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."

Comments

but but but, it's for a good cause!!

[kcornia]

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?

Re:but but but, it's for a good cause!!

[rackserverdeals]

Actually, that's exactly what's going to happen.

They plan on showing them computer simulations of violent acts to illustrate how bad violence is.

I've seen the prototype of the simulation. It's pretty neat. It's from a first person perspective of someone running around killing people and being shot at. And it progresses. First you get to see what the horrors are of killing people with a pistol. Then you pick up a shot gun and see how horrible it is. Then you pick up a machine gun and see that atrocity.

There's even a little number at the top that keeps count of how much you've learned.

Re:but but but, it's for a good cause!!

[Red Flayer]

Who cares where the tax revenues go. It all goes into the general treasury anyway. People who believe in earmarked revenues let themselves be misled. Ever wonder why earmarked revenues rarely result in higher spending on the earmarks' targets? Spending from the general treasury is reduced to make up for the earmarked spending.

My biggest problem with this has nothing to do with where the money is spent. It's with the concept that violence is OK, as long as you're willing to pay extra for it. So next time I pick up a hooker, it'll be OK if I beat her on top of screwing her, as long as I give her an extra $40 or so? Or If I send an extra $40 to the government as a "sin tax"?

If you take the ideas of these brain-dead lawmakers and their brain-dead constituents, this is the logical conclusion.

Also, while we're at it, let's tax movie tickets on a sliding scale based on their rating. G? Pay the sales tax. PG? Pay 2 x sales tax. PG-13? 3 x sales tax. Etc.

Re:but but but, it's for a good cause!!

[slummy]

So next time I pick up a hooker, it'll be OK if I beat her on top of screwing her, as long as I give her an extra $40 or so?

You might want to OK the beating with him/her first. Otherwise her pimp Sugar might get wind of it and give you a really bad day.

Re:but but but, it's for a good cause!!

[Chris Mattern]

So next time I pick up a hooker, it'll be OK if I beat her on top of screwing her, as long as I give her an extra $40 or so?

I thought the lesson of video games was that if you beat up the hooker, you got your $40 *back*.

Re:but but but, it's for a good cause!!

[LWATCDR]

Okay I am on the opposite side of most people when it comes to video games. I have no problem with mandatory age restrictions on video games. I have no issue with taxing cigs and alcohol. But I have an issue with extra tax on video games. Yes I see how Left4Dead would be unhealthy for an 8 year old to play but for a normal adult it is just fine. Violent video games are no worse than violent movies or books.
If you want to tax a game how about golf? Golf Courses do a huge amount of damage to the environment. How about a $5 a round tax on golf and a $1.00 a ball tax on golf balls.
Of course who will pay the sin tax on game America's Army?

Movies?

[maxter3185]

Ok, fine, do it, but what about violent movies and TV shows?

Re:This is how government controls us.

[FooAtWFU]

First they came for the AIG executive bonuses, but I did not speak up, because the AIG executives were a bunch of jerks...

Violent games are never good

[MBCook]

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.

Re:Tax my Toilet

[ArcherB]

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.

Re:stupid

[Red Flayer]

Why not tax for having ides, next?

Uh-oh, March is gonna be screwed come tax time.

Constitutional?

[Hatta]

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?

Ahem...

[momerath2003]

This is a perfect example of a sin tax error.

Thank you, I'll be here all night.

Re:Tax my Toilet

[GNUbuntu]

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.

New Tax Idea

[Sir_Real]

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.

Re:Tax my Toilet

[CrashPoint]

Which part of "...not any of your taxes" did you not understand?

We've heard that before, though, haven't we?