100% Tax on 'Violent' Games

Rhyme

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6143114.html

I think they pushing the boundaries of sense here, sure we dont want certain age-groups playing these games but doubling the price of them... silly.

TheDoc

another example of why america is the most retarded country in existence.

Creamy Goodness

yeh if they actually enforced the system in place would make more sense.

i don't see how doubling the price will stop kids getting their hands on a copy.

also the gaming community will boycott if it ever went ahead.

Crucifix

To quote one of the comments on the article: "YEEEEEEEEEHHAAAAAWWWWWW".
But seriously, that's ridiculous. At least the high taxes on things like cigarettes and alcohol could be said to paying for the health issues and crimes that these create, but there's no real justification on such a tax on games a group of people deem violent.

Rhyme

Theres an 'Update' at the bottom of the article stating...

"Locke's other platform promises call for the repeal of all alcoholic beverage laws and a 50 percent "grease tax" on "all food prepared by deep-frying or cooking in any form of oil or grease for human consumption.""

...Another serious problem tackled in completely the wrong way.

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

seamus

A man with absolutely zero economic sense. He must have come from a family wealthy through oil.
"So our concept is that we need to tax things we don't want and you want to not tax things that you want to encourage". So, you want to discourage people from paying taxes? Really smart there, I wonder how he proposes that the State actually makes money?

Besides, he says it will be levied against the manufacturers. Solution: manufacturers move out of Texas, wholesale companies sell product into Texas, with no tax applied.

RobertFoster

Does this mean Texas will be the state with the most digital piracy?

senordingdong

Definatly.

Who the hell gave these people an opinion~?

projectmayhem

RobertFoster wrote:

Does this mean Texas will be the state with the most digital piracy?

could do. or it'll force the kids to go buy real guns for practise instead of playing counter strike

Crucifix

projectmayhem wrote:

could do. or it'll force the kids to go buy real guns for practise instead of playing counter strike

I predict thousands of graves with the last words "Oh you camping bitch" on them.

Lemming

Crucifix wrote:

I predict thousands of graves with the last words "Oh you camping bitch" on them.

And the grave next to them will read "It's a l3g1t1m8 tactic!! I p0wnz3r3d j00!!"

Zillah

seamus wrote:

"So our concept is that we need to tax things we don't want and you want to not tax things that you want to encourage".

Thats a well known economic trick actually. Why do you think there's such high taxes on cigarettes and alcohol?

the_syco

Well, tbh, the red-neck wants a:

A 100 tax on violent video games

A 100 tax on all food prepared by deep-frying or cooking in any form of oil or grease, thats for humans

A $10,000 per-abortion tax

50 percent tax on all soda that "contains added glucose, fructose, sucrose to the beverage for sale to humans."

Agent Smith

gotta love Cowboy rednecks...



So, surly by that logic, cars should be taxed at 100 percent, cause of road deaths?


what a tool...

DonkeyStyle \o/

All this 'taxing because we don't like it' is akin to giving an employee you don't like all the shíttest tasks so he'll leave... how can constructive dismissal be morally wrong and this be acceptable?

Sure, it's the games... not the fact that your 5 year old son can get his hands on his passed-out-drunk daddys revolver. :rolleyes:
How about a 100% tax on guns? But of course, guns don't kill people, video games kill people.
Hey! Look over there...

Balfa

We should put a 200% tax on pictures of star locke, because they make me angry and anger is dangerous.

Hey, crucifix, why do you have a picture of him in your sig?!

Cake Fiend

Anyone else amused at the fact that a politician in about the most gun-horny state in the US has a problem with violent computer games?

Reku

Could always just try encourage a flood of game (preferably ones which would be subject to 100% tax) mods where instead of the usual enemies you kill clones of him.:D

seamus

Zillah wrote:

Thats a well known economic trick actually. Why do you think there's such high taxes on cigarettes and alcohol?

Mainly to generate huge wads of cash, because people can't stop consuming these things. The idea of "taxation to discourage" is valid, but it has to be subtle. Proposing a 100% taxation is the sign of someone with little to no economic skills. To discourage the use through taxes, you need to slightly increase the taxation on the item, and - here's the key - reduce the taxation on the alternative item. If there 's no alternative item, people will continue to buy the original item with the high taxes. Why do you think that the price of cigs and booze is so tightly linked with the value of money and inflation in this country?

Zaph0d

seamus wrote:

Mainly to generate huge wads of cash, because people can't stop consuming these things. The idea of "taxation to discourage" is valid, but it has to be subtle. Proposing a 100% taxation is the sign of someone with little to no economic skills. To discourage the use through taxes, you need to slightly increase the taxation on the item, and - here's the key - reduce the taxation on the alternative item. If there 's no alternative item, people will continue to buy the original item with the high taxes. Why do you think that the price of cigs and booze is so tightly linked with the value of money and inflation in this country?

I disagree that a reduction in price of a substitute item is required to make such a tax effective. Where a substitute exists, a simple rise in the price of one product discourages purchase relative to the substitute.

The demand for goods is usually affected by a change in the price of those goods. The degree to which it is affected by this change is the price elasticity of demand, which is linked to availability of substitutes. In the case of an addictive drug like nicotine, there is no substitute so demand will be inelastic and most people will continue to smoke the same amount. As you say, huge wads of cash can be made by taxing products with inelastic demand under the pretence of discouraging people from harmful behaviour.

So, is there is a substitute for violent games that will satisfy a gamer's demand? If all violent games rise in price to €120 from €60, would you buy the same number of violent games?

seamus

Zaph0d wrote:

So, is there is a substitute for violent games that will satisfy a gamer's demand? If all violent games rise in price to €120 from €60, would you buy the same number of violent games?

Well, now we're into a different argument altogether. I would argue that of the modern highly successful games, the majority contain some element of violence. Second to that would be racing games, with sims limping in third.

http://www.gamespot.com/misc/top100_score.html

Of that list, look at the top twenty games, and exclude duplicates. 14 of those top twenty would be "violent". So 70% of the most popular games sold contain violence. Based on that, I would say no, there is no alternative, and people will continue to buy (good) violent games, almost regardless of price, because that's what people like to play. If these games constituted a small portion of the market, say 5%, then heavy taxation probably would drive people elsewhere. Luckily though the market is so huge, that taxation would have little to no effect.

stevenmu

I don't get how this is supposed to work, if something is ok then it's ok, if it's wrong then it's wrong. Putting a tax on violent video games because they're 'wrong' is just legitimising them, it's saying that violent video games are bad for you/society but if you pay tax on them then it's suddenly ok ?

Zaph0d

seamus wrote:

Well, now we're into a different argument altogether. I would argue that of the modern highly successful games, the majority contain some element of violence. Second to that would be racing games, with sims limping in third.

http://www.gamespot.com/misc/top100_score.html

Of that list, look at the top twenty games, and exclude duplicates. 14 of those top twenty would be "violent". So 70% of the most popular games sold contain violence. Based on that, I would say no, there is no alternative, and people will continue to buy (good) violent games, almost regardless of price, because that's what people like to play. If these games constituted a small portion of the market, say 5%, then heavy taxation probably would drive people elsewhere. Luckily though the market is so huge, that taxation would have little to no effect.

So, are you saying you would buy the same number of violent games at twice the price they are now? Once prices get high enough there's a big incentive to pirate goods (or smuggle them as with cigarettes) and the measures start to fail.

stevenmu wrote:

I don't get how this is supposed to work, if something is ok then it's ok, if it's wrong then it's wrong. Putting a tax on violent video games because they're 'wrong' is just legitimising them, it's saying that violent video games are bad for you/society but if you pay tax on them then it's suddenly ok ?

This depends on which philosophy of law you're working from and different legislators have their own approaches. A country may allow something many people consider immoral to continue in the interests of personal freedom (eg literature depicting sex) or because banning it would lead to a worse situation (eg alcohol prohibition). In the cases where countries have decided to ban things purely on moral grounds, they have found themsleves stuck with laws that are ineffective and do more harm than good. Laws that are very hard to repeal.

Banning violent games outright would be an attack on personal liberty and would be ineffective unless applied across the world. Violent video games are already accepted as legitimate and taxed. The argument is about the level of taxation.

ghost26ie

[DM]-TheDOC- wrote:

another example of why america is the most retarded country in existence.

one of dubya's friends. he's running for govenor of texas. dubya was govenor before he became pres. so it show the kind of competence u need to have. must be something about that state.

seamus

Zaph0d wrote:

So, are you saying you would buy the same number of violent games at twice the price they are now? Once prices get high enough there's a big incentive to pirate goods (or smuggle them as with cigarettes) and the measures start to fail.

I don't buy very many games (that doesn't mean I pirate them, that means I don't play very many games ), but if for example, the next GTA that came out was twice the price of the last one, I probably would buy it.

Zombrex

So what Perfect Dark Zero is going to cost a Texan €160 ...

God Republicans are stupid :rolleyes:

ghost26ie

Wicknight wrote:

So what Perfect Dark Zero is going to cost a Texan €160 ...

God Republicans are stupid :rolleyes:

i doubt he'll get it passed. if u look at some of the other taxes he is think of implementing he is going to piss off alot of big companies.

i wonder does it mean the US goverment will have to pay the tax if they try to get an updated version of 'American Army'.

Jimi-Spandex

I wouldn't take much heed to what this clown says, he doesn't even have a solid grip on US constitutional law. If you take it into context, he seems to be a fringe candidate and a bit of a lunatic. I'd just like to be a bit pedantic and go through what he says.

$10,000 per-abortion tax on medical clinics that perform abortions

Almost certainly unconstitutional as it would probably be construed as an impediment on the right to privacy.

100 percent tax on "violent video games."

Likely to violate the 1st amendment as it would single out Video games as a medium over, cinema for example.

50 percent tax on all soda that "contains added glucose, fructose, sucrose to the beverage for sale to humans.

Now this I agree with, obesity is a far bigger problem than violent video games or even smoking.

proposed eliminating property taxes in the Lone Star State

And this is all to save people with big houses in wealthy areas from paying for the funding of local schools, which is one of the main purposes of property tax.

This man is a clown, and I, along with all of you here are now slightly dumber having read his inane ramblings.

Zillah

Jimi-Spandex wrote:

50 percent tax on all soda that "contains added glucose, fructose, sucrose to the beverage for sale to humans.

Yeah, cos its soft drinks that have caused Americans to be grossly obese. Not the vast quantities of awful fast food...

RobertFoster

Zillah wrote:

Yeah, cos its soft drinks that have caused Americans to be grossly obese. Not the vast quantities of awful fast food...

My sody is too cold, My teef hurt!

senordingdong

seamus wrote:

I don't buy very many games (that doesn't mean I pirate them, that means I don't play very many games ), but if for example, the next GTA that came out was twice the price of the last one, I probably would buy it.

Or you could get it for free...

Jimi-Spandex

Zillah wrote:

Yeah, cos its soft drinks that have caused Americans to be grossly obese. Not the vast quantities of awful fast food...

Not entirely disagreeing with you here but [QUOTE= Greg Critser, Author of
Fat Land : How Americans Became the Fattest People in the World]

"A joint study by Harvard University and Boston Children's Hospital
researchers in February 2001 concluded that such excess liquid calories
inhibited the ability of older children to compensate at mealtime, leading
to caloric imbalance and, in time, obesity."

"One extra soft drink a day gave a child a 60 percent greater chance of
becoming obese. One could even link specific amounts of soda to specific
amounts of weight gain. Each daily drink added .18 points to a child's body
mass index (BMI). This, the researchers noted, was regardless of what else
they ate or how much they exercised. "Consumption of sugar [high fructose
corn syrup]-sweetened drinks," they concluded, "is associated with obesity
in children." [/QUOTE]


That said, when I came over here I was amazed at the amount of ****e food and the relative difficulty in getting healthy food.

eyerer

RobertFoster wrote:

My sody is too cold, My teef hurt!

i don't need to tell you what you can do with your freakin' sody

steviec

While I don't agree with the idea and it's irrelevant anyway since the chances of him getting voted in or passing any of his ideas are tiny, I don't think the idea is all that crazy or illogical.

Taxing as an incentive to get people to stop is already in effect here with alcohol and cigarettes as it is in many parts of the world, nothing new there. Why not extend it to other items like this? In the case of violent games, I'd still buy the really good ones but a 100% increase(in tax, not in price, so I'm guessing the actual price would go up 50% or so?) would certainly make me take a closer look at the relative merits of the latest fluffy Nintendo game.

If sales of violent games half, the government would make the same profit and there'd be less violent games and (assuming you consider violent games as bad, which I don't particularly) everyone is happy. Over time publishers would see its worth investing in something other than GTA clones and shoddy FPS's which could even be good for the games industry! If the law applied in more than one state of course. If it applied at all, which it won't.

nobodythere

Kids are fscking richer than the rest of us anyway!

Jazzy

too stupid to fathom.
tbh a load of b****x. u dont see violent films taxed more.
getting me too angry to think

eyerer

on top of this proposes that future international conflicts not be settled by war, but by seeing which country's representatives can set the quickest lap time on mario kart DD.
however, those that use weapons, such as turtle shells, will be penalised....as thats violent y'know

Retr0gamer

steviec wrote:

Taxing as an incentive to get people to stop is already in effect here with alcohol and cigarettes as it is in many parts of the world, nothing new there.

It really has worked wonders over here with regard to the sale of alcohol and cigarettes.

That may have started out as an incentive to stop people drinking and smoking more but it is now only great for making more revenue.

steviec

Retr0gamer wrote:

It really has worked wonders over here with regard to the sale of alcohol and cigarettes.

That may have started out as an incentive to stop people drinking and smoking more but it is now only great for making more revenue.

Ok then plastic bags are a better example