Tax Violent Video Games

[Scouse]

Not what I'm saying, but apparently Gordo's getting advised to do so.

I wouldn't put it past Labour to whack a tax on video games in the future. They've a lot of money to make up and they're a massive fan of stealth taxes so, maybe, watch this space...

 

[ECA]

200% tax works fine for me.

I'll send 2 copies of my torrents over to the govt on dvd.

 

[Billargh]

"It's not clear that there is a connection between violent video games and knife crimes in Britain, but knife crime adviser Richard Taylor says that young people in his country can buy violent video games too easily and too cheaply."

Alternatively, you can just download them for fuck all, now that's nice 'n cheap!

 

[Mey]

I wish the people advising the govt. would wake up and realise that the link between violent media and crime is a joke. There is only so long you can blame knife crime on video games for.

I also wish that the govt/media would stop playing up Knife Crime, it really isn't as big a problem as everyone thinks it is.

 

[ECA]

I wish the people advising the govt. would wake up and realise that the link between violent media and crime is a joke. There is only so long you can blame knife crime on video games for.

I also wish that the govt/media would stop playing up Knife Crime, it really isn't as big a problem as everyone thinks it is.

Yes but if it wastes some news cycle time on omg knife crime rather than omglabourlolwtf it's a + for labour!

 

[old.Tohtori]

I wish the people advising the govt. would wake up and realise that the link between violent media and crime is a joke.

They actually did an EU study that games improve kids yada yada...but it was quickly buried.

 

[Cadelin]

How would that work? Tax on any games with a 18 rating?

If that's the case I can see games being released with blood affects removed language toned down to get a 15 rating to avoid tax. Then you simply go and download a free modification which puts back the blood etc.

Also a 5% tax doesn't sound very much? Thats about £2 to a game. If the tax is small I can't see it having any affect, or it might actually have a negative affect with games making a point of being so violent they need to be taxed. In the same way ASBO are like a badge in some parts of the country.

 

[MYstIC G]

Also a 5% tax doesn't sound very much? Thats about £2 to a game. If the tax is small I can't see it having any affect, or it might actually have a negative affect with games making a point of being so violent they need to be taxed. In the same way ASBO are like a badge in some parts of the country.

Grrr, why do people say things like this. It makes your viewpoint ambiguous. Either be for or against it, saying stuff like this gives them guts to do stuff like this because your reaction will be "meh" rather than "fuck off wankers"

 

[Wij]

meh

 

[RandomBastard]

meh

I see your meh and raise you a "meh you can fuck off you wankers"

 

[Furr]

haha, what! this is dumb surely?

 

[Milkshake]

Remember, we already get taxed on this - 15%. And more if you count the tax on the money we earn.

Sons of bitches

 

[Cadelin]

Grrr, why do people say things like this. It makes your viewpoint ambiguous. Either be for or against it, saying stuff like this gives them guts to do stuff like this because your reaction will be "meh" rather than "fuck off wankers"

I don't yet have a view point because the system has not been explained. The article is ambiguous. I was asking for clarification.

If you look at the current UK government borrowing you will notice that more taxes will have to applied somewhere. Computer games are clearly a luxury and could an additional tax here raise money?

There are many games now aimed at children that also include learning elements, would it be right to tax these or just the games with no obvious benifit (which are generally just the violent ones)?

And yes, my initial response probably does indicate that if it was implemented I wouldn't be upset. They are not talking about banning anything, just taxing it and computer games are such a small part of my expenditure that I wouldn't actually notice.

 

[Ch3tan]

Why stop at video games then? Movies, tv programs, documentaries. As has been said by someone with half a brain, we already get taxed on these things. I hope this idea dies a quick death.

 

[Cadelin]

Why stop at video games then? Movies, tv programs, documentaries. As has been said by someone with half a brain, we already get taxed on these things. I hope this idea dies a quick death.

We might well be already taxed but that isn't covering what the government is spending. I am sure it won't stop at just video games either.

 

[Scouse]

I don't yet have a view point because the system has not been explained.

So you don't have a viewpoint about existing levels of appropriation of wealth and how additional taxation would affect that?

Do you think it's fair that tax is levied on:

A) raw materials
b) what producers produce using the raw materials
c) what distributors distribute
d) what we earn before spending
e) what we spend our already-taxed money on
f) and fuckloads in between

Do you honestly think tax is as low as 40% of our income?...

 

[DaGaffer]

There are many games now aimed at children that also include learning elements, would it be right to tax these or just the games with no obvious benifit (which are generally just the violent ones)?

Interesting. So the correct moral response to violent video games is for the government to say "we're not going to stop violent games, we just want our cut". Sort of "Tax by Daily Mail" if you will. This creates all kinds of interesting possibilities...

 

[Milkshake]

As has been said by someone with half a brain...blah

 

[Ch3tan]

It was a compliment, considering some of the views expressed in this thread.

 

[Cadelin]

So you don't have a viewpoint about existing levels of appropriation of wealth and how additional taxation would affect that?

Do you think it's fair that tax is levied on:

A) raw materials
b) what producers produce using the raw materials
c) what distributors distribute
d) what we earn before spending
e) what we spend our already-taxed money on
f) and fuckloads in between

Do you honestly think tax is as low as 40% of our income?...

How is this relevant to this individual case?

We don't yet know what the Government intends to do. I will reserve judgement on Damilola Taylor's father until he publishes his full report and not rely on a few quotes in a biased article.

In theory I do not have a problem with a tax on video games (violent or otherwise) anymore than any other tax on goods. However as I have said before, if the implementation of this tax is done poorly it could create problems that I would be against which is why I asked for clarification.

 

[Scouse]

How is this relevant to this individual case?

In theory I do not have a problem with a tax on video games

/fluffles Cadelin

Bless. You don't understand that there's already tax on video games and don't understand the point of principle of whether we pay too much tax already or not...

...ah well

Edit: Oh, and what the FUCK has Damilola Taylor's father got to do with anything? If my kid got shot then I hope that would exclude me from being a government advisor because I'd be bitter and fucked up.

 

[Ch3tan]

But you are already taxed on them. Do you really think retailers and publishers will absorb this cost. No, the cost will be passed on to us, the consumer.

 

[Cadelin]

Interesting. So the correct moral response to violent video games is for the government to say "we're not going to stop violent games, we just want our cut". Sort of "Tax by Daily Mail" if you will. This creates all kinds of interesting possibilities...

I didn't say anything about morals, I was simply pointing out that it will be difficult in practise to define what exactly a constitutes a game and what constitutes violence.

Also if we assume for the sake of argument here that violent video games do have a bad affect on society then yes that is the correct thing to do. Just like alcohol and cigarettes etc. The government don't ban them (they allow us to keep our choices), they just tax them and (we hope) use the revenues to pay for things that will offset the bad things caused by them.

 

[Bullitt]

Most points have already been made here. As an aside anyone want to bet how long until games are linked to the shootings in Germany and Alabama today?

I give them two days

 

[Ch3tan]

It is by no means the correct thing to do. The correct thing to do would be socially responsible adults who do not pamper their kids and let them play and buy media that is not appropriate for their age.

 

[Cadelin]

/fluffles Cadelin

Bless. You don't understand that there's already tax on video games and don't understand the point of principle of whether we pay too much tax already or not...

...ah well

Are you trying to argue semantics? Of course I know we are already being taxed on goods but that doesn't prevent that tax being increased. But just for you I will repeat what I was saying:
In theory I do not have a problem with an increase in tax on video games (violent or otherwise) anymore than any other increase in tax on goods.

Edit: Oh, and what the FUCK has Damilola Taylor's father got to do with anything? If my kid got shot then I hope that would exclude me from being a government advisor because I'd be bitter and fucked up.

Please tell me you read the article? Its the father of a murdered child that is making the suggestion here. As I have said many times, it is certainly not clear that the government will follow his suggestions.

 

[DaGaffer]

I didn't say anything about morals, I was simply pointing out that it will be difficult in practise to define what exactly a constitutes a game and what constitutes violence.

Also if we assume for the sake of argument here that violent video games do have a bad affect on society then yes that is the correct thing to do. Just like alcohol and cigarettes etc. The government don't ban them (they allow us to keep our choices), they just tax them and (we hope) use the revenues to pay for things that will offset the bad things caused by them.

Except in the case of booze and fags, both things were taxed before they became a societal "problem" (I know there's always been some moral indignation about both in certain quarters) purely on the basis of their value to the exchequer. The moral aspect for both came later.They "allow us to keep our choices" (ooh, thanks), because it makes financial sense and because we've been brainwashed into thinking high duties on booze and fags are for our own good, so its easy to keep going back to the well, and because at the same they know outright prohibition would be a vote-losing disaster. If they did it with games, they'd be making the moral case upfront; and to an audience that generally disagrees with their conclusions.

 

[Cadelin]

Except in the case of booze and fags, both things were taxed before they became a societal "problem" (I know there's always been some moral indignation about both in certain quarters) purely on the basis of their value to the exchequer. The moral aspect for both came later.They "allow us to keep our choices" (ooh, thanks), because it makes financial sense and because we've been brainwashed into thinking high duties on booze and fags are for our own good, so its easy to keep going back to the well, and because at the same they know outright prohibition would be a vote-losing disaster. If they did it with games, they'd be making the moral case upfront; and to an audience that generally disagrees with their conclusions.

As Scouse has pointed out video games are already taxed.

 

[Scouse]

Oh piss off Cadelin. You're changing your argument and ignoring others. By that rationale it's OK to raise taxes on fucking everything...

 

[Chilly]

its already fucking taxed. VAT anyone?