Slashdot Mirror
Missouri Republican Wants Violent Video Game Tax
New submitter sHr0oMaN writes with news that Diane Franklin, a Republican member of Missouri's state House of Representatives, has proposed a sales tax on violent video games. The proposal, HB0157I, is one of many responses to the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. The proceeds from the tax would go toward mental health programs and law enforcement in the hopes that future shootings can be prevented. The total amount taxed would be small — 1% — and would be applied to video games rated Teen, Mature, or Adult-only by the ESRB. Of course, many games earn the "Teen" rating without having violence in them, like Guitar Hero. The Entertainment Software Association responded to Rep. Franklin's bill with a statement: "Taxing First Amendment protected speech based on its content is not only wrong, but will end up costing Missouri taxpayers."
Looks to me like a Republican, in the face of potential gun bans, is pointing at video games and saying "LOOK OVER HERE! HERE! LOOK OVER HERE INSTEAD."
Mind you I'm completely against any gun legislation myself.
How are mental health programs and law enforcement going to stop the one messed up kid who doesn't talk to anyone outside of the internet?
If nobody knows the psycho is out there, no amount of money can prevent them spazzing out.
A Republican wants a tax? Someone is about to receive a pair of "Norquist galoshes".
Table-ized A.I.
And pray tell, honorable senator from Missouri, what will these taxes go to? Because given your party's actions to date, I'm pretty sure it won't be helping to educate anyone. Maybe a discount on some voucher program? Paying for adults to stand in front of teens and explain to them how condoms are only for bananas? Or maybe a rainy day fund for members of your party caught in airport restrooms?
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Then put a tax on guns too.
People should start referring to these people properly.
Quit framing this as Democrat vs. Republican issue; this is an issue of Tyranny vs. Liberty, and Tyranny will rear its ugly head in any party that it can!
Tax violent news and television too!! Effin retarded!
Right. Because nothing says Republican idea of small government more than taxing video games does. Thanks, dude.
does a politician want exposure without committing any budget?
(given that's a republican politician): how much for "law enforcement" and what proportion for "mental health"?
What does violent games have to do with "mental health"? If "depicting violence whenever accessed" is the key for the answer, why not tax all the TV station for every news about violence? Or, indeed, any display of violence... even in sports involving fighting or... wars???
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
-Rahm Emanuel
So everyone you see these days flogging one plan or another in wake of Sandy Hook really don't give 2 shits about the kids that were killed, just about using the emotional uproar to advance their agenda and get it passed in a flurry of reflexive emotion.
Sample Game Tax List:
$0.03 per ounce of blood visible
Spleen visible: $1
Spleen split/burst: $3
Brain visible: $2.50
Brain split/burst: $5
Heart visible: $2
Heart split/burst: $4
Intestine visible: $1.75
Intestine split/burst: $3.75
Choking/strangulation using intestine: $8
Choking/strangulation using victim's own intestine: $12
Flying eyeball: $2 per ball
Decapitation: $3 per head
Robot death: $0.30
Table-ized A.I.
Very well. But what if the primary methods of distribution people use to disseminate "speech" rely upon a revenue stream to run? (e.g. print, radio, broadcast television, cable, youtube) Given the infrastructure costs for "speech" in modern media, should all methods of distribution which aren't non-profit be regarded as engaging in commerce rather than speech and regulated accordingly? Is free speech and expression limited to what I can do using my voice in the town square?
the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear as well sending them off to camps and that was a very bad idea.
Republicans are learning from Democrats: next they'll tax gay-ness and Darwin Winter Holiday Trees.
Table-ized A.I.
Make violent video games harder to get and play, and it's just going to increase the amount of violence in the real world.
There are always a few kids "inspired" by violent games, but for the majority of the people who play these things, it's an outlet for some pent-up aggression that they'd otherwise have trouble releasing.
A lot of these mass shootings are done by people who want control, but feel that it is slipping away from them. Video games, and violent video games in particular, give them this control, if only temporarily.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
just buy online and pay 0 tax so they give up sales tax with this BS as well.
Ah yes.... there's little Timmy (the Dickens one, not the Slashdot one), saving to buy "Beserkers: The game with real bloodspurt(tm) certified by the NRA for massacre training, endorsed by Ted Nugent" and he's at the GameStart store and he's 14 cents short because of the tax.
DAMN YOU, Republicans! How dare you deny a child a game because of your endless taxes! It's like how in Florida you've run the cost of a carry permit up to ~$150 so people who live in poor, crime-ridden neighborhoods can't afford them.
Mitt Romney, this is all your fault. Grrrr.
Because this is a new tax being pushed by a member of a party that fights all other taxes tooth and nail? Adds an element of hypocracy to the whole thing that's newsworthy, does it not?
Don't worry, we still remember who was putting the stickers on the cassette tapes and who pushed the DMCA. Though it'd help if there was ever a strong backlash by the Republicans in favor of free speech instead of ... *crickets*.
Religion causes more violence than video games.
Tax churches.
"Congratulations, Boots. Your robot has become self-aware. You're a daddy now." -- Dr. Rho Bowman
Missouri Republican Wants Violent Video Game Tax
And I want idiots like him to shut the fuck up, respect my freedom, and do something useful. Oh well, I guess we can't always get what we want, and I suspect neither of us will in this case.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
Like TFS states, games can receive T, M, or AO ratings without being violent. If a game is AO for explicit sexual content, that isn't a violent video game (and I would be hard-pressed to find someone other than this Missouri representative who would believe otherwise). The ESRB does give specific qualifiers in the ratings for why a game is rated as it is. The ESRB will tell you, on the box, if a video game received its rating because of violent content.
If section 144.1020 were re-written so as to appear to be the product of a reasonable human being, I might be in favor of this idea.
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
Obligatory Penny-Arcade.
First, that's applied to all art and entertainment.
Second, even if it DID project violence on to it -- even if it was in some minor way responsible for desensitizing people (it isn't), then so what? We're going to take an axe to the first amendment, because one person out of every fifty to one hundred million is negatively impacted by stupid shit? Of course not. Which renders all of this fucking moot.
So you don't want a made-up number for the tax levied to a product that is an imaginary culprit for a freak-event that occurs with one person every couple of years?
Outside the USA, gun bans are normal and deaths by weapons are all a tiny fraction of those in the USA. Where guns are allowed (e.g. Switzerland has quite a few) they get a lot more deaths, Swiss being more prone to just killing themselves than gun rampage+suicide.
Gun's don't kill people, people with guns kill people.
People with knives, you can run away from, guns though are designed to give the owner a killing advantage. There's simply no need for a killing advantage unless your intention is to kill.
"like the dying economy and civil liberties instead of passing populist kneejerk unsolutions"
So you're blaming the kid going into school with his moms GUN on the economy?
"Kneejerk", hardly kneejerk, this has been raised again and again and needs to be tackled but Republican gun nuts like Diane Franklin would sacrifice thousands of school children for their few thousand dollars NRA lobby money.
Looks to me like a Republican, in the face of potential gun bans, is pointing at video games and saying "LOOK OVER HERE! HERE! LOOK OVER HERE INSTEAD."
Well, I guess it would be okay if Colleen Lachowicz was my representative. Otherwise, I'd refuse. I mean, are there even any republicans out there that have actually played a videogame?
- Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
"Stupidest Proposed Law in Response to a Tragedy" or something? I'm seeing a lot of entries lately.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Maybe the money from the tax should go towards buying guns for good guys so they can stop the bad guys?
The rest of the fucking industrialized world has violent video games and violent movies, and the vast majority of them do not see the gun deaths we do.
You can have your tax on violent video games. But, only if I can get a tax on Missouri Republicans.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
The behavior of the police in minority communities is the driving force behind the "stop snitching" movement. When you are mistreated by law enforcement, it doesn't give you much of an incentive to cooperate with them.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Why would you ever want a made-up number?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
As soon as you start charging for it or place limits on redistribution and dissemination,
Errrmmm... So, aristotle... let's be "logical" to the end.
So... you know... if one starts placing restriction on who the one makes sex with, it's no longer a form of expression, it's becoming commerce and, as such, subject to state regulations. The monogamous marriages would better go and... (either pay money as a tax, also as an option:) fsck the states' tax offices too... in the percentage established by tax regulations. Specifically, if a condom is used during the act, the percentage should be higher (not only the sex is restricted to a single person, but the dissemination of the... well, the product called semen... is artificially restricted as well).
Given the percentage of monogamous population (e.g. fundamentalist Christians of one flavour or the other in the "bible belt"), this will either result in paying the public debt in a very short time or in sperm inflation and total depreciation of sperm banks as institutions... which will result in job losses. A risky proposition, wouldn't you agree dude?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
The behavior of the police in minority communities is the driving force behind the "stop snitching" movement.
Really? That's not what I hear.
The driving force behind "stop snitching" is the gang bangers that show up at your door if you snitch.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Alrighty Ms. Franklin, and just who gets to decide what is a "violent" video game? You and your church ladies?
I'm sure it'll have a broad enough definition that nearly every game could count. Space Invaders? You shot a weapon at enemies. Pac-Man? Ran around eating dots until eating "special" dots that make you strong enough to go take out your enemies. Super Mario Brothers? Stomped on enemies or sometimes shot them with fire once obtaining a special weapon.
Yet another bill proposed by someone that hasn't got a clue about the real world around them.
Only America has these problems. You figure it out.
No one is going to accept paying more for a "violent" video game. Even if such a tax did some how make it through to the customer, game developers will just find a way to make the "violent" game rate not-violent. On the other hand if a "violent" video game does get taxed more the end result realistically will be nothing. A person who is going to kill doesn't care about $2 more for a video game, of course like I've said before, Video games don't make anyone kill or become violent so really this is an attempt to make money. The most violent people who have ever lived never even touched a video game, so to all those "violent video games cause violence", please explain.
Seriously, before putting a tax on violent videogame, how about putting one on all those gory movies and violent tv show first? And possibly also on the music of certain "rapper"/death metal "artist", that are filled with everything bad.
One important distinction:
'Speech Products'(games, movies, books, etc.) already are taxed in the same way that equivalent goods are. If a state has sales tax, a copy of GTA will pay a sales tax just like the xbox you buy to play it on. If somebody derives income from being a musician or something, same deal.
'Freedom of speech' is no defense against taxation that isn't targeted at speech; but purely viewpoint neutral revenue generation. 'Freedom of speech' is seriously threatened if taxation applies differently based on what type of speech is at hand(ie. a tax on violent video games is an issue, a tax on software generally wouldn't be, a tax on music with 'parental guidance' stickers but not on radio edits, etc, etc.)
In their capacity as articles of commerce merely, the incidental speech character of some goods affords them no particular rights against taxation or other regulation. However, any regulation that explicitly addresses their speech content in order to apply a tax or regulation differently considers them primarily as speech objects and only incidentally as articles of commerce.
Pigouvian taxation applied against specific forms of speech, or specific positions, is about as 1st-amendment-unfriendly as a tax policy can be. A mere sales tax may or may not be a good idea; but it has minimal constitutional implications(at least at the state level, the feds might have other issues).
That's an age old argument, does art imitate life or vica-versa?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
They tried to pass a law on video games, struck down, cost tax payers 2 million dollars +
http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/02/22/0040235/unconstitutional-video-game-law-costs-california-2-million
Get your head out of your wallet, it's way too close to your arse.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Pigouvian taxation can be a valid strategy, if the externalities can be calculated with anything approaching accuracy; but it carries an implicit message that the 'externalities' being cleared up are simply matters of market efficiency, not subject to other considerations.
However, in a case like this one, the First amendment explicitly asserts that free speech is a right, not 'something you get to do if it doesn't bother anybody' or 'something you can do if you clean up after yourself'. Even if you were to come up with a reasonable argument that the externalities are, on the balance, negative, the law as it stands forbids imposing them on the people generating them.
(It could hypothetically run the other way, as well: Pigouvian taxation of a given externality generally implies that the externality is negative; but that the activity is generally acceptable, if subject to happening more often than is socially optimal. If you deem an activity simply Not OK, a violation of some party's rights Period, it may still be an 'externality' in a strictly economic sense(as, say, getting your pocket picked, is); but must be considered as a pure crime in the legal sense. The... touchiest... area for this sort of thing is probably in pollution controls: because everybody depends on industry so heavily, and because tracking damage from airborne or waterborne pollution is tricky, it's tempting to try to tax it down a bit and call it a day. However, on the more blatant end of the spectrum, 'pollution' is callous murder by poison, sometimes direct and gruesome. Where exactly on the line between "Epidemiologists estimate that SOx particulate accounts for approximately 10,000 excess cardiovascular mortalities per year" and "ACME Toxin Smelter, inc. flooded the slums with glowing green slime as a 'component lifecycle cost reduction' measure" is a somewhat sticky question.)
Not that a new tax would solve this particular problem, but since we are on the topic why not slap a tax on mind alerting prescription drugs with antisocial side effects?
While we're at it, why not require all journalists and website content creators to pass a background check so the government can be assured they won't say or do anything that would undermine it's policies, or disrespect the baby Jesus. /s
Well yes, Churches and self righteous asshats do seem to go together. To be fair, the Atheists have Richard Dawkins. Why NOT taxes churches. They are run as businesses, often for profit. Tax them like you'd tax any other entertainment industry.
The driving force behind "stop snitching" is the gang bangers that show up at your door if you snitch.
That is a part of it. The non-criminal element will also ostracize anyone who co-operates with law enforcement. The police are not beloved in minority communities, and it's their own doing.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
You could use the funds for the very purpose described.
But of course not, because then that might acknowledge that guns are part of the problem with gun violence (shocker!). The fact she was endorsed by the NRA in 2012 has nothing to do with it either obviously...
'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
When Tipper Gore and her PMRC tried to couple violent society with violent games and movies... "NANNY STATE! NANNY STATE! PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY!" was the deafening call from the GOP pundits. And now.. wtf?
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Why not just tax guns and ammo? Oh I know, because you wouldn't make enough money off of it.
Seriously folks.
If we tax them at about a million dollars per lie we could pay off our national debt in about 80 years.
Perlsix - Second system dun goofed.
Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc. Governments have murdered far more people than religion has. In fact, that's exactly why we have the second amendment. The government has a much harder time killing innocent people when they are armed.
The governments of the world have murdered far more children than citizens ever have.
Work Safe Porn
Like, say... opening an ESRB-sponsored charity with the claimed aim of raising awareness of the mentally fucked and put some of the earnings toward the ESRB itself?
Actually, this would give the ESRB even more power than they have right now even if they don't redirect money in such a way. They would start using the power to censor what can be put on store shelves. Want a decent rating to make your game cheaper and more likely for people to buy? Pay up! Never know, they could make a crooked "game" out of such a nonsensical law and definitely leverage it to their advantage. And, of course, this would lead to even more wasted time and money in the courtrooms and richer lawyers. They'd love that.
National debt would be zero in no time! How do you know a politician is lying? His lips are moving.
The Supreme Court on multiple occasions has ruled that there are limitations to the right of speech where it harms others.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
The Entertainment Software Association responded to Rep. Franklin's bill with a statement: "Taxing First Amendment protected speech based on its content is not only wrong, but will end up costing Missouri taxpayers."
Not only would this cost Missouri taxpayers extra if implemented (assuming they didn't simply purchase out of state through Amazon), but it'd also cost them a significant amount to defend in court. The government passing laws that disproportionately impact specific speech content is a pretty clear no-no under the First Amendment. If it were ever to pass, it'd be ripped apart by the courts in seconds.
it would be dishonest of me to act like it was a copy of Star Craft II (the game news reports stated he played) was used to murder the 20+ people in the latest spree killing, rather than -- you know -- firearms
Starcraft is just as much to blame as firearms - that is to say, not at all.
In the end it was a lunatic that played Starcraft, to use a tool that millions have no problems using peaceably to do harm to the innocent.
Don't you all see that arguments against Starcraft are JUST as bullshit as all of the arguments against guns? They spring from the same well, and we should say NO to all output from that black fluid.
First they came for the guns, and I said nothing as I feared guns... Then they came for something I knew. Oops!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you don't like the 2nd Amendment, perhaps we can interest you in gutting the 1st Amendment?
Come come, now, we can all agree that those evil GUNS and evil VIDEO GAMES are ultimately culpable. Let's all come together and blame things that we don't like.
'Merica.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
One percent won't affect sales as they assumed so the government gets a 1% windfall. What do they spend it on? More contracts with mega-rich corporations to line the pockets of the filthy rich. Now how many lives does this save, exactly????
Americans have a gun fetish, it comes from their culture, their image of themselves, they ALL think they are still frontier cowboys taming the west. They are not. Aussies sipping lattes in Starbucks with a cinnamon bun STILL see themselves as sons of Crocodile Dundee even as their GPS directs them straight into a national park. It is just that the Dundee image never had a gun. Didn't need to, he is a mans man. Americans are girly man with small penises and they need to compensate with big cars and big guns.
For self defense, you want the smallest revolver possible as it is the easiest to handle, the quickest to fire, the easiest to keep near you, doesn't jam, requires the least maintenance and at close range is still highly lethal. An automatic rifle is totally useless, it is the reason any soldier required to operate in crowded areas switches firepower for a smaller weapon.
See the school shooting, he DITCHED the assault rifle and killed with pistols. The whole fascination with the bush-master makes no sense EXCEPT to compensate for personal short-comings AND for a fantasy many Americans have of wishing the apocalypse, the zombie-hord, the civil war, to happen right now so they can stop pretending to be civilized and kill THEM! Doesn't really matter who THEM is, as long as THEM is not US.
The entire NRA is based around the idea that you need a gatling gun to defend against burglars or even would be rapist. If you think about it (the Americans among you, if it starts hurting to much, look away, the scary man is almost finished with his long hurting brain words) this makes no sense. A burglar/rapist/assault happens when you LEAST expect it. A machine gun is like the Maginot Line it only works if you are not dealing with a sneaky scoundrel. Most criminals are sneaky and will strike when you are asleep, unaware, unprepared. The rotters.
What good then is a Gatling gun in the basement? Or an assault rifle, with an over sized magazine not maintained in the last decade in a gun cabinet? What you NEED if you want to live a world with guns is a small revolver you can grasp instantly and is absolutely reliable at short range while still half asleep while you call the police.
The simple fact is that the NRA is the most stupid organization in the world, they could win the debate in a heartbeat just by showing how much safer the US is for law abiding people by linking to the thousands of cases of honest citizens successfully defending themselves against criminals with their legally owned guns...
But the NRA does NOT present these thousands of stories a year... why not? That is after all the reason for civilians to own guns, to defend themselves, so why not link to all these success stories that surely must be there?
oh wait... there aren't. The stories simply don't exist. The entire idea that gun owners can defend themselves just isn't true, it doesn't happen. What does happen is that people get burgled precisly FOR their guns, that innocents get killed while cleaning/playing with guns and when the gun owners inevitably looses their mind, they go on a rampage.
If civilian gun ownership made sense, the US would be the safest place in the world to life in. Is it?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Just a small fact to confuse your fox "news" filled mind. The rest of the world NEVER had lax gun control. Europe never was the Wild West.
Oh and gun crimes are far lower in western Europe as well. We kill each other with knifes and fists, as civilized people!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Why NOT taxes churches.
Because of the separation between church and state. It works both ways, you know.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
On all stupid people, starting with politicians like this one. Also I want the requirement they have to wear for everyone to see a nice gold bling necklass with the world "STUPID" around his neck in 2" tall letters.
Why cant we have this? political members that are stupid should be legally required to notify others that they are in fact stupid by predominantly placed signage.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I just posted this comment in the discussion of the gun laws passed in New York but it fits with this discussion verbatim.
I would have no problem with politicians pushing laws that turn out to be unconstitutional if there were some penalties for these actions. If someone sponsors a law that turns out to have been unconstitutional they should be executed. Just think of all the people harmed by one bad law that might be on the books for decades before it finally comes before the supreme court and gets overturned. Everyone who voted for the law should be barred from running for any office ever again. Seems a fair trade to me.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
The reason we have it is because at the time it was written, England, France, and Spain were all wringing their hands in anticipation of grabbing huge swaths of land from this newly created country. The second amendment allowed militias such as the minutemen to hold over from the Revolutionary War and be ready for the next country that thought they could integrate us into their empire. It was written for a fledgling country to be able to defend itself, as it had a very weak military because, you know, it was so new. Fast forward to today, and we have a military so powerful that we can take on the entire world twice over. The second amendment has no reason to exist any longer.
...they also tax any Movie rated more than PG-13, any adult novels or magazines, and TV revenues for shows that are aimed at adults etc.
Let's see the Republican party get THAT one through!
but it should be 1% on all taxable sales. Seriously, a good health structure benefits everyone.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yes. Tax Churches like business, and remove tax deduction for donations. any donation.
Time to stop government support of churches.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I don't think you understand what separation of Church and State means. It does not mean they get preferential treatment. It does not mean they should get a free pass on paying corporate taxes or property taxes.
"The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The original text makes the intent a little clearer - ie no state run or mandated religion. The omitted last line also implies that religion should not influence the state, which is clearly the case when you have Congress introducing bills proclaiming it to uphold good Christian values.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
Crime rate is on a decline because we are no longer pumping lead into the air causing people to act crazy. Has nothing to do with guns, video games, or the police.
I don't think you understand what separation of Church and State means.
If the government where to be allowed to to charge taxes from a religion, it'd be able to extinguish any specific one by carefully crafting a generic sounding law to target and disable those it doesn't approve of while leaving those it does approve of, thus de fact establishing an unofficially official State religion. This is kind of like it does with copyright, that becomes eternal by successive time additions whenever it's going to expire, or to private cannabis consumption, which gets restricted even if you plant it yourself based on the interstate commerce clause (your planting of interferes with its marker price over state borders, or so the argument goes), or to war operations, which sidestep war restrictions by simply not being declared as such, and so on and so forth. Governments are quite creative when it comes to this kind of stuff, so not giving them an opening to exploit is the only smart move.
Since I talked about cannabis, let me mention this related example: the Native American Church was almost extinguished due to laws on peyote being considered a drug. Who sided with them? Christian churches, afraid such a law could be used against them and their wine-based rites. And the anti-NAC judge who was after them back then? His argument was basically (I paraphrase) that the US already had lots of churches, so fuck those Native Americans. In the end the NAC won, but it took an enormous effort. Why? Because there was a small opening that allowed the government to go after some "undesirables".
The no tax for churches concept is one of the ways to concretely and effectively preserve the 1st Amendment. Removing it is providing all the tools the government need to violate its spirit without actually going against its letter.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
This shooters parents were divorced. How about we tax divorced people. Tax depictions of extramarital affairs.
They are seldom actually made up out of thin air. There are people who actually can calculate this. .92% tax is harder to calculate. But the rounding is also taken into account when determining a percentage needed to support a policy.
Rounding occurs becasue a
I sit 30 feet fro people who do that very thing.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So not newspaper, book news show, bloggers is expressing themselves?
Wow, you are so full of shit.
If I right my views and enough people want to read them that I make money, that does not mean they aren't my views or expression.
Saying something in the media does not necessarily equals the person speakings views, but it doesn't mean they aren't either. I happen to know that some people in the media say things they don't believe in order to get rating...but the people listening to them sure have those views.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
We are banning virtual guns.....
But we are keeping the real ones!
The NRA comes round with a brown paper envelope after any senator/congressman suggests blaming files / video games
I'm not saying the govt should specifically tax religions, I'm saying they should stop giving them preferential treatment and treat them like every other organized group. This would follows the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion*" part of the amendment. If they are a corporation, treat them as such.
The tax exemption law is already used to play favorites as the govt is allowed to determine who qualifies as a religious group. If you're a group of people that worship a Christian god and follow a mainstream religion then you're tax exempt. If you're a small group of a non-typical religion or atheists then you're not. The NAC calls itself a church now because there is a financial benefit. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act Amendments which exempted peyote use goes against the spirit of the 1st amendment. The govt should be blind to religion, giving neither benefit nor hindrance to specific religions.
Since you think the Indians deserve special treatment with respect to class 2 drugs, perhaps you feel the govt should exempt the Mormons from the laws regarding polygamy and underage sex as well? Oh wait, those laws regarding marriage are religious in nature aren't they?
*A point of interpretation: In the 1st amendment, most scholars consider the phrase "establishment of religion" to mean a religious establishment, not the process of establishing a religion. In other words there should be no laws that control or apply to religion.
I'm not saying the govt should specifically tax religions, I'm saying they should stop giving them preferential treatment and treat them like every other organized group.
The problem in this is with the very notion that a religion is merely other organized group. This might be the case with smallish derivative sects, but those that pop to mind whenever one thinks "religion" tend to be older and more solid than governments, countries or entire political regimes, not to mention wider and farthest reaching than countries and whole regional blocks. That's why you don't find stuff like "separation between farming cartels and state": because a state doesn't need clear, specific protections from something that's smaller and less powerful than itself. Or, putting it another way, religions aren't things states look down upon and frown about, they're something states up to and tremble about.
Yes, I'm aware this might sound like I'm contradicting myself compared to my previous post, but in fact both things are true. States can be menacing to small religions and to specific subgroups within major religions, but the major religions are themselves menacing to states. So, pretty much like the US doesn't go around treating, say, China or Europe as "just some groups", it also shouldn't go around treating, say the Catholic Church or the Shia Islam as "just some groups". They aren't. It's a matter of realpolitik as much as anything else one's posed to do at this scale.
The tax exemption law is already used to play favorites as the govt is allowed to determine who qualifies as a religious group. If you're a group of people that worship a Christian god and follow a mainstream religion then you're tax exempt. If you're a small group of a non-typical religion or atheists then you're not.
And this, as I see it, is clearly something in need of fixing, not of further expansion.
Since you think the Indians deserve special treatment with respect to class 2 drugs, perhaps you feel the govt should exempt the Mormons from the laws regarding polygamy and underage sex as well?
Ah, yes, most certainly. If it isn't something that threatens the very existence of the state, I don't see why it should be restricted to begin with. For starters, I'd like to see the concept of "marriage" removed from civil law. It'd be a nice start, as it'd solve in a single move every useless discussion we see on what the government should or shouldn't consider "marriage" to be.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Well we certainly agree on separating the concept of Christian marriage from civil law. To me that's the most glaring example of the states and the fed establishing laws with respect to religion. I still believe tax exempt status for religious groups is another law meant to encourage approved religions. It certainly benefits those very large church sthat you believed the state should be wary of.
I've lived in Missouri all my life. For the last 30 or so years the Republicans have controlled the state congress. They've raised taxes on everything except for corporations, successful companies, and the rich. This is just another sad excuse by the pubs to raise taxes on someone or something other than their well-heeled masters. It's really disgusting that the pubs are using the senseless murder of children to raise another tax. But, when election time comes they will swear to god that they've never raised taxes!!!
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
I love how politicians think the solution to mitigating activity is to tax it. I appreciate the sentiment, but can't see how this is going to do anything to help curb violence.