Connecticut Ponders "Sin Tax" For M-Rated Games

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Revolutionary Justice

Suicidesoldier#1

Good idea.

If we started taxxing porn, even just a few more percents higher, we'd likely be out of this recession in no time.


I mean really, if we just increased a 3% tax on all porn?

America's recession would be over; so we could be all like, thank you America, for watching porn.

Lol, you pay for porn?

No, but I imagine with advertising it's all the same. xp

[marshmallowcreampie]

That's stupid.

First of all, there's no definite link between video games and large-scale violence. (or hell, even small-scale violence) If you want to justify a sin tax, there has to be some proven harm. That's the whole point of a sin tax.

Second, if you're going to tax video games with mature content, well, why not do it with movies? Or TV shows, or books? Yeah, good luck trying to put a sin tax on books, that'll go over well with the anti-censorship crowds.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

marshmallowcreampie

That's stupid.

First of all, there's no definite link between video games and large-scale violence. (or hell, even small-scale violence) If you want to justify a sin tax, there has to be some proven harm. That's the whole point of a sin tax.

Second, if you're going to tax video games with mature content, well, why not do it with movies? Or TV shows, or books? Yeah, good luck trying to put a sin tax on books, that'll go over well with the anti-censorship crowds.

Tax porn.

The U.S. will be out of this recession in no time. xp


Proven harm?

Nah, just tons of money. xp

[Suicidesoldier#1]

[marshmallowcreampie]

Ontological Empiricism

I thought this was interesting as well.

Quote:

When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two (Columbine) kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory.

Definitely agreed. And it's not just about the amount of exposure, it's the TYPE of exposure. They focus all their time on the killer, his life and backstory. What's more, they turn him into this big, scary, intimidating figure. To an unstable kid who hates everyone around him, that's a GOOD thing. They WANT to be feared, they WANT people to look back on 'em and go "Oh, we shouldn't have ******** with that guy!". They're given an image, a scary and badass one at that.

I'm reminded of a guy in my high school class a few years ago who was obsessed with being famous. He sometimes made reference to killing his parents (and perhaps other students, but I don't remember) to achieve this fame. I don't think he was serious (god, I hope he wasn't...) but still.

[Keltoi Samurai]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Bruce Willis summed it up best about trying to blame this on guns, movies or anything else. You can't legislate crazy.

He makes a good point.

wasn't one of his Die Hard movies behind both the demonisation the Glock received in the early 90's, and partly responsible for the first AWB?

Die Hard 2? talking about an "all-ceramic" "Glock 7" that was "invisible to metal detectors?"

[Suicidesoldier#1]

marshmallowcreampie

Ontological Empiricism

I thought this was interesting as well.

Quote:

When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two (Columbine) kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory.

Definitely agreed. And it's not just about the amount of exposure, it's the TYPE of exposure. They focus all their time on the killer, his life and backstory. What's more, they turn him into this big, scary, intimidating figure. To an unstable kid who hates everyone around him, that's a GOOD thing. They WANT to be feared, they WANT people to look back on 'em and go "Oh, we shouldn't have ******** with that guy!". They're given an image, a scary and badass one at that.

I'm reminded of a guy in my high school class a few years ago who was obsessed with being famous. He sometimes made reference to killing his parents (and perhaps other students, but I don't remember) to achieve this fame. I don't think he was serious (god, I hope he wasn't...) but still.

Me? Psychotic? Fear? Intimidation.

Get out of here.


I have you know I only use my psychotic tendencies to...

O_o

O_O;!


sweatdrop

ninja

[Keltoi Samurai]

God Emperor Akhenaton

Games do not cause violence. Violence is genetic

if that's true, then we're all screwed, since natural selection means that only the angriest, most violent and aggressive of the apelike prehumans survived to become humans.

I mean, let's face it: human survival strategy wasn't "outrun, outhide and outbreed your enemies." that's a food strategy. we made it to the top of our food chain by eating everything that stood between us and the top. it tried to kill us? we ate it. it refused to be eaten? we devised a better way to render it into bite-sized chunks.

we are all the byproducts of assholes and sons-a-bitches. if violence is genetic, then we all inherited it.

[Ame Yuki Kaze]

What they don't take into consideration is all these recent shooters have been adults in their 20s, not teenagers or children. So why are all these restrictions being aimed at an innocent age bracket?

[Queen of Mercury]

Ontological Empiricism

Connecticut considers 10% tax on M-Rated Video Games.

Quote:

A few weeks ago, I wrote a column detailing how video games are now being treated like a dangerous controlled substance on par with cigarettes, as new proposals around the country want games to endure extra taxes and over the top warning labels in the wake of tragedies like Sandy Hook.

The tax in question the first time around was a 1% tax on “violent” games, including all Teen, Mature and (non-existent) Adults Only rated titles. The bill was proposed by Rep. Diane Franklin (R-Missouri), and was eye rolling at best.

But what’s better than a 1% tax? A 10% tax, which is now being proposed in a bill crafted by Connecticut state representative Debralee Hovey (R). Here’s the text of the bill:

“That the general statutes be amended to establish a sales tax on the sale of video games rated “mature” at a rate of ten per cent on the entire sales price and to require the moneys derived from such sales tax be used by the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services for the purpose of developing informational materials to educate families on the warning signs of video game addiction and antisocial behavior.”

This is of course punishing an industry based on conjecture, as no concrete evidence has yet been put forth linking video games and violent actions. The Obama administration’s new gun plans do involve the NHS studying this link, but as nothing is proven (and likely won’t be), video games should not be treated in the same way as a product proven to cause cancer.

I do agree that video games can be addictive, and in some cases can result in anti-social behavior. What I do not believe is that parents are so dense that they’d need a federally funded program telling them that if they’re kid is locked in his room for eight hours a night playing Call of Duty, he may be addicted and is being anti-social. At that point, it’s clear the parents simply can’t be bothered to curb the behavior, and such a program would do nothing to change their minds.

I am not parent yet, but I cannot picture a scenario where a mother or father would have zero idea what sorts of games their kids or playing, either before or after purchase. If R-rated movies tell us that kids should probably not see that film, it takes all of two seconds to learn that an M-rating means that kids should probably not play that game. And do we really have to say out loud that letting your kid hole up in his room for an eternity playing games isn’t the best idea? What “education” past that is really necessary here?

It's really quite annoying these days -- scapegoating "violent media" for tragic events.

Why is this being proposed? Why does the Government have to start doing the parents' job in raising children? A 10% "sin tax" on M-Rated games is ridiculous, about as ridiculous as allowing a young child/teenager to play a M-Rated game when parents are apparently not drilling into their heads that games aren't real. I was able to play GTA with no problem at the age of 14-years-old, because I knew the difference between reality and fantasy.

If we are going to put a "sin tax" on adult-only games, why stop there? If violent media is to blame for Sandy Hook (Mass Effect was blamed), Aurora (Batman was blamed), and Columbine (Marilyn Manson was blamed) for example, then do the same to R-rated movies for ******** sake. At least be consistent, here.

Why even have a rating system (or parental advisory) in place for video games, movies, and music if no one (particularly idiot parents) pays attention to it?

It just really grinds my gears when the Government decides it's going to play the Nanny role because parents are failing at their parental duty. I am just really hoping this doesn't gain traction, and other states don't follow suit.

What are your thoughts on this?
Would a "sin tax" be effective?
Should it be applied to all things "adult only"?
What is the deal with blaming violent media for tragedies? Is it so far-fetched to believe that there is no clear-cut reason as to why someone would shoot up a school, movie theater, mall, etc.? Why do we feel a need for a scapegoat for such events?

I don't think that any of those horrific incidents had anything to do with video games or poor parenting. The government likes to find scape goats to avoid admitting that mental health problems are real.

I think a 'sin tax; is ridiculous but its not surprising that a republican proposed it with their faux moral superiority complex they've got going on.

[Xedhadeaus]

How about not putting adult swim on cartoon network... That's much worse than most games... It's bad enough that cartoon channels have shows that MAKE you want to turn your TVs off and go outside. Don't ******** up games too.

Also... MTV... Almost everything on it, especially things that are considered "reality" ugh.

Stop ruining my video games!
Video games and food are better than people... ******** society...

[Riviera de la Mancha]

So, some things I need clarified if possible OP;

First, while I actually think there is enough evidence out there to suggest some link between violence and violent videogames and violent tendencies, I'd rather hold off on that for the moment. Instead, let's say that there indeed was information out there presenting a link of some sort between video games and violence- would you be open to it? If you would be open to it, then, if the link could be proven, would you support this kind of "sin tax"?

Secondly, you suggested that if it were 'more consistent' and all adult materials were taxed, you may be more supportive?

As to my own views, I think the idea of taxing games like cigarettes is a workable idea, but not at the rate suggested. I actually wouldn't be opposed to something like a half of a percent or 1% for informational materials. I would hardly call it a nanny state to support governments, in their legislative capacity, use their superior fact finding powers to get accurate information out to the public for their optional consumption.

[Mrtyu-Mara]

Riviera de la Mancha

So, some things I need clarified if possible OP;

First, while I actually think there is enough evidence out there to suggest some link between violence and violent videogames and violent tendencies, I'd rather hold off on that for the moment. Instead, let's say that there indeed was information out there presenting a link of some sort between video games and violence- would you be open to it? If you would be open to it, then, if the link could be proven, would you support this kind of "sin tax"?

Firstly, correlation does not equal, nor should imply, causation. If there was, without a doubt, 100%, no if's, and's, or but's about it, unbiased information that states "video games causes people to be violent", then I guess there would be nothing I could say against some sort of "sin tax".

However, just like how some studies have shown that spanking your child makes them more aggressive or violent as they get older, or manifests as a mental illness -- I am skeptical as to who's doing the study, and the unanswered variables such as "Why is the child being punished? Are the parents spanking their children out of anger?" and so on. I was spanked as a child, as were my sisters and cousins, and we are all considerably less violent and aggressive compared to my non-spanked cousins. But, according to studies, that just means we are freaks of nature, or I guess "outliers". But I digress, and that is for another thread.

Quote:

Secondly, you suggested that if it were 'more consistent' and all adult materials were taxed, you may be more supportive?

Honestly, I'd have more to b***h about, but yes, I would like some consistency. If it's "violent media" causing these things, then apply a "sin tax" across the board, instead of picking-and-choosing. And since we're frowning upon "unhealthy" life styles, a fat tax should be in place, as well, yea?

Quote:

As to my own views, I think the idea of taxing games like cigarettes is a workable idea, but not at the rate suggested. I actually wouldn't be opposed to something like a half of a percent or 1% for informational materials. I would hardly call it a nanny state to support governments, in their legislative capacity, use their superior fact finding powers to get accurate information out to the public for their optional consumption.

But I do feel it's a nanny state. As I'd like to reiterate, correlation does not equal, nor should it imply, causation. There is, as far as I am aware, nothing to show that video games turn people into sociopathic mass murderers. A 10% hike on M-rated games will either cause people to buy their games (such as Xbox games for example) with Microsoft Points, utilize Gamefly to play the game they want, or as Steam Punk Adept said, take a hop, skip, and a jump over state-lines to buy their game. It just seems like a waste of government time, and I'd be surprised if this bill 1. passes, and 2. lasts.

[Ratttking]

This part confused me:

Quote:

The Obama administration’s new gun plans do involve the NHS studying this link

NHS? We're involving the UK's National Health Service? confused

[HMS Thunder Child]

Keltoi Samurai

God Emperor Akhenaton

Games do not cause violence. Violence is genetic

if that's true, then we're all screwed, since natural selection means that only the angriest, most violent and aggressive of the apelike prehumans survived to become humans.

I mean, let's face it: human survival strategy wasn't "outrun, outhide and outbreed your enemies." that's a food strategy. we made it to the top of our food chain by eating everything that stood between us and the top. it tried to kill us? we ate it. it refused to be eaten? we devised a better way to render it into bite-sized chunks.

we are all the byproducts of assholes and sons-a-bitches. if violence is genetic, then we all inherited it.

Kenneth Bainbridge

J. Robert Oppenheimer

Now we are all sons of bitches.