Washington Tax Plan Would Punish Violent Game Makers
- Thread starter StewShearerOld
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's worse than that, "Washington Tax Plan" would, you know, reasonably, be a Tax Plan for Washington state, you know, the legislature in Olympia, WA. But, this is about a federal tax, you know, wedged awkwardly between Virginia and Maryland, on the opposite side of the country, with much more reach and importance.FalloutJack said:
I made the comment knowing that it probably meant DC. I'm more-or-less figuring that the inane look of the statement, the general stupidity of the GOP members as seen in their individual 'contributions' (such as previous ridiculous announcements that reach our ears), and of course that whole government shutdown thing will kill any steam this has so that it can be beaten down with the ugly stick it deserves.Starke said:
I know this can be a bit much to ask, but could you just ignore the executive summary that's mostly just a propaganda piece to get votes and actually read the part of the draft that references games.
Here is the actual Draft of the bill.
You're only looking for things pertaining to the Research and Experimental tax credit, and Software. You'll never see Violent mentioned anywhere in the draft, and if it does anything it would probably eliminate it for both violent and non-violent games. Since the intention is to eliminate most exemptions I wouldn't be very shocked by that.
Here is the actual Draft of the bill.
You're only looking for things pertaining to the Research and Experimental tax credit, and Software. You'll never see Violent mentioned anywhere in the draft, and if it does anything it would probably eliminate it for both violent and non-violent games. Since the intention is to eliminate most exemptions I wouldn't be very shocked by that.
There is a bit of an inaccuracy here. The link you provided isn't actually the bill. It's promotional material for the bill to give people a synopses of what my come for vote and attract like-minded voices to the cause. There is a big difference. This is the discussion draft for the bill here: <a href=http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/statutory_text_tax_reform_act_of_2014_discussion_draft__022614.pdf>bill draft, as well as <a href=http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/ways_and_means_section_by_section_summary_final_022614.pdf>section by section draft, and <a href=http://waysandmeans.house.gov/newtaxsection/jct-tax-reform-materials.htm>technical explanations, . Even still, these are drafts for moving the bill and not necessarily the bill itself.StewShearer said:
That particular element seems suspect and unlikely to get far (interestingly, that element is absent from all draft documents). The term "violent" in the context of gaming has not been given a legislative definition. Even in the drafts linked above niether the word "game" (in a video game context) nor "violent" (in any gaming related context) are anywhere to be found. It could be that the drafters haven't decided how they want to propose a definition for those terms for the purposes of the bill, or it could be that they want to include it as an afterthought to see if they can sneek it in to legislation, or any number of other reasons - including its being in the promotional material just because it's on the GOP platform to show voters that their representatives are working in the service of morally conservative constituencies - possibly just for show (people will take the time to read promotional material but not many will study an entire piece of proposed tax code). This absence of two key terms from the draft is important because in law, constitutional or otherwise, terms that have a material effect on the law in question must have legal definitions - apart and often different from the common use. For the purposes of this bill "violent" must be given a very specific definition; otherwise, no one will understand how to implement it. Call of Duty, God of War, MGS, are inarguably violent. But what about other games? "Catherine" for example, isn't violent in its game mechanics, but the subtext could be considered quite violent. "Pokemon" is akin to dog fighting in its mechanics. Mario stomps turtles and kicks them down cliffs; and that is animal curelty. I used examples increasing in absurdity to illustrate how lack of definition lets the logic of how to apply the term in a legislative proposal run amok.
Further, the term "violent" (in reference to game makers) itself, even if given an adequate legal definition for the purposes of the bill, will likely be too broad. Because it would apply to so many game makers as to be nearly a blanket concept. Part of why our legal system, particularly when it comes to taxes, is so convoluted is because there are so many checks and ballances. Our system doesn't generally like legislation that is too sweeping or that covers so much ground it can't neatly check dozens if not hundreds of little boxes of defining and specifying and applying. The other side would argue - likely, with success - that application of this aspect of any proposed legislation would be too difficult, too broad, and so sweeping as to be unduely punitive.
I don't really intend to defend the Democratic party, but surely you realize that each of those positions is simply the opposition corporate/wealthy interests. They all only exist because of some harm caused by corporate exploitation.Big_Willie_Styles said:
Unions wouldn't exist if workers were compensated well enough (but compensating workers decreases profit). The AAJ wouldn't oppose tort reform if they didn't think it would cause injustice (but paying legal fees and tort reparations costs corporations money). Environmentalists wouldn't oppose Keystone XL and fracking if they didn't think they would lead to a great deal of environmental harm (but tarsands and natural gas are such a great source of profit).
Consider which side of these issues has the money to influence politicians and the press to their side. Then imagine how and why the opposition exists anyway.
Big_Willie_Styles said:
Big_Willie_Styles said:
Right, and the Republicans were so invested in major tax reform that the 109th Congress did a bang up job of getting it done. I'm not a leftist nor particularly Liberal. If anything, I tend to lean to the right, especially when it comes to government power and the protection of liberty, but the idea that the Republicans would get so much done if the Dems just weren't in the way is nonsense. If they wanted major tax reform enough, they could have had it.
Just like the Dems, the Republicans love to pass bills when they know those same bills are going to get shot to pieces by the other side. It's easy to throw your ideas around and pretend to be the victim when the other side squashes them. But what happens when the Republicans actually get in power? All that big talk vanishes and almost nothing changes. The Republiucans raised the debt ceiling again and again when they were in power, and as soon as they lost power, raising the debt ceiling wasn't just a bad idea, it was flat or morally unjustifiable!
A pox on both their houses indeed!
What can I say? The Conservative Party makes the loudest and most disagreeable faux pas ever seen, apologizes for none of them, and makes big roaring complaints in public view when things don't go their way. My boss listens to Repub radio. It's hilarious.Big_Willie_Styles said:
Alternate Character Interpretation, eh? I see you discuss politics alot. Well, that won't distract me. You know what I'm talking about.Big_Willie_Styles said:
What does any of that have to do with what I'm saying? The Republicans know that Reid's not going to let that legislation get to the Senate floor, that's WHY they're sending so much of it over, so they can play it up like they'd totally fix things if the Dems would just get out of the way. But we saw what happened to tort reform, immigration reform and tax reform when the Republicans held both houses and the Presidency. A fat lot of almost nothing. Did the 108th and 109th give us any of those big ideas the Republicans are screaming for, or was it business as usual with a bunch of debt ceiling hikes thrown in for good measure?Big_Willie_Styles said:
This is one of the stupidest, most pigheaded provisions I have ever seen. I don't care to protect publishers or their tax credits, but just from the view of good American fiscal policy this is stupid.
America's biggest export is entertainment products. That includes movies, TV shows, music and video games. These are industries we want to be supporting and keeping competitive, because they bring in a lot of foreign dollars. Some idiot is trying to backdoor an attack on "violent" video games, which is a murky thing to define at best, while possibly weakening a domestic industry which helps balance out our tremendous trade deficit.
Stupid.
America's biggest export is entertainment products. That includes movies, TV shows, music and video games. These are industries we want to be supporting and keeping competitive, because they bring in a lot of foreign dollars. Some idiot is trying to backdoor an attack on "violent" video games, which is a murky thing to define at best, while possibly weakening a domestic industry which helps balance out our tremendous trade deficit.
Stupid.
We'll try a new tack:Big_Willie_Styles said:
Why are you in favor of private school vouchers, tort reform, Keystone XL, and fracking?
In looking to reform education we should study the examples of other countries. Nordic countries have highly successful education, Finland in particular. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland] Finland has fully unionized teachers and no American-style private schools.Big_Willie_Styles said:
Case study on hydro fracking. [http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/hydrofracking_w.html]
Regarding the efficiency and safety of oil pipelines compared to other transportation methods. [http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/peter-goelz/oil-by-rail-vs-pipelines-safety-records_b_4262327.html] On the difficulties associated with tarsands in particular. [http://tcktcktck.org/2013/04/spill-derail-leak-crash-a-week-in-the-tar-sands-industry/49747]
Wild claims? The 108th and 109th Congress were Republican majorities in both houses. Whether or not they had a filibuster proof majority is not the issue, the issue is whether they even tried to press their advantage in a meaningful way to create reform on tort, immigration or tax reform. They didn't and it's a matter of public record for anyone interested in looking. They also did raise the debt ceiling again and again, which is also a matter of public record. My claims about what the 108th and 109th did and did not accomplish are all a matter of record.Big_Willie_Styles said:
But you know what, I think I'm done debating with you too. After yesterday's debate over Net Neutrality in which you responded by dropping some op-ed that addressed none of my points when you said it addressed all of them and then brushing aside my speculation about what the Republicans are currently trying to accomplish in light of what they failed to accomplish when they were in power, I get the feeling you aren't interested in debate at all. You've given me no reason to expect that you'll actually address anything I have to say except to hand-wave it aside. I am left feeling like you are arguing in bad faith, which is too bad as I think you and I would probably agree on a lot of things. If i'm over reacting then I apologize, but I'm not going to waste a bunch of time formulating my points if you aren't going to bother even responding to them.