New Mexico Videogame Tax Proposal Fails

[Andy Chalk]

New Mexico Videogame Tax Proposal Fails

A proposed tax on videogames in New Mexico has been shot down by legislators.

The 1 percent tax, which would have been applied to televisions as well as videogames and gaming equipment, was meant to be used for the creation of the "Leave No Child Inside" fund, which would have helped pay for outdoor education programs in the state. Proponents of the tax said outdoor programs improve classroom performance, increase self-confidence and teach children discipline, the Associated Press [http://kob.com/article/stories/S348020.shtml?cat=500] reported.

But critics of the tax, which would have been the first of its kind in the U.S., said they were being unfairly penalized because of "parents who don't know how to raise their children." The tax proposal, HB583 [http://legis.state.nm.us/Sessions/08%20Regular/bills/house/HB0583.html], failed to pass through the New Mexico Legislature.

According to a representative of the New Mexico Sierra Club, one of the key supporters of the tax, the vast majority of New Mexico students live within a half-hour of a state park, but fewer than ten percent have ever visited one.


Permalink

 

[sammyfreak]

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.

 

[Andy Chalk]

So you support the notion of punitive taxes in lieu of responsible parenting?

 

[sammyfreak]

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.

 

[Andy Chalk]

Do you think the government should ban the sale of violent videogames?

 

[sammyfreak]

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.

 

[Andy Chalk]

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.

 

[sammyfreak]

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.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

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]

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.

 

[Andy Chalk]

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? 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? 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.

 

[sammyfreak]

Actualy, that does make sense.

You have defeated me in this exchange of words.

 

[Arbre]

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.

 

[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?

 

[sammyfreak]

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.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

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.

 

[SilentHunter7]

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.

 

[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.