I actualy beleive this is a good idea. Exercise actualy does help you feel better and by doing so makes you enjoy games, besides 1% tax is nothing.

Partly, parents definately should make exercise a priority. But when they dont govorment can make simple legislations like this to change things for the better.

No, that example is diffirent. A very small tax increase that gives an optional benefit is quite diffirent then forcing people to not play violent videogames. Unless an extreme case arises govorment shouldent interfere with parenting, but offering help is good.

Im not sure about this but i believe that videogames and tv contribute alot more to obesity then snack foods.

Anyway I understand how you se it, but coming from a country were some people pay 60% income tax 1% on a videogame isent alot. It is less then the yearly inflation ration (i think so anyway).

But then again, using your argument i could claim that my tax money shouldent go to any kind of state funded project that i dont use, like schools and hospitals.

Just as a related aside, how much do you pay for games in the US?

And if you're applying a 1% tax to games and TV equipment, that's surely covering the two things that parents use to stop the children going outside to exercise?

I can't see a major problem here?

The_root_of_all_evil:
that's surely covering the two things that parents use to stop the children going outside to exercise?

Say what? Parents stopping the children from going outside? What kind of parents did you have that used to call "Timmy! Get in here and sit your butt down in front of that TV.. that nintendo's not going to play itself!" Doesn't sound like any parent I've ever known.

And I don't know about you, but I've seen kids play RPGs for a helluva lot longer at a sitting than I've seen them play videogames (unless it's Civilization we're talking about) Also, there's those dangerous book things. Apparantly, people who read books don't move for like hours on end.. less motion than when they play video games even. We should be taxing all of those as well if we're targetting causes of non-active behaviors.

Plus, at 1%, anybody who can afford a TV or a videogame isn't going to notice. This means that targetted taxation makes even less sense. The only reason you target taxation is to reduce an unwanted behavior.

The program is good. Generally taxing for the program is fine (IMO). Targetted taxation -- especially when it's obviously just pandering to certain prejudices -- is not.

Say what? Parents stopping the children from going outside? What kind of parents did you have that used to call "Timmy! Get in here and sit your butt down in front of that TV.. that nintendo's not going to play itself!" Doesn't sound like any parent I've ever known.

Not quite, the usual one I hear is "Timmy! I can't be bothered paying attention to you and I don't want you outside with all those druggies, hookers and paedos! Sit down with this and keep your gob shut!"

If you think I'm joking in any way, I have seen 7 year old with mobile and DS's just to keep them quiet.

Book tax is already way too high. RPG's have nearly died due to their high prices (And WOTC/GW doing monopoly grabs).

Targetting tax on industries that make millions of dollars would seem to be a better idea than industies that don't make that much.

How much does the average American pay for games though? Given that even with 1% you're still gonna be WAY lower than GB/Aus/Africa etc.

Money has to come from somewhere.

Actualy, that does make sense.

You have defeated me in this exchange of words.

Malygris:
But the "benefit" is optional, while the tax itself is mandatory. And why are we taxing videogames? Why not a tax on movie theatres? Or soft drinks? Or Doritos? Or music? There's a very big difference between "offering help" and cash-grab that panders to uninformed populism.

Taxed Doritos is the first thing that came to my mind. :)

This tax is true bollocks.
It's pointing fingers at certain media, making them responsible of parenting shortcomings.
I'm so glad this nonsense has failed.

The reasoning behind this tax project is just so flawed, you could find a billion other absurd leaps of logic to suggest taxes upon certain elements to favour unrelated systems, organizations or activities.

This is really leaving the door wide open for very bad jokes.

The parenting in the US (and I guess across the globe, though I dont really know) had gotten sickening to the point that it almost makes me want the government to install a parenting license. Almost.

I like the idea of money going to outdoor youth programs, though I think they should cut their spending to raise the money, instead of making new taxes. Is it just me, or do governments always seem to treat the people, (middle class especially) as a free source of money whenever they want a new program?

SilentHunter7:
The parenting in the US (and I guess across the globe, though I dont really know) had gotten sickening to the point that it almost makes me want the government to install a parenting license. Almost.

I like the idea of money going to outdoor youth programs, though I think they should cut their spending to raise the money, instead of making new taxes. Is it just me, or do governments always seem to treat the people, (middle class especially) as a free source of money whenever they want a new program?

You do realise that taxes arent about taking money? They are about distributing money for the good of the society at large.

Malygris:
By that reasoning, wouldn't it make more sense to invest the money into parental education programs, which might actually address the root cause of the problem rather than just the trendy symptom of the day?

Kids occasionally learn something, Parents almost never do. If they can't take their own child to the park, a course won't do anything. And what do you teach them?

Or, you know, if it's such an important issue, why don't they tax everyone through regular annual taxation, rather than a targeted sales tax?

Read my lips. No New Taxes.

Unpopular but...

Let me remind you that the average age of gamers in the US is 33 years, which might be a bit old to get a lot of value from outdoor education programs.

The same people who don't give a hoot who gets in to power as long as it's not that last one, so no votes lost.

I admit it's a little dishonest at best, but with a little more focus it 'could' be a good thing.

Is it just me, or do governments always seem to treat the people, (middle class especially) as a free source of money whenever they want a new program?

Because the working class don't have it, and the rich people are in the government. No real surprise.

sammyfreak:

You do realise that tax arent about taking money? They are about distributing money for the good of the society at large.

Of course it is. But milking the people dry is NOT good for the society at large. When the tax burden is so large, a family needs several incomes in order to make it to the next week, there's a problem. When people would have more money by NOT working, there's a problem. When 6-figure salary doctors pay less taxes than their minimum wage secretaries, there's a problem.

SilentHunter7:

sammyfreak:

You do realise that tax arent about taking money? They are about distributing money for the good of the society at large.

Of course it is. But milking the people dry is NOT good for the society at large. When the tax burden is so large, a family needs several incomes in order to make it to the next week, there's a problem. When people would have more money by NOT working, there's a problem. When 6-figure salary doctors pay less taxes than their minimum wage secretaries, there's a problem.

Doesnt the US have progressive tax? I always thought we did.

But there are some perks on having very high taxes, 100% free education and 99% free healthcare isent actualy rather nice. On the other hand low tax systems allow more individual progress but they also leave the poor and lower class people behind.

sammyfreak:

SilentHunter7:

sammyfreak:

You do realise that tax arent about taking money? They are about distributing money for the good of the society at large.

Of course it is. But milking the people dry is NOT good for the society at large. When the tax burden is so large, a family needs several incomes in order to make it to the next week, there's a problem. When people would have more money by NOT working, there's a problem. When 6-figure salary doctors pay less taxes than their minimum wage secretaries, there's a problem.

Doesnt the US have progressive tax? I always thought we did.

But there are some perks on having very high taxes, 100% free education and 99% free healthcare isent actualy rather nice. On the other hand low tax systems allow more individual progress but they also leave the poor and lower class people behind.

If by "progressive tax" you mean "living wage", then, no, we don't. Apparently, people in our government see a living wage as being like the EU (because European countries tend to have one). That and the rich corporate leaders don't want to lose $1Mil a year just to pay their minimum wage workers a decent wage. So, your average minimum wage worker, working 2 jobs (with the recent wage increase), still has a hard time making ends meet.

Everyone who says that a 1% tax isn't that much is absolutely right. However, it's the principal of the tax that we have a problem with. You're condemning gamers as a whole because of some parents who are "too busy" to go out and do things outdoors with there kids thus, contributing to obesity. And yes, I agree with The_root_of_all_evil when he said that about some parents. There are many who absolutely do not want to raise their kids. They pawn them off on whomever they please.

Yeah I am glad that this bullet was dodged. If one state allowed it, who knows how it would snowball. 2-3% in all of North America? *Shudder*

They should stick huge solar panels on the consoles, so you'd need to got out to play Halo and Mario.

And it's ecology friendly.

I will do that when they develope screens that work well outside.

I live in NM and this is just another in a long list of taxes being proposed every year by the state. This tax would do nothing more than fund other projects that are so far overbudget that they cant see daylight. Theres already adds on TV every day about getting out and seeing all of the beautiful open space NM has, adding a tax wont encourage people to get outside.

As far as progressive tax, he means people pay more taxes based on brackets for their income, and yes we have a progressive tax. The more money you make the higher percentage of your income you pay in direct fedral income tax. If you ever wonder why we dont have a solid living wage you should talk to some small business owners in your area. Im part of a family owned small Construction company. Every 1 dollar we pay to someone coasts us 2.50 or more. So that laborer high school kid we picked up for 8 dollars an hour costs the company 20. Between matching all of the employees taxes, insurances, etc the ammount you make is only a portion of whats being paid out. Most people go through life and never realize this. And now theres talk even at the state level of requiring businesses to pay for socialized health care. A little secret many people are unaware of is those costs go right back to you, we as a business dont actually pay them. Yeah, we write the check to the IRS, but the consumer pays the cost, not the company. It means our prices go up, and if we lose customers for being slightly too expensive, people get laid off.

Luckily this tax was pretty transparent and shot down, but there will be more attempts like this. The more you ask the government to do for you, the more they reach into your pocket book to do it. Oh well, i suppose personal responsibility is a thing of the past. People need the government to raise their kids for them and remind them to play outside. Ill remember that when im out playing teeball or running around the park with my 4 year old this weekend. we may even play some wii tennis if its cold out, if thats alright.

This actually might be a good idea. If you're going to levy a new tax to raise money for an educational program, putting said tax on a highly profitable industry isn't a bad idea.