Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Texas Politician Wants Violent Games Tax

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the worse-than-cigarettes-by-far dept.

Games 226

Gamepolitics reports that a candidate for the Governor of Texas would pass a violent games tax if elected. From the article: "The Amarillo Globe News is reporting that Republican gubernatorial candidate Star Locke wants to scrap Texas' current property tax system. Instead, Locke would institute new taxes on abortion providers, soft drinks, and violent video games to fund the state's government. Locke, a rancher and builder from Corpus Christi, favors a 50% tax on violent games, as well as a $10,000 tax per abortion and a 10% levy on sweetened soft drinks."

cancel ×

226 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So let me get this straight....... (4, Insightful)

wckdjugallo (832138) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557797)

If he was elected he would get rid of a tax he has to pay. And replace it with taxes he won't pay since they would be taxing services he obviously doesn't use? How is that fair?

Re:So let me get this straight....... (3, Informative)

RailGunner (554645) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557840)

Star Locke doesn't have a snowball chance in hell of winning the Texas Governor position. It's going to be between the incumbent, Rick Perry, and another Republican challenger, Carole Keeton Strayhorn.

Star Locke, Kinky Friedman, and a few others, are just dry-roasted nuts that aren't worth paying much attention too.

Re:So let me get this straight....... (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557928)

"Star Locke, Kinky Friedman, and a few others,"

Whoa, back the fsck up here...they have a candidate named "Kinky?"

Re:So let me get this straight....... (1)

zxnos (813588) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558045)

sound like porno names...

Re:So let me get this straight....... (2, Informative)

batlock666 (839087) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558070)

Whoa, back the fsck up here...they have a candidate named "Kinky?"

You mean: Kinky Friedman [wikipedia.org] runs for governor?

Re: Kinky Texan (2, Informative)

Reverend Darkness (826202) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558239)

The sad part is that Kinky is a "common-sense" kinda guy, which is why he'll never get elected.

In his words:

"I'm for prayer in school, and for gay marriage. I'm the only candidate that is for both prayer in schools and gay marriage, and that in itself is a reason to vote for me."

All I know is he is the only candidate actually talking about border protection right now.

Re: Kinky Texan (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558331)

"prayer in school" is an ambiguous position. Does he mean it's ok for students to pray on their own, personal time in school or does he support school-supported coerced prayer?

Re: Kinky Texan (2, Interesting)

Reverend Darkness (826202) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558706)

He supports the student's right to pray in school and/or be part of an organized group for the purpose of worship and prayer.

Currently there are movements to completely ban any and all reference to any and all religion from public schools, while others are trying to get 'intelligent design' included in the curriculum. I personally think that they are both wrong.

Prayer and religion (or lack thereof) should be up to the student, not up to the school.

Re:So let me get this straight....... (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558709)

That's right. My Governor is a Jewish Cowboy. [beingtheremag.com]

Re:So let me get this straight....... (3, Funny)

beders (245558) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558065)

CK Strayhorn
Star Locke
Kinky Friedman
Rick Perry

Rick Perry needs to change his name, it's just not good enough

Re:So let me get this straight....... (1)

bahwi (43111) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558178)

Yeah, that's probably true, but Kinky's earned more money than any of the democratic contenders.

And Carole is technically an independent in this election, and doesn't have her traditional republican backing.

Re:So let me get this straight....... (1)

cornface (900179) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558255)

It's going to be between the incumbent, Rick Perry, and another Republican challenger, Carole Keeton Strayhorn.

Carole, it should be noted, is the mother of White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.

The GOP is a small incestuous world.

Re:So let me get this straight....... (0, Offtopic)

Spock the Baptist (455355) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558476)

The GOP is a small incestuous world.


And the Democrats aren't?

As in I want to be President just like my hubby...
Or
I want to be President just like my brother, uncle, etc. JFK...

Re:So let me get this straight....... (1)

Luyseyal (3154) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558693)

Star Locke doesn't have a snowball chance in hell of winning the Texas Governor position.

Agreed. I was going to post nearly the same language. :) I do think Kinky has a chance (I have in mind Ma & Pa Ferguson and Pappy O'Daniel), but I have to wonder if his campaign is percolating a little too sluggishly to have much chance of success. Perry's in the damn paper every day. It's hard as hell to compete with that.

$0.02USD,
-l

/me watches all the Texans come out of the Slashdot woodwork...

Re:So let me get this straight....... (1)

ZephyrXero (750822) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557845)

Hmm... I won't be going to Texas any time soon I guess...

I wonder what "violent" video game developers based out of that state, like Id, think?

Re:So let me get this straight....... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14558335)

Id Software.

Cheap publicity stunt (2, Interesting)

faloi (738831) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557812)

There's no way this sort of thing would pass. Texas is in the midst of some funding issues/scandals. And considering I live in Texas and this is the first I've heard of this guy, this is a cheap way to get some publicity for his campaign. Either that or I need to pay more attention to local politics.

Re:Cheap publicity stunt (1)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557889)

Let's hope he pulls it out in the primary. Up against this guy, Kinky has a sure win. [kinkyfriedman.com]

Re:Cheap publicity stunt (1)

sanjacguy (908392) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558512)

Shoot, I live in this guy's home city (Corpus Christi) and I've never heard of this guy. The real money is on the Strayhorne vs Perry - word is Strayhorne'll run as an independent so she can go up against Perry.

Texas is the new Utopia (4, Insightful)

Godeke (32895) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557820)

Good grief, I'm as big of a video game fan as anyone, but this isn't about video games but a scary way of thinking.

"I take the position that the Founding Fathers took: that the power to tax is the power to destroy. So our concept is that we need to tax things we don't want and you want to not tax things that you want to encourage.

Ah, there is the epitome of sustainable government taxation: tax things you want to destroy. Sometimes I wonder what powers these politicians... it sure isn't brains. See, if you succeed in destroying the taxed items, then you have no tax base. So destruction of the taxed items clearly can't be the goal in such a tax proposal: it would deny the government the monies it needs.

So if your goal isn't to destroy the "sin taxed" items (since under his model you only tax things you don't want) then the reality is that you want to encourage or sustain the sin taxed items to help raise funds. Ah, isn't that a great idea? Get elected by claiming that you will remove taxes from things ordinary good folk want, such as property, and shift the burden to evil gamers, loose women and sugar fiends. (Wow, has Texas really become so utopian that those were the worst they could find? My trip to the Dallas BoardGameGeek convention sure didn't make it seem that way.)

One wonders if the people are smart enough to realize that fully funding your government via sin taxes turns you into something similar to Las Vegas, where sin is fully encouraged as long as the taxes are collected. Of course, the prior story on politicians ignoring the facts probably explains this all away anyway.

Well, given that he cites the Founding Fathers... (4, Funny)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557903)

... and given that he thinks it's a good idea to tax nonintoxicating beverages, I'd suggest he put a largish tax on tea.

Re:Texas is the new Utopia (2, Insightful)

neoform (551705) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557944)

That's a pretty strange assumption that all women who want/need abortions are "loose" as you put it.

Ever think there might be other reasons for wanting an abortion? Does RAPE come to mind?

Re:Texas is the new Utopia (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558075)

Are you saying she didn't ask for it by the way she dressed?

All trolling aside I wonder if this will pass constitutional muster. You can't outlaw abortions in a state, can one simply tax it to obscurity. At 10K it would be cheaper just to goto the next state, and I assume thats what they want.

Re:Texas is the new Utopia (1)

Godeke (32895) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558468)

Chill. I was making a joke based on a presumed attitude of someone who would propose such a tax structure, not my opinion of abortion (which is that it should be available to those who want it without an overly intrusive government nanny).

Re:Texas is the new Utopia (1)

Anxarcule (884937) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558210)

A large tax on video games does put the government in a rather unique position. How can you pretend to clamp down on video games if you benefit from every sale of them?

I'm sure the Republicans can find a way to spin it somehow. It all fits into the backlash theory. If the government actually fixes the "problem" of violent video games, then why would their conservative base elect them again? These issues need to stay simmering in the collective consciousness of conservatives.

Showy piety correlates with simple-mindedness (3, Interesting)

ianscot (591483) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558632)

Ah, there is the epitome of sustainable government taxation: tax things you want to destroy.

In general, don't you find that conspicuously pious posturing and an inability to think through consequences go hand in hand?

Seriously. This guy is probably a so-called "small government" conservative, too, but he has no problem with the idea of government regulating which video games are violent, and which aren't quite violent enough, to require his new tax.

At least with tobacco and alcohol, which are the classic models for this, you can make the case that the tax money partly addresses problems created by the "sin" in question. Don't even get me started on the abortion side of this. That's unreal. (If you're pro-life, do you really want an idiot like this on your side? Work on Roe V. Wade, whatever, but a $10,000 tax? That's just dumb, and would be about as legal as Jim Crow poll taxes.)

The problem's with the folks what elected this bumpkin. Note to American voters: if you're looking for a good, decent person to hold office, try finding someone who actually struggles with moral questions, rather than someone who claims they're easy to decided on for reasons of religious faith or whatever. People who think moral questions are easy are either a) of Godlike divinity; or b) on the wrong side of those questions, but wearing a nice white robe because it gets them power. And I'm fairly sure this guy isn't divine.

Re:Texas is the new Utopia (1)

Mantaman (948891) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558642)

To go along with that idea here in the UK we are getting taxed to death on ciggies and petrol (smokes n gas for yall) by the government. Because they want us to stop using our cars and stop smokeing as these are BAD :) its already happening!!

Remember (3, Funny)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557833)

The colonies declared war on England because they taxed a beverage. And it wasn't even coffee.

Re:Remember (1)

SYSS Mouse (694626) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558400)

but back then, people drink much more tea than coffee.

tinfoil hat (1)

davez0r (717539) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557842)

what if, instead of the tax on sweetened soft drinks, they stopped subsidizing corn farmers? the price of corn syrup would go up, so soft drink manufacturers would switch to cane sugar and increase their prices.

government increases income (no subsidy)
soda price goes up
(soft drinks taste better)

But that would require a free market! (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557884)

And all the conservative, mid-western corn farmers HATE a free market. It's like that hated communism. Oh wait...

Kinky Friedman (1, Funny)

Cyphertube (62291) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557846)

Yeah, again, let's all support Kinky Friedman for Governor [kinkyfriedman.com] !

Oh, and I'd like to see a tax for stupid tax initiatives.

Re:Kinky Friedman (1)

flood6 (852877) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558199)

I think he's an asshat [suseroot.com] . I don't know much about her (except she signed my permit to collect taxes in Texas), but Comptroller Carole Strayhorn [carolestrayhorn.com] is also running as an Independent, she looks more likely to get my vote.

Re:Kinky Friedman (1)

bahwi (43111) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558324)

He's an asshat because why? Because he hasn't copied and pasted his resume word for word for governor? You gotta be kidding me. Carole has no info on what she supports doesn't support, has almost no use of internet technology(wow, yet another unimpressive candidate who has no clue of INTER-NET) and says, like all Republicans initially do, she wants to lower taxes. But, like all Republicans(yes, I know she's running as an independent), she'll probably raise them here and there while lowering this other one by a little and blabbing all about it.

Tax across the board. (1)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557849)


<snarky>Well, I hope this genius also taxes other things that could hurt you...like coffee, fast food, and city buses. I'd hate to be exposed to anything that could damage me in any way.</snarky>

Re:Tax across the board. (1)

Secrity (742221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558378)

Why coffee? Coffee can only hurt you if the coffee is VERY hot and you are stupid enough to spill it in your lap - while driving.

Re:Tax across the board. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14558392)

I'd hate to be exposed to anything that could damage me in any way.

You'd better avoid your own posts then. They're stupid enough to make your brain hurt.

Damn (1)

kevin.fowler (915964) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557855)

What a kick in the nuts to gamers this would be... not only do you have to pay 150% for video games, but cases of mountain dew to keep you up and enjoy the games cost more.

It's a good thing that even conservatives think this dude is nuts. They must really love the Coke



acola.

bullets (3, Interesting)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557861)

What's the current tax per bullet and what's his recommended one?

Re:bullets (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558225)

Just an interesting side note, but a friend of mine gave a speech in communications class in college on just that subject. It turns out that taxes on ammunition in New Mexico goes towards buying and maintaining wild-life preserves. As a hunter, he was pleased to point out the benefit everyone gets from his hobby.

Or a bit of trivia my brother pointed out to me: The US has a 100 year supply of guns, but only a 2 year supply of ammo.

Re:bullets (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558391)

I've always loved New Mexico, and this just gives me one more reason why...

Answer: (2, Funny)

thesnarky1 (846799) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558480)

I don't know, I only plan on buying one bullet, and after I do he won't be asking for any new taxes.

Wtf? (1)

LinuxIdiot (708662) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557866)

50% tax on violent video games??? Does this mean that prices of games would effectively double to cover taxes plus profits? If they are actually trying to do this then what about smoking? What percentage is that going to be increased by since that would really rake in the cash with people smoking a pack+ per day.

What about taxing the things we can't live without (3, Funny)

Durrill (908003) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557875)

If he were to introduce a +1% levy on ammunition, i'm sure the state would have a hundred billion surplus by the end of the year.

Screw this guy - Texans vote Kinky! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14557876)

This guy sounds pretty wacky. He won't get the Repub nomination against Rick Perry, who is also wacky.

What to do fellow Texans?

Vote for Kinky, 06! [kinkyfriedman.com]

Insane (2, Interesting)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557878)

It sounds like he wants to eliminate the taxes he pays and create "extreme" sin taxes.

The 50% tax on violent video games would get declared unconstitutional most likely. It would be an infringement on freedom or speech (censorship on what the government "thinks" is violent) probably.

Would they even have the state constitutional authority tax put a flat fee tax on abortions? I'm not a lawyer, but I feel something would come up that would overturn that kind of tax.

We have something like the soft drink tax in Washington state, but it's at it's normal sales tax rate. Food items hear, most of them, and when not in a serving environment, don't get sales tax.

There are ways to get rid property taxes. Create a luxury sales tax. Have the sales tax only affect purchases the rich can afford. Electronics over $5k for example. Vehicles over $50k. Anything classified as a yacht. Property purchases (i.e. land) exceeding $1 million.

Re:Insane (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557945)

So this guy's "extreme" sin tax solution is wrong but your "extreme" luxury tax idea is OK? Sounds to me like they're both implementations of the same idea: moving the tax burden from many people to fewer people. At least sin taxes are harder to sidestep. Luxury taxes generally don't work because the people who have the money to buy the luxury item typically also have the money to travel elsewhere to get said item.

Re:Insane (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557978)

I believe that would be illegal to avoid paying the tax. Sales tax tends to be done by destination, not the purchasing place. For example, I, being a Washingtonian, would be responsible for any and all sales tax on purchases I make by mail order or by Internet purchase. If I purchase a book from New York while my residence and shipping destination is in Washington state, I am responsible for paying the sales tax. Although a book is a minor purchase, you get the idea.

Re:Insane (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558359)

Sales tax tends to be done by destination, not the purchasing place.

And Mexico is right across the border. You think they wouldn't want that business? They're probably dreaming of it.

Re:Insane (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14558415)

So charge at customs when you come across the border, as is normally the case for purchases overseas.

Re:Insane (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558463)

That would still rob Texas; boat makers would move to mexico (cutting a high number of jobs) and they could undervalue the boat by putting the power of the peso on it. In the long run the buyer would still make out.

Re:Insane (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558433)

What do you mean? Someone, like from Texas, buying an item from another state and having it shipped to Mexico? Well, that's definitely cheating the state.

Re:Insane (2, Insightful)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558413)

That's because they consider the sale to happen based on where the purchaser is at the time of purchase. I live in Georgia and go to South Carolina frequently. I pay my sales taxes to the state of South Carolina when I'm there and I buy something (ex. gas for my boat). I am in no way obligated to pay those taxes to the state of Georgia. When I buy something online I'm purchasing it FROM Georgia and I'm subject ot pay those taxes to the state of Georgia.

Now some states get you on boat and automobile taxes when you register the vehicle. I guess you could stop people from getting around those restrictions by requiring registrations on luxury items, but there would still be ways around it. For example, you could buy a small piece of land in another state and claim that as your residence. For about $2000-$5000 you could do that in some of the more rural regions of this country. Then you could just claim that your luxury item is here temporarily and it belongs in that state on a regular basis.

Re:Insane (1)

ptbarnett (159784) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557977)

Create a luxury sales tax. Have the sales tax only affect purchases the rich can afford. Electronics over $5k for example. Vehicles over $50k. Anything classified as a yacht. Property purchases (i.e. land) exceeding $1 million.

The US Congress thought that a 10% luxury tax on boats over $100,000 was a good idea back in 1991. It was (relatively) quickly repealed three years later -- but not before putting a large number of US-based custom boat builders out of business.

Re:Insane (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558010)

How exactly did they go out of business? A 10% retail sales tax on boats shouldn't be that negative.

Re:Insane (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558347)

I imagine that if you're buying a $100,000 boat, then it's probably an ocean going vessel, and you could probably get around it by buying the boat somewhere else. I don't think there's any laws that stop you from parking a boat from another country at a marina.

Re:Insane (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558387)

Some people are bound to try cheating, but I would hope they would be more honest. Since there's no income tax in my state, they do have the money to pay the sales tax. Also, if the luxury tax isn't too much, perhaps 3% in addition to regular sales taxes, that's only $3k more.

If a luxury tax doesn't work, there's always one more idea. Make property taxes progressive, and there are so many ways to do it too.

Re:Insane (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14558381)

Here's a pretty good explanation [wwnorton.com] of what happened.

Basically, luxury taxes are dumb. They barely bring in any revenue, and cause too much economic damage.

Re:Insane (1)

ptbarnett (159784) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558617)

How exactly did they go out of business? A 10% retail sales tax on boats shouldn't be that negative.

They bought the boat somewhere else, or simply didn't buy one at all.

The US had a diverse custom boat building industry. Most were small, family-run operations that built custom boats to order for people that had the money and inclination. It was a high-margin (and high-profit) business, separate from the mass market boat industry that churn out fishing and ski boats using production lines.

The luxury tax decimated the custom-boat industry in the US. I'm not sure if it ever recovered.

Re:Insane (1)

bahwi (43111) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558132)

There's a little city out here east of Dallas called Canton. They have what is called "First Monday Trade Days" (where Dallas got the name for it's very gray market tech trading midnight rush called "First Saturday"). There website is here [firstmondaycanton.com] . Because of first monday, and because they lease out that land to other conventions/shows(such as farming equipment trade shows, etc..) they don't have a city property tax. Wikipedia has more info [wikipedia.org] . So there are ways without even taxing stuff traditionally.

Of course, you get into a huge deal over whether governments should be meddling in the business of conventions, real estate, etc... but it is a thought. Run it like a business, make it profitable, and remove taxes from the people.

Re:Insane (1)

vexx0 (915665) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558168)

First Saturday sales are great.

Re:Insane (2, Informative)

nickname225 (840560) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558169)

I am a lawyer (although constitutional law is not my area of specialization) - and at least the taxes on "violent" video games and abortion would most likely be found unconstitutional. The government is free to tax video games at pretty much any rate they want - but the first amendment protection of free speech is generally construed to prohibit government regulation of "Content based speech" So - a tax on JUST violent video games - or even JUST kids video games is unlikely to pass constitutional muster. Similarly - the tax on abortions is likely to be considered too great a burden on the right of abortion (as the court currently understands it - until Roberts, Scalia, Alito et al destroy it). Interestingly enough the soda tax is probably fine.

Re:Insane (1)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558655)

Food items hear

And I thought only the walls had ears....

Christ, people, he's from Corpus! (2, Interesting)

timster (32400) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557883)

Corpus Christi is literally the boondocks. Plenty of Texas politicians say stupid things, but this guy doesn't even have a remote chance of being elected. Calling him a "candidate" is extremely far-fetched.

Anybody can spout nonsense; this guy doesn't have the support of any significant number of Texans, so it's silly to use him as an example of modern Texan politics.

It won't work (or rather it will) (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557892)

There's many a state right now gnashing their teeth over the almost universal jump in tobacco taxes a few years ago. They claimed that they were raising those taxes to get people to quit smoking. Well it worked and now they're complaining that they're not getting as much tax revenue from cigarettes. Sin taxes don't work because they do work. If you raise the tax high enough, a lot of people will drop the "sin."

Also, if you put a $10000 tax on abortions in the state of Texas, people WILL leave Texas to get abortions. A much smarter method would be to tax it such that it's not worth leaving the state for.

Re:It won't work (or rather it will) (2, Insightful)

SoCalChris (573049) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558102)

If you raise the tax high enough, a lot of people will drop the "sin."

Actually, I doubt many people drop the sin. Instead, they will look for illegal, and cheaper alternatives. It's happened with cigarrettes, people are trying to buy them online, or from indian reservations [missoulian.com] where the taxes aren't charged.

Also, I personally don't agree with abortions, but a $10k tax is NOT the way to get rid of them. Yeah, a lot of people will leave Texas to get them, but a lot of people will go to illegal places, and get an unsafe one, or try to give themselves one.

Re:It won't work (or rather it will) (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558186)

Actually, I doubt many people drop the sin. Instead, they will look for illegal, and cheaper alternatives.

Indeed. Anytime there is prohibition (or something is made unreasonalbe to possess by unreasonable means) there will be a black market. Taxing abortion may not make people wanting the procedure to go over the border but rather seek out "back alley" methods.

We see the blackmarket drug trade has done. We simply need to find an easier/cheaper way to obtain what they want.

Re:It won't work (or rather it will) (1)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558203)

There's many a state right now gnashing their teeth over the almost universal jump in tobacco taxes a few years ago. They claimed that they were raising those taxes to get people to quit smoking. Well it worked and now they're complaining that they're not getting as much tax revenue from cigarettes.

Meanwhile, in Ireland, they imposed a tax a few years ago of fifteen cents on every plastic carrier bag provided by stores to their customers.

Just about every bugger in the country immediately switched to reusing their existing bags, and / or got themselves durable shopping bags rather than counting on getting some at the store when needed.

Result? The government in Dublin gets practically nothing in revenue from this tax. However, the Irish countryside and landfills are remarkably free from discarded plastic bags. Which was, of course, the idea in the first place...

Idiot. (1)

grub (11606) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557897)


Locke, a rancher and builder from Corpus Christi, favors a 50% tax on violent games, as well as a $10,000 tax per abortion and a 10% levy on sweetened soft drinks.

And these taxes would go to where... general revenue? And as for abortion laws: no uterus, no vote.

Re:Idiot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14558159)

what? that's one of the stupidest things i've ever seen. what does uterus have to do with abortion? you don't abort the uterus. you don't take out someone's uterus when they have an abortion. you're retarded. seriously a baby is formed from a man and a woman not just a woman so it can't be just voted on by woman

Re:Idiot. (2, Insightful)

grub (11606) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558458)

You're a male, guaranteed. Trying to dictate what a woman can do with her body.

Shock: Republican says "tax anyone but me". (0, Flamebait)

AEther141 (585834) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557911)

Quelle suprise. A republican reels out an illogical, unjust and morally oppressive proposition to tax people who don't fit into their puritanical world view. I just hope anyone calling the republicans a party in favour of low tax and fairness feels a jolt of ridiculousness from now on - they're simply religious fundamentalists trying to impose their fairy-tale morals on the rest of us, lying closer to the new islamist parties of the middle east than anyone else. From the grassroots to the very top they're a bunch of mindless, populist, reactionary and authoritarian asshats.

Re:Shock: Republican says "tax anyone but me". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14558318)

From the grassroots to the very top they're a bunch of mindless, populist, reactionary and authoritarian asshats.

Yeah, because the Gores and Clintons of the world dont want to ban violent video games, objectionable lyrics and legal firearm ownership. Man, how liberal, how open minded. These people want for you to exercise your freedoms to their fullest!

Re:Shock: Republican says "tax anyone but me". (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558432)

Go read the article about partisan thinking that was posted earlier today.

I certainly hope this guy doesn't win the republican primary. This guy's views on taxation don't match the traditional republican views on taxation. This guy seems more like a Ralph Nader who found Jesus.

As a fiscal conservative, and an old-school Republican, I say you can take these bottom feeding new conservatives and fire them out of a cannon so we can get back to the stuff that matters instead of evangelizing. I know a large number of other republicans, maybe even half, agree... It's just that the current guys we've got aren't bad enough to justify electing liberal democrats. It's way easier to fix the stuff guys like this do than it is to eliminate huge social programs after they've been around a while.

What we really need are some moderates. I haven't seen one on my ballot recently though...

Re:Shock: Republican says "tax anyone but me". (2, Insightful)

thesnarky1 (846799) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558598)

Hmm... another "typical" knee-jerk reaction, huh? Word to the wise, not all republicans support this guy. In fact, I'm finding it hard to find people that *do*. Oh, and I wonder how you can call me a religious fundamentalist when you don't know me. Nor have I ever tried to push my morals on you. So please, when you judge idiots like this, don't take them for their party, take them for their own damn self.

Greater Effects (3, Interesting)

sc0ttyb (833038) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557922)

I wonder if this guy realizes just how many game development houses are currently based in Texas. Taxing violent games into oblivion would most likely force a lot of these developers to relocate, thus losing directly and indirectly associated jobs, future investment, and well, it's just a dick thing to do.

I bet this'll go over really, really well. Lmaonade.

A $10,000 tax on abortions and you focus on games? (3, Insightful)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557932)

How about fact that this suggestion effectively make abortion unavailable to the poor in the state of Texas?

This proposal is a raft of bullshit intended to get votes from Christian conservatives and frightened, reactionary idiots. And no doubt, one significant purpose of this proposal is a backdoor attempt to make abortion unavailable de facto to one segment of the population.

Pro- or anti- abortion, don't ignore the important issue - the videogame tax is a minor part of the significance of the proposal.

Re:A $10,000 tax on abortions and you focus on gam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14558054)

Under O'Connor this would be considered an unconstitional hurdle for abortion. Under Alito ... well, let's just say that I'm glad this freak is so far out he makes Guv Goodhair (er -- Rick Perry) look genuinely sane.

I think it's time for the Dems and the Kinkster to clear the decks for Carole Keeton Strayhorn, now running as an Independent. She's about as good as they can hope to get down here.

Re:A $10,000 tax on abortions and you focus on gam (2, Insightful)

iainl (136759) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558057)

I'm _hoping_ that people are thinking like I did, which is that a $10,000 tax on abortions will mean that a few people will cross state borders once.

People don't tend to get abortions terribly often, and $10,000 is such a ludicrous amount that he's just forcing people to go out-of-state in a piece of legislation that wouldn't last five minutes, it's so obviously an anti-abortion law by the backdoor.

However, an extra $25 on the price of a game is going to either get paid, or just make Amazon a shedload of cash as everyone orders online - it's not exactly worth a trip to Louisiana each time you want one there.

Re:A $10,000 tax on abortions and you focus on gam (1)

kidcharles (908072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558144)

I agree that this more offensive part of his proposal is the abortion tax, but that's not really Slashdot-worthy. This does however expose how seemingly unrelated issues (video game censorship and women's rights) aren't so unrelated at all.

Re:A $10,000 tax on abortions and you focus on gam (1)

706GL (172709) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558150)

One of the theories of Freakonomics
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006073132X/ref=pd _bbs_null_1/002-8602761-4144069?v=glance&n=283155 [amazon.com]
is that abortion has had the single largest affect on reducing crime in the US in the 1990's. Offensive, but interesting.

Tax on the sale, or the creation? (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557965)

Who, after those loveable Scots at RockStar North is probably the world's best known/infamous developer of violent videogames?

Why, that would be the guys at id.

Add them to all the other developers based in the Austin and Houston areas, and he's talking about driving a pretty reasonable amount of taxpaying out of the area. Is this even vaguely a good idea for the state economy?

Obvious political asshattery (1)

Churla (936633) | more than 8 years ago | (#14557970)

I also live in Texas, I also have never heard of this loony. I am not sold on the Kinky Friedman movement as some are here. (Most of those people live around his stomping grounds in the more liberal areas of the state.) My personal bet is we're going to get a moderate republican in the next election via support of the bible belt, but being centrist enough to pull in some urban population support.
Maybe we should tax politicians under the "tax things we want less of" approach. Slap a yearly ding on any funds held by any political party.

Re:Obvious political asshattery (1)

cornface (900179) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558032)

My personal bet is we're going to get a moderate republican in the next election via support of the bible belt, but being centrist enough to pull in some urban population support.

We're going to get motherfucking Rick Perry again. There's no point in pretending otherwise, unless it is to make it easier to sleep without being overcome by night terrors.

I can't express how much this pisses me off. (3, Interesting)

Xiver (13712) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558103)

I'm a very conservative guy, in fact I'm 33 year old software developing, video game playing, gun toting, SUV driving, soda drinking, Jesus freak with a black belt, three daughters, a wife, and a mortgage who would like nothing more than peace on earth in my lifetime. I've played 'violent' video games since there were 'violent' video games. I don't really care for the Grand Theft Auto type of video games, but I've played a couple of them and I don't think I've been warped. I can understand people's frustration with that type of game because it glorifies crime, but guess what, so do %80 of the movies that come out of Hollywood. Almost all video games could be considered violent. Look at Pacman, that weird yellow cannibal that runs around eating 'power pellets' to make him powerful enough to kill the 'ghosts'. Just because someone enjoys playing FPS's, MMORPGs, or other violent games does not mean that they are going to pick up a gun and go on a rampage for laughs. This guy is clueless.

          Property taxes in Texas are a little ridiculous, but my daughters will receive a much better public education than I did because of them. If he really wants to do something good for Texas he would be proposing that the borders be properly patrolled. Maybe he should tax illegal immigration. He certainly won't get my vote or any of the other 'conservative' people that I know.

It's obvious to me... (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558128)

He must be ignoring the facts [slashdot.org] .

Hypocrite (1)

inajamaica (906275) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558145)

"I take the position that the Founding Fathers took: that the power to tax is the power to destroy..."

Taxing the video game publishers 50% will destroy them, or @ least some of their titles. These leaders that want to obliterate don't even make sense.

Texas gave us Dubya... (0, Offtopic)

symbolic (11752) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558185)


So is this any surprise?

sell game PG, free M download (2, Interesting)

davidwr (791652) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558276)

PG-rated game, $60 + normal sales tax. = $65
M-rated free mod: $0 + 50% violent game tax = $0
Total cost: $65
Taxes: $5

Taxation never makes sense..... (1)

ShyGuy91284 (701108) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558310)

If they can, they will tax anything with little reason other then "People won't buy it as often when it's to expensive" to cover up them just using it as a money tree. Really though. Taxation is needed to keep the government running, but most taxation targets like these serve no purpose other then to further their own political wants (like abortion) and get money, even if half the country may not agree.

At least.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14558396)

At least he makes it easy to know I never need to vote for him. Most candidates have many issues, so you have to juggle the plusses and the minuses.

Not this guy - he's a wackjob.

(oh, and to the guy who said, basically, 'what kind of idiot wants to tax things he wants to destroy' - easy, our current goverment. They don't want people smoking, but tax the F out of it)

The problem is in the title... (0)

ArmedStupidity (939428) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558426)

Politican From Texas.... Those idiotic Southern politicians always propose the stupidest things. Jack Thompson, Orrin Hatch, now this guy and his useless taxes. Why do all these politicians and lawyers blame video games and the Internet for the degrading societal condition that America finds itself in, instead of our failing morals and lack of common sense?

Madness (2, Insightful)

catahoula10 (944094) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558494)

"institute new taxes on abortion providers, soft drinks, and violent video games to fund the state's government."

Sin taxes. More sin taxes.
How did we get to a point in America where such a small number of people are allowed to decide for the larger number of people what is and is not a sin?
Some have tried to tax assorted food items as sin. Some have already sin-taxed alcohol and tobacco. What will be next if this is allowed to continue?

How about watching specific television programs, will that be taxed also? Will anything that is controversial to some be taxed? Maybe religion? Will going to church be considered a sin by some and get that taxed too? It boils down to wanting to curtail the behavior or the activities that they find objectionable with taxes; therby by-passing the legal processes.

Abortion is a privacy issue as current law states.
Video games are a right to speech as current law applies
SoftDrinks Whats next? Will everything we eat and drink that some find questionable be taxed?

He found the missing "?" (1)

Rufus88 (748752) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558499)

1) I own lots of property.
2) I buy no video games.
3) ?
4) Profit!

Candidate Locke.... (1)

ShecoDu (447850) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558537)

Is he a thief or a treasure hunter?

So who defines what is violent? (1)

thaerin (937575) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558581)

Besides the pure and utter idiocy of a tax system such as this, one main concern I'd have is who decides if a game is or isn't violent? Sure, titles such as GTA, Half Life 2, or DOOM 3 would easily be targets due to the amount of blood shown, but somebody in the wrong frame of mind could extend it to include racing games or worse. After all, in most the racing games, Burn Out 3 comes to mind, you actually get points for ramming into other racers and causing massive pile-ups. I'm sure that principle could potentially be seen by some folks as violent and as such they'd slap it with a tax.

Too leniant... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14558585)

Let's hit them hard!! Let them produce violent video games but give the death penalty to anyone who plays it!

who's on who's side (1)

mr_typo (207426) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558616)

No worries, pepsi & coca-cola lobbyist will be out there defending the right to play violent games and for all income levels to have equal access to abortion.

only in america... (-1, Flamebait)

Tom (822) | more than 8 years ago | (#14558703)

In civilized countries, people like that would tour the talk shows. In the US they run for government. The mind(*) trembles.

(*) for our american guests: The mind is the thing that... oh forget it. The mind is the fluid in that grey air conditioning system we have inside our skulls. It's not important.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>