Slashdot Mirror


PlayStation Begins Collecting Amusement Tax From Chicago Users (chicagotribune.com)

schwit1 writes: PlayStation users in Chicago on Wednesday began paying a 9 percent tax on streaming content as the gaming company starts complying with a city levy. The Sony-owned company joins other streaming services including Spotify, Netflix and Hulu in complying with the charge, which took effect three years ago. The city's amusement tax, which used to apply mostly to concert and sporting event tickets, was extended to include streaming services in 2015. That includes charges paid for playing games, according to Chicago's Finance Department. Some tech companies have fought the additional 9 percent charge. Apple filed a lawsuit against the city in August alleging the tax on its music streaming services was illegal and discriminatory. That suit is pending in Cook County Circuit Court. Meanwhile, Apple is not collecting the tax. In 2015, a group of Netflix, Amazon Prime, Spotify, XBox Live and Hulu users sued Chicago in Cook County, alleging the tax violates federal law. The judge ruled in the city's favor in May, and the streaming service users appealed the decision. The case is pending in state Appellate Court.

165 comments

  1. Wrong name by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Because Chicago users are not amused about this.

    1. Re:Wrong name by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Because Chicago users are not amused about this.

      If they're not amused they don't have to pay the tax. The tax is clearly only for those that are amused.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Wrong name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm amused at the way Faux-"News" cherry picks and twists the facts to suit their needs. Maybe they should tax that?

    3. Re:Wrong name by harrkev · · Score: 1

      But people living in Chicago voted for the politicians that did this.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    4. Re:Wrong name by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But people living in Chicago voted for the politicians that did this.

      That's not how the Chicago political machine works, or has ever worked. Quoth Wikipedia:

      Chicago has a long history of political corruption,[11] dating to the incorporation of the city in 1833.[12] It has been a de facto monolithic entity of the Democratic Party from the mid 20th century onward.[13][14] Research released by the University of Illinois at Chicago reports that Chicago and Cook County's judicial district recorded 45 public corruption convictions for 2013, and 1642 convictions since 1976, when the Department of Justice began compiling statistics. This prompted many media outlets to declare Chicago the "corruption capital of America".[15] Gradel and Simpson's Corrupt Illinois (2015) provides the data behind Chicago's corrupt political culture.[16][17] They found that a tabulation of federal public corruption convictions make Chicago "undoubtedly the most corrupt city in our nation",[18] with the cost of corruption "at least" $500 million per year.[19]

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re: Wrong name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, when I checked, there were 5 out of 6 former Illinois Governors in prison, of both parties.

      Sorry, but it seems the state is full of it.

      Probably why their former capital moved to Missouri.

    6. Re:Wrong name by harrkev · · Score: 2

      But people COULD still vote for the other major party, or vote libertarian, or even independent. They keep voting for the corruption.

      I know that the dead people in Chicago always vote for democrats, but I would like to think that the living outnumber the dead.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    7. Re:Wrong name by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've always wondered how Obama managed to thrive in the Chicago political environment, rising through the ranks in Chicago from community organizer, to the State Senate (representing Chicago), then to the US Senate (and then of course on to President) and remain so squeaky clean.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    8. Re:Wrong name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      9%....wow. And I'll bet there is a "sales tax" and "convenience fee" and "tax fee" to go along with it.

      Well, I guess a flat tax on amusements will make the voters of Chicago happy.

      But what about the poor, should they be exempt? Isn't that how you get votes, exempt a group from taxes?

      Kinda fun being on Slashdot and saying ridiculous things....

    9. Re: Wrong name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, obviously, he is such a super-genius that he actually doesn't exist, after all with his fake invented birth certificate why can't he make up a whole fantasy Political Career?

      You know, like Batman or Superman.

    10. Re:Wrong name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always wondered how Obama managed to thrive in the Chicago political environment, rising through the ranks in Chicago from community organizer, to the State Senate (representing Chicago), then to the US Senate (and then of course on to President) and remain so squeaky clean.

      Somebody somewhere owns him, he rose way too fast. I remember when he first won the senate seat and how he was nowhere near as much of a smooth-talker at that time as he was only a couple years later when campaigning for President. There has to be some hidden influence and it's pretty well hidden, for now.

    11. Re:Wrong name by rabidmuskrat · · Score: 2

      Finally a use for crippling depression?

      --
      Need any dad jokes?
    12. Re:Wrong name by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Yea that's why I watch CNN because they are completely unbiased and would never cherry pick data! Moron.

    13. Re:Wrong name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Squeaky clean? Hardly, unless you're a dumbass who listens to CNN.

      Barry was chock full of scandal and corruption. Nobody really cared that much, though, because we were coming off the worst presidency in the history of the country and the Dems had no one else to run but literal NPCs. The meme has it semi-correct; while the "HURR MEDIA GUY GIB PROGRAM" is asinine... The Dem field was a field of same-faced assholes, indistinguishable from one another, where one was as good as the next.

      So the wiser heads of the party pulled out Junior Senator Nobody and gave him a teleprompter and a PR campaign. And Junior Senator Nobody seized the nomination handily, even beating out Dead Horse Hillary. Because mediocre as he was, Barry actually had a fucking personality. And as mediocre as he was, it's really hard to say, "This corruption is terrible!" and take yourself seriously when you've just witnessed an entire world destabilized because the last guy had fucking daddy issues.

    14. Re: Wrong name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's obvious from the Iran deal and not ending the war, which we are still in and he had 8 years to fulfill that promise, that he is owned by the Muslim Brotherhood.

    15. Re: Wrong name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      9/11 or daddy issues...which one was relevant.

      You are a shit head btw...

    16. Re:Wrong name by davie · · Score: 1

      They COULD, but we'd never know about it.

      --
      slashdot broke my sig
    17. Re: Wrong name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both. Daddy issues and 9/11.

      You sir, are the shithead.

    18. Re:Wrong name by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've always wondered how Obama managed to thrive in the Chicago political environment, rising through the ranks in Chicago from community organizer, to the State Senate (representing Chicago), then to the US Senate (and then of course on to President) and remain so squeaky clean.

      He wasn't squeaky clean, the media protected him immensely. Negative things like his pastor being a racist, his pics with Louis Farrakhan, IRS targeting political opponents, and other scandals were brushed aside or buried. If the media had an axe to grind with him the way they did with either the president before or after him he would look less capable than Carter.

      citations

      https://talkingpointsmemo.com/... https://www.azquotes.com/autho... https://www.naturalnews.com/04...

    19. Re:Wrong name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you bought his snake oil. Trumplover.

    20. Re: Wrong name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That, and taking a massive shit on Jews on the way out.

      Modern day antisemitism started with Obama.

    21. Re: Wrong name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, obviously, he is such a super-genius that he actually doesn't exist, after all with his fake invented birth certificate why can't he make up a whole fantasy Political Career?

      You know, like Batman or Superman.

      My God. I can't believe that this kind of people still exists. The hoax was demystified long ago. Oh well, that's Americans for you -- religiously believe in a story and reject all proofs.

    22. Re: Wrong name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My God. I can't believe that this kind of people still exists.

      Was I too subtle with my punchline?

      Here, let me try another:

      Remember, his VP invented the whole state of Delaware.

    23. Re:Wrong name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "His pastor is a racist", so funny that that's the best you can come up with.

    24. Re:Wrong name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google how Six of Nine's breast won him the senate seat by divorce papers becoming mysteriously made public.

    25. Re:Wrong name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > other major party,

      This is Illinois. Several governors of the two major parties both ended up in prison on various federal charges. The corruption no doubt spreads down from there to lower state politicians and an unknown number of bureaucrats.

    26. Re:Wrong name by lgw · · Score: 1

      and remain so squeaky clean.

      He was squeaky clean in the one way that mattered: the Clintons had nothing on him. The Clintons used their access through the presidency to get all the blackmail material that the intelligence agencies had on all potential rivals. Hillary should have had it easy in the 2008 primary, but Obama came out of nowhere.

      If he was in someone pocket the whole time, that person was a freaking genius. But then, I doubt historians will ever discover who really has the power in America.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    27. Re:Wrong name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck off you retarded russian paid troll

    28. Re:Wrong name by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

      That's the worst you can come up with?
      Trump beat that out with a single pussy grabbing tape before he was elected.
      If Nixon were still alive he'd be jumping with joy at no longer being the most corrupt president.

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    29. Re:Wrong name by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      That's the worst you can come up with? Trump beat that out with a single pussy grabbing tape before he was elected. If Nixon were still alive he'd be jumping with joy at no longer being the most corrupt president.

      There are scandals at a personal level and there are scandals at a larger level. Womanizers like Trump, JFK, and Bill Clinton are personal level scandals. Not good but not as corrosive as gaining / maintaining power type scandals. Nixon, as well as Obama targeting political opponents via the IRS, are the latter and are far worse in the big picture / long run. That's why Nixon was properly considered so bad.

  2. You can't tax your way to success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    As if anyone who can isn't already trying to leave Chicago.

    1. Re: You can't tax your way to success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, government should give everything away for free like all the big corporations.

      That's the American Way.

      In reality, of course, taxes have paid for your civilized society.

    2. Re: You can't tax your way to success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which I did not ask or vote in anybody to nanny me. I can take care of my own security thank you very much. As other services can also work in the private sector.

    3. Re: You can't tax your way to success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look, a useful idiot.

    4. Re: You can't tax your way to success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh? You didn't? That's nice, but the rest of us got to vote, and the numbers totalled out against you.

      Sorry, but we don't live in your absolute monarchy. You live in our sovereign republic.

    5. Re:You can't tax your way to success by The+Snazster · · Score: 1

      I really wasn't planning to move to Chicago (or even Illinois) but, even if I knew nothing else about the place, this alone would cause me to seek employment elsewhere.

      And it would not be just because of the tax itself, but because of what it implies about what is going on there, and what is yet to come.

    6. Re: You can't tax your way to success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you describe voting that way it sounds wonderful. When can we have a vote to enslave 49% of the populus, including you?

  3. When your city taxes you for being amused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's time to leave and tell them to piss up a rope.

    1. Re:When your city taxes you for being amused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, you can piss up a rope and feel the pissy dribble
      You can piss up a rope and watch me giggle

    2. Re: When your city taxes you for being amused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is this shit that drives me to this godforsaken distaster of a site. Gold.

    3. Re:When your city taxes you for being amused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up bigot, don't you like roads and firemen?

    4. Re: When your city taxes you for being amused by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      I wish I got as much pleasure responding to my own posts...

    5. Re: When your city taxes you for being amused by _merlin · · Score: 1

      It's a quote from a Ween song.

    6. Re:When your city taxes you for being amused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up bigot, don't you like roads and firemen?

      How come all the other cities have roads and firemen without this tax?

    7. Re:When your city taxes you for being amused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are racist roads and firemen. This tax makes sure they are not.

    8. Re:When your city taxes you for being amused by Kilo+Kilo · · Score: 1

      Did you pay your Chicago Cancellation Fee? And you have your rope permit, right?

  4. End Goal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tax per book read.

    1. Re: End Goal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We will send firemen to 'disposition' books that have unpaid tax balances.

  5. Could try..... by svendsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lowering spending and face the fact your pension system was created of false hopes and unicorn dreams. The pension system is one of Chicago's biggest drains and if not dealt with will basically require never ending tax raises until it collapses anyway. The promise of the pension (based on nothing ore than magical wishing and crossing fingers of an ever growing population/economy) is no longer valid and sustainable.

    Either slash the pensions to nothing (and yes that hurts people on it) to try to give the current people an economic chance or keep raising taxes (which also hurts people) until those who have money and/or mobile decide to simply leave making the situation worse (which based on numbers of people leaving being greater than those coming in seems to be their choice).

    1. Re:Could try..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I choose option c) eliminate all welfare and pensions and implement UBI.

    2. Re:Could try..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah...the pension system.

      See, the pension system was one of those things where paying for it was kicked down the road to the next generation. Turns out the next generation doesn't want to pay for it so it's failing. What's the next thing to fail because future generations don't want to (and shouldn't have to) pay? So many things to choose from.

    3. Re:Could try..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the next generation is not pulling it's weight.... I think it's time to consider culling and starting fresh

    4. Re:Could try..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhhh, you might want to stop for a minute and learn about the thing you're commenting on. Pensions aren't similar to welfare in any way shape or form. They'd be more similar to a 401K. It's a retirement plan. You work your entire life, and theoretically the company you work for is funding in to a pension which they then pay out to you in your retirement. Just because the company you work for is the government, that doesn't fundamentally change how pensions are SUPPOSED to work.

      If you insist on eliminating my 401K for a UBI, well, we're gonna have problems, and they may become violent. I'm going to guess most would feel the same about their pension.

    5. Re:Could try..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boomers destroyed the future with their 'fuck you, I got mine' mentality. They are parasites that should be culled.

    6. Re:Could try..... by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      Kind of like our current defense spending .

    7. Re:Could try..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of like our current defense spending .

      Which is What percentage of Federal spending.. Not the budget, SPENDING. We don't put entitlements in or "budgeted" spending anymore, given the accounting rules changes back in Clinton's day...

      You see, we spend a frightening percentage of Federal dollars on "entitlements" like Social Security, Medicare and the like, such that it makes the defense portion look positively small. When you look at the *projected* expenditures for these programs as the demographics of our country change and a bunch of folks retire, it starts to look pretty bad.

      Don't let that scare you though, they can always print money you know..

    8. Re:Could try..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The premise of UBI is that all such funding sources go into a pot to be distributed to everyone in a non-means-tested manner. You would get money every month. However admin overheads would be much lower: there is no more need for staffs to adminster social security, housing assistances, 401ks, etc. Everyone then gets a basic floor income which is enough to keep people off the streets, enoguh funding for old age expenses.

      As with any system there will be some winners and some losers, but something must happen to address the wealth disparity or the country will tear itself apart, probably with violence as people with nothing see people with millions of dollars living high on the hog.

      The six richest Americans now own as much wealth as HALF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. In the last economic "recovery" 95% of hte gains went to the TOP 1%. That cannot be sustained. There will be bloodshed and you will lose everything, maybe inc your life. If you want to avoid bloodshed, there must be a fix. You will be better off under the fix than without the fix, because your alternative is you get put up against the wall with your other 1% buddies.

    9. Re:Could try..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because they are larger, doesn't excuse the bloat of another budget.

    10. Re:Could try..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah someone who drank the UBI koolaid.

      UBI will not work in the USA for several reasons, one of which is the requirement for socialized healthcare, education and housing first. UBI only works when the costs are fixed.

      In Canada UBI wouldn't work either, because it would create a situation where people are effectively on welfare for their entire life and unable to be anything but a wageslave at McDonalds because the education costs can never be afforded.

      Likewise UBI doesn't work when swapped for welfare/pension's because even though the education requirement is removed, the housing and healthcare are not, and despite socialized healthcare in Canada, most seniors get substandard care unless they have medical insurance. Hence the increase in the Medically Assisted Death. It will cost too much money and leave them in too much pain to continue living with the substandard care so they choose the alternative, death.

      UBI, again, only works when housing is a fixed known cost, there are no "luxury" properties crowding out the regular housing like what is happening in San Francisco, Seattle , New York City, Los Angeles, San Diego, Vancouver BC and Toronto Ontario. You roll out UBI in one of these cities and every job will need to pay $40/hr and your McD hamburgers are going to cost $25. Otherwise people will sit on UBI and not even consider it at all. Welfare recipients are often caught in a poverty trap entirely because working will bring them less money than not working, but they can't start working otherwise they don't get the welfare income, and it can take months to get back on it.

      If Mr.Trump wants to nail Amazon to the wall, raise the federal minimum wage to $20. See how quickly shitty jobs like Amazon and Walmart disappear.

    11. Re:Could try..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever wonder why so many immigrants are needed? Because the people who live here aren't having kids, because they can't fucking afford it.

      We will hit the population limit anyway (the limit at which food and water isn't replenished fast enough) before the pensions ultimately go bankrupt.

    12. Re:Could try..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Illinois pension system is not like your 401k at all, it's much more like Social Security for a smaller group. The premise of a 401k is that an individual is contributing to an individual fund - what you put in is what you get out, plus or minus investment returns. The Illinois pension is more along the lines of an individual contributing to a group fund, then that individual pulls money out of the fund at retirement at a rate *that has nothing to do with the fund's performance*. So if 50 people contribute $1000 a year for 20 years and it earns 0%, there's 1,000,000 in the fund. Now if each person is guaranteed $30,000 out of it, that's 1,500,000 and you see the problem. This would be a trivial fix to have pension payout being tied to fund performance, but our wonderful lawmaker's have a "Math is Hard" problem and didn't figure on this. It would be wonderful to change, but the pension is a law that is part of our state constitution and *extremely* hard to change. Add on that people do all sorts of (legal-osh) things to game the system (pension payout is based on last 4 years of work and you can bank your vaca/sick to add to your base pay for those years; the teachers pension has all sorts of leaches that can join it including union officials and an individual can buy in to the pension for any missing years up to your max) and you can see the problems. The most interesting thing is that most Illinois teachers and state workers are specifically exempt from Social Security - the pension members don't contribute and do not receive payouts based on contribution.

    13. Re:Could try..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Social Security isn't an entitlement. An "entitlement" is "getting something for nothing". Much like a 401(k), it is something that you pay into (are FORCED to pay into (you cannot opt out of paying Social Security and investing it elsewhere, say a 401(k)), and to be honest gives a shitty return on investment compared to a 401(k). In addition, the government keeps raiding the Social Security pool to fund other bullshit. More, probably about double, out of my pay check is "invested" into Social Security every month than into my 403(b) (which is a 401(k) for non-profits), and I am maxed out AND counting employer contribution. In addition, when you draw on Social Security, you're taxed, which you ate taxed on when it is taken out too, so you're DOUBLY taxed on Social Security.

      You REALLY need to get a basic education before speaking about shit you know nothing about.

    14. Re:Could try..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lowering spending and face the fact your pension system was created of false hopes and unicorn dreams.

      Arguably, in Chicago/Illinois the politicians have been so horribly corrupt for so long, there is no way you can make that statement and have anything to base it on.

      They could well have been created with sound numbers, and then ruthlessly skimmed by the crooks that keep getting voted into office. The false hopes are from politicians who lie constantly and have their hands in the jar.

      Chicago is probably quite literally the most corrupt city in the US, and has been for decades, so I'm pretty sure that you can't trust anything which was ever publicly said about how they'd fund it ... because in private a lot of money was going into the pockets of lawmakers.

      In fact, I'd bet a lot more corruption than has been identified has been going on for decades. It's downright likely that the pension money is now in the offshore accounts of many of politicians, past and present.

    15. Re:Could try..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe with armies composed of mostly commoners, like it used to be. But, the drone armies we now have don't care care about their socioeconomic status, so.......

    16. Re: Could try..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tax on your 401k simply is adjusted to 98%. Easy-peasy.

      Wow people today are stupid.

    17. Re:Could try..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL.. You are cute.

      Social Security is very much an entitlement. Initial payments out of Social Security where made to people who didn't pay in one cent. It was a "new deal" give away, funded by taxing current worker's wages to pay out to retired folks. It was an entitlement then, it's one now, but if you don't want to call it one, fine.

      However, regardless of what you want to call it, it's a federal expense which is NOT part of the budget. The Fed is pumping out more dollars than it's taking in for both Social Security AND Medicare. Both are poised for explosive growth as folks like me age out of the work force and the young are forced to cough up more and more of their income to fund the benefits I'm entitled to receive.

      I'm laboring under no illusions. That $$ that my employer and I have tossed into the SS kitty is gone, spent by congress on all sorts of things who left a pile of IOU's in some "trust fund" to be paid back at some future date. That means the FED will have to obtain the money to pay my benefits by taxing the young, or printing dollars. What you call these payments is immaterial, they will have to be made.

    18. Re:Could try..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is more to the pension mess in Illinois.

      As they have in other places, it allows you to collect pensions from several jobs, even if you only worked one for a few weeks, inflating your payments.

      Add in allowing private union leaders to collect public pensions based on their much higher private salaries.

      All by design and courtesy of the Illinois legislature.

    19. Re: Could try..... by lgw · · Score: 1

      The tax on your 401k simply is adjusted to 98%. Easy-peasy.

      There would be an actual revolution. The temptation will always be there of course for the US government to loot our savings, but it's not that corrupt, yet (nor is it totalitarian enough to getaway with it, yet). If things are ever that far gone, they'll likely loot university endowments and insurance pools first, so there will be warning.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    20. Re:Could try..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I choose option d) declare all UBI advocates to be mentally deranged and mandatorily insitutionalized and subsequently lobotomized.

    21. Re:Could try..... by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      Uhhhh, you might want to stop for a minute and learn about the thing you're commenting on. Pensions aren't similar to welfare in any way shape or form. They'd be more similar to a 401K. It's a retirement plan. You work your entire life, and theoretically the company you work for is funding in to a pension which they then pay out to you in your retirement. Just because the company you work for is the government, that doesn't fundamentally change how pensions are SUPPOSED to work.

      If you insist on eliminating my 401K for a UBI, well, we're gonna have problems, and they may become violent. I'm going to guess most would feel the same about their pension.

      The police and fire pensions that let them retire lavishly are like welfare on steroids. Both are paid out of the public purse, unlike a 401k which you pay for largely on your own. Bankrupting cities is not serving or protecting anyone.

    22. Re: Could try..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You dont like wealth disparity? Give me all your assets and I will give you one way ticket to Venezuela. Note I did not even ask your wealth up front.

    23. Re:Could try..... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Kind of like our current defense spending .

      Meh, we pay more for medica* than for defense. We pay more for SS than for defense. And we're not funding either of those program fully - the unfunded liability for those programs combined is more than double the national debt.

      Defense spending is the other way: we pay now for benefits accrued years down the road.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    24. Re:Could try..... by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      What are these benefits from defense spending? We started ridiculous budgets back during the Reagan administration. I'd rather have health care than another aircraft carrier bombing brown people in a 3rd world shithole.

    25. Re:Could try..... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Budgets are far below the Reagan years (adjusted for inflation). And the Pax Americana has lasted 70 years now. As we slip from hyperpower back to a superpower with peers, there will inevitably be a new world war, but it probably won't be a nuclear war that takes us back to the stone age. That's something.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    26. Re:Could try..... by bitfist · · Score: 1

      We don't pensions, we need more money for the military and Israel. You don't need social security, medical care, education, or any of that crap. Make sure the military have more weapons and Israel always gets more aid. Pay. Pay for the military. Pay for Israel.

    27. Re: Could try..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second this motion and amend it with gulags instead of loony bins. That way they will be productive.

    28. Re:Could try..... by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

      And you completely fail to make the point that SS is an entitlement.
      It is a federally guaranteed Insurance I am FORCED to pay for.
      NOT an entitlement, except I should be entitled to collect on my unwilling investment.
      The fact that the initial people under the program did not pay into it is completely irrelevant.

      Straw man a burnin'!

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
  6. There's nothing they won't take a bite of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In their desperation to paper over decades of financial mismanagement, Chicago's leaders are grabbing everything they can with both fists and it's still not helping the situation...

    I wish I owned a PO Box rental business right across the border in Indiana...

    1. Re: There's nothing they won't take a bite of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you look at an electoral map you will see that the blue pollution spills over from Chicago into neighboring parts of Indiana.

    2. Re: There's nothing they won't take a bite of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's also spilling more and more west as well. It's not enough the Dems have to ruin Chicago proper. They're trying to take everything in the surrounding area as well. The hilarious thing is, those that scream for more taxes fall generally in to two categories. 1). They're broke and don't qualify or get around the tax. 2). They're filthy rich and get around the tax. Basically, the only thing taxes do is gut out the middle and make them poor or they leave. Either way, you're just actively rotting yourself from the middle out. The only thing left will be low/non tax paying ultra poor and ultra rich.

  7. The good old Sin Tax. by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just like taxes on Gasoline, Cigarettes, Alcohol and Gambling. This is just an other Sin tax, where we are taxing people for products that are deemed by society to be bad for it, but is too popular to ban.

    The issue is, the Tax will raise the price of the product, but demand will not be affected by an amount, so it is just free money to the City. And if people just stop using such services, there isn't going to be a public outcry because they don't need it.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:The good old Sin Tax. by mjwx · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just like taxes on Gasoline, Cigarettes, Alcohol and Gambling. This is just an other Sin tax

      Petrol is a sin? When did this happen. I cant remember the part of the bible that said, "Thou shalt not engineer the combustion of internals".

      The word you're looking for is "soft target". Gamers will not garner any sympathy from the majority, same as smokers, drinkers, gamblers and drivers. This makes it a soft target, not a sin.

      Sin taxes refer explicitly to vices, drinking, smoking, gambling, pornography and the like.

      The thing is, going after soft targets almost never gets as much cash as they hope for, in fact they rarely generate enough money to justify their existence like the "soft drink tax" here in the UK.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:The good old Sin Tax. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sin is defined in the new bible, the IPCC.

    3. Re:The good old Sin Tax. by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      This is just an other Sin tax, where we are taxing people for products that are deemed by society to be bad for it, but is too popular to ban.

      So the leftist lords of Chicago are really Cotton Mather?

      The issue is, the Tax will raise the price of the product, but demand will not be affected by an amount, so it is just free money to the City.

      Ah, there you hit on it ...

    4. Re:The good old Sin Tax. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the bible specifically mentions anything about tobacco or pornography. If you're gonna make the argument that the bible does not say "Thou shalt not engineer the combustion of internals", you must also make the same argument for these vices as well.

    5. Re:The good old Sin Tax. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My vice is engineering the combustion of internals, you Trump supporting faggot!

    6. Re:The good old Sin Tax. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a sin because there is public transportation.

    7. Re:The good old Sin Tax. by forkfail · · Score: 1

      hmmm... not so sure about this.

      I'd say that the 'net is both the new Soma and the Telescrene. Not in their interests to discourage use.

      --
      Check your premises.
    8. Re:The good old Sin Tax. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orange Man Bad!

    9. Re:The good old Sin Tax. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the soft drink tax was to discourage unhealthy behaviour (i.e. excessive consumption of sugary drinks), not to raise money. So for that one, the pertinent question is: Has it had a significant effect on consumption?

    10. Re:The good old Sin Tax. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just another way to control/punnish people based against or for peoples ideals of entertainment.

      Sorry, a human in a studio aparemtn cant afford your gold resort, gymn membership yoga membership entertainment.

      Buy by god, if they want to drink a couple beers, or Play a few online games as alternative and cheaper entertainment. TAX THOSE SINNERS.

    11. Re:The good old Sin Tax. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This is just an other Sin tax, where we are taxing people for products that are deemed by society to be bad for it, but is too popular to ban."

      I certainly hope they're banning cable TV as well then, and the radio. Those are for all intents and purposes "streaming" as well.

    12. Re:The good old Sin Tax. by harrkev · · Score: 1

      Petrol is a sin? When did this happen.

      Well, it isn't "green." That is close enough to a sin these days.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    13. Re:The good old Sin Tax. by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      Petrol usage creates pollution (volatile compounds and particulates which damage the brain and lungs, not just CO2). It also creates traffic which prevents other people from getting around the city. So taxing petrol to reduce usage is about the smartest thing to you can do. You take some of the damage and waste that driving does, and redirect that lost value to the city budget where it can do useful things (or allow other taxes to be reduced).

  8. Ah good 'ole regressive taxation by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That's when you structure your taxes to disproportionately affect the poor and working class because your elected reps won't raise taxes on their wealthy donors. Another good example is flat alcohol taxes. You'll pay the same tax on that 50 cent can of Pabst Blue Ribbon that your CEO pays on his $3000 bottle of Chateau de something-or-other.

    As an added bonus these taxes piss off working class people who then demand tax cuts. You then give tax cuts to billionaire elites and when there's the inevitable budget shortfall create another batch of regressive taxes, which cause the working class to demand more tax cuts which leads to more of them for the rich which leads to more regressive taxes to make up the difference which.... well you get the idea.

    Anyway there's a really easy solution to all this: Stop voting for people who accept corporate PAC money. Make it a deal breaker for any politician in your primary. Oh, and vote in your primary election.

    Here's an entire wing of the Dems that won't take corp PAC money. If anyone knows the GOP equivalent please post it, I've been looking for it. If there's any issue that needs to be bipartisan it's this.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: Ah good 'ole regressive taxation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amusement taxes if a city has them go to the general fund so it is difficult to say what is fair. Itâ(TM)s not like the amusement tax goes to subsidize competitors

    2. Re:Ah good 'ole regressive taxation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's an entire wing of the Dems that won't take corp PAC money. If anyone knows the GOP equivalent please post it, I've been looking for it. If there's any issue that needs to be bipartisan it's this.

      Well, there are the libertarians. They don't really get PAC money (except for maybe from the Koch's and a few other rich guys.) mainly because they are universally dead-set against any kind of corporate welfare. Some strains of libertarainism don't think there should even be corporations, as they are essentially creations of the tax code, which should ideally be as flat as possible.

    3. Re:Ah good 'ole regressive taxation by Streetlight · · Score: 1

      Another good example is flat alcohol taxes. You'll pay the same tax on that 50 cent can of Pabst Blue Ribbon that your CEO pays on his $3000 bottle of Chateau de something-or-other.

      In my city in Colorado, the sales tax on the beer would be about $0.03 and on the $3,000 bottle of wine ~$250. I'm not sure about the Federal alcohol tax.

      --
      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    4. Re: Ah good 'ole regressive taxation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the old adage? If you want more of something you subsidize it. If you want less of something, you tax it. I guess Chicago is saying they feel their populous is overly amused and should be amused less? That seems a poor choice. Even Rome knew that if anything, amusements for the populous should be subsidized, it's how you keep people from rioting in the streets.

    5. Re:Ah good 'ole regressive taxation by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      That's when you structure your taxes to disproportionately affect the poor and working class because your elected reps won't raise taxes on their wealthy donors. Another good example is flat alcohol taxes. You'll pay the same tax on that 50 cent can of Pabst Blue Ribbon that your CEO pays on his $3000 bottle of Chateau de something-or-other.

      I see. So, Chicago, run by leftists for decades, is actually a regressive place run by fat cats?

    6. Re:Ah good 'ole regressive taxation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. The dont take PAC money. But they sure as hell take money from Bloomberg and Soros. And money from every other progressive with a bank-roll.

      I agree money should be removed from politics, but that would include out of state money for state elections. You think all that money spent on the senate in Texas was from Texas?

      That would have killed the democrats this cycle had out of state money not been pouring in like an open faucet. I like how they're all out celebrating these huge wins when they literally had to break the bank to do it.

      All while claiming they dont take money.

      Hypocrites. But thats worse than what Id call people like you who are so

    7. Re:Ah good 'ole regressive taxation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll harder.

      Seriously, if you actually believe the Democratic party is "leftist" you are so far right I'm surprised you haven't circumnavigated the globe by now.

      Most of the word views America's Democrats as right of center, their right wing party would be a form of aberrant extremism (well, it would have been, lately Europe has had it's own issues with right wing nationalists rising up).

      And anyway, the way we label these things is pretty stupid to begin with. This is simple straight up class warfare, no need to bring partisan politics into it.

      If you claim that the idea of fair taxation and support for continuing a functioning society is "leftest" I'm not sure where you stand on the issue. Are you one of those "government bad" nutjobs who want to return to the halcyon days of having your land owned by the nearest rich guy making local laws with "large army politics"?

      Oh, but wait, I forget, YOU would clearly be at the top of the heap so it wouldn't matter. There is no way in the unregulated, lawless utopia YOU would be the one being oppressed, certainly not YOU. Your special!

    8. Re:Ah good 'ole regressive taxation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woosh!

  9. murder central by BlackOverflow · · Score: 0

    When will they stop the murders in Chicago (489 so far this year)?

    1. Re:murder central by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When will they stop the murders in Chicago (489 so far this year)?

      That's mostly black-on-black violence that doesn't fit the preferred "blame whitey, especially if they're Republicans, and really blame 'em if they're men" narrative, so it's ignored.

  10. I've got it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I should create a virtual apartment complex so that you can have a mailing address outside the city. Could be used to avoid the 10% sales tax and ridiculous property taxes.

  11. the USPS is forced to prefund its long-term pensio by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    the USPS is forced to prefund its long-term pension as well.

    Maybe an federal level fix is needed

  12. Sony is making the wrong call here by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    All of their powerful competitors are fighting this tax. It will probably be struck down. If it is, then Sony looks like not just an asshole for collecting it, but a dumbshit and abusive to users to boot. But even if it isn't, then Sony looks like the reason it isn't, and still looks like a pack of assholes. If the competition is refusing to collect the tax, then Sony should also refuse to collect it.

    OFC, Sony does everything wrong, so this is my surprised face.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Sony is making the wrong call here by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure it isn't the RIGHT call for Sony, especially if they DETAIL the tax on their billing.

      I do not see where there is much of a legal argument that Chicago cannot assess taxes like this on their residents You would first have to prove that the basic tax itself was illegal, as applied to what it originally taxed - tickets to concerts, sports events, etc. Those have been largely held up to be legal; the precedent has been established, and only the definition broadened.

      So the industry is tilting windmills trying to fight the legality.

      What needs to be fought are the people who imposed the tax, and that requires votes. Which is why the city doesn't send bills to the tax payers, but to the corporations. The penny-per-ounce "soda tax" (that applied to anything other than water) in Cook County only went away when the politicians learned that the voters were going to rebel and vote them out of office.

      And governments work to make those corporations HIDE the tax on their bills, so no one notices it as anything more than an evil corporation raising prices. One of the local utilities broke out a particularly obnoxious tax as a separate line item a few years ago, and the agency that imposed it took them to court over it. The tax is now part of a general "taxes" line item again.

    2. Re:Sony is making the wrong call here by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      You would first have to prove that the basic tax itself was illegal, as applied to what it originally taxed - tickets to concerts, sports events, etc.

      Ah, yes, but those EVENTs were held physically in the area/state. These virtual ones are not...and usually house outside the state.

      I know that laws are saying you can collect tax on sales of physical items you buy and are shipped to you, but a game is NOT a physical item, it is a moment in time online and not something you physically have to go to attend. Events like concerts and sports events often cost the city $$ for police and all, but a video game does not...so, where's the justification for this tax?

      I would posit that this tax is way off spectrum from anything that is set law......definitely worth fighting.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Sony is making the wrong call here by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2

      I do not see where there is much of a legal argument that Chicago cannot assess taxes like this on their residents

      The argument is not that Chicago cannot assess taxes like this on their residents, but rather that they have no authority to force companies outside their own jurisdiction to serve as tax-collectors. If Chicago wants to assess a tax on the citizens of Chicago for playing Sony's games that is strictly between the Chicago government and the people who live there. Sony should have no obligation either to report on the people playing their games or to collect and remit the tax.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    4. Re: Sony is making the wrong call here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so, where's the justification for this tax?

      The voters approved it. In this country we have popular sovereignty.

      If you missed middle school civics, let me know and I'll explain.

    5. Re: Sony is making the wrong call here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Supreme Courts of the United States and Illinois have actually allowed outside parties to collect tax remissions and that is what is happening.

      The tax collection has not yet been compelled.

  13. Juristiction... by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

    I have never understood why the assumed jurisdiction for the sale is the location of the client , why not the location of the server from which the request comes.
    or the location of the server where money is actually exchanged. If I call someone in china and buy something from them mail order with my visa card, where did that transaction occur? Pretty sure it wasn't my home state and I am really no certain why anyone would think otherwise. Or at least the state needs to stop expecting the 'vendor' to act like a state agent and collect taxes for it.

    The greater principle of expecting businesses to act as agents of the government really needs to be addressed. It is a common place practice, business are required to gather information the government can't legally gather and report it to the government all the time. Circumventing constitutional protections. If the state want's a tax paid on goods sold , it should collect the money itself.

    --
    âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    1. Re:Juristiction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have never understood why the assumed jurisdiction for the sale is the location of the client , why not the location of the server from which the request comes.

      Because we've already been down this road decades ago with mail-order catalogs. Now, if you are asking why that decision was made way back then, well, I do not have an answer to that.

      I also do not have an answer to why some people think that, just because it is now "on the internet", the old rule of sellers having no obligation to collect sales tax unless they are in the same jurisdiction no longer applies.

  14. The system is RIGGED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet they aren't taxing Chicago deep dish, perhaps the biggest threat to society.

    ZIP

  15. Fuck Chicago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A 9% amusement tax? Fuck Chicago. But I've said that all my life so nothing is different. Fuck Chicago.

  16. Can't a Luxembourg company get a break ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its outrageous how these cities want to fund themselves, what has Luxembourg/Cayman/Singapore/Ireland/Panama companies ever done to be discriminated by Chicago ?
    When will the professional tax evaders community ever get a break ?

  17. See here by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    for a discussion. Some states charge on dollars sold (the more progressive ones) but a lot charge on _volume_ sold. e.g. one liter of Pabst taxes the same as one liter of expensive wine.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:See here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say they're more progressive, but truly, they're more conservative. It ends up that the politically progressive municipalities have the most regressive taxes by dollar/capita and by # of taxes.

  18. lol by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 5, Funny

    Young gamers look up from screen ...

    "Hey, I thought socialism meant that other people paid more. WTF???"

  19. Net Nutrality anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely the NN regulations prevented this kind of charging based on content type tax scheme.... No?

    1. Re:Net Nutrality anyone? by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      it probably does not, and don't call me Shirley.

  20. Shouldn't that depend on the game you buy? by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

    There have been a number of games I've bought in the past that brought no amusement whatsoever.

    I'm thinking something like a tax refund if the game you buy gets below 50% on Metacritic.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  21. Voracious by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3

    You voted for it! You encourage voracious government for massive spending, as Shakespeare might have said, "As you like it!"

    Times are better than ever before. Government spending should be shrinking. Yet it grows.

    It's almost as if it has nothing to do with need and everything to do with buying votes!

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Voracious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't keep paying dead people the same amount you did in the 1950's for their votes.

    2. Re:Voracious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said, you Imp, you.
      Keep away from the green cherries, else you be 'cured'.

    3. Re:Voracious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who hate fun voted for it, people who like fun pay the tax. Democracy ftw.

    4. Re:Voracious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government spending should be shrinking.

      You realize population tends to increase over time? How much do you expect cost reductions through technological advancement and productivity growth to offset this? One big driver, medical spending is increasing at a blistering rate well above the rate of inflation.

      I expect both government revenue and spending to increase over time. Smart governments will try to time big spending needs like infrastructure to happen when interest rates are low, and to target reductions in the ratio of debt-to-GDP when times are good (which doesn't necessarily require running a surplus).

  22. Sorta by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Chicago is run by Clinton Democrats. Right wing Democrats who mostly act like the GOP except on social issues. They do this because the voters are used to voting Democrat but actual left wing Dems don't get fat sacks of corporate cash with which to buy elections.

    Again, this is why you, as a voter, need to demand better. Make No Corp PAC money a defining issue.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Sorta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol - good luck with "better" on the socialist side of the tracks.

      Even your precious Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is gonna be lapping it up at the corporate trough by the next election cycle.

  23. Why Chicago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OT but I'll never understand why people still live in Chicago. You have sky high taxes, shitty weather, piss poor transportation options (sorry the L sucks and the roads are almost permanently gridlocked), high crime rates. It's like having the most inconvenient parts of all the other US mega cities, but without any of the benefits. People keep telling me that the food and entertainment there can't be beat, but the last time I went I found them to be nothing special. Maybe you have to be born there or something.

  24. Freedom is a sin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In America any kind of freedom, if it can be translated to economic in any way, is a sin, and is taxable.

    Would like to introduce the socialist tax: only people who believe in socialism and vote for socialistic programs and policies have to pay it.

  25. Re:the USPS is forced to prefund its long-term pen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the USPS is forced to prefund its long-term pension as well.

    Maybe an federal level fix is needed

    Because the federal government allowed them to temporarily divert pension payments into their general operating fund in the 2000's in exchange for them making up those payments later. The post office never did, and racked up a massive pension deficit. So now they have to pay in full.

    https://capitalpolicyanalytics.wordpress.com/2017/12/06/neither-snow-nor-rain-nor-unfunded-liabilities-the-consequences-of-the-underfunded-postal-retiree-health-benefits/

  26. Proxy Server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Praxy server, problem solved. This tax is legal, but I would avoid it were I there.

  27. ROTFL by PPH · · Score: 1

    This is the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. Chicago city council, pay up.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  28. Stop crying Chicago...you wanted it by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Or you would kick these a-hats out of power in Chicago, the peoples republic of Illinois. Your dear leaders are only there to HELP you. (yeah, to steal more of YOUR money).

  29. Re: the USPS is forced to prefund its long-term pe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prefunding should be considered fraud and laws changed to make it illegal.

  30. Time to join a gang... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was being entertained at home playing video games and watching movies, but now that they cost too much I guess I'll have to join a street gang to keep myself occupied.

  31. Good. They get what they deserve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Democrats. Not even once.

  32. New Detriot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chicago is the new Detriot.

  33. We Are Not Amused! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Therefore we do not have to pay! Off with their heads!!!

  34. It does by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    if the gamers don't make much money. Progressive taxation is one of the features of Democratic Socialism. This is a regressive tax, it's not something a socialist would support.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if the gamers don't make much money. Progressive taxation is one of the features of Democratic Socialism. This is a regressive tax, it's not something a socialist would support.

      One of the most socialist cities in the U.S., Seattle, keeps voting in regressive tax measures, but they keep calling it progressive. They also keep getting surprised when it doesn't have the desired affect.

  35. I didn't vote for it by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I oppose taxes like these, and so do the folks I vote for. I voted to increase taxes on corporations and the extremely wealthy ($300k+/yr in annual income). The extremely wealthy, for their part, bought off politicians and spent a fortune on add campaigns promoting tax cuts for themselves, leaving these sorts of taxes the only kind gov'ts can get approved.

    We all still want roads and schools. We want police and fire. But nobody seems to want to have to pay for it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  36. Eliminate traditional pensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Force everybody in to 401K-type systems, or nothing at all (their choice). No guarantees. Maybe if everyone had skin in the economic game, they'd make better decisions when voting.

  37. This won't stand for long by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    As someone else pointed out, Chicago has a long history of rampant corruption, as well as a long history of being in financial straits. This is desperation on their part.
    What'll happen is this: similar to how many Chinese get around the the Great Firewall, people who can grok how to do it will do an end-run around the 'tax' by using a VPN, TOR, or something similar, if possible (depends on how the tax is levied).
    Something else that might happen: people will say 'fuck this' and just not use the services that have the tax.
    Something like this tax, if adopted nation-wide, would have a chilling effect on 'streaming services'. I don't even like 'streaming services' myself, I think they're just another trap to suck money out of people's wallets, but allowing bullshit like this to flourish would inevitably have a chilling effect on the Internet in general, hastening it's destruction. Imagine an overall Internet 'tax', for instance: every single byte transferred, for instance, being taxed. Politicians would love it. The Rich wouldn't care about it (they have money) and the Middle Class and below would take it in the shorts, living in a world where you're severely hamstrung without Internet access, but struggle to pay for even the lowest level of it.
    Therefore bullshit like this 'tax' has to be quashed, firmly and quickly.

  38. The Bible mentions harmful addictive acts by tepples · · Score: 2

    I don't think the bible specifically mentions anything about tobacco

    You are correct. However, The Bible has plenty of warnings against intentionally harming your body and others' with addictive substances.

    1. Re: The Bible mentions harmful addictive acts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gives a damn about the Bible?

      Anyone with 1/2 a brain realizes religion is the greatest scam, next to insurance.

    2. Re:The Bible mentions harmful addictive acts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By your logic, the bible also makes plenty of warnings against intentionally harming the environment:
      https://www.openbible.info/topics/the_environment

    3. Re:The Bible mentions harmful addictive acts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g200712/Why-Care-for-Earths-Environment/

    4. Re:The Bible mentions harmful addictive acts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bible also encourages us to protect the environment. Despite the belief that god will make "all things new" again, it clearly warns they will "bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”

    5. Re:The Bible mentions harmful addictive acts by tepples · · Score: 1

      Thanks for finding Revelation 11:18. Here's Sony's plan to reduce its ecological footprint.

  39. Not constitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This law violates the first amendment...

  40. Not legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speech taxes are illegal.

    Taxing movies is taxing a form of expression. Not allowed.

  41. Robin Hood you aren't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but something must happen to address the wealth disparity or the country will tear itself apart...

    Why MUST something happen?

  42. Still zero tax on piracy by Andy+Smith · · Score: 1

    Just another thing to punish law-abiding citizens and make piracy more attractive.

  43. populous what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    populous what? I think you meant populace.

  44. No brakes for u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When they stop living in Chicago and stop clogging my intertubes with pointless and gay streaming and video gayming.

  45. Re: the USPS is forced to prefund its long-term pe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny you say that, since if anyone other than the government _didn't_ prefund they'd be getting hit with something similar to fraud charges...

  46. No tax for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing fun about playing an EA game.