I could see your argument if it were video games in general which were not eligible for R&D tax credits. However the bill specifies violent games specifically, which is just stupid.Veylon said:
Washington Tax Plan Would Punish Violent Game Makers
- Thread starter StewShearerOld
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Personally I've always believed in a flat-tax system as they are simple and they close a lot of the loopholes that many companies use. Problem is that will never come to be in the US because both major parties, Republican and Democrat, are basically in the pockets of companies and as a result they would lobby against such a thing. There are downsides to a flat-tax system yes, but compared to the current system we have know anything would be better.Big_Willie_Styles said:
The problem is the broken tax system. They legislate with taxes rather than laws. The government exercises most of its control by withholding funding to state governments, or withholding taxbreaks to companies. It keeps them from having to challenge the constitution.
Most political coverage I've seen places the highly optimistic window for any tax reform sometime around 2016. The more cynical would place it after 2019. Several analysts that I have read from say it's unlikely that any major bills will be passed at all in the mid term election year (this year).
The little analysis I've seen of the bill says it will cut 'entitlements' (so no democrats voting for it), and republicans really want to have a chance in the elections and aren't willing to touch anything that might be difficult.
The short version: This plan doesn't have a chance in hell.
The little analysis I've seen of the bill says it will cut 'entitlements' (so no democrats voting for it), and republicans really want to have a chance in the elections and aren't willing to touch anything that might be difficult.
The short version: This plan doesn't have a chance in hell.
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,172
- 150
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
Is this proposed amendment unconstitutional though? I'm no constitutional lawyer, I'm not even American, but I'm pretty the U.S. Constitution just prohibits the government from making laws that prohibit free speech. This on the other hand doesn't prohibit anyone from making any sort of game they want, it rather restricts tax credits to certain games. I don't see how lack of government support could reasonably be taken as actually infringing on a person's freedom of speech.GamemasterAnthony said:
And blaming just "liberals" isn't going to fix anything. Both parties are to blame for the current way things are done, and blaming just one side never gets anything done. Just like blaming only Republicans for being "too conservative", blaming Democrats for being "liberal" doesn't solve anything at all. So yes, there are some Republicans just like there are some Democrats pushing for reform, but both parties mainly won't do it because they will lose money in some way.Big_Willie_Styles said:
That's funny. It reads "Washington Tax Plan Would Punish Violent Game Makers", but is reads as "Conservative Party Makes Another Kneejerk Reaction At Things It Doesn't Understand Or Like", and then it interprets as "Stupid Politicians Wave Arms Ineffectually At Issue They Can't Actually Do Anything About". *Sigh*
Neronium said:
The pair of you need to understand that "loopholes" are not an inherent property of a progressive tax system. The extremely corporatist GOP wants a flat tax because such a system heavily favors big business and the very wealthy (and the rhetoric appeals to their simple-minded base). The slightly less extremely corporatist Democratic party favors keeping the current tax system because it to some degree obscures how heavily it favors big business and the very wealthy.Big_Willie_Styles said:
Our tax system is in principle (not execution) very good. The progressive rates mean the government can have adequate income for its needs without depriving those who cannot afford it and tax credits allow automatic adjustments based on the cost of living/doing business and provide the government a good means of incentivising beneficial behavior without unjust coercion.
A loophole is just a bad tax credit (or trade law, but that's not income tax related). Does anyone really consider claiming a dependent on your tax returns a loophole?
Promoting the free speech of nonviolent video games through tax credits can be seen as abridging the free speech of violent video games since this creates an inherently unfair marketplace of ideas.JoJo said:
I don't count that as a loophole, what I mean by loophole is the tax credit one gets if the parts are manufactured in other countries, are shipped to the US, and then assembled on shores here so then it can technically claim to be "made in the US" when it wasn't (Sony did that a lot with TVs back in the day where I live), or most the shit Apple does because I remember when they went before a committee for tax evasion (all they got was a slap on the wrist). You are right though in that a large problem with the system is that the execution and enforcement is what the real problem can be a lot of the time.Eldritch Warlord said:
As I stated earlier in this thread, the main problem I have with this is that the bill only labels "violent" video games as receiving the tax, when if they are going to do something like this shouldn't it be applied to the entire industry in general no matter if they make "violent" games or not?
And I can say Republicans don't wanna do anything while Democrats do when it comes to bills in the House and Senate as well, seeing as the Republicans control the House and the Democrats control the Senate, and we'd still be nowhere. You call it a fallacy, but the fact is that both parties in control rather fight each other than actually get things done. Now I can see that we're probably not going to agree on this so I'm just leaving it at that and leaving the thread, I've already said what I've wanted to say.Big_Willie_Styles said:
I'm all aboard defending game creators and violent games against ridiculous claims like they promote acts of violence between people. However, a tax credit is a whole other matter. I could not care less if game makers lose tax credits, especially for making violent games.
Yes, by all means the government should incentivise educational and non-violent games. At the very least it might encourage some more variety in the games market, which is so over-saturated with lazy violent games that do the same exact gameplay because doing yet another game about blowing off heads is easy.
Yes, by all means the government should incentivise educational and non-violent games. At the very least it might encourage some more variety in the games market, which is so over-saturated with lazy violent games that do the same exact gameplay because doing yet another game about blowing off heads is easy.
Couldn't agree more with this sentiment. Really there are very few politicians nowadays who will actually try to change things nowadays unless their party agrees with it, and so moderate politics on both major sides has pretty much become a rarity. Washington has become more of an ideological battle than actually wanting to run the country to benefit the people. (although some argue that was never their purpose, I like to believe it was)Gary Thompson said:
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: