I consider this a luxury tax more than a "sin tax". That's what taxing the useful and popular means. The government notices that the video game market is growing more rapidly than movies or music, and literally puts their money on its future growth.

@xzero87

That's gold, I tell you. GOLD!

And it doesn't insinuate that gamers are criminals either. I'm not for a video tax but this is better than the previous one.

I agree with Soldat, it's more reasonable then Erpenbach's idea but it still rubs me the wrong way. If it's intended to help get kids outdoors, why don't they put a tax on games rated T or lower and movies rated PG-13 or lower? Wouldn't that make more sense? What about a tax on indoor play sets or indoor toys? Perhaps we should offer parents who take their kids to the park on a regular basis tax cuts? Or maybe we shouldn't try to socially engineer people through subtle economic incentives?

Any tax that targets video games to fund programs aimed at kids is saying that video games are only (or primarily) played by kids and that's complete crap. It's also saying that the reason kids aren't going outside is because of video games which is also crap. When I was a kid I spent plenty of time outside rather then playing games. Perhaps they should look at the changing social norms and methods of parenting. Parents now are in such a state of fear from a world that sensationalizes everything and localizes rare events - "If it could happen 3,000 miles away it could happen in your backyard!" - that they're afraid to let their kids outside for fear that they'll never return and yet they're simultaneously maligning their offspring's growing waste line and lack of physical activity. You can't have it both ways - if you want kids to play outside you have to change the way modern parents think about "outside."

@ Tom -

:$

Please excuse my ignorance :)

@ DeusPayne

Orgasm tax? The way we do things around here, they'd probably use the money to fund abstinence education.

@ L42yB

No worries :)

[...] Quelle: GamePolitics  [...]

I prefer my video games not taxed, thank you very much.

@Tom
Behind you 100%. Video games are the scapegoat. If they feel justified in taxing games for the sake of exercise, then that opens up a ton of things to be taxed. Sofas, chess, roofing material, tv, books, water color paint... this list can become pretty ridiculous really fast.

@ DrkMatter

"The “social engineering” here comes from the programs that will be created through the taxes, rather than the extra 1% people are going to pay."

Charging an additional 1% isn't a huge amount of money but it is an example of a mindset that says that it's "OK" to entice people to act in a certain way using economic means. While it's unlikely that the increase in cost due to a 1% tax will make someone not buy a video game it's still "punishing" people for their lifestyle. If something like this takes hold, how long until you get "experts" who claim that video games are a "contributing factor" to heart disease and politicians use that to tack on another 1% or 2% tax? And how is this philosophically different from claims that video games are a "contributing factor" to youth crime and therefore fodder for a 1% tax intended to curb juvenile crime?

"No, it’s saying that video games are a contributing factor, and as far as I know, most video games are indeed played inside."

I agree with you entirely that video games are a contributing factor, but that's not what they're saying. In my original comment my entire first paragraph was intended to show how absurd it is that only video games are being targeted amongst other "contributing factors." That they only target video games is their way of saying that video games are, amongst all the contributing factors, the primary cause. How else could you take that? Why aren't they taxing movies? Board games? What about taxing books? Most books are read inside. You could take a book outside and read it but that, like the DS, wont' give you much physical exercise. See what I'm getting at?

I'd support it IF it didn't go for this "outdoors education" whatever. It seems to me kind of like the earlier "fund a juvenile justice program via a levy on games and consoles" (though, to note, I'm from Michigan)

If it was to support schools or better education, such as repairs or supplies (like newer books) or something like that, that'd be good, but this seems more like, to me, "well, since games and TV keeps kids indoors (indefinitely, as some would probably say), lets tax them!"

Personally, I think Michigan could use something like that, just as long as it supports the right thing.

At least this puts such a tax in a POSITIVE light, not something like "Video games are like cigarettes."

In my county (not country), we have a one cent sales tax that used to fund projects. I think it was initially used to build a new library and has been extended to fund a new project. I have no problem with the one cent sales tax as long as it goes to the projects it’s supposed to. After all, it’s just a penny. I'd probably lose that in the parking lot.

That being said, I can not support a 1% sales tax on video games. No matter the reason. This is not some minor increase. If you buy a $60 dollar game, that’s an additional 60 cents on top of the state sales tax (in Georgia its 7%). If you buy a $300 dollar system, that's an additional $30 dollars. If you buy a $1000 dollar television, that's an additional $100. These are no small amounts here. Hell, if I lived in New Mexico, I'd go out of the state to buy big screen televisions (a couple hundred dollars to have them the deliver the TV beats $1000 in sales tax).

This is a bad idea.

EZK: Sorry can't comment at work. 1% of $300 is $3 not $30. But  Iunderstand your point. I made it with the Wisconsin tax.

@Gameboy -
"If you buy a $300 dollar system, that’s an additional $30 dollars. If you buy a $1000 dollar television, that’s an additional $100. "

Umm... actually it's $3 and $10... 1% not 10%

But I know what ur saying ;)

I like this. Not saying I'm in full support of it, but I find nothing to object to. Perhaps there's other programs this tax money could go to or more appropriate things to tax to fund this program. However the general idea is not something I'd hate.

A lot of people seem to be under the impression that this tax is being used as a deterrent. It doesn't sound as if that's their intention. They intend for the tax to fund programs that encourage outside activities. This could be the building of parks/playgrounds/pools or other after school activities that are outside. Even as an adult, I don't mind a slight tax on my leisure activities if it promotes youth activities that are physically engaging and can keep them out of trouble.

Instead of levying another tax on goods, why not go to your state senate and ask why after school programs and physical education programs are underfunded, or being shot in the ass in place of research on pig farts and coast guard stations in land locked states? The concept that this puts the tax in a 'positive light' is akin to saying that a tragic fire that burned down a warehouse killed several people. On the upside, it was discovered that they were all criminals, so it's okay. A friend in the military once said "you can spray paint shit gold, but it's still shit".
Lastly, it is a private environmental group. Basically, it is a lobbyist group that cannot get their way with car manufacturers, industrial plants, etc. because they will get their asses handed to them, so they are going after the perceived new kid on the block who has a decent chunk of change. Video games are a booming business, and growing fast. Who would not want a part of those profits to pay for their little endeavor?
If they really want kids to know about the environment, get them out there and experience it, bring back field trips to wildlife refuges or national parks and zoos. Offer suggestions to educational boards on curriculum that would touch more on ecology in natural science classes, or do what my University did, and create a mandatory 3 credit hour course on environmental issues facing the world today. Granted, it fills our performance center each semester, and is generally lauded as a joke and a waste of time, but the education is available to those who want to know, and the general public is informed of the issues at hand.
Lastly, get the parents involved. Shocker as it is, the parents are actually in charge of their children, so...educate them on the benefits of putting down the controller and spending some family time at the nearest state park. The article mentioned that 80% of the kids live near a national park, but only 10% have been. Well, you cannot blame video games and televison for that...seeing as how kids need to drive that 30 minutes to get to those parks, and pay usage fees (if any). Hmm, starting to sound like a parenting issue. Not so sure a tax is necessary
So, simply put, do not bust the balls of those who have relatively nothing to do with the issue at hand.

In my opinion, a tax would have no effect whatsoever other then making people pay more for their games. Besides responsibility lies with the parents,
mine taught me to get out of the house and play and eat healty.

At the moment, I have no negative feelings towards this taxation.

It's not saying "vidjyah gaimz are teh evil! EEEEVIL!"

It's saying "We don't have funding. So let's tax what has a lot of customers."

And instead of "Tax the devil's games to support juvenile correction facilities." It's "Tax games and television sets because they are popular. Then use the extra money for outdoors education."

"Leave No Child Inside" may not necessarily refer to inside home.

And the tax is only 1%

Example:
Tokyo Xtreme Racer ZERO = $19
Tax = 1%
1% of price = 19/100 = $0.19
Therefore, the price is $19.19

I do find this tax much lest onerous than the other proposal though. There is no implied connection between games and crime here and that is an improvement.

It would be nice to see the funding go to something more practical though, like a program to bring more computers into urban schools or a work study program for "underprivileged" youth.

AH-HA! The Sierra Club is at it again! They really do just hate fun, that's the real motivation behind lobbying for land closure in spite of BLM studies showing no environmental impact to sensitive lands by Human presence.

sounds like a luxury tax 0-o

Guys, i know this may seem a little odd, but i believe that we need to petition for a reduction in the age required to run for governmental office, if there is one in certain states. Or at least make it easier for early twentys to get into office. All of these "Help the Children" acts are getting on my nerves. No Child Left Behind has cost schools in the lower class areas much money due to low test scores. The acts that made it illegal here in Michigan to sell foods in school based on their nutritional values (no white bread, just wheat. f-ing bull shit!) has also cost schools money as kids then just bring food from home. All of these acts are constantly hurting school systems, and as an extension of that, the children. By bringing in people fresh from high school who know what kids want and need better than those raised in the cold war, we can do much to improve the situations. Although, i might just have a gripe against the healthy food acts or w/e their called since they banned selling pop in school one year before i got to high school, where they used to sell them =/. Well, comment if you want me to expand on this idea.

@PhoenixZero

It's a hard choice these days. Democrats want to tax it, Republicans want to ban it. Democrats want to tax anything useful and popular. Republicans want to ban anything fun.

It's kind of funny, one party wants to regulate your public social life, the other one wants to regulate your private life. No matter what, someone in Washington wants to run your life. It's really a lovely system, isn't it?

@Steve

Aside from the stupidity of certain idiots, most of the bills against video games were introduced by Democrats. But there's plenty of stupidity to go around for both sides.

The Sierra Club? Since when do terrorist organizations get to propose new laws?

@Steve

Doesn't that place already exist? I thought it was called Montana.

@Steve

As long as everyone can remember that FF is on, that is.

Actually this sounds like a reasonable idea. It's a relatively small tax that is being spent in the right places, plus it has a chance of changing the image of gamers from nerds in dark rooms to people that are contributing. You'll have to excuse me if I missed any subtexts but I'm an Australian that doesn't care too much about US politics. I do agree though that the tax will have to be in check, a couple of times taxes have bitten us on the arse.

Like a said before this is just a video game version of the cigarette tax.

@Baggie

plus it has a chance of changing the image of gamers from nerds in dark rooms to people that are contributing.

So you mean that now that Ciggarettes are taxed, smokers are seen as worthwhile contributors to society instead of scummy bottom-feeders who poison the children of America.

I know this sounds crazy to an Aussie who gladly pays taxes in exchange for services which are rendered by the Government as opposed to Americans who pay taxes to get ass-raped and sent to Iraq to die by the government, but taxes are used to punish in the states. BAD big tobacco, you pay tax now! BAD firearms, you pay tax now! etc....

@ xzero87

Add a tax to propose earmarks and we could do away with the Federal Income Tax.

why not just scrap the idea about a 1% videogame and television tax and up the tax rate in new mexico 1% that would provide even more revinue (for the politicans to pocket)

[...] Just the other day we were telling you about how Wisconsin wanted to add a tax on videogames. Now, thanks to GamePolitics, we’re hearing that New Mexico wants to jump on this bandwagon. Videogames aren’t the only target of this new tax though. TV sets will also be targeted in this 1% sales tax proposal: "We believe it is such a nominal tax that consumers won’t feel it too much, especially if they are educated about where that money goes," said Michael Casaus [...]

They look at how well the video game industry is doing and how poorly a lot of other industries are doing and ask us "Why can't we get a piece of that?"

To which we answer, "You are getting a piece of that, you no-talent, inebriated, inbred excuse for a politician! You are getting a 7% chunk of it where I live!"

To which they blink hazily, finish off their bottle of Jack, and say, "I know, but why can't I have a BIGGER piece of it? (hiccup)"

"It’s also saying that the reason kids aren’t going outside is because of video games which is also crap."

That is actually a big part of the reason I stopped going outside as much. Personally I like the idea.

Video Games is the most popular game because a lot of person it.and we know that that game is the playing time a lot of injoy comes.

sam

<a href="http://www.treatmentcenters.org/new-mexico"rel="DoFollow">New Mexico Treatment Centers</a>