@Nova -

Sorry if I caused offence, I read my post back and it was a bit aggressive. I was in a bad mood and I apologise for the tone.

However, that being said I am still confused about your posts, maybe you could clear a few things up for me.

This is a quote from your first post:

"$60.58 - OH MY GOD IM NOT PAYING THAT lets all go outside and help reduce the obesity figure….

so the reality of it is that it will do ABSOLUTELY CRAP ALL"

My understanding of what you are trying to say here (and correect me if I'm wrong or missing something) is that you think that by increasing the price of the game they will discourage people from buying it and therefore they will go outside more... Either I don't understand what you mean here or you have missed the point and don't understand what the bill is about. I don't mind accepting that I have misunderstood, but I need to understand why before I can accept it, so please explain this for me.

Also, from your last port:

"if it was a scheme to provide sports centres near all schools n kids say.. id support the NAME 100%

i was talking about the NAME. as in ‘no child left inside’ sounding needlessly charitable and like its doing a duty, when its not. "

But my point was: It is a scheme to provide things like sports centres for schools. This fact either makes your post contradictory or goes back to my first point of you not fully understanding what the bill is for. Again I am left confused...

Anyway, I do aplogise for any offence caused. You are correct and reasonable debate is always the best way :)

"Already gaming blogs are irate
and the gaming industry is crying Nanny State"

Hmmm... could be lyrics? Or Rap? Anywayz, it does rhyme :D

"These are, of course, obviously wholesome and reasonable goals, which is why the youth of New Mexico can be expected to resist them at all cost."

It's only funny because it's so true. ^_^

That name still gets me.

"No Child Left Inside..." right... that's TOTALLY not a warm fuzzy feel-good name for a law that isn't designed to do anything the name implies...

lol such bull crap

a 1% is opposed out of principal by me, but the idea that its there because a 1% tax will cause people to play outside more is BS!

ok Generic shooter x costs $59.99 - ill buy it..

(1%sales tax - $0.59)

so

$60.58 - OH MY GOD IM NOT PAYING THAT lets all go outside and help reduce the obesity figure....


so the reality of it is that it will do ABSOLUTELY CRAP ALL

so it has no benefit whatsoever, and even if it did, its not video games CAUSING it its a lack of personal responsibility, and ultimately whatever the % was its an UNFAIR tax

FAIL BOAT!

I like their play on No Child Left Behind because god knows that is working so well. Oh wait no its doing that other thing ummm what is it god help me Im so dumb since they initated No Child Left Behind.

So let's see they impose No Child Left Inside, and people then buy the games online so they dont have to pay the stupid tax. How does that help?

And my last comment Nanny State ..... I like that.

Nice try Nova, but you are forgetting the states sales tax. So, if the sales tax is 6% right now, on games and TV, it will then be 7%. Secondly, what if I am a bachelor, right out of college starting a new job, got a new apartment, and decided to go buy myself a $1,500 TV for it? sure its only 15 dollars extra, but now instead of paying $90 tax (6%) I will pay $105 (7%).

Why should I be punished, what is this program going to benefit me? I am being punshed because some stupid parents don't know how to unplug the TV from the wall?

@Nova and others...

I don't support this, but I feel like I need to point out something you seem to have missed.

The point of the tax is not to make children go outside because they can no longer afford to buy their games. The point is to tax games because they keep you inside and then use the money gathered from that tax to sponsor projects (in schools and such) that get children outside more.

I have no problem with this either, my only problem with this proposal is that the unfairly target games when lots of other things should fall into this area too. They should either target it all (Books, DVDs, Sofas, etc.) or forget about it and find a better way...

its like they cant make up their minds

on one hand ppl shouldnt go outside because apparently crime rates are so high due to all the violence our generation is exposed to..

then.. they shouldnt stay inside, so take away games so they can all go out n play in the violent streets they just said ppl were so afraid of...

The point of the name (aside from being cute) is to make it hard to be against just at face value.

For example, if I were to introduce a bill to raise all sales taxes up to 50% to fund children's hospitals and veterinary hospitals and called it "The Punching Babies And Strangling Puppies Is Bad Bill," I could then use the name of the bill to insinuate that whoever votes against the bill is in favor of punching babies and strangling puppies.

fat = fast
don't know how that happened

@ L42YB


if it was a scheme to provide sports centres near all schools n kids say.. id support the NAME 100%

i was talking about the NAME. as in 'no child left inside' sounding needlessly charitable and like its doing a duty, when its not.

Read my post, now who is failing? No need to be unneccessarily rude.


oh and read my VERY FIRST POST

I SAID "its not video games CAUSING it its a lack of personal responsibility, and ultimately whatever the % was its an UNFAIR tax"

'failed to read it ' did we? a certain phrase about a pot n kettle spring to mind. As you can see i DID read what the bill was about, but like i said i dont agree that its video games that CAUSE the problems in the first place, its a lack of personal responsibility. That was my opinion i thought i expressed, but ive just made it more clear for you. Hope that helps.

Again no need to get all high mighty on your valiant horse 'pedantic' and grunt like a gorilla fighting over territory. Lets just all be polite and have a reasonable discussion

Many tax laws are all about push marketing and no pull marketing. That's why they fail. Gasoline taxes and cigarette taxes prove the products being taxed on are highly inelastic.

I say they shouldn't have the tax as it is discriminating against gamers. Besides, schools are always broke because they waste their budget on stuff they want rather than what they need.

My high school used up so much money on sports and band and stuff and never had any money left for education.

sorry from my point aswell. I get heated in debates! apologies if i came across too strongly! (i was in a bad mood aswell! lol il try to keep cool headed!)

Yeah at first i didnt understand the entire premise, when i was looking at the 1% tax issue, i thought it was to make ppl go outside. However William and yourself pointed out the error in my logic!! (i thought it seemed a little bizaare a concept! lol)

Yeah, with regard to the name i dunno, i think i was just bugged that they are making it sound like they are some saints or something, helping poor little johnny who is stuck at home with only video games to keep him company whilst he crys onto his controller. I mean gaming is actually a really social thing in many cases!

Reading back over my comments about the name tho, yeah sorry i actually wasnt very clear. I meant for instance if it was a general 'access to sports centre' type scheme, paid for by perhaps a blanket tax equally on all goods, then i wouldnt have much of an issue with it. I was trying to say (although not very well!) that i dont agree with unfairly targeting say video games, treating them as if they are the cause of the 'children left inside'. I just think the name is made to be unccassarily emotive, and the fact its linked to videogames in particular, creates a kinda ( i dunno how to phrase this!) almost emotional blackmail on those deciding support, as if they dont support it they sound cruel and heartless, and that videogames are this evil thing that are causing children to be unhealthy and sad and alone locked up in their houses all day.

I kinda think i can see how in some cases (only SOME) perhaps excessive videogames can be a SYMPTOM of a lonly person, but to tar all kids playing games at home with one brush just strikes me as drumming support with unneccasary sensationalism.

Perhaps little johnny just plain doesnt like sports! (i HATED them). in that case whats wrong with him playing videogames, often socially with others, as long as he has a good diet and gets some other form of exercise?

hmm i dunno lol. im very tired as i write this so im probably not making much sense again.

And again, genuinely sorry for gettin flamed up, i can see we actually both share the same view that targeting videogames specifically is wrong and unfair (like you said in your first post hits it spot on.. what about books n films etc).

No hard feelings

Nova