Video games and TV sets could be subject to a 1% sales tax in New Mexico if a coalition of environmental groups has its way.
As reported by the Huffington Post:
The tax idea, initiated by the Sierra Club, would raise an estimated $4 million a year, to fund programs aimed at giving school kids an outdoors education.
Michael Casaus, the New Mexico youth representative for the Sierra Club, referred to the tax proposal as part of the "Leave No Child Inside" movement, and said:
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.
GameDaily reports that New Mexico legislators failed to pass a similar measure in 2007.
GP: The New Mexico proposal continues what may be a new political trend as elected officials begin to consider video games as a potential source of tax revenue.
Much has been written, of course, about Wisconsin State Sen. Jon Erpenbach's ongoing attempt to fund a juvenile justice program via a levy on games and consoles. And the Maryland legislature considered, but ultimately rejected, a proposal to tax video game arcades last year.
Comments
Re: New Mexico Considers Tax on Video Games
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>
@xzero87
That's gold, I tell you. GOLD!
This being said, I'm quite skeptical about this kind of tax.
Both video games and TV sets do keep children in doors a lot... and learning school stuff out in the world (as opposed to learning it in a stuffy classroom) is never a bad thing.
At least it's not like the US attempts, which try to fund a "juvenile justice program" using a tax on games. That implies that games are partly responsible for this crime, which is nonsense. Video Games reduce crime... but they do keep kids in doors ;)
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."
New Mexico is in the US - these are both US state attempts rather then national US attempts. In the US states have control over much of their taxation.
:$
Please excuse my ignorance :)
Orgasm tax? The way we do things around here, they'd probably use the money to fund abstinence education.
@ L42yB
No worries :)
2) "No Child Left Inside?" How about we worry about making sure kids can read, write and know some basic math by the time they leave high school? How's that for a better start?
I get sickened by all of these special interest groups trying to inject their politics and their agendas into a child's education when our schools have been failing to teach the basics.
"It’s also saying that the reason kids aren’t going outside is because of video games which is also crap"
No, it's saying that video games are a contributing factor, and as far as I know, most video games are indeed played inside. And even if you happen to take your DS outside, that still won't give you much in ways of physical exercise.
"Or maybe we shouldn’t try to socially engineer people through subtle economic incentives"
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.
@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.
I mean, what does that even mean?
"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'm so tired of old people over-reacting to video games. Yes. Kids should get outside more. But put that responsibility on the parents! Don't tax everyone who plays games!
Anyway, I'm just very glad I don't live in New Mexico.
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.
Second, this assumes people would use these facilities and such. There are two main things getting in the way of an active lifestyle for children.
A) Parents unwilling to take children to parks and such except on rare occassions. They are just too busy, and by the way, don't go outside when your parents aren't home. In general, TV and Video Games accommidate the "hands off" approach to parenting nowadays.
B) Terror State. Just watch the news, man. It's a terrifying world out there. You have pedophiles ready to steal your child (very rare), terrorists targeting public spaces (even more rare), and razor blades in apples on Halloween (never fucking happened). So the day and age of children being able to ride their bikes to a park without parents going apeshit is long gone.
Now, am I opposed to this? Actually, if it was fair and across the board, no. Hell, I paid state tax on my WOW membership but I know other people paid on similar services outside of gaming as well.
If they want to tax this, then it's simple. It has to be a universal tax, period. Also, they have to be VERY open with the revenue it will generate.
Why not focus on using the tax to shift consumers towards game companies that are environmentally responsible? Less packaging, less waste, less electricity used, etc.
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.
Since when is the Government taking more of the money you earn a good thing?
I'd suspect, it might well serve kids better if parents had more money available. In some cases, it might be used to send kids to better schools, take them on vacation, etc... who knows?
Soon, they'll be adding even more taxes... and them more and then more.. and then more.. when will it no longer be 'good'?
"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 ;)
For example: Using a new videogame tax that is supposed to fund a program to encourage kids to go outside more. Lets say the program actually works, and kids do go out more and begin to buy fewer games.
Uh Oh! Now, with fewer games being bought, there is less tax revenue to support the program. So what is to be done? They, of course, raise the taxes because the program is so important to the health of our children. and so it goes year after year. Lets see how expensive games become then.
A punitive tax attatched to a program designed to eliminate the behavior bing taxed will always balloon. It's designed that way and you all fall for it every damn time.
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.
Any environmentalist group I've ever seen is always extremely concerned about the impact people have on the environment when they go hiking. They bring bags/bottles to store their waste, they make sure not to leave trash around etc. Things children are simply not going to do.
Then there is the impact of hundreds of family's driving their SUV's to a hiking trail releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.
As for obesity, the way we live our lives today from the jobs we preform, the things we do for entertainment, the way we spend our free time, and the foods we eat have dramatically changed over the past 20-30 years. It took a number of factors from the IT Boom, to "Fast food", movies, games, and Television to make people put on large amounts of weight. If you think that getting people to go hiking is going to solve the problem then your sadly mistaken.
Did anyone really think this plan through? Yea I'm sure it sounded good on paper "Games made 17 billion last year we can cash in on it...." and then they'll put those tax dollars into a fund that gets raided year after year to pay for things it wasn't intended for. No one is actually going to use the money to encourage children to stop playing games and instead go hiking.
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.
I can't believe I screwed up on the math so bad....
Guess I was thinking 10%.
Well, allow me to show that I actually did graduate High school at least.
On a $60 dollar game, that 60 cents in taxes.
On a $300 dollar system, that 3 dollars in taxes.
On a $1000 dollar TV, that's 10 dollars in additional taxes.
And on a $10,000 Flat Screen, that would be $100 dollars.
See? I are teh smartest!
OK. I'll admit that I did horrible math in my original post. However I did a quick search to find out what the New Mexico sales tax is. According to the information I found (linked below) New Mexico has a 6.35% sales tax (my home state has a 6.95% sales tax). So, the total tax on video games and televisions would be just over 7%. My original math was a little closer to what the full amount you would pay in taxes would be. While I can't erase the embarrassment of such a total screw up, I can at least provide some more accurate information on sales taxes.
http://www.thestc.com/STrates.stm
@ EZK and L42yB
Thanks for calling me on the horrendous math. I honestly wouldn't have double checked myself. Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'll play some Math Blaster to brush up on my mathematics (looks like I need it).
mine taught me to get out of the house and play and eat healty.
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 can't wait for the "Infect Truth" ads about videogames 10-20 years from now.
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.
If I had a vote in the matter, I would vote no. First of all, it's a new tax. Government already takes ~ 30% cut of my paycheck. Then another 7% or more on everything I buy. Why don't you use the ~ $20,000 I gave them last year a bit better? Do you really need the extra $6 from the games I will buy this year?
Maybe, as someone else mentioned, if it funded tech education. That way, there aren't any negative connotations. But not this one.
Actually, I'm pro bans-on-soda because it helps teach children about underground economies and how banned substances still find their way to the marketplace in spite of draconian authority efforts.
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?
We'll have a pretty awesome army of RC robots controlled by only the most hardened FPS and flight sim gamers, so no one wil mess with us. Our command structure could be comprised of RTS champions. We'de be unstoppable.
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.
Doesn't that place already exist? I thought it was called Montana.
As long as everyone can remember that FF is on, that is.