Slashdot Mirror
When Politicians Tax Violent Video Games
talien79 writes "Taxing video games has a storied history in state legislatures. The reality is that video games, violent or otherwise, simply make too much money to be stopped. But taxing them is a viable compromise, a 'sin tax' of sorts similar to that levied on cigarettes. This article reviews the time-honored tactic of politicians pandering to their base: taxing violent video games."
When will they eventually get to the point of taxing what comes out of my butt?
I'm sure ALL the tax revenue will go towards educating kids on the dangers of violent video games and/or to the victims or violent video game inspired violence, right?
RIGHT?
Sales tax when media or other tangible goods exchanged is acceptable. Taxing the sharing of the intangible is asinine. Why not tax for having ides, next?
They steal more from those they don't like than those they do. God help you if they don't like you.
The Pirate Bay anyone?
Ok, fine, do it, but what about violent movies and TV shows?
I have pictures o' your momma and sista naked
What is next, a 40% tax on Porn?
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
..for whatever reason.
"Protecting the children" is often a convenient one, but there are others.
"Taxing first posters has a storied history on blogs like Slashdot. The reality is that first posts, frosty or otherwise, simply make too much hilarity to be stopped. But moderating them is a viable compromise, a 'goatse tax' of sorts similar to that levied on erections. This article reviews the time-honored tactic of politicians pandering to their base: downmodding frosty posts."
The powers that be seem hell bent on making any video more intense than Paper Mario an adults-only form of entertainment; and thereby make even 3rd rate gore games desirable in the eyes of the consumerist teenager. They just keep pushing these games into sexier and sexier territory: "What? I have to pay a special tax because "teh game is teh hardcorz"? I'll take ten!!!"
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Good for them. It's not like violent games ever show justified violence, or even semi-realistic portrayals of current foreign combat. It's not like there is ever a point of the violence.
Violence is always bad. It's never a good way to put an end to problems people may face.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
It's causing quite the health epidemic. It's amazing how it was once popular and even fun! Now, it's known to be a carcinogen and causes other diseases.
Wait.. games.. right? We're talking about video games here? And what the @#$@ is "violent" anyways? Anything that shows any blood? Anything to do with guns? How about anything that depicts fighting or harsh language? How about any game where anything at all is killed?
Goombas, the genocide of Goombas. That's pretty f'ing violent. Better double, wait.. we are already taxed on the sale, plus a sin tax, so triple tax Super Mario Brothers.
Lets just go ahead and ban anything that happens outside of Church and Eating meals with the family. Crap, aren't there some churches that aren't quite, *cough* wholesome as well? Little boy fondlers and all (no matter how rare). Oh and bad stuff happens in the home in some cases as well, so we should strike that too. Let alone any entertainment that has obviously been **PROVEN** to cause violent behavior in, well, anyone.
WTF am I even talking about anymore? I'm making about as much sense as these god damn politicians now.
When Congress saw the breadth of their domain, they wept for there were no more taxes to levy.
1. Select an arbitrary public health/social/economic issue
2. ????
3. Propose tax as a solution
4. ???
5. Profit ?
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
I don't like the precedent set here. It's like we're failing to distinguish between what is harmful and what we find in bad taste. Cigarettes are harmful. The studies are conclusive. Is there any evidence that games are?
Can you please explain what part of playing a violet game is a sin?
I can understand a tax on tobacco and alcohol, both have a clear and quite direct negative side effect on you and the people around you.
But what makes a violent video game different from a other video game? The simulated violence? How about real violence shown on the news and "reality" shows? Isn't real violence worse than simulated violence?
We tax condoms to $5 a piece, becasue we all know THAT's a sin too. Honestly, if we start taxing things just because we don't agree with them, where do we stop? Who determines what's considered worthy of additional taxes and what's not?
Would the Supreme Court find a content based tax constitutional? I can see how states would get away taxing all video games, but taxing one type of video game based on its content seems like a first amendment issue. Are there other types of media that get this treatment?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
As if taxing cigarettes and alcohol prevented anyone from using them anyway.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
You know, I could see taxing alcohol and cigarettes in proportion to the societal burden it incurs and if it were applied in a systematic way to pay for healthcare, prevention and education programs, extra police, etcetera instead of being thrown in the general fund and cranked up everytime they "need" more money.
However, violent video games have a neglible (perhaps even positive as a cathartic release) societal burden. This is just a money grab on an unpopular group or easy scapegoat by the majority. The republic was made to protect the rights of the individual (in theory).
And use most the money made for real war.
What the fuck is wrong with these people?
You can't "copy" cigarettes, but you can (but not legally in most cases) with digital media.
If said digital media has a "tax" on it, and someone makes a copy, then could that be made into an additional crime of tax evasion?
Another example is Trolltech's Qt, "taxing" the "sin" of producing non-free software.
That won't encourage piracy....
I would also point out that taxing doesn't reduce the amount of violence in the game..
Sounds as effective as the Green tax tbph..
I am picturing an Air Force general getting pissed slamming his hand on a desk screaming, "How did my missile targeting system for F-22's and interactive guidance systems for drones to drop bombs go up by X amount of dollars?"
It is not quite out on console yet, but I do wonder how they will legally classify a taxed video game from a non-taxed one.
When I was your age we didn't have music file sharing utilities. We had to go out to a store and shoplift the CD.
This is a perfect example of a sin tax error.
Thank you, I'll be here all night.
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
alchohol; and I do not drink enough to make a difference, so I stood back and watched.
Then they came for Tobacco; and I do not smoke, so I did not speak out.
Now they've come for video games; and I don't play them...
I see a pattern emerging here. Who cares if they tax video games. Thanks for the extra revenue that does not have to come out of my paycheck.
Nullius in verba
I don't much see this surviving challenge, if it goes that far. A tax on things like cigarettes is one thing; a tax on media due to its content seems like something that contravenes the 1st Amendment. Otherwise, you'd never have to ban speech you don't like, you'd just make it really, really expensive.
Bear in mind I'm not a lawyer; I don't even play one on message boards.
This isn't an attack on "violent video games" per se, but rather the government responding to the economic crisis by applying sin taxes on a variety of goods, such as liquor, cigarettes, gas, electric, water, (the last three under the guise of "conservation"), and so on. Anything that is not a majority-use good or has any kind of social stigma will be taxed.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
they know the Pandora's box they are going to open with this piracy is just going to sky rocket then game companies that make sports and elmo games are going reign.
A sin tax? Are we serious? What's next? Will confessionals become toll booths? What constitutes a sin and by whos guage?
And targeting this? Why don't you call it what it is. "Wow, you make too much money, we need to figure out a way to tax you more."
I'll tell you what's a sin here. Re-electing these morons back in office. Give me a break. How about we look to tax lawmakers who fail to show up for work?
Freaking morons.
I know at least one person who gave up on cigarettes because of cost. And I know many more who didn't.
If I were tax dictator the extra taxes would go into a smokers insurance fund that will treat heart attacks and cancer for smokers. Either that or ban all publicly funded health care and mandate people buy their own health care coverage from their own pocketbooks, like auto liability insurance. If you want to kill yourself, do it on your own dime.
Only if what comes out of your butt does so in a "violent" manner (E.g. explosive diarrhea). Otherwise, there's only sales tax!
Let's just tax bad parents. You let your kid fail spelling? That's a hundred bucks. You let your kid fail math? That's two hundred. You let your kid fail PE? Well, celibacy is it's own tax plus, he/she won't be squishing out any more sedentary, garbage pile producing crotchfruit to compete with the resources of other, more fit people. TAX PARENTS.
If you can't beat them, tax them.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Is the submitter suggesting "sin" taxes are a good thing?!
If so, who gets to decide what activities and products are deserving of such penalties? How does this not quality as government-sponsored policing of morality? And who's system of ethics is ultimately the correct one?
Obviously taxes are necessary to fund the cost of government and it's services, but abusing the system to punish those who aren't harming anyone is completely ridiculous. Look at the outlandish cost of cigarettes smokers are subjected to every time they want to get their fix. It's easy to criticize smokers when you don't personally smoke, but you can bet your ass that you'd be complaining about the cost if you did.
Perhaps it's time to shake things up and reverse our ideals on what constitutes a "sin" deserving of taxes... like couples who have children who annoy those of us who don't. Why should all of us pay property taxes that go into the schools that educate children that aren't ours? Maybe couples who have children should foot the entire bill for schools simply because the rest of us find the act of having children objectionable.
After all we only have extra cash because we made an informed choice not to bring another screaming brat into this world. It should be entirely ours to use as we see fit.
8==8 Bones 8==8
how does it make sense to only tax what is physical?
My income is electronic. People buy the games using electrons, and those electrons change a number on a hard disk that denotes my earnings.
Nothing physical gets made, moved or exchanged.
But that doesnt mean my income shouldnt be taxed just the same as someone who lays bricks or grows food.
Work is work, whether the outcome of it is digitally encodable or not.
Not that I agree in this tax. I wouldnt mind (I make non violent games) if it was consistent with taxing the fuck out of tarantinos movies. Too many hollywood guys donate to politicians to let that happen though.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
What two viable positions is that supposed to be a "viable compromise" between?
Every tax the government does to companies, gets paid by the consumer. I recommend reading the Fair Tax book by congressman Jon Linder and Neal Boortz. http://www.fairtax.org/ It's astounding reading how many things have imbedded costs to items due to taxes that get passed off to the consumer. Cap and Trade will tax businesses for the consumption of energy they use and guess what happens? They raise the price of their product to pay for the tax increase. Guess what video game developers are going to do now?
Sig? No thanks. I don't smoke.
I think a "vice tax" on violent games has already been found an obstruction to free speech (how is it free speech if you're taxed depending on what you say?) and thus unconstitutional.
Letting that aside, "vice taxes" are a terrible idea, it basically means the richer you are the more vices you're allowed to have. To someone with a 200000$/year income the tax carries a completely different weight than to someone who earns 20000$/year. If vice taxes are supposed to make people use something less then they should be adjusted to the income (e.g. if every pack of cigarettes was taxed 1/2000th of your monthly income) so they don't vary between a huge barrier and a mere blip between different social classes. Not gonna reduce someone's use of something if the additional cost is so minor it doesn't matter while making it a significant bump for the upper classes will completely block it from the lower classes. Oh and hey, there we've got another abridgement to the freedom of speech, having the proles locked out of your speech if you talk about the wrong things.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
I'm sorry, Am I not supposed to be viewing violence as an adult male? I can understand mandates for them to put warning labels and such, for parents, but why the hell would It be reasonable to tax this?
What is our government now? The mafia? Seriously. They are essentially saying "Hey, look, we like you, but you're in trouble. Now, if you make sure we're taken care of, nothing bad will happen to you."
When did this become the job of the state?
Let's naively assume that the tax on cigarettes wasn't because it was a sin, but because smokers get cigarette-related illness and burden the health-care system.
By that reasoning, in Louisiana violent games cause kids to come down with The Fat, in Wisconsin it leads to kids going to juvvie, and in Corpus Christi, violent games lead to high property-taxes!
Your point is fair, but I'd also point out that taxing cigarettes is also supposed to offset the costs imposed on the healthcare system which the taxpayer ends up paying anyway.
Maybe a similar case could be made for video games and gun crime, but I doubt it. I doubt the cause and effect, and that the NRA and similar lobbying organizations would let such a precedent be set.
Anyone know how much of the cigarette tax goes to anti-smoking campaigns and other health related spending?
Good for them. It's not like violent games ever show justified violence, or even semi-realistic portrayals of current foreign combat. It's not like there is ever a point of the violence.
Violence is always bad. It's never a good way to put an end to problems people may face.
Putting aside your obviously strong beliefs against any kind of violence for a moment, let's briefly compare your arguement to cigarettes or alcohol. When was the last time you saw a 60-year old man hacking up blue smurfs that used to be parts of his lung in the kitchen sink at 7AM while pouring a shot or two of [brand-name] vodka and lighting up a [popular-brand] cigarette in a magazine or TV ad?
Of course violent video games aren't going to show mothers crying over their dead infant in the street or other realistic views of violent aftermath. They're going to advertise, promote, and design around the attractive and addictive part, much in the same way damn near every other product is marketed. I see little point in publishing sappy romance novels because the relationships portrayed are absolute bullshit, but I'm certainly not going to try and charge you a tax so you can read it. As you can see, it's a slipperly slope trying to stand on products that have to prove a positive point.
Back in the 90's when it was quite popular to sue tobacco companies and put large tax increases on cigarettes, myself any many others said this was just the beginning and continue this tactic and use it for junk food or anything deemed bad.
They have to do it. If the cigarette tax works then fewer people smoke. Tobacco tax money goes towards more things than health. It even goes towards road maintenance. So a lot of things the government does relies on that money and they won't give it up. If it comes to it, they'll tax you for taking a shit and causing pollution.
Some of my anti-smoking friends thought I was full of shit for thinking they'd extend this sort of thing for things other than cigarettes. I was right and in some ways I don't care. The mentality of only protecting the rights you like and no others is lame and if people are going to hold that attitude then fuck 'em. Maybe they'll realise the error of their ways once they're taxed for everything.
BTW, I wasn't totally against some sort of method of making smokers pay for their healthcare. Mainly because it's generally poor people who smoke and they can end up getting free healthcare. But it should have been done through a system that's basically forces them to buy healthcare. Because the government has lied and isn't using all, if any of the money, to cover the cost of smoker's healthcare. It's a nicer little earner for the government that will be used on many more things. It has to be. The US is in an incredible amount of debt and it has to be paid off some how.
Must be a better way to solve problems then raise tax's they don't like.
Maybe they should learn to control spending on things they do like first.
For decades, cigarettes were sold as healthy, by doctors (or at least actors in white coats) and their users denied any harmful side-effects even when their lungs were 50% tar and 50% cancer.
Do you REALLY want to link the denials of smokers and the tobacco industry witht the denials of gamers and the game industry?
In my mind, that just ain't smart. Not only are you by association making yourself suspicious of being in denial, you also show that the only way to curb an activity harmful to some (who cares if YOU die from smoking it is the second hand smoke that is leading to the most stringent laws) is to legislate it to death. Stay away from the smokers, tarred witht the same brush and all that.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Smokers add no extra costs to the health care system over their lifetimes. Everybody dies of something. Lung Cancer is an average-cost way to die.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Ok, I RTFA'd and it doesn't seem that this is going Federal yet (and I'm Canadian). But lets' say it does.
Talk about the pot in the kettle! The same people that want to tax violent video games are the same ones that want to sent 18-year-old 'kids' (I'm 30 .... anyways) away to war to get shot at and kill people. No matter where the conflict or the reason, its beyond me why its okay to kill people in a warzone at the age of 18, yet you have to 'pay extra' to do it in a virtual world even if you're under 18. The fact that America's Army game is being bought-paid for and developed under the instruction of the US Army is further irony.
I played 'violent' video games when I was 6 or 7. My parents never objected. The 'violent' games on the C64 were nowhere near the realism of today's games. I've never been in a fight, have always avoided them altogether. If they are so concerned about violent games, they should just screen people for mental and personality disorders before playing - like that's going to work - but the Columbine wasn't caused by normal people being bullied. Hell at least 10% of the male population at the school probably had firearms at home (access) and have played violent video games.
Over the past few days there have been a number of stories highlighting the idiocy of the British government... HA! Take that USA!
"But taxing them is a viable compromise, a 'sin tax' of sorts similar to that levied on cigarettes."
Viable to whom? Are sin taxes a good idea?
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Having been raised protestant, I can see the idea of these "sin" taxes being a good thing. However since switching to Buddhism (which only has 4 sins, but a lot of FSM style "I rather you didn't"s), I have to question if the use of the sin tax is being wielded the best.
In a really free country with total separation of church and state, the Judeao-Christian set of sins should not be the defacto standard. Rather, they should be set by what is truly great for society. The problem is, that any tax is government control. The only real tax a country can have is a flat tax on consumption. But therein lies the problem. If you tax consumption, you adversely affect the GDP.
Could it be that there are is a set of taxes which won't bog down GDP and still not attempt to control the population? Well, there will always be some control, but we need to structure the taxes in such a way as to direct the person to not bog down the country. Here, I suggest a tax on borrowing. We'd turn the country around in no time if you had to borrow 10-20% more to pay the taxes on it. People would wait longer, and scrutinize their borrowing if they would immediately "be in the hole" (negative equity). Another area is in medical, where a tax on late-term care (when you wait too long and have a bigger more expensive problem than if you just came in when you knew something was wrong). Toxic pollution taxes.
In short, any situation we want to destroy, we tax. Rather than what we do today, where we tax what we need. 20% cellphone taxes in NYC. 20% income tax, taxes on water, electricity and gas. Property taxes (you have to live somewhere, unless you're on a boat). If we really wanted to make this country great, we'd tax what we want to destroy. Not what we are made out of, even if that includes sin.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
I don't see any correlation between smoking and violent video games. Where are there studies that conclude violent games cause an increase in burden on our health system.
This is just stupidity.
I Like this idea.
If you were to take the percentage representation of untimely deaths, per capita, which occur in the United States... I suppose as defined by coroner examination: Car & Motorcycle Crash, Gun Shot, Bad Puns, My Ex-Wife's Cooking... And divide it proportionally by the equivalent of a percent or two of payroll or income tax... and then levy that tax on the consumers and or traders of such commodities (Cars, Motorcycles, Guns, Puns, Ex-wives), instead.
In this way a working stiff such as myself can avoid some taxation by avoiding negative externalites and still work a full time job.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Sin Taxes, are sold as fines, but it's usually a problem for the taxers if they work as fines (in other words, if people quit smoking, drinking and gaming). Because in that case the tax base starts to shrink and the revenue disappears.
So you're claiming that tobacco and alcohol are on the far side of the Laffer curve. But if you put aside the Reaganomics for a moment, consider that a tax on substances that cause COPD, lung cancer, liver cirrhosis, and DWI can cause the incidences of those to go down, leading to lower health care costs for the government or for private insurers.
Video games are _NOT_ real violence. Beating someone and playing a video game can hardly be compared.
You have (or should have) the general freedom to do with yourself whatever you want, as long as you don't harm others.
That includes alcohol for example. Now the society as a whole decided that drinking alcohol is a bad thing. However, it is way more important to preserve your individual freedom to do what you want so nobody can (should) outlaw alcohol.
That's were a "sin tax" comes in: Society wants to encourage people to not drink / drink less while at the same time keeping all their individual freedom. The wallet is the perfect way to do that.
Same goes for video games: If society decides that playing games is something people should be discouraged from doing then offering a monetary incentive to not play is very reasonable and far superior to other restrictive approaches (laws that take freedom from the people).
Now whether it makes sense to try to influence people in how they spend there free time or not is a whole different story. I personally think nobody has the right to claim his/her choice of recreational activity as "superior" to others so a "sin tax" is wrong for such activities in my option. That doesn't change the fact that a "sin tax" generally can be a useful concept.
I completely disagree. What sin taxes do is ensure that the wealthy get to exercise their individual freedom, while the poor do not.
If you really believe that everyone should have the personal freedom to drink alcohol, or to play violent video games, why would you make exercise of that right dependent on money?
Seems to me we might as well go back to only landowners having suffrage if you believe that. After all, there's nothing wrong with the exercise of rights and freedoms being tied to money, is there?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I work at a company that does web hosting for several hundred companies in the area. One of these was a store that specialized in roll-your-own tobacco. After the new tobacco tax went into effect, and prices on many of their products jumped up by 1200%, they had to close down. So we lost a client, which is now is lost money for me (a non-smoker).
I know I'm breaking /. rules by reading the article but this line caught my eye: "Not to be outdone, Corpus Christi rancher Star Locke proposes a 100-percent sales tax on "any video game containing any form of human violence" to help reduce property taxes in Texas."
Lets throw some examples here. 100% tax on:
1) GTA.
2) Generic violent shooter.
3) Generic WWII reenactment game.
4) Historically accurate reenactment game.
5) Game reenacting the recorded actions of Christ.
I'm going to go out on a limb and think he isn't as against that last one (and probably some of the others) as his comment seems.
So what's next? Are we going to have a ratings tax for movies? If it's PG-13 add a $5 tax, if it's R add a $10 tax on to it?
So when you buy that $7.00 pack of cigs, you know that $6.00 of it is taxes right?
So, we can look forward to paying $350 for a boxed title that goes for $50 now?
Fuck that noise.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Smokers cost less than nonsmokers because they don't live as long. Most healthcare is spent on the last 6 months of life regardless of when that is. Smokers just have that happen sooner and don't live through those ruinously expensive 70s and 80s that nonsmokers can reach.
Nonsmokers should pay a tax to pay for their more expensive health care if you want things to be fair.
Man, you really need that seminar!
The proposal mentioned by TFA to tax some video games based on violent content is not coming from anyone in elected office. It is part of a package that includes abolishing all private property taxes, abolishing the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, and applying a $10,000 tax on any abortion.
It's fun reading if you can get past the spelling and grammar errors.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
As a smoker I am all for it, tax the hell out of violent games start about 24 bucks per title. No
reason I should have to pay for child health care myself, do your part.
I've been playing violent video games for going on 20 years now (OK, so the graphics were less realistic) but not once have I ever felt the urge to go out and kill anyone - until last night.
My mate's daughter had just been given the Brats Movie game (I think that's the name) and after 20 minutes of listening to the music and the "like so cool" game play (not to mention it's teaching this poor girl to be a dumb american teen) - I was ready to strangle someone...
The article is correct when it states that the proposals are legislative pandering. The article is incorrect when it (sarcastically, as I read it) states that a "sin tax" on violent video games is a viable compromise. That doesn't mean that these sorts of proposals couldn't be enacted into law, or cause some momentary angst. However, since there's money involved, you can be sure that any state enacting such a law wouldn't end up collecting an additional cent.
We should all recall that pesky First Amendment to the Constitution. Now, while there are those who think that the First Amendment can justify almost anything, there are also those who have a legitimate basis for thinking that the First Amendment requires most laws to be content neutral in the way in which they affect speech, even "videogame speech."
If you've been tracking the "violent videogames" issue over the last few years, you know that laws restricting the distribution of violent and sexually explicit games have been routinely struck down as violating the First Amendment due to the requirement that they pass "strict scrutiny." Strict scrutiny requires that the law support a "compelling interest" and be "narrowly tailored" in order to achieve that compelling interest without unreasonable adverse side-effects.
Surprise, surprise -- a tax is simply another law. Even a Reagan-era Supreme Court (excepting Rhenquist and Scalia, who only cited cases involving credits and deductions) has held that discriminatory taxes must survive strict scrutiny. Given the tenor of prior Federal Court decisions concerning selective bans on the distribution of videogames to minors, I believe that you can reasonably predict that decisions concerning selective taxes on sales of videogames to minors and adults will be struck down as well.
has anyone read the star locke proposal linked to in the news story? totally loony and riddled with typos in what they propose as a piece of legislation. any texans heard of these people? how mad are we talking?
But taxing them is a viable compromise
And that sort of thinking is what got us Galactus style government in the first place that needs to find a way to tax our every breath and waking moment.
violence is OK, as long as you're willing to pay extra for it
Uh, this tax isn't a tax on violence. It is a tax on violent video games. Paying the tax does not make your violent acts ok. You will still go to jail for them.
Paying the tax also doesn't make violent video games ok. It just makes them more expensive in hopes that the higher price will reduce consumption. When a perceived problem cannot be solved, reducing it is the next best alternative...and that is one of the purposes of taxation.
The other, of course, is to generate some useful revenue from those who refuse to be deterred.
I think you grossly misinterpreted this tax. I still think it is silly, though.
And this prevents young kids from playing mature rated titles...HOW? this is essentially a tax grab (gov. ripoff) plain & simple!
short answer: NO!
There is actually a good financial reason for taxing substances, is that selling goods that are very damaging to ones' health inevitably winds up being a financial burdon to the rest of society, namely in health insurrence increases and medical bills. This is also one of the main arguements behind seatbelt laws. Games, on the other hand, create no widespread financial implact. No more than any of the other tax-free entertainment and luxury items. If a city or state has a luxury tax on all entertainment goods... fine, that's up to them. But singling out specific types of entertainment to be taxed is completely unjust, and SHOULD be forbidden by the US constitution if it is not already.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Politicians are now getting into taxing people for their behaviors.
We now tax tobacco to help cover the costs that its use places on the health care system.
Now, politicians want to tax video games for the effects they have on social problems.
So, seeing as how we are now in a 'Tax-Happy' mood, using taxes to subsidize things, I propose the following:
Why don't we tax poorer people for the burden they place on the justice system? It's been proven that lower income areas have higher crime rates. So, if it is OK tax tobacco and alcohol for the burdens they place on the health system, then we can continue the process and tax lower income families for the increased costs of social problems and justice system costs.
I am just putting this idea forth as food for thought. It shows that the concept of taxing something for the costs that it places in a particular area is a very ill-conceived idea.
The tobacco taxes should be done away with, and people who have illnesses caused by tobacco usage should be required to pay for their own medical treatments. Nobody shoved that cigarette in their mouths and made them smoke it. And even when doctors told them it was safe, any idiot can understand that people can DIE FROM INHALING SMOKE. If a doctor told you that chugging gasoline was healthful, would you do it? If you are the kind of person who ignores common sense, and believes such outrageous things, then the world is better off without you. Cigarettes do not ALWAYS cause illness. Tobacco use does not ALWAYS cause cancer. Alcohol use does not ALWAYS cause cirrhosis. Alcohol use does not ALWAYS cause alcoholism. The links are strong, but using Substance X does not necessarily mean that Problem Y will occur.
If you choose to use a product that is hazardous, then they alone should be responsible for covering the medical costs related to its usage.
Sin Taxes are just a ploy used by politicians to generate money off of society's indulgences, because they need that money to replace all the dough they misspent in the first place. We wouldn't need the taxes we already have if politicians spent money correctly, rather than spending it on pet projects that they used to get themselves elected.
Social Darwinism isn't really a bad idea. If you do something stupid, and it comes back and bites you in the ass, why should I pay for your treatment?
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
plain and simple
You have the right to arm yourself with a lethal weapon, but violent video games are a no-no. Maybe they'll raise the taxes so high that it would be cheaper to buy a gun. Maybe then we'll see which is really more dangerous.
This isn't about poor or rich or anything. There's evidence that violent video games don't have any long-term negative effects and may even have some positive ones (such as hand-eye coordination). The reasons for taxing tobacco, firearms, alcohol are all obvious- they have incredible negative effects on society and consume millions - maybe billions - of dollars every year in criminal investigations, cancer, birth defects, etc. Video games have never been proven to have an ill-effect on society and may have some positive ones according to a few studies.
If we're not going to base our laws off established facts we might as well not have them at all. I mean what next, taxing rap music? banning sci-fi books? Taxing people who have view-blocking trees in their yard? Putting people in jail for not mowing their lawns? This is ridiculous.
1. Tax violent video games
2. Tax violent movies
3. Tax violent music
4. Tax violent books (example... The Bible)
5. Tax violent art
6. Tax violent....etc
What if they decided that a non-violent game needed to be taxed? Would it be considered a SynTax Error?
Games for my PS3 are already $60...
So most of Slashdot seems to be ok with the present sin taxes, on things like alcohol and tobacco. But they are not ok when video games are involved. I can't say I'm surprised.
Try to understand that a lot of people see vice taxes the way that you see violent video game taxes: completely ridiculous. A cash grab, an attempt to tell people how to behave without having to meet the criteria for making something illegal, and a situation where the rich have more freedoms than the poor.
The games get more expensive, leading to more widespread piracy, circumventing the ratings. Very counter productive.
but the way statistics are used and mangled to imply that video games do promote violent activity.
That they do depict/allow for violent actions is one thing. That a direct relation between "virtual" and "real" action exist is something that so far, I've not seen proved anywhere.
This is really a political agenda only issue...
There is a certain level of violence in almost every game out there, so except for games like bejeweled, there will be a tax on every game. You play an RPG, where you kill monsters, that is violent, so it gets taxed. You even have hunting games where you hunt animals, that is violent, so would count.
What is the limit, only games where you are running around in "civilized" areas killing stuff counts as violent are the ones to be taxed? Or first person shooters? Where are the limits here, since an in-game scene where you punch someone who is being obnoxious could be seen as violent, even if the game as a whole is not?
Its not income based. This means its unbalanced because the rich pay the same as us but to them the cost is insignificant. Taxes like this help the rich to stay rich and the poor to stay poor. It should not be allowed.
Isn't this generally true of income tax in the US? There have been times when I couldn't file my taxes because the tax laws for year X were still being finalized early in year X+1. I think they've got this backwards: the tax law for year X should be finalized before the last day of year X-1. Then I could plan accordingly.
Would free games also be affected? Is there a legal challenge to any such tax on the horizon due to the restriction by taxation on free speech, possibly on proprietary games but also possibly on open source games? Would violent interactive programs, i.e. not "games" also be threatened?
>But taxing them is a viable compromise
An even better comprimise is to stop spending so much freaking money on social programs for lazy people, pork barrel crap, unnecessary wars, funding private corporate infrastructure, bailing out lobbying firms, banks (and other poorly run businesses) and earmarks.
We have enough taxes. More taxes are not ok or viable unless you are a brainless moron. Video game companies get taxed on their profits. They are already taxed. What, $60 a pop isn't expensive enough? Geez.
-Viz
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
You know your old when you remember "Where's the Beef?".
Anyway, I differ from LWATCDR in that I think that violence on TV & movies is actually far worse and more influential of a person. What's on TV & movies is so realistic plus it involves actual people doing the stunts rather than a bunch of pixels running around a screen. Computer games are just so fake it's very difficult to find any connection to real world violence as easily. All I see when I play is a bunch of colored pixels resembling things and people and until we reach a reality threshold point (I think that's decades away for the average computer & video game, but that's my guess).
But I had a thought earlier today (remembering what I'm sure I heard somewhere) that violent games are a piece of the puzzle of telling when someone is going to go "Columbine" on society (no offense intended Colorado et al). An obsession with playing violent video games AND, and I cannot emphasis the 'and' enough, other things like using guns in a non safe fashion (like shooting BB guns at animals) plus loads of other psychological indicators adding up to violent tendencies that then indicate a serious need for counseling and other help or treatment prevention of trouble with the person.
The problem is that most people focus on a single item as the blame for a given problem and miss out on all the pieces necessary to tell what is really going on.
But instead of using a violent video game obsession as a small piece of the evaluation of the person they miss out on determining whether a person is going to commit a serious act of violence they obsess with it, and other "blame of the moment" things, and don't see who is really going to be violent and who is just playing a computer game.
It's like a variation of the crude example I use that the person like a parent of a child that is obsessed with using violent video games, and not much else in this example, says that their game obsessed child is going to be violent whereas their other child that almost never plays a violent game but does have other indicative obsessions of violence goes out and commits serious acts of violence with the parent saying "he did that? He was never violent...".
They just don't get it. Get rid of the tool to evaluate the person and place false blame. The tax is dumb. I think it should be used to educate the politicians on how to NOT place false blame and do the right thing.
I'll think of a really good SIG just before I die.