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."
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.
Ok, fine, do it, but what about violent movies and TV shows?
I have pictures o' your momma and sista naked
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.
When will they eventually get to the point of taxing what comes out of my butt?
Unless you make more than $250,000, you have nothing to worry about. Obama said so:
"Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
Maybe you'll have to take your pay stub into the store to prove that you make less than a quarter mill' a year. I'm still waiting for my cigarette tax refund paper work to come in the mail I paid the extra $1.00 tax recently and I don't make more than $250,000/yr.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
It'll never happen, will cost them too much for the shit they spout from their mouths.
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!
These are tax proposals by STATE legislatures.
learn2federalism.
Which part of "...not any of your taxes" did you not understand?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I think it would be a 69% tax.
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?
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..
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.
Which part of STATE legislatures did you not understand?
This is an example of the fallacy that consuming energy requires one to expel carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. For counterexample, check out the promising new 'photosynthesis' technology that the plant world has been working on.
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'm pretty sure anyone except for people who are trying to nitpick non-issues knew that Obama was only talking about Federal taxes. There are plenty of good reasons to bash Obama, this one is just flat out stupid.
See and this is a problem with "sin taxes." A sin tax is just a tax on a socially unpopular item. It's not meant to be a fine, which is a punishment that's used to discourage people from breaking the law.
The reason why sin taxes target socially unpopular items is "divide and rule." In other words, if everything gets a sales tax, everyone complains. If violent video games get a sales tax, only video game players complain. If they aren't a big enough block to vote out the taxers, and the tax holds up in court (I'm not sure that it would, but it might), then the tax gets put into place and allows the state government to collect the revenue.
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.
I'm reminded of the story of a town whihc levied a fine on false burglar alarms. Well the town auditor complained when one year the fine brought in less revenue than the previous year. The police chief had to patiently explain to him that the fine was working as intended, and the police were having less of their time wasted with false alarms. The fine wasn't supposed to be about raising revenue, it was to free up police resources to go after actual crimes rather than people who carelessly set off their own alarm.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
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.
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.
Oh no, I got it. Obama has no control over state and local taxes. However, he should has specified that when he said "...not ANY of your taxes..." He could have said, "...not any of your FEDERAL taxes." or "not any of your INCOME taxes." He didn't. He said, "not ANY of your taxes".
This is a classic case of a straw man. Pretty much everyone understood the context this was in. Except you decide to remove context, ascribe intent to lack of context, and go on your merry flaming ways.
Nice try.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
We've heard that before, though, haven't we?
Anytime they (as in government) can label someone as a victim they see a reason to tax and in turn desire control.
Sig? No thanks. I don't smoke.
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?
Uh, yeah. About that. "The federal cigarette tax rose on April 1 from 39 cents a pack to $1.01." http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/04/08/ap6272107.html Anyway taxing smokers is smart, because smokers have health problems that taxpayers end up subsidizing through medicare/medicaid. Raising taxes on smokers results in fewer smokers, which results in a lower tax burden for nonsmokers. This is one where the "lower my taxes" crowd should be creaming their jeans, and instead they're whining about it.
All the purple prose in the dialog.
This is an example of the fallacy that consuming energy requires one to expel carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
For counterexample, check out the promising new 'photosynthesis' technology that the plant world has been working on.
the part where the plant "consumes" energy is not photosynthesis.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
*sigh* Obama's powers are at the federal level so it was IMPLICIT that he was talking about federal taxes, just like when someone tells you the year is 2009 you do not need to ask BC or AD. Unless you want to look like a total doofus.
The difference is that there's piles of peer-reviewed research showing that smoking will definitely kill you. Video games, not so much.
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
The plant is consuming energy while it's exposed to light. It's storing some of that energy, and it also consumes some of its stored energy later, which does release CO2. However, the plant releases a net negative amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Infact, it seems that withdraw from video games kills you. Ask those Chinese people (in China) that walked out of internet cafes after 24hr+ gaming sessions and died. They should have kept playing.
(Totally tongue-in-cheek)
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
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!!!
All kidding aside, there are many ways to stop smoking, and since this is a frivolous thing in many politicians eyes (as well as a burden to the tax payers that have to pay for uninsured people's health care when they get end stage emphasema from smoking their whole lives), you've got a better chance of having those taxes revoked as you are of getting uncensored internet in China.
Not to burst your bubble, but smokers cost less over our lives. As it turns out, there is little more expensive to health care than being old and smokers just don't get as old. Quick citation.
A few other things:
1. I have no problem paying a cigarette tax. At least it's a small disincentive for people starting. I have a problem with hypocrisy. Cigarette taxes are hypocritical for two reasons. First, cigarettes, as billboards and anti-smoking groups are quick to point out, are the number 2 cause of death. What nobody seems to acknowledge is that the number 1 cause of death is heart disease. Where is the fast food/excessive-trans-fat food tax? Second, last I checked (could be outdated, admittedly), most states put LESS THAN HALF of their cigarette taxes into health care.
2. The real reason we tax cigarettes, alcohol, and apparently potentially violent video games, among other "vices" is because it generates state revenue from a minority with far less voting power, and as a whole, America is absurdly income-tax-phobic. It serves the secondary purpose of making the sanctimonious jackasses that run around imposing their 'morals' on others happy. THAT is the real reason none of them will be repealed. It has nothing to do with frivolity.
3. While there are many, and improving, aids to quitting smoking, if my memory serves me correctly, there isn't a single product, including things like prescription inhalers, with a 2-year success rate greater than 25%. I'm pretty sure none of them are even 20%, but I'm being conservative in case I'm remembering wrong. It is not statistically acceptable to be okay with raising cigarette taxes on the grounds that people can just quit. In reality, they will either smoke cheaper cigarettes or order them from Russia... much like with a video game tax, people would either increase their piracy, buy more used, or wait for prices to drop. Nobody is going to pass a game up that they want to play because of some stupid tax.
Anonymous for sake of mod points distributed.
When will they eventually get to the point of taxing what comes out of my butt?
Unless you have your own septic tank, they do.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
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...
You are retarded. It would be like if we were playing WoW and I told you I would give you a flying mount. Then you get pissed off that I only gave you a flying mount in the game and not in real life. It was implicit that I was giving you a flying mount in the game, but you understood it wrong because you are stupid. You don't care that I don't have the power to produce a real flying mount. You are just going to complain how awful I am because I broke a promise in your mind when any reasonable person would be able to figure things out by context.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
Oh no, I got it. Obama has no control over state and local taxes. However, he should has specified that when he said "...not ANY of your taxes..." He could have said, "...not any of your FEDERAL taxes." or "not any of your INCOME taxes." He didn't.
Who the HELL are you talking about? Who is this Obama and why is he in charge of anything tax related?
Actually, I got it. You mean President Barack Obama. However, you never specified that when you said, "Obama." You could have said "United State President Barack Obama." You didn't. You said, "Obama."
Dude, seriously. When the candidate for a federal office says the word "tax" the fact that it is a federal tax is assumed by everyone.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Anyway taxing smokers is smart, because smokers have health problems that taxpayers end up subsidizing through medicare/medicaid. Raising taxes on smokers results in fewer smokers, which results in a lower tax burden for nonsmokers. This is one where the "lower my taxes" crowd should be creaming their jeans, and instead they're whining about it.
Actually you're wrong. A non-smoker on average costs more over their life in medical costs than a smoker. Sure smokers get cancer and emphysema, but the treatments are fairly straight forward for these and usually a smoker dies much younger. Non-smokers tend to get more exotic/costly diseases and in the end cost the tax payers more.
This has been known for some time as this was published in 1997: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/337/15/1052
There have been more recent studies that back this up published out of Holland and at least one other European country in the last year or so.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22995659/
I lose weight when I stop working out and just play games. My first year of college I lost 11 pounds.
WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW???
RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY