they cost more. Too bad the poor kids can't vote!

So Much For The Lone Star State...

[__aaclcg7560]

I haven't heard so much bull since the California lottery was proposed to help the schools.

Probably unconstitutional

[Raul654]

If you believe that TV, movies, music, video games, 'etc are free speech (and, outside of Jack Thompson, I'm pretty sure most people do), then taxing them is unconstitutional. Remember - the power to tax is the power to destroy. As soon as they are legally allowed to levy a $1 tax on video games, they can just as easily make it $1 million.

Re:Probably unconstitutional

[LionMage]

So, do you pay sales tax at a book store? Because it seems to me that this tax is a tax on the sale, not upon the game itself -- I mean, what else could they tax? Taxation at the time of sale is generally the only enforceable option for merchandise such as this.

Re:Probably unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

You pay the same amount of sales tax on a book as you would a bag of potato chips. You propose a "special" sales tax, such as that on cigarettes, and adding such to First Amendment items would/should have those politicians' blood running in the streets.

Re:Probably unconstitutional

[LionMage]

You pay the same amount of sales tax on a book as you would a bag of potato chips.

Granted.

You propose a "special" sales tax [...]

Just to be clear, I'm not the one proposing this tax. :-)

But seriously, the person to whom I was responding made a blanket statement as follows:

If you believe that TV, movies, music, video games, 'etc are free speech (and, outside of Jack Thompson, I'm pretty sure most people do), then taxing them is unconstitutional.

Raul654, the author of that statement, wasn't qualifying what type of "tax" he was talking about.

There are special classes of merchandise that are tax-exempt -- most states do not levy sales tax on grocery items (e.g., uncooked meats and vegetables), for example, but they allow sales taxes on prepared foods (e.g., a bag of potato chips). The state of Connecticut exempted things like U.S. flags and charcoal briquettes from sales tax (at least, when I lived there, pre-1994).

But printed/published materials that fall under First Amendment protection are generally not tax-exempt.

Now, if the Texas Senator is proposing an additional tax, like the VAT that many Europeans have to deal with, then yeah, I provisionally agree, that's possibly wrong... because it would effectively create a special class of "free speech" that can be regulated or squelched through taxation. On the other hand, many commodities that I'd argue are essential for living are taxed above and beyond the "standard" sales tax regimes for other items -- gasoline, for instance. Are those taxes unjust as well? Movie theaters in some jurisdictions are required to collect tax above and beyond (or in place of) standard sales tax on each ticket sold -- would you argue that movie patrons or studios are having their First Amendment rights breached?

I don't claim to have all the answers, but it seems to me that if elected officials wish to impose a different taxation regime for a certain class of product (which also happens to be a form of protected speech), there's enough gray area here to warrant more careful consideration.

Distraction.

[Doctor Tesla]

I like how they talk about how it will 'help the children', instead of how it might negatively affect the game economy in the state. Shouldn't the rule of the thumb be "government doesn't need to go where government doesn't need to go"?

horrible for Texas business

[tengennewseditor]

Wouldn't this just cause Texan gamers to order online even more often, shutting down game retailers in Texas?

'what the taxes are for' is bullshit.

[Malor]

This is just a tax increase, pure and simple. They say 'it's for the schools!' so people will vote for it. But all they do is then take away the other money that WAS going to the schools.

It's just a general tax increase aimed at an unpopular target.

Yeah

[Cyno01]

Uhg, im a recent high school grad, i agree soo much. So much that people complain about with regards to school is just wrong. Teachers salaries too low? Average i've heard is around $40k to start, and remember, they only work 8 months out of the year. That equals $60k a year starting pay. Thats a lot for a BA/BS and no experience in anything. Plus most of them get government benifits. As for smaller class sizes, thats a scam too to get more teachers on the payroll. Why does the teachers union think teachers cant handle more than 10 kids at a time? Remember one room schoolhouses, where 1 teacher would teach 50 students in different grades. I thought the quality of education in this country had been declining since then, why dont we go back to that? And before you flame me, my mom is a public school teacher, and most of these opinions are from her.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

[...]Remember one room schoolhouses, where 1 teacher would teach 50 students in different grades.

So that explain why after graduating for high school you still have the English level of a 1st grade.
Nice example dude.

And before you flame me, my mom is a public school teacher, and most of these opinions are from her.

It does look like you're a moron. And before you flame me, my mom is President of the United States, and most of these facts are from her personal spies.

Re:Yeah

[AvitarX]

Average pay to start for teachers is not $40,000 it is far lower, the overall average is $46,000.

Teachers work Sept through May (full months) with a at least a week in June and August so it is closer to 9.5 to 10 months.

Also worth noting is that public school teachers are worse conditions (don't get to pick who they want) and lower pay, so good teachers strive to make it to private schools lowering the standard of our public education.

The people with money who care about their childrens education do pay the teachers more, and it shows.

Re:Yeah

[MaverickUW]

Try Washington State. Average teacher starting salary (which is funded by the state, not the district), is approximately $28,000. In most school districts, teachers work close to be beginning of August to the end of June. Yes, there is a month of vacation in there, but salary is generally payed year round. So yes, most teachers don't make $2500 a month BEFORE taxes get taken out. Compound that with the fact that teachers work overtime without pay (if you think a teacher's job starts when they arrive at school and ends when they leave it, you're an idiot). Not only are teachers low paid, but they're also expected to earn an additional 15 college credits every 3 years (or 150 credit hours of seminars) that they themselves pay for. Add to this the fact that there are larger class sizes, not smaller, and that there are psychos out there who want to pay teachers based on performance while taking away the tools they need...

If this was the model that Microsoft used it would be like:

Write Windows Vista, in a week, using a pencil and paper, you get paid for how well it works. BTW, bring your own pencil and paper.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

What a load of bullshit. Still, even if you were right on every point, it's still bullshit. "Those who can't, teach." Those who can, have six-figure jobs, and they're not going to give them up to teach your little kid algebra.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Or they could, you know, be interested in helping kids get a good start.

Re:Yeah

[heinousjay]

Even though you're kind of mean, you're right. I was going to be a teacher until I realized that I could make more money delivering pizza.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Average i've heard is around $40k to start, and remember, they only work 8 months out of the year. That equals $60k a year starting pay

Wow, my starting wage out of college was $40k, but if you add in all the time they didn't pay me for, I was making 70 hojillion bucks!!1!1!

Why does the teachers union think teachers cant handle more than 10 kids at a time?

Because having smaller groups makes it easier to adjust the course to the needs of the students while being able to deal with most of the students, most of the time. Of course, now with the "No child left behind" bullshit, the one idiot in the 30 person class is keeping 29 other students from leaving him behind, while in the 10 person class only 9 kids would be crippled educationally, making it even more important to have sufficiently small classes, or at least enough teachers to segregate the classes into advanced and remedial studies.

Re:Yeah

[the_B0fh]

In some places, like where I live, the public school teachers make in the low $30s, and the private school teachers make in the high $20s. Huh, you say? Yeah, it's worth the lower pay not to get fscked by the school board or the more rowdy students.

And the more interesting thing is that the school system gets $18k/year/student!!!!!

Re:Yeah

[lgw]

Teachers are paid what they're worth. If they weren't, the jobs would go unfilled. Supply is high. Now, you might argue that we would get *better* teachers if we paid more (which wouldn't be hard, in my experience), but the salaries of *current* teachers are clearly enough that people want the jobs.

Almost every teacher I had back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth and I was in school was a glorified babysitter who made minimal effort to actually teach. They were paid pretty well for babysitters. Heck, I had several teachers who only worked 4 days a week, where the class was allowed to do anything quietly and the teacher was merely physically present.

Again?

[voice_of_all_reason]

Because all the previous taxes for schools, public works, and beautification projects have accomplished their intended goal. Every city in America already has adequate social servic--oh wait...

"You are a slave, Neo."

The difference is voters

[Sycraft-fu]

They believe, correct or not, that most of the people who play games are younger, either under 18 and not allowed to vote, or in the 18-25 range and thus not very likely to vote (for all their bitching, few university students actually get out to vote). Thus taxing something they care about isn't likely to have an impact on your votes. However if you tax something all your voters use, they'll be pissed.

Only in Texas...

[Ekhymosis]

Why is it that such stupidity comes from Texas lately? First Bush, now this...
Don't flame me, I lived in Texas for 20 years. Love the state, hate the politics.

Re:Only in Texas...

[Allison Geode]

Bush isn't from texas! he came from connecticut originally, he wasn't raised here, he only governed and did business here, and we don't claim him as our own! at least, I don't, and all of my friends, who also live in texas, can't stand him, so apparently, those of us texans with functioning brains aren't quite as stupid as the rest of those dwelling here make us appear to be.

thank you for not making gross generalizations! have a nice day, ya'll!

Why (just) video games?

[amuro98]

Why is this targeting video games - and JUST video games?

If this is a luxury tax, then why not expand it to cover books, magazines, music and movies (including rentals)?

Let's see...you have "Children", "Taxes", "Schools", "Funding" and the newest addition, "Video Games". A fine example of grandstanding using Political Buzzword Bingo!

I'd point to the fast-food tax which was proposed elsewhere as being a more realistic - and lucurative - revenue source. The only stipulations I'd make are that this tax should apply to all cafe's/restuarants, AND that a larger percentage of the money should go into funding Sports and P.E. programs in the schools. After all, if kids are going to eat at McDonalds anyways, the least we can do is make sure there's a gym program around to make them work off a few of those calories the next day.

Oh, if Texas politics were only that simple...

[Tetris Ling]

Disclaimer: I am a Texan Democrat who had a government teacher who loved to rant about Texas politics. For this, I apologize.

OK, it isn't really as simple as a Democrat/Republican thing. Texas tax politics are an icky morass from whence the few who enter seldom return. First of all, because almost all of the state's revenue comes from sales taxes (like this one), the state budget is incredibly sensitive to flucuations in the economy. This problem would be abated if Texas lowered sales taxes and implemented a income tax or state property tax. Even if you aren't from Texas, you should be able to guess that the chances of this are low.

Now, the main way the state government saves money in a crunch is by shifting costs from the state to local level. Hence, most schools in Texas are funded by local property taxes. This is fine for richer neighborhoods (like the one I grew up in), but does nothing to help poorer parts of the state.

What is really needed is a complete overhaul of the tax system. Even if there was the political will to do this, it would be a huge, painful process that would be difficult to design correctly and even more difficult to sell to the public.

Now, I think this is a stupid piece of legislation, and I don't think it's going to pass, and even if it passes, I don't imagine it will do much at all for Texas schools. But let's not be so quick to accuse Republicians, conservatives, Democrats, or even Texans for not caring about education. This is a very difficult problem that is difficult to fix.

Re:Oh, if Texas politics were only that simple...

[mima1895]

Just about every study ever done (by anybody except educators) has shown that money has little to do with education. Nobody ever figgures this out--of course not because good education comes from great buildings with new carpet- right!

Re:Oh, if Texas politics were only that simple...

[Sigmund Dali]

Let's also not forget that in the Texas government, political parties are relatively irrelevant. Most of the decisions in the legislature are made by the leaders of the Houses, who in turn have a "team" of both Republicans and Democrats. Things don't split easily down party lines, but on whether you are on the Speaker's or the Lieutenant Governor's team or not. In this way, it's actually pretty close to a parliamentry system, but alot more idiotic.

BTW, Texas' government is fundamentally broke, and won't be fixed until a new Constitution is written that is more statist than the current one, which strictly limits central power to the point of inefficacy. The proof is that this is, IIRC, the fourth special session Gov Perry has called on education, and there is shit to show for any of them.

You don't know anything.

[acidrain69]

Just about everything you said was BS.

I don't know where you live, but I don't know anywhere outside large, high-cost-of-living cities that pay starting teachers $40k+.

My wife is a teacher, with a masters degree, and even with the masters she doesn't make $40k.

And just because you work 8 months a year, it doesn't automatically translate to a $60k a year salary. You try finding seasonal work that will pay you $5k per month. Oh wait, you just got out of high school.

No one is saying there should be 10 kids to a class. But when you have 25-30 kids running around like crazy, it is more difficult to handle them.

I don't know when we ever had 50 students to a classroom in a single room schoolhouse, but the 1870's are so last century. The curriculum is a million times harder than it was then, when most people didn't go to college or even high school. We may not be #1 in the world (or 2 or 3 or 4 etc) but we are WAAAAY more educated as a country than we were back then.

Don't even get me started on "No child left behind" and the FCAT. I know many teachers. My mother. My mother in law. Many of my wife's friends. They all have to teach less and focus on the bullshit FCAT.

Re:You don't know anything.

[Indiana Joe]

"...the 1870's are so last century."

The 1970s are last century. The 1870s are the century before last.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Re:You don't know anything.

[Richard Frost]

I'm from New Jersey. The teacher's union here has negotiated beginning salares of $35K, and are pushing for $40K.

Re:You don't know anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember when the Catholic School Nuns would rap you over the knuckles when you were bad. They didn't do that in the Episcopal school, but they made sure your parents knew what you did. Even public school had some power over the kids. That kind of discipline would allow for much larger 50+ class sizes. Now, teachers can get sued and fired just for pushing back a large threatening kid. No wonder education is expensive.

The way many parents of today don't discipline their children is quite abhorent. You have to learn to be a parent, but in this society of nuclear family structures, many of the idiots don't learn how to parent before they have children. Back in the era of extended families you'd have the experienced parents taking care of the kids and providing structue. Now you have dual income households with powerless nannies bringing up brats.

There's nothing wrong with a good old fashioned spanking. I've heard people spouting that "it takes a village" to raise children. Well, give the "village" power to discipline them too. I should be able to tell the teacher whether I want them to spank my child or not. If you're a parent who doesn't like other people to spank your children, then you need to be more involved with the teachers so that your brats can be disciplined and not run amok.

When the teachers can't provide discipline that is reinforced by parental discipline, they can't be expected to keep an eye on 30 brats. I've seen the difference between the schools where parents are involved and the schools where parents are not involved. Children are better behaved, kinder, and more respectful when parents are involved. Schools where parents don't give a fuck just have selfish, uncontrollable, whiney brats. Which school do you think have smarter children?

Schools can have larger numbers of children, but they have to be well behaved. There are schools in other cultures that have a higher student to teacher ratio and better behaved children. In the good ol' USA that can't work because a lot of parents are just not involved with their Children or their education. In too many dual income families, the father goes out to "play with the boys" on weekends instead of taking their kids to little league or just spending time at home with the kids. Children need fathers as well as mothers.

If you don't want to be parent, why did you have kids? The Bible told you so? Well, the bible also tells you that sparing the rod spoils the child. Why else do you think those catholic school nuns rapped you on the knuckles with a ruler. You're just a horny fuck and not religious? Well, since the christians believe you're going to hell anyway, use a condom or get yourself fixed. Then you can do that nympho and have fun without bringing one more stupid welfare brat into society. At least that way you'd never have to worry about paternity suits either.

Re:You don't know anything.

[acidrain69]

I tend to agree to a point. I don't necessarily agree that we need to spank kids if their parents allow it though; although the teacher self-defense thing has gotten out of hand. Kids can get violent, and teachers are only allowed to defend in a way that will not harm the child, or to restrain the child in extreme circumstances. If the child is injured in the restraint, then the teacher will probabl get sued, etc. It's pathetic.

But for normal discapline, there are ways around it. My wife tends to enjoy light public humiliation. She will make the problem student stand up by the whiteboard if they are disruptive, and draw a circle on the board a little above or below the tip of their nose. The child has to stand there a short amount of time with their nose in the circle. :)

Some of her colleagues will take 2 trouble children (say 2 boys talking to each other when they aren't supposed to) and make them hold hands on the way to the lunch room.

It's funny, people get a laugh out of it, even the troublemakers themselves.

But there are some kids you just can't reach. Mostly kids who are alone after school, whose parents work multiple jobs and the kids have no supervision or boundaries. They do not listen to anyone. These are the ones that end up on the streets committing minor crimes (and this is 5th grade I'm talking about).

I don't think physical discipline is the answer. Some of these kids are repeating multiple grades. Eventually they are just pushed on through to the next grade to try to get them out of the system eventually, where they will promptly go on welfare because they are too irresponsible to hold a job, probably getting themselves (girls) or a girl or 2 pregnant (guys) on the way. We need a way to force an education on them. Year round schools, focus on life skills, I don't know what (I'm a programmer, my wife is the teacher, she may have better recommendations).

There have been administrators that have ordered teachers to fake grades on students just to get them out.

Tax

[Mark_MF-WN]

I never realized just how insane the American tax system is. I mean, taxation systems are usually deranged even at the best of times, but damn, Americans seem to get the very worst taxation out there. Most countries, when they want money for schools, just raise the sales tax or the income tax (depending on how the current administration feels about what the least harmful way of taxing people is). Taxes for particular goods or services are typically reserved for things that exact heavy costs on the nation, like alcohol or cigarettes.

Re:Tax

[perspicaciously]

Taxation in the US is often used as a deterrent; like alcohol or cigarettes, but also things that the government would prefer conserved, such as gasoline. I think that motion to tax video games is proposing that they should be placed in the former category, hence the sort of sideways "You have all these kids buying video games, and sometimes they are good, some are bad and that's not my call".

Re:Tax

[Mark_MF-WN]

Yeah, but a deterrent to buying videogames? Why not a tax on rap CDs, or slasher films? Hell, why not a tax on fatty foods or Republican/Democratic party campaign materials? All presumably encourage bad behaviour -- violence and rudeness to ho's, serial murder, obesity, and voting for corrupt shitty leaders, respectively. Videogames are innocuous compared to any of the previous. This kind of thing has to be saved for the most extreme problems, because it has a detrimental effect on the economy. Taxing just any old thing leads to, well, basically it leads to Soviet-style communism (as opposed to the much more unencumbered capitalist welfare-state thing that America normally leans towards, at least a little).

Re:Tax

[drachenstern]

Yeah, but a deterrent to buying videogames? Why not a tax on rap CDs, or slasher films?

Because that would be discrimination?

All presumably encourage bad behaviour -- violence and rudeness to ho's, serial murder

Yeah, I knew Mario was up to No Good(TM)

Re:Tax

[BenEnglishAtHome]

I never realized just how insane the American tax system is. I mean, taxation systems are usually deranged even at the best of times, but damn, Americans seem to get the very worst taxation out there.

There's good and bad. Remember that we're talking about a state taxation issue here. It's easy to find really good examples of sensible taxation in the U.S., such as (nationally) the Pittman-Robertson Act that taxes sporting goods to pay for conservation. In the U.S., it really is the case that hunters pay for (most) conservation. That seems sensible to me.

Most countries, when they want money for schools, just raise the sales tax or the income tax (depending on how the current administration feels about what the least harmful way of taxing people is).

In the U.S., most education money is sourced locally. The country doesn't pay for schools; the "school district" (or other name for the appropriate taxing entity) does. The money is usually collected locally and disbursed under guidelines set by the state. Usually.

In some states, that means that anything collected locally gets spent locally. Where rich people live in a suburb, the schools can be incredible. 30 miles away in a rusting downtown, the people don't have much money and the schools can look like they exist in a war zone.

Some time back, Texas tried to legislate that away. In what was called the "Robin Hood" plan, some portion of the taxes collected in rich locales was pushed over to poor schools. There have been problems with that plan and alternatives are being sought. Thus, the Texas legislature is busy working on ideas.

As for raising the income tax, Texas doesn't have one. That's highly unusual and it means we have high property taxes. Those property taxes are simply too high and, again, alternatives are being sought.

Taxes for particular goods or services are typically reserved for things that exact heavy costs on the nation, like alcohol or cigarettes.

And the same is true here. Among the other alternatives being examined, it looks like Texas is about to slap a USD$1-per-pack tax on cigarettes. That'll bring in some revenue. And some illegal cigarettes but, hey, everything has a downside.

Stamp Act II

[Anonymous Coward]

It's cool y'all, we just have to buy these "stamps" and put them on videogames, to let people know we've paid the tax. Oh, and they're also going to start taxing soda. Oh, and Boston harbor is closed. Oh and George II is basically crazy, but shh.

remarkably clueless about industry demographics

[0biter]

its lovely to think that the kids who buy taxed games will be contributing to their own education. but unfortunately the substantial majority of gamers are over 20, and the most recent GDC expressed concern that new, younger people were not being attracted to game playing at all.

YMBFJ

[metamatic]

I seem to recall Americans having a bit of a problem with taxation without representation.

Your recollection needs updating to include the time period after the American Civil War. There are hundreds of thousands of people in the USA who have to pay tax, but aren't allowed to vote, and it has been that way for many years.

lol it's fine learn 2 legislate

[Shanoyu]

Retailers have lobbyists too, chill.

THIS ISN'T NEWS!

[Anonymous Coward]

All sorts of legislation/ideas are proposed. 1% actually become legislation. If this passes the Texas House & Senate, THEN it will be news.

standard stuff

[spleendamage]

Form - LEG101-EZ

Please fill out in entirety and submit to appropriate committee
(for a color coded list of committees and their chairs see appendix ii)

My suggestion is to raise taxes on ________.
(something you find distasteful, onerous, or, you know, bad)
Description of why said item should be taxed (please be verbose, and if possible, reasonably accurate):
The tax rate will be __%
We'll use the money to fund ________.
(something most people feel good about, e.g. schools, parks, healthcare)

All legislators are advised to file no less than quarterly and more frequently in re-election years.

Die Texas

[Rize]

Seriously, why doesn't Texas just cecede. That state is a disgrace to freedom on both sides of the aisle.

Re:Die Texas

[Allison Geode]

you're entitled to your opinion, as immature as it may be, but some of us living here in Texas use some common sense, and aren't able to uproot and move to a more rational state. it costs money........ so unless i can come crash at your place, kindly shut up. thanks!

Re:Die Texas

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Plenty of Texans will tell you how incredibly proud they are that when the State was admitted to the Union, the State retained both the right to secede (which isn't really true) and the right to subdivide into 5 separate states (which is definitely true, but not unique). While there's always a home-grown movement to secede (it's more of a joke than anything else), occasionally someone floats the idea of subdividing into 5 states. That way, we'd pick up 8 additional senators. As attractive as that notion is to some people, it never gets very far. I think people intuitively realize that 2 powerful senators from a big state can probably accomplish more than 10 senators from 5 average-size states with potentially conflicting interests.

Please correct me if i'm wrong

[drachenstern]

But when you're under 18 (voting age) then you generally get your luxury items from your ... parents and other family members, thanks. So, when Mom and Dad, or G-mom and G-dad are being asked to pay an extra coupla bucks at the register, which constituent are you not affecting?

I'm confused by your specious argument which relies heavily on spin and mis-information to get the point across.

Tax Contributions: Re:A better way to raise money.

[Randym]

BTW, I say we should tax campaign contributions.

Hey, wait: you might have something there.

I am the State Treasurer of a small political party that doesn't accept corporate contributions, just personal ones, as a matter of principle. Some of our contributions come through PayPal. PayPal of course extracts a small fee for the service, so we don't get the full amount. $5 --> $4.55; $10 --> 9.41; $25 --> $23.97. In a certain sense, then, we are already paying a tax (of sorts; obviously it is a 'user fee'); in fact it's a *regressive* one: the lower the amount given, the higher percentage taken. $5: 9%; $10: 5.9%; $25: 4.12%.

But imagine a *progressive* tax on campaign contributions. The income tax is a kind of progressive tax; the more money you make, the higher your tax rate.

It wouldn't have to be much to raise vast amounts of money. And think of how popular *this* would be with the voters =8^D !

Just off the top of my head, I'd set the rate to be the log-to-the-base-10 of the contribution: it would start kicking in at $10. $10 = 1% (10 cents); $50 = 1.7% (85 cents); $100 = 2% ($2.00); $500 = 2.7% ($13.50); $1000 = 3% ($30), etc. We already have to track every penny we take in; it would be nothing to add another column to the spreadsheet to track this new tax.

We have to report all of our receipts and expenditures already, albeit to different organizations: expenditures to the FEC, receipts to the state. In fact, we report our receipts by transaction, so it would be fairly easy for the state to update its software to automatically figure the amount of state tax due on each transaction, and the required sum would automatically be reported to the state when we file our reports electronically. There is already a system in place to track and fine committees who do not file when required, so the amount of additional overhead required to track and invoice tax due would be negligible.

Needless to say, the only people who would be against it would be those who benefit from raking in *very large* contributions; you know, those parties already in power. A tax that no-one would hate EXCEPT politicians. And it is extremely fair. It would make a great wedge issue for us!

Thanks for your brilliant suggestion!

You people are idiots

[Seraphim_72]

My brother supervises a staff of 50. He is responsible for *everything* they do. From the smallest comment, to the largest gaffe. He is scrutinized by hundreds of people every working day, and even every night. His total budget is in the millions, which has accountants, internal, external, and armchair crawling over it all the time. The performance of his customers is judged every day, and many times by the Feds,the State, and by the customers. He is an Elementary School Principle. His salary is under 100k, in the richest school district in the state ( and a very rich state at that ). None of you has been there. Stop the "When I was still in school, ...." Crap - you were a student, like you knew shit about the inner workings of the District. And here is a shocker from the parent "At least at the district my husband works in, the administrators make much more than the teachers, " WOW - Admins make more than the people they supervise???? say it aint so!!! Her further arg drags in the whole "more admin" thing - What were they? Teacher Specialists in many places are considered Administration, yeah, sucks they hired more Special Ed teachers. I have seen the other side, School Admins make every dime in thier pay.

Sera

Re:You people are idiots

[sog_abq]

Settle down and don't take everything so personally. I think that most people are talking about district administrators, not front-line management (principals). The beef here, and I whole-heartedly agree) is that there are essentially district ceos that basically do nothing yet get paid exorbinate amounts of money for just farting around. In my school district (not a student) the district staff got almost a 10% raise while funding for supplies was cut to compensate. I'm not joking when I say that the kids were each expected to bring their own toilet paper to school. The taxpayers are never going to pass a mil-levy for schools while crap like this is going on, so the cycle just keeps getting worse. But, at least the football stadium has a shiny new sign provided by Pepsico. Corruption all around. *sigh*

Re:You people are idiots

[amuro98]

Actually, when I was a student, I knew quite a bit about the inner-workings of the school board and administration. We often ended up having to get personally involved with decisions the board would make about our education...

Such "enlightend" decisions from the school board included:

* Telling the German teacher that there was no way her students would benefit from a student exchange program with students from Germany.

* Telling the Pascal teacher that the textbook in use by many university Comp. Sci. programs across the nation wasn't good enough for his class because the book did not feature pictures or illustrations of Minorities and/or females in a "positive light". (it was a programming book - there were no pictures of ANYONE in it!) Instead, they chose a typing book for him to use.

* Continuing to vote pay raises for themselves and their friends, while keepig teacher salaries capped and neglecting to allocate monies for such extraneous things like textbooks. The textbooks for my freshman American History class finally arrived when I was a senior. Until then, students had been using a textbook that was written before WWI had ended. The schoolboard said that no one needed new textbooks since history hasn't changed at all, right? Never mind the fact that you had Black students, in Detroit, reading books in which it was still acceptable to refer to Blacks by a term that would get any non-Black person shot today.

Oh yes, I may have been "just a student", but it was made clear to us early on by our teachers and the principal that if we wanted a good education, we were going to have to go out and fight the administration for it. And fight we did. Some fights we won, some we lost. But at least we spoke up for our own sakes - and that was one the most important lessons I learned from high school.

NEA

[Anonymous Coward]

All your base are belong to the NEA: http://www.nea.org/

I love teachers, but I detest the NEA and any union that gets too powerful for its own good. Teachers should be able to choose their union, not be forced into one.

a little advice.

[Artifex]

Most are highly inequitious [..] There are well-known principles of general taxation which are equitious

When you want people to believe you, it helps to use proper language. The words are inequitable and equitable. Though those are value judgements, and economists working professionally should avoid using them.

Tax is too complicated and too closely related to freedom to be used to implement political policy.

Taxes are used in this manner all the time, Toby. Taxes penalize activities and redistribute income. Have you ever heard of "tax incentives?" They're quite obviously also there to promote social/political policies.

There are well-known principles of general taxation which are equitious and minimize the discouragement caused by taxation to industry. These need to be followed at all times. ANYONE suggesting tax should be done otherwise is a complete idiot with regard to economics and should be kept WELL away from any such decisions.

Ah, Toby, have you forgotten that sometimes the policy is exactly to discourage certain behavior? Or have you never encountered the idea of "vice taxes?"

In EXACTLY the same way, being a politician does not make you an economist - and if politicians are then making economic decisions, their decisions will lead to an economy in the exact same state as the particle accelerator they would otherwise have built.

And who would you have set public policy, Toby? The economists? Economics is a tool. Economics can tell you what effects certain stimuli are likely to have on the market, both in aggregate and in estimating individual purchasing behaviors. Economics alone can't tell you the right thing to do, however. This is why it is of paramount importance that we have smart leaders who really have our interests at heart, and who know how to consult economists when making policy. Because it's the politicians who decide, on our behalf, what society wants, and in which directions it should go.

In EXACTLY the same way, being a politician does not make you an economist

And what, may I ask, are you? :)

Re:a little advice.

[Danse]

This is why it is of paramount importance that we have smart leaders who really have our interests at heart, and who know how to consult economists when making policy. Because it's the politicians who decide, on our behalf, what society wants, and in which directions it should go.

Let me know when you figure out how to elect smart politicians. From what I've seen around here, smart people don't run for office. People who are comfortable running around and having their picture taken while waving a flag or kissing a baby run for office. Those poeple generally give me the creeps.

Take 1% from the defense budget, dammit

[kikito]

"A teenager who uses his allowance to buy a video game could be paying to build his school..."

How about this?

"A senator who uses his power to buy missiles could be funding the building of several hundred schools"

But of course, missiles aren't as violent and dangerous as videogames, are they?

Re:Take 1% from the defense budget, dammit

[DarthChris]

But of course, missiles aren't as violent and dangerous as videogames, are they?

Maybe missiles are needed against the 'terrorists'?

Re:Take 1% from the defense budget, dammit

[otis wildflower]

Yeah, but missiles mean jobs to those who design, build, maintain and man them. Jobs in states that have low student counts but just as many senators as those who have high student counts. For senators in those states, those missiles are more important than money wasted on some California or New York teachers-union-inflated salaries.

This is why education _must_ remain the prerogative of state-level politics, and why I, as a resident of a high-population state, believe that the senate must be abolished. What's Wyoming gonna do, secede?

"Generate" money?

[armyturtle]

You mean "skim" some off the top of some other industries' hard work. I don't see how your legislation generates ANYTHING other than pissed off people.

Let's set a few things straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

1: According to recent research commission byt the ESA, kids don't buy very many games. Way more often than not (80th percentile IIRC) it's adults that buy them.
2: This is just another attempt by politicians to get more money, nothing deeper. I genuinely believe this joker doesn't give a wet slap if it's Grand Theft Auto, or Mario Sunshine, he just wants a piece of the action.
3: Throwing more and more money at a problem is NOT the solution. California pays less per year, per student than we do. Want a truly shocking revelation? http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/mcclintock/articl e_detail.asp?PID=292 Check out the schools California should be getting with the money it spends per student. Now image what Texas ought to have.
4: If this passes, which I doubt, I'm sure the ESA will be all over it with FOS arguments, and likely win.
5: It's not a Republican/Democrat issue. As a Republican, I assure you my party is JUST as interested in inserting their hands into our wallets as the Democrats are. These days the parties only differ on how to spend their ill-gotten gains.

Get out of Iraq

[vulgrin]

Want to have money for education? Get out of Iraq and stop spending billions of dollars a year on the war.

Politicians need to revisit their priorities...

In other news, Senator scores brain age "deceased"

[hepstah]

You know, you would think Senators would have some grasp over public finance, or at least employ someone who does. I'm not sure if this says worse things about him or the people who put him in office. The reasoning behind the "sin" tax is not because its a "sin", necessarily, but that it is a tax to cover the negative externalities caused by people consuming those goods. Cigarette smoke causes people to get lung cancer, as well as a myriad of other diseases and treatment often requires state money at some point. Alcohol causes causes negative externalities when drunk drivers kill people and then the state has to pay for the police/firemen/lawyers to deal with it. You could say that video games cause negative externalities as well, though they usually take the form of red eyes, lost sleep, and diminished social lives -- not guts spilled out on the pavement or hacked up blood. I also seriously doubt he has any grasp of demand elasticity either.

Scratch off!

[Buddy_DoQ]

Since your ears are clogged from all the bull in Cali then you probably didn't hear what the Texas State Lotto "pays" for!

Proposed nothing, I got one of those $30 tickets the other day, won 60 bucks, woot!

Best part is, I work for an ISD so it's like playing for free!

If you really want to get pissed

[GuloGulo]

Look into the K12 planet fisaco currently going down in Orange County. A couple million dollars for a system that is down at least once a week, and hasn't worked correctly since it was implemented.

In the middle

[Buddy_DoQ]

As a gamer and a tech at a Texas ISD I am stuck in the middle. On one side the more tax money rolls in, the bigger my raise in Aug, on the other side that raise means nothing if I have to pay more for games. I guess I should be focusing on the kids and what it means for them, but if I don't get my Guitar Hero fix daily, those kids will destroy my mind, and then they all somehow fail my lab. On second thought, you better not tax games, it'll breed angry un-focused teachers who vent on slashdot during field-day. I'm not too worried about getting paid next to nothing, that's why I got two jobs! /sigh

WTF?

[GuloGulo]

"That that extra 50% is being collected primarily from the poor and middle class and simply being given to the weathiest and shipped out of the country?"

Bullshit. The rich pay more in taxes than the poor do, and your example is no exception.

Re:WTF?

[Alsee]

Bullshit. The rich pay more in taxes than the poor do, and your example is no exception.

No, I was correct. The rich certainly pay a higher rate, they are vastly outnumbered by the middle and lower class population. The 50% dividing line of total taxes collected lies near the top of the upper middle class range.

And in any case it does not change my points.
#1 that the Repubicans have been cutting taxes while insanely expanding spending;
#2 that the Republicans have this delusion that the issue is taxes rather than spending;
#3 that taxes are inflated by approximately 50% solely to pay interest on the debt;
and most relevant to the point you took issue with, #4 that that extra 50% being collected in taxes either gets shipped out of the country to foriegn investors or paid to the minisule percentage of the extremely wealthy who hold those trillions of dollars in debt.

There is no way you can claim that anyone but the most insanely wealthy hold any signifigant portion of that debt and collect any signifigant amout of that extra 50% in taxes paid as interest to holders of that debt. The middle class do not each hold tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in Treasury bill investements. The upper middle class do not each hold tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in Treasury bill investements. Even the lower rich do not typically each hold tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in Treasury bill investements. Only the upper ranges of the rich have these huge sums of money invested collectiong interest on this debt.

Cutting taxes while massively expanding the government with unprecedented skyrocketing spending increases is stupid. Claiming that the problem is taxes and the fix is tax cuts while being in total denial about spending is simply delusional.

Paying 50% higher taxes due to out of controll debt and interest is insane and harmfull. Eliminate the debt (eliminating the interest and eliminating the taxes-for-interest) and you can give everyone that massive tax cut and THAT will give a strong stable economy and a strong stable government.

That extra 50% in taxes is a totally counter productive transefer of money from the general public and out of the country and into the pockets of the most rich of the rich.

Without those trillions in USELESS debt, that would free up those trillions in investment money wich would otherwise be invested in genuine productive economic development.

-

Post them please

[GuloGulo]

This isn't one of those "Post your god damned facts because I think you're full of shit" posts, I'm genuinely interested.

Excise Tax?

[the dark hero]

Sin tax on video games is what it sounds like.

Re:Excise Tax?

[theinfojunkie]

effin sin tax.

Same old crap.

[MaWeiTao]

They'd tax us for the air we breathe if they could.

I've got a better idea... How about aggressively cutting excessive waste from government. They could be just as efficient with half the bloat they have now.

The amount of waste in government is mindblowing. Around here we've had a milder winter than normal and yet, by some miracle local governments still managed to go over-budget on snow removal. We get one bad snowstorm, like we do every year and they start crying for emergency funding.

The government is essentially like a bad welfare case. What do they care about being efficient? They're guaranteed an endless stream of money from their citizens. And when they need more they just find some way to raise taxes.

Schools?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya know, it's rather sad that *every*single*tax*increase*or*new*tax* is sold to us with the line, "The money will go to schools ... think of the children! You're for good education, aren't you!"

What a load of total crap. With all the money we spend on schools, per capita, compared to other countries ... and with all the money the politicians *claim* will go to the schools, man we should have some bloomin' Einsteins all over the place.

Re:Schools?!

[theinfojunkie]

it's a line used all the damned time. Texas has so little money for school, yet they get money like there is no tomorrow for school. I wanna know where it all goes. The money earned from the Texas lottery was supposed to go to schools, it doesn't. Texas got a grant from the feds for school, they lost it cause they didn't use it for schools. Texas is the biggest load of crap. Right now, this special session that is being held to figure out how to fund schools, is gonna end up turning into something that gets to lobby for toll roads. Texas Gov't is ridiculous. Perry, strayhorn and all these other damned fools should be kicked out, covered in tar and feathered on congress and 6th. @ssholes.

No sir, that is NOT what you said

[GuloGulo]

You said this

"That that extra 50% is being collected primarily from the poor and middle class and simply being given to the weathiest and shipped out of the country?"

Now you are backpedaling. I spent much too much time dealing with someone just like you yesterday, someone who continually revises their previous assertions when demonstrated to be wrong.

"No, I was correct."

No, you were not. It is impossible for your (first) statement to be correct. I will not waste another second refuting the argument of someone who debates by changing their assertions when disproven.

Re:No sir, that is NOT what you said

[Alsee]

How am I backpeddling and how is my statement incorrect?

That that extra 50% is being collected primarily from the poor and middle class and simply being given to the weathiest and shipped out of the country?

More than half of total taxes collected come from the poor and middle class. That is 100% correct. The rich pay a higher rate, but they pay less than half of total taxes. And these interest payments are being paid virtually entirely out of the country or into the pockets of the most wealthy of the wealthy.

The 8 to 9 TRILLION dollar debt is a Bad Thing, and the Republicans are delusional constantly harping on tax cuts as a "solution" while they engage in runaway government and spending expansion. Big government with big taxes works. Small government with small taxes works. Claiming and lying that they are for smaller government and running Big Government with tax cuts and then inflating taxes by 50% to pay bloody interests payments is a Bad Thing. And it is an extra 50% in tax collection from the general public (more than 50% of which is paid by the poor and middle class) and of which virtually 100% is simply pumped over to foriegn investors and the richest of the rich for absolutely NO valid purpose.

If Republicans want to be for smaller government, then FINE, they should stop lying and living in fairlyland and they need to address SPENDING and balance the bloody budget and eliminate the damn debt. If the Republicans want to be for Big Government - as they are doing - then FINE, they need to stop lying and living in fantasyland and they need to admit that taxes need to match their spending and balance the bloody budget and eliminate the damn debt.

It is insane that we are have inflated taxes by 50% collected from the general public and pumped out of the country and to the wealthy simply to pay interest payments floating an insane 8-point-something trillion dollar debt load. That debt should never have been run up in the first place, and it sould be eliminated to give everyone a massive tax cut and to free up that 8-point-something trillion dollars in investment capital for genuine economic investment. We should not be engaging in this massive extra tax sesiure and transfer in interest payments. The Republicans are pandering to deceive and buy voters with "popular" and contradictory promises and policies of increased government programs and tax cuts. And to do it and they buying the voters with this fiction by running up a gigantic credit card bill and saddling us with increased taxes on the general public paying that credit card interest to the creditors.

Sure there are Democrats that are guilty of the same thing, and sure there are responsible Republicans who genuinely are fiscally conservative and who want to keep a controlled balanced federal budget and eliminate the debt.... but for the most part it has been the Republicans who have thrown fiscal conservatism out the window and run up the massive debt, and for the most part Democrats that nearly managed to eliminate the debt.

Your tax bill is currently 50% higher than t woud be if there were no debt and no interest payments. And that extra 50% in taxes taken from you... where does it go? Either out of the ecountry or into the pockets of the wealthy creditors. The existance fo that extra tax collection from you and simple transfer of that money to wealthy creditors is a travesty and it is irresponsible and it is Bad For The Economy and it is Bad For The Country.

-

Re:No sir, that is NOT what you said

[Anonymous Coward]

"The 8 to 9 TRILLION dollar debt is a Bad Thing, and the Republicans are delusional [...]"

It's quite possible that they are not delusional. They probably know exactly what they are doing.

"If Republicans want to be for smaller government"

The current administration is from the *neocon* branch of the Republican party. They are not interested in smaller government. They are interested in using fear and religion to manipulate their constituents into granting them a more authoritarian government, which can then use that power to unfairly expand opportunities to their supporters while dissolving any criticism from their opponents.

Shhhhh!

[Overzeetop]

Don't tell that to the folks in DC.

only kids buy games?

[madygoosey]

Isn't the average age of game playing people somewhere in the late 20's or something. He seems to think that kids are the only people who play games? They should tax everything that has teletubby branding so that they can use that money to help children brainwashed by that garbage.

A Bad Idea For So Many Reasons

[lesleymac]

Let me preface my comments by saying that I live in the Valley (near McAllen and Brownsville). I play video games. I also teach in the poorest school district in the state. So, theoretically the money they raise would come here. But should we be pouring resources into a system this defective?

Re:A Bad Idea For So Many Reasons

[lesleymac]

Seriously, check out the forum comments.