Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wisconsin Mulls an Earmarked Video Game Tax

Posted by timothy on from the earmarks-are-for-cattle dept.

Mearlus writes "A Wisconsin lawmaker is proposing a law to add an additional tax on video games and equipment in order to help cover the costs of moving 17-year-old criminals back into the juvenile system." (According to the article, 17-year-olds are at present treated as adults by Wisconsin courts.)

12 of 63 comments (clear)

  1. It's a me by Brian+Lewis · · Score: 3, Funny

    The tax collector! Paya your taxes toa playa my newa system. Itsa the only waya we will bea good friends for lifea no?

  2. Taxing the wrong thing... by RocketScientist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is like putting a tax on gas to pay for roads. Great, but what about hybrid cars, electric cars, and people who ride the bus?

    Direct taxation works best. Tax the people who contribute to the juvenile delinquincy problem: Parents. Tax all crotchfruit. Figure out what the average child tax deduction is, double it, and apply it as a state tax to pay for the costs the state bears for the kids, schooling them, policing them, and raising them since parents don't do any of that anymore.

    The state should be paying video game companies. After all, that's who's raising kids anymore, right? Parents sure as hell aren't doing it based on the screaming, obnoxious brats I see running around.

    1. Re:Taxing the wrong thing... by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 2, Informative

      Too true.. and the only reason that Texas and Florida (dunno about others) don't have a state tax is that it's in the Constitution that the people have to vote one in... drives the politicians batty that they cannot pass a state tax without the people's consent. :)

      Taxing things to pay for other things works when everyone uses that particular thing, or the revenue generated is 100% from the users of it (like a gas or cigarette tax) and non-users are not incidentally taxed as a result. (school taxes are _not_ among those because people with no children contribute to the system's coffers even though they do not use the schools...), but charging Video game taxes is particularly grasping at a revenue source (or potential revenue source) to fund a problem that is not of Video game's making. It forces people who do not have anything to do with the problem to pay for those who do (and frequently would not contribute to the tax itself, if you believe statistics.) I'm sure other taxes people pay in Wisconsin cover the expense in question, but like all political issues, it's never enough money... "new" fees and taxes are always preferable to raising existing ones.

      A similar analogy would be to tax people who don't use gasoline a similar use-based tax for riding the bus (in spite of other taxes they pay, in addition to fees to ride pay for their minor use of the road that the state is missing because they don't have a car). It spreads "equity" if you consider being a resident the barometer. It does not, however, address the inequity of burden on the infrastructure.

      I need a beer. :)

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
  3. How much would it make? by oahazmatt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lawmakers are also not sure how much the tax would generate.
    That depends, would this tax apply to sites like amazon.com? If not, then local chains might suffer more and the tax would make jack.
    --
    Those who believe the Internet is private,
    find their privates are on the Internet.
  4. Neither correlation nor causation by CambodiaSam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow, the good folks in Madison must be hitting the nog pretty hard. It's obvious the ONLY connection here is youth. My favorite part of the article is how the lawmakers 'Aren't sure how much money would be generated'.

    Can anyone help me understand this or is it nothing more than playing off mythical video game fears and targeting a group of people who don't vote?

    1. Re:Neither correlation nor causation by east+coast · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can anyone help me understand this or is it nothing more than playing off mythical video game fears and targeting a group of people who don't vote?

      I assume by saying "group of people who don't vote" you're talking about underagers?

      If that's what you're thinking than the answer is no. It's more that they're hitting the pocket books of what they see as a minority of voters because they know it's not going to cause the kind of backlash that actually matters. No one is going to get voted out over this.

      It's like when they tax cigarettes. The cigarette smoking public is about 20 percent, give or take, depending on who's numbers you use. They know that even if every smoker got pissed about it there really isn't so much of a margin to swing the vote. Why don't they tax (or stop subsidizing) the meat industry instead? It's known to be a health problem and it has a much wider tax base. That coupled with obesity is driving healthcare costs (and thus government payouts) way up.

      Oh, that's right. Only about 6% of all Americans are vegetarian. That other 94% are part of the voting public. That's a bad move on election day so tax money helps keep the beef industry alive instead of forcing them to find a way to stand on their own two feet with a product that is in high demand.

      So, no, it's not about the age of the voter. It's about the numbers of voters who have something to lose. If you can continue to pound on minority groups of voters it's not going to produce any real change at the top.

      But than again, it's not like voting between Democrat and Republican is going to cause a real change at the top either.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  5. You were... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Kids were always screaming, obnoxious brats. Not all of them, but not all of them are today.

    There should be a GetOffMyLawn moderation.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  6. 17 is considered adult in Wisconsin by antaeus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's true that 17-year-olds are considered adults in the eyes of the law (if not elsewhere). And they can prosecute younger children as adults for some serious crimes.

    As for this tax, though... it sounds like another freshman politician who's trying to show that he's got some fresh ideas. I suspect that the proposal will get some half-hearted consideration because the goal is a good idea (providing funding for rehabilitation efforts), but ultimately it will fall short when people realize that it's a backhanded way of equating video games and criminality. It will likely make for a few ticker mentions on CNN, adding to our image of hokiness, and then slip away. But this being Wisconsin (largely a conservative state, with the exception of its population centers in Milwaukee and the 'People's Republic of Madison'), it could end up getting a lot of attention for a while.

  7. Spectacularly, awesomely retarded by WombatDeath · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If you're anything like me, you'll regularly encounter opposing viewpoints and have a mental reaction that lies somewhere between "I disagree but see your point" and "that's a bit stupid". Now and again, though, something crops up which is so breath-takingly demented that I'm torn between horror, hilarity and utter bewilderment. This gem falls squarely into the latter category.

    • Why are all 17-year-olds targeted for the actions of a minority?
    • Why is the age group least able to afford a tax being targeted?
    • Somewhat contrary to the above, who thinks that the average gamer is 17?
    • Which part of wider society fails to benefit from a better judicial system?
    • More generally, in what universe can this proposal possibly make any sense?

    "The idea being that this is kind of a kids-kids thing, in other words, if we're going to do this for kids maybe this would be a good way to go about it. And if it's not the best way, I'm open to any other way"

    Yes, I think it's pretty damn clear that "any other way" is likely to be rather less moronic than this.
  8. Say what? by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    [...] add an additional tax on video games and equipment in order to help cover the costs of moving 17-year-old criminals back into the juvenile system.
    Also planned is a tax on orange juice in order to help cover the costs of people getting sick from smoking and a tax on computer monitors in order to cover the costs of people recovering from sexual harassment at work.

  9. How is it more expensive for juvie court? by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seriously here. How can this be more expensive than treating the kids as adults? The kids are in a lower security area (juvie detention), which doesn't cost nearly as much to maintain as similar adult areas. The court costs are less because typically the state will not spend as much money in lab work/analysis/expert witnesses, etc., since they will at most only put the kid away until he/she is 25, and there is normally only just a Judge, no jury, so daily costs for keeping the jury do not exist (food/drink, and if sequestered, housing and transportation). So again, how is this going to cost the state more?

    I can see them wasting some money in the short term for cases that are already partially processed having to now be shifted back to juvie and started over, but that is probably only a few hundred cases at most and will be a one time cost... A cost that will be recovered shortly due to the reductions in other areas.

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  10. Re:to pay for what? by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny

    How the hell are people supposed to commit crimes when they spend 60 hours a week playing World of Warcraft?