OK Representative proposes Tax on 'Violent' Video Games

[senordesol]

The man's name is Fourkiller...Fourkiller. I think he wins the argument.

http://www.koco.com/r/30349958/detail.html

Basics: 1% tax on all 'violent' video games rated T-AO (~$0.50) to help fight childhood obesity/bullying. How will the tax help? Because...if you throw money at a problem it goes away, right?

 

[DarthVAlo]

Didn't you know, the best way to solve any problem is to tax it.[/sarcasm]

And how would a 1% tax on vidya games rated T and up help fight obesity? Does this representative think that all of a sudden parents are going to make their kids become active, or start feeding them healthy foods? Or is he trying to pander to a voter base that is largely conservative, and suck even more blood from the already bled dry stone that is the American taxpayer??

 

[Pimppeter2]

This actually makes sense. And .50 cents is pretty reasonable to me.

And how would a 1% tax on vidya games rated T and up help fight obesity? Does this representative think that all of a sudden parents are going to make their kids become active, or start feeding them healthy foods?

No, but he's going to funnel that money into programs that would cause that sort of thing. Such as building parks, promoting healthier lifestyles, and giving money to schools such they can afford healthier (and more expensive) food options.

Oh wait, you didn't read the article. Obviously.

 

[senordesol]

Didn't you know, the best way to solve any problem is to tax it.[/sarcasm]

And how would a 1% tax on vidya games rated T and up help fight obesity? Does this representative think that all of a sudden parents are going to make their kids become active, or start feeding them healthy foods? Or is he trying to pander to a voter base that is largely conservative, and suck even more blood from the already bled dry stone that is the American taxpayer??

For that matter, how is it going to help bullying? Does he think the bullies won't be able to front an extra fitty cent fot their CoD fix?

 

[Fatboy_41]

This actually makes sense. And .50 cents is pretty reasonable to me.

And how would a 1% tax on vidya games rated T and up help fight obesity? Does this representative think that all of a sudden parents are going to make their kids become active, or start feeding them healthy foods?

No, but he's going to funnel that money into programs that would cause that sort of thing. Such as building parks, promoting healthier lifestyles, and giving money to schools such they can afford healthier (and more expensive) food options.

Oh wait, you didn't read the article. Obviously.

There are already parks, and most governments already promote the shit out of "health lifestyles". I can't see more of the same causing any difference. Don't forget Einstein's little quote... "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result".

You wanna know what's making people fat? Do a little research on the bio-chemistry of Fructose and how it is processed in the human body. There is a lecture titled "Sugar - The bitter truth" which I urge everyone to watch. It's about an hour long and really breaks down the explanations of the scientific side of things for the ones that need it dumbed down, like me.

 

[Terminate421]

The problem is that they cannot tax a specific item like that....here in the US. I don't see a terrible problem in charging 50 cents....but the recent ESA vs. California pretty much made it impossible to specifically tax games.

 

[Pimppeter2]

This actually makes sense. And .50 cents is pretty reasonable to me.

And how would a 1% tax on vidya games rated T and up help fight obesity? Does this representative think that all of a sudden parents are going to make their kids become active, or start feeding them healthy foods?

No, but he's going to funnel that money into programs that would cause that sort of thing. Such as building parks, promoting healthier lifestyles, and giving money to schools such they can afford healthier (and more expensive) food options.

Oh wait, you didn't read the article. Obviously.

There are already parks, and most governments already promote the shit out of "health lifestyles". I can't see more of the same causing any difference. Don't forget Einstein's little quote... "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result".

You wanna know what's making people fat? Do a little research on the bio-chemistry of Fructose and how it is processed in the human body. There is a lecture titled "Sugar - The bitter truth" which I urge everyone to watch. It's about an hour long and really breaks down the explanations of the scientific side of things for the ones that need it dumbed down, like me.

Yeah, but doing more can't hurt. It isn't insane, it makes sense. We still give money to education and healthcare year after year, or tax cigarettes or Sugar Drinks year after year, we do those things for a reason. Its not insane.

I see it causing a difference. "There are parks" means nothing. Parks need to be maintained and renovated and improved so that kids keep coming. "There are schools" -does that mean we should stop building, expanding, and funding them? Anti-drug and anti-smoking promoting has caused a decrease in use. Drunk driving was no big deal back in the 80s and 90s, now its almost a cardinal sin. If you can't see that this sort of advertising works, then I'm afraid you're not looking too far.

I agree with you on that second paragraph. And I'll have to check out that film sometime. However, it is incredibly unlikely that all these companies that use the non-healthy choice in ingredient are going to change. Combating against their effect and control over the kids is important.

 

[burningdragoon]

Ok, so the idea is not terrible on its own, but there are a few things with it (or at least based on what's in the article)


"Violent video games contribute to some of our societal problems like obesity and bullying, but because they raise a lot of revenue, they can also provide part of the solution," said Fourkiller.

Yeah? Saying something is easy, and doing so doesn't make it true.


Fourkiller said half of the money would go into a bullying prevention fund and the other half would go to help get kids playing outside.

Oh, now that's a good idea, but what exactly will these things actually do? "Bully prevention fund" doesn't even sound like a thing.

Edit: Oh and another thing to add to the silliness of the idea. Look at this game that would be taxed to help prevent obesity:

 

[Hero in a half shell]

This just seems very half-assed. The first fundamental question you need to know about this proposition is how much money are we talking here? The article doesn't even give a guesstimate.

Here's my analysis of it:

Spoiler

In 2004 there was approximately 7.1 billion dollars worth of games sold.[footnote]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game#Game_sales ($6.2B console, $1.1B PC games)[/footnote] Now, if we optimistically round that up to $8 billion this year, then since it is 50p per unit (not per $) we need to find the number of games sold. The average price of a videogame last year was $38[footnote]http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/average-price-of-a-video-game-24-32/04088[/footnote]
So 8,000,000,000 / 38 = 210,526,315 games sold.

Now a 50 cent tax means halfing the number of games sold to come up with the amount of money raised by this tax, which comes out at:

$105,263,157

So the tax will raise a conservative estimate of $105 million, and the lawyer then wants it split this cash pool in two to create a fund for health and a fund for bullying.

So the proposal will create $52.5 million for anti-bullying measures, and $52 million for combating obesity. By the way, there are 62 million Americans under 20. Good luck with that.