Tax Violent Video Games

[Syri]

"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!

true, true. And I highly doubt anyone who would go stab someone is going to decide to take a stand against video game piracy...
would be yet another case of the honest person paying for the mistakes of others.

 

[Cadelin]

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

Yes it is OK to raise taxes.

My arguments haven't changed. All I am saying is there is not enough information to make a judgement. (and that having a tax on computer games is not necessarily a bad thing)

I wasn't even disagreeing with anyone. MysticG commented on me not having an opinion and I tried to explain why I thought I couldn't yet make one.

 

[Scouse]

Yes it is OK to raise taxes.

What? All the time? On everything? It's just "OK" is it? No consequences?

Why is it OK?

 

[Cadelin]

What? All the time? On everything? It's just "OK" is it? No consequences?

Why is it OK?

Taxes can have a positive as well as a negative affect on society. Unless we are presented with more evidence then we can't make a judgement. It is therefore "OK" or "meh" until we have more information.

In this particular case, the proposed tax is on video games. We have very few specifics currently but what we do know is that video games are a luxury item.

Now if we were to find out more information about this tax, for example say they just proposed slapping £40 onto the price of all video games I would be against this. It would hurt the developers and increase game piracy.

However if there was say a £10 tax that was carefully targeted which encouraged game designers to be more responsible but without adversely affecting them if they did want to produce a blood bath then I think this could be a good thing.

As I said in my first post, it depends on how the whole thing is implemented.

 

[nath]

However if there was say a £10 tax that was carefully targeted which encouraged game designers to be more responsible but without adversely affecting them if they did want to produce a blood bath then I think this could be a good thing.

You're OK with the government deciding what media is acceptable for public consumption? I'm fucking not.

 

[Cadelin]

You're OK with the government deciding what media is acceptable for public consumption? I'm fucking not.

Firstly the government already does that. The British board of film classification rates (and edits) films. There is also a whole list of things from child (or other extreme) porn to material that could be useful for terrorist or that would incite racial hatred that is all banned by the government. The reasons may be different (and usually very valid) but it is still the government deciding for us.

Secondly placing an additional tax on games won't stop you playing them so I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make?

 

[Scouse]

Taxes can have a positive as well as a negative affect on society. Unless we are presented with more evidence then we can't make a judgement. It is therefore "OK" or "meh" until we have more information.

Fail! It's not "therefore OK" to change the taxation until we have more info. It's totally illogical.

And you say you don't moralise:

However if there was say a £10 tax that was carefully targeted which encouraged game designers to be more responsible but without adversely affecting them if they did want to produce a blood bath then I think this could be a good thing.

There's a moral judgement there. The moral judgement is that it is "more responsible" not to create games with "bloodbaths" in them.

How is it more responsible? Why? Does your "common sense" say so?

If "common sense" was any fucking use we wouldn't need painstaking investigation, or science. Common sense should be renamed "common nonsense" because time and again it's proven to be wrong.

Intuition is a SHIT guide.

 

[GReaper]

Why are we even giving this article any attention? It's just the father of Damilola Taylor, it's not as if he's part of any Government organisation or anything else significant - he's just an unpaid volunteer who has the glorious title of special envoy as Gordon Brown wants to appear tough on knife crime.

What next? Is he going to suggest that knives are taxed to help prevent knife crime? Maybe we should ban any aggressive sports as well - they're bound to cause problems!

 

[Scouse]

Firstly the government already does that.

Ah. I think I figured it out. You're either a sheep or a troll.

Answer his question. Nath asked if you thought it was right for the government to decide what media is acceptable for public consumption.

It matters not if they already do.

 

[nath]

Firstly the government already does that. The British board of film classification rates (and edits) films. There is also a whole list of things from child (or other extreme) porn to material that could be useful for terrorist or that would incite racial hatred that is all banned by the government. The reasons may be different (and usually very valid) but it is still the government deciding for us.

Secondly placing an additional tax on games won't stop you playing them so I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make?

Firstly, BBFC classifying films is a useful thing to help people make an informed decision whether to watch/play the media in question.

As for child porn, that's a completely different issue - sex with minors is illegal, therefore videos of it are too. This isn't a censorship issue at all. I completely disagree with the "extreme" pornography ban that was proposed not so long ago. If something is legal to perform between consensual adults, there should be no restrictions on viewing it.

As for this ban thing - though I appreciate you wanting to wait to hear more, what little information we have now is absolutely absurd. The idea that violent games could be causing real violence, thus should be taxed? Come on, if they think there's a genuine link - prove it and ban them*. The problem is, I suspect it can't be proven as it's total bollocks. As a result they're looking for a nice revenue stream from an ever expanding market and playing the moral card so that they don't lose votes over it. Total bullshit.








*Actually I don't even think they should ban them if a link can be proven. Perhaps there should be more education about the fact that games aren't aimed exclusively at children, parents shouldn't be shocked when they buy GTA4 for little Timmy and find out that it being rated 18 means it's not actually suitable for 12 year olds.

 

[Scouse]

Why are we even giving this article any attention?......What next? ... Maybe we should ban any aggressive sports as well...

We're giving it attention because fucktards around the country DO take this sort of shit seriously.

Ban aggressive sports eh? How about fishing?

The country is being fucked over by a minority of wankers who find eveything they don't like objectionable. Politicians bow to them because it gets them votes.

 

[nath]

I think that's a seriously bad move on PETA's part. It's a reasonably easy sell to get everyone feeling empathy for many mammals, but fish? Gimme a break. I wouldn't be surprised if this were all orchestrated by Chris Morris.

 

[chipper]

this is nothing more than the government wanting a piece of the pie as it were, in a world of shrinking buisnesses, gaming media is one of the few that is expanding and that fat jock wants a piece of it.

any games company should immediately stand up and say no we dont want this, because it will do one and one thing only and that is increase piracy on said games.

we already pay VAT on items he can get fucked if he thinks im paying extra on top of it i dont give a shit if its 1p or 10 quid the principle is what counts here.

its starting already the government hoping to squeeze every last penny out of us to pay for their shambolic running of the economy.

 

[GReaper]

We're giving it attention because fucktards around the country DO take this sort of shit seriously.

The country is being fucked over by a minority of wankers who find eveything they don't like objectionable. Politicians bow to them because it gets them votes.

This is why I question why we give it attention:

this is nothing more than the government wanting a piece of the pie as it were, in a world of shrinking buisnesses, gaming media is one of the few that is expanding and that fat jock wants a piece of it.

Someone comes up with a proposal for how we should tax a certain product, or ban something people aren't too keen on, then we end up with people taking it too seriously and getting the wrong end of the stick. People start assuming that the Government are the ones suggesting the crazy idea in the first place. Eventually we all end up like a bunch of Daily Mail readers saying that our nanny state government is taking things too far!

If it was the Government taking it seriously and proposing it I'd be moaning about it, however it's just some inconsequential individual who has absolutely no power - but has managed to create some media interest with some idea he hasn't thought through properly.

 

[chipper]

only takes one person to start the ball rolling tho and we all know how much the media loves to blame computer games, and how many copies of the sun mail mirror etc get sold a day, and how many mp's will think oooo this could get me more votes if i back it and ill stop now you get the idea.

yes i got carried away that tends to happen these days when someone mentions that twat brown

 

[Cadelin]

Fail! It's not "therefore OK" to change the taxation until we have more info. It's totally illogical.

I am OK with the suggestion of it being changed. I even went as far as to give examples of what I would consider fair and what I wouldn't considered fair.

And you say you don't moralise:

I said I hadn't made any moral judgements earlier when I hadn't, in a reply to DaGaffer. That doesn't mean I am never allowed to.

Answer his question. Nath asked if you thought it was right for the government to decide what media is acceptable for public consumption.

Yes I think it is right for the government (or government institution like the bbfc) to decide what media is acceptable for public consumption. The government is elected by us, some things do need to be censored, so they seem to be the obvious and best choice.

And what is your opinion on the matter?

As for child porn, that's a completely different issue - sex with minors is illegal, therefore videos of it are too. This isn't a censorship issue at all. I completely disagree with the "extreme" pornography ban that was proposed not so long ago. If something is legal to perform between consensual adults, there should be no restrictions on viewing it.

Sex with 16 year olds is not illegal but porn with 16 year olds in is illegal. Are you saying you would allow this?

 

[nath]

Sex with 16 year olds is not illegal but porn with 16 year olds in is illegal. Are you saying you would allow this?

That's an interesting point, and I guess no I wouldn't as clearly young girls would end up being exploited. The problem is that they're not adults and as such not really capable of making an adult decision on whether or not to do porn. One could make the same argument for 18 yr olds but that's another issue. Then again, if it's illegal for under-18's to take part in pornography, I'm not sure that's really a censorship issue - it's an employment one, so to speak.

Either way, it doesn't change my stance too much - censorship is a bad thing, we don't need to stop trying to protect innocent/vulnerable people from abuse or exploitation just because we don't censor media.

 

[Ch3tan]

I have made the point before, and so has someone since, but no one has taken it up.

Why are we still absolving parents and retailers of responsibility here. If media is rated and aimed at adults or over 15 etc, then why is it being sold to minors. Why are parents allowing little Jimmy to run around vice city being a gangster? Why tax adults that know better (i.e, us) for the actions of irresponsible parents and shop owners.

 

[Scouse]

Yes I think it is right for the government (or government institution like the bbfc) to decide what media is acceptable for public consumption. The government is elected by us, some things do need to be censored, so they seem to be the obvious and best choice.

And what is your opinion on the matter?

I disagree wholeheartedly and from a considered evidence-based position. The government gets it wrong wrong wrong all the fucking time.

Monty Python and the Life of Brian banned for so long? The Exorcist? The new "extreme porn" laws that outlaw pictures of you pretending to rape your wife, even if she agrees to it...

Government should be there, AT MOST, for basic services. The rest we should be adult enough to muddle through ourselves.

Laws are an inconvenience to 99% of us who will never need them...

Sex with 16 year olds is not illegal but porn with 16 year olds in is illegal. Are you saying you would allow this?

Hadn't thought of that. I guess my answer should be yes.

The only problems I see are the fact that sex is an act between two people, porn is the product of an industrial process which distorts normal relations...

 

[Krazeh]

To be honest I'd imagine the fact that porn featuring 16-18s is illegal isn't so much down to the actual act and much more to do with the legal aspects of having a minor agree to star in said porn film.

 

[Scouse]

How about porn made between two 16 year olds? I've no problem with that. It's the manufacture for public consumption that makes it "distasteful".

The age of consent in Spain is, I believe, 12. I've also no problem for two consenting 12-year olds making their own porn if they want to. But I wouldn't want it stuck up for sale...

 

[Helme]

its already fucking taxed. VAT anyone?

I take your silly low VAT and raise you Swedish moron taxes, hello 25% tax on every purchase, along with the normal 40% tax on everything we earn!

 

[Scouse]

I take your silly low VAT and raise you Swedish moron taxes, hello 25% tax on every purchase, along with the normal 40% tax on everything we earn!

Yeah, but you do have your unusually fair share of easy blonde goddesses there don't ya

 

[Wij]

The age of consent in Spain is, I believe, 12.

:-O


































*move*

 

[rynnor]

The age of consent in Spain is, I believe, 12. I've also no problem for two consenting 12-year olds making their own porn if they want to. But I wouldn't want it stuck up for sale...

The age of consent is effectively 13 in the UK despite laws saying its 16.

Edit - oh and on violent games being bad by making kids violent it may be good politically but alas for the government the vast majority of the many many studies on this and other violent media have found no links which makes this pretty pointless except as a money earner.

 

[MYstIC G]

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.

I'd hope that something else would die a quick death, but it's against the rules.

 

[Bugz]

The age of consent is effectively 13 in the UK despite laws saying its 16.

I'm pretty sure it isn't?

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...

Wow - you're a condescending little twat aren't you. How Cadelin kept his cool with someone so damn rude is beyond me.

Want to know why the tax level can keep being increased? Because you allow it. If you believe there is a case in point of being taxed too much, you would take yourself to another country no? The Laffer Curve springs to mind here. I doubt very much that the government aimlessly increase and decrease taxation amounts according to government debt, as someone else suggests:

They've a lot of money to make up

Oh...it's you. If you were truly 'well knowledged,' you'd understand that the government will adjust tax rates to the 'sweetest point' of maximum revenue. It's not particularly fair no, but unless you decide to fuck off to Monaco, you're obviously not caring enough right?

VAT is a form of taxation, yes, but it's a very special tax. It is indirect, so although you may perceive yourself to be paying full taxation for a product, you aren't actually bearing the full cost in all cases.. The extra cost in a product can be passed about. And it will do, according to elasticities of demand, cross elasticities etc. etc.

Tax incidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're OK with the government deciding what media is acceptable for public consumption? I'm fucking not.

Media needs to be observed. Unless there's an incentive for a private market to set up to do it, which I can't see it happening, government should intervene. If media isn't regulated/observed, whats stopping me from posting distraught pictures, posting addresses of people I dislike etc.

The government gets it wrong wrong wrong all the fucking time.

And the private market wouldn't? Unless you're arguing for completely uncensored media?

Government should be there, AT MOST, for basic services. The rest we should be adult enough to muddle through ourselves.

Can you define basic for me please?

Laws are an inconvenience to 99% of us who will never need them...

Laws are passed to protect the minority. Whether you believe the minority need protecting or not is a moral and ethical question of considerable importance. Sure, the age of consent isn't needed for 99% of us, but should the 1% who are tricked/manipulated etc. suffer because of the inconvenience sprung upon you?

It's the manufacture for public consumption that makes it "distasteful".

So the fact it is shown to the rest of the world makes it distasteful. Sounds like media to me. Do you think the private market would censor it because it's distasteful. I reckon they wouldn't give two hoots, or they would instead encourage it.

 

[Dreamor]

I think most have seen this but...
Are Violent Video Games Adequately Preparing Children For The Apocalypse? | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Seriously though, taxing violent games? Way to kill an industry...

 

[nath]

Media needs to be observed. Unless there's an incentive for a private market to set up to do it, which I can't see it happening, government should intervene. If media isn't regulated/observed, whats stopping me from posting distraught pictures, posting addresses of people I dislike etc.

That's a fair point. I guess completely uncensored media isn't entirely workable. Nevertheless I despise the idea of censors saying something along the lines of "this computer game is too violent, we won't allow you to play it". Or as suggested "this game is violent, we're going to tax you more for it". What happened to personal fucking responsibility. Make sure that these games are only sold to adults and beyond that it's none of their fucking business.

Same goes for extreme pornography - I find it distasteful and pretty unpleasant, but who the fuck am I to say what's right and wrong between two (or more) consenting adults. I hate this attitude that if someone watches rape fantasy porn, then goes off and rapes someone the porn is at fault. In fact I find that pretty offensive.

 

[Ch3tan]

Chocolate tax call in obesity fight - Yahoo! News UK

Stolen from OT. This is getting ridiculous.