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.

Comments

Wrong name

[nospam007]

Because Chicago users are not amused about this.

Re:Wrong name

[Oswald McWeany]

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.

Re:Wrong name

[harrkev]

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

Re:Wrong name

[lgw]

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]

Re:Wrong name

[harrkev]

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.

Re:Wrong name

[Dan East]

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.

Re:Wrong name

[rabidmuskrat]

Finally a use for crippling depression?

Re:Wrong name

[Highdude702]

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

Re:Wrong name

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Wrong name

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Wrong name

[davie]

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

Re:Wrong name

[liquid_schwartz]

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...

Re:Wrong name

[lgw]

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.

Re:Wrong name

[pslytely psycho]

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.

Re:Wrong name

[liquid_schwartz]

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.

You can't tax your way to success

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:You can't tax your way to success

[The Snazster]

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.

Could try.....

[svendsen]

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).

Re:Could try.....

[Patent Lover]

Kind of like our current defense spending .

Re:Could try.....

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Could try.....

[lgw]

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.

Re:Could try.....

[liquid_schwartz]

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.

Re:Could try.....

[lgw]

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.

Re:Could try.....

[Patent Lover]

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.

Re:Could try.....

[lgw]

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.

Re:Could try.....

[bitfist]

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.

Re:Could try.....

[pslytely psycho]

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'!

The good old Sin Tax.

[jellomizer]

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.

Re:The good old Sin Tax.

[mjwx]

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.

Re:The good old Sin Tax.

[cascadingstylesheet]

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 ...

Re:The good old Sin Tax.

[forkfail]

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.

Re:The good old Sin Tax.

[harrkev]

Petrol is a sin? When did this happen.

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

Re:The good old Sin Tax.

[bluegutang]

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).

Ah good 'ole regressive taxation

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:Ah good 'ole regressive taxation

[Streetlight]

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.

Re:Ah good 'ole regressive taxation

[cascadingstylesheet]

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?

the USPS is forced to prefund its long-term pensio

[Joe_Dragon]

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

Maybe an federal level fix is needed

Sony is making the wrong call here

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Sony is making the wrong call here

[WoodstockJeff]

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.

Re:Sony is making the wrong call here

[cayenne8]

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.

Re:Sony is making the wrong call here

[JesseMcDonald]

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.

Juristiction...

[fish_in_the_c]

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.

Re:Juristiction...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: End Goal

[Anonymous Coward]

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

See here

[rsilvergun]

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.

lol

[cascadingstylesheet]

Young gamers look up from screen ...

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

Shouldn't that depend on the game you buy?

[SuperKendall]

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.

Voracious

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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!

Sorta

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re: When your city taxes you for being amused

[Type44Q]

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

Re: There's nothing they won't take a bite of...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: When your city taxes you for being amused

[_merlin]

It's a quote from a Ween song.

Re:Net Nutrality anyone?

[desdinova 216]

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

ROTFL

[PPH]

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

Stop crying Chicago...you wanted it

[p51d007]

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).

It does

[rsilvergun]

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.

I didn't vote for it

[rsilvergun]

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.

This won't stand for long

[Rick Schumann]

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.

The Bible mentions harmful addictive acts

[tepples]

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.

Re:The Bible mentions harmful addictive acts

[tepples]

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

Still zero tax on piracy

[Andy Smith]

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

Re:When your city taxes you for being amused

[Kilo Kilo]

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