An Oklahoma state representative wants to tax gamers

[puke_face]

http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/03/oklah ... iolent-vid

For those to lazy to click on the link:

An Oklahoma state representative wants to tax gamers. Introduced by the ironically named William Fourkiller, the bill would impose a 1 percent tax on "violent video games." Half of the revenue raised would go to an anti-obesity fund (the "Childhood Outdoor Education Revolving Fund"), and the other half would go to a bullying prevention fund. Taxing video games to stop childhood obesity and bullying—it's a nanny state trifecta!

In addition to the obvious libertarian outrages (it's a tax hike that could violate the First Amendment!) there are other flaws with the bill (SB 2696). First, it's far too broad:

As used in this section, “violent video game” means a video or computer game that has received a rating from the Entertainment Software Rating Board of Teen, Mature or Adult Only.

In other words, Teen-rated games like The Sims, Dance Central, or Guitar Hero would be included in the tax, even though they're non-violent. Brilliant.

Second, Fourkiller claims, “Violent video games contribute to some of our societal problems like obesity and bullying."

That's not actually true. A Michigan State University study tracked almost 500 kids' media habits and weight. Their results:

The team found that while video games were used more than the internet and cellphones, none of these activities predicted a child's weight or BMI. Instead they found that race, age and socioeconomic status were the strongest predictors.

In addition, Fourkiller assumes video games are for kids. But in fact, according to the Entertainment Software Association, the average age of a gamer is 37. So taxing adult gamers to fight childhood obesity is not exactly the most rational course of action.

Meanwhile for minors, the ESA points out, "Parents are present when games are purchased or rented 91 percent of the time." If parents truly objected to video games, then they shouldn't buy them for their kids. Children are the responsibility of their parents, not the state.

The part where Fourkiller assumes that video games are for kids made me laugh. My dad plays video games at the age of 48, my brother plays them at age 29, and I play them at age 26. I honestly know more adults that play console game than I do kids.

[Erik_Twice]

Herp Derp, which way should I pander to ignorant voters today?

Haha, loved this comment:

Jeff|2.3.12 @ 3:40PM|#

How about we tax violent names instead, eh, Fourkiller?

[puke_face]

Herp Derp, which way should I pander to ignorant voters today?

Haha, loved this comment:

Jeff|2.3.12 @ 3:40PM|#

How about we tax violent names instead, eh, Fourkiller?

LOL. I also liked this one-

When in the hell has this ever mattered to a statist? Once you claim something is "for the childrun!", it is forever thus, contrary facts be damned.

[J T]

There is an assumption here that videogames cause obesity and cause bullying. This is kind of like a sin tax on liquor. I don't like having that assumption built into law because there isn't solid research that causally links violent games to either bullying or obesity (there is correlational stuff, and experimental research that leads to fairly small and temporary increases in aggression, but not bullying per se). Perhaps we should tax people that work office jobs for long hours to help stop obesity, or tax competitive sporting to reduce bullying because competition is the primary factor responsible for the increased agression shown after playing videogames (the violence only marginally increases agression). Or maybe sin taxes are just kind of silly unless the "sin" can be clearly linked to an increased expense to tax payers, such as the financial toll of drunk driving accidents.

[AppleQueso]

Well that's goofy.

[puke_face]

There is an assumption here that videogames cause obesity and cause bullying. This is kind of like a sin tax on liquor. I don't like having that assumption built into law because there isn't solid research that causally links violent games to either bullying or obesity (there is correlational stuff, and experimental research that leads to fairly small and temporary increases in aggression, but not bullying per se). Perhaps we should tax people that work office jobs for long hours to help stop obesity, or tax competitive sporting to reduce bullying because competition is the primary factor responsible for the increased agression shown after playing videogames (the violence only marginally increases agression). Or maybe sin taxes are just kind of silly unless the "sin" can be clearly linked to an increased expense to tax payers, such as the financial toll of drunk driving accidents.

As far as the bullying/obesity go, I don't know. I never got bullied because I played a video game... I might have because I wasn't playing the "popular" game at the time, But I wouldn't really consider it bullying as much as just a light joke. I knew a few kids I went to school with who played pokemon and got bullied because of it. I know quite a few gamers that are not obese at all. So, my logic does not follow that of the legislature in Oklahoma.

As far as the tax is concerned, once somebody imposes a tax of any kind, it's more than likely going to go up at some point. It starts off as a 1% tax, then when kids keep getting more obese, or more kids are getting bullied (which they will), they will continue to use video games as the excuse, and up that tax to 5% and so on to further the "cause". Any way you look at it, taxing more is not the answer.

[REPO Man]

This law is asinine.

Although, I am infavor of funding something to curbstomp childhood obesity, but not like this. Maybe if game companies could get a benefit for donating cash to such a cause?

[Forlorn Drifter]

Add this to the list of reasons Oklahoma sucks...

[DinnerX]

Does anyone else suspect they just want to make more taxes?

[Dylan]

Does anyone else suspect they just want to make more taxes?

This is generally a given.