backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 134 comment(s) - last by dever.. on Feb 25 at 3:37 PM


Gamers can continue to play outside with a solar-powered Nintendo Wii  (Source: Tom's Games)
New Mexico to collect money in hopes that kids will spend more time outdoors

“Stop sitting in front of the TV and go outside to play” – a phrase commonly said by parents whenever their children settle to watch a television program or play a videogame. It is usually up to the parents to motivate their children towards a particular behavior, but now the state of New Mexico would like to intervene.

The New Mexico legislature introduced House Bill 583, championed by Representative Gail Chasey, which essentially imposes an excise tax on televisions, videogame software and hardware. Specifically, consumers of such products will have to pay an extra 1 percent tax on purchases in addition to the gross receipts tax and other applicable state or federal tax.

Products purchased to be shipped to another state are exempt from the tax. Also excluded from taxation are any related equipment sold by an “instrumentality of the armed forces of the United States engaged in retail activities.”

Revenue created by the officially termed “Television Tax” will go towards a state treasury fund named the “Leave No Child Inside Fund,” which will consist of appropriations, gifts, grants, donations and bequests. Money collected by the program will be put towards state parks and the public education department for programs in hopes of encouraging school children to frequent the outdoors. As described by the bill, funds will be used to:

(1) develop curriculum-based programs for teachers to use on public lands and at other outdoor learning sites for outdoor education initiatives;

(2) develop hands-on teaching materials for children for use in outdoor education programs;

(3) provide transportation for children to experience outdoor education programs;

(4) provide substantial and frequent outdoor experiences for children; and

(5) increase outdoor nature-oriented physical activity programs for school-age children.

Also detailed is the distribution of the Television Tax. 95 percent of the net receipts shall go to the No Child Inside Fund at the state treasurer as general fund revenues. The remaining five percent will be used to defray the costs of upholding the program.

Should it come into effect, the Television Tax will begin on January 1, 2009.

House Bill 583 wouldn’t be the first time videogames were targeted by a state body. Over the past few years, state leaders have often tried to pass laws that would make it illegal or challenging to sell or promote games intended for mature audiences.

Other states with videogame related bills include New York, Oklahoma, Maryland, Louisiana, Minnesota, California, Illinois, and others.

Most decisions that were taken to court deemed the proposed laws as unconstitutional, as videogames are now qualified under protected speech. Furthermore, older cases have set a precedent that policy makers are forbidden from using their power to discriminate against speech that they disfavor. As pointed out by CNET, in a number of cases dating as far back as 1936, the Supreme Court deemed state laws that singled out newspapers or magazines for unique tax burdens as unconstitutional.

 

2/23/08 Update: DailyTech has learned that the tax proposed in the above story had already been shot down. We regret the error.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What's dumber?
By arazok on 2/21/2008 9:50:09 AM , Rating: 4
The people who proposed this, or the people who believe this might be a good idea?

The true problem here is that people think the government has a role to play in getting kids to be more active. If you want to raise a fat tub of shit for a child, I say go for it. I certainly don't want Captain Government coming to the rescue. Especially because these sort of measures punish those of us with children who aren't fat lazy bastards.

What ever happened to the America that hated government?




RE: What's dumber?
By Cobra Commander on 2/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: What's dumber?
By arazok on 2/21/2008 12:37:10 PM , Rating: 3
America was founded on the belief that Government should be minimal. It exists solely to protect the people's safety, liberty, and little else. Initially, the federal government didn't even have the power to tax.

Although not nearly as bad, it's acting like another European nanny state.


RE: What's dumber?
By dever on 2/21/2008 1:47:28 PM , Rating: 5
In other news, government asks not to be called "Big Brother." Prefers "Doting Parent."


RE: What's dumber?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2008 2:28:03 PM , Rating: 5
> "America never hated government. "

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
- Thomas Jefferson.


RE: What's dumber?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2008 10:01:33 AM , Rating: 4
Sad, isn't it? Between Republican-sponsored legislation to protect us from "terrorists", and Democrat-sponsored Nanny-State legislation to protect us from ourselves, it seems no one in government is interested in preserving our freedom any more.


RE: What's dumber?
By sweetsauce on 2/21/2008 10:43:21 AM , Rating: 4
One person is, but he gets treated like that racist grandpa that everyone in the family pretends doesn't exist. RON PAUL


RE: What's dumber?
By Bioniccrackmonk on 2/21/2008 10:52:56 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with most of what Ron Paul campaigns for, but I don't like how he wants to overturn a ruling that has been precedent since 1973, Roe vs. Wade.


RE: What's dumber?
By BansheeX on 2/21/2008 11:30:39 AM , Rating: 5
How do you protect liberty if you don't protect life? Ron Paul is an OBGYN. He could be sued if anything were to happen to a fetus under his care. If a fetus is killed in a murder case, it is an additional count. If a fetus is killed in a drunk driving accident, the person can be charged with manslaughter. And yet if the mother wants to kill the fetus, it's legal. Make sense of that, if you will.


RE: What's dumber?
By DRMichael on 2/21/2008 11:45:17 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If a fetus is killed in a murder case, it is an additional count. If a fetus is killed in a drunk driving accident, the person can be charged with manslaughter.


In some states.


RE: What's dumber?
By Samus on 2/21/2008 1:42:21 PM , Rating: 1
My girlfriend's brother is serving 3 years in Texas for lightly injuring someone in a car accident that was his fault, but he wasn't even drunk, just had a couple tickets prior to the accident (speeding and not signaling a turn or something)

Some states will put anybody away for some pretty crazy shit. Other's wont put people away for the right things at all. Here in Illinois they don't really bother with potheads or marijuana charges but lay heavy on Cocain and Heroin, which I believe all works good and well. However, first-offence rapists that don't get charged with assault (yea, it's possibly, legally) can be put on 2-year PROBATION after which the charges are dropped. How in the hell did that make it into legislation?


RE: What's dumber?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2008 1:54:54 PM , Rating: 1
Illinois has some very wacky laws regarding rape...it's one of the few states that has passed the so-called "post-penetration" rape laws, which allow a man to be charged with rape even if the woman initially consents.


RE: What's dumber?
By clovell on 2/22/2008 11:10:49 AM , Rating: 2
Not a week goes by that I find another kooky law in Illinois. I thought they were mostly confined to gun laws, though...


RE: What's dumber?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2008 12:36:09 PM , Rating: 3
> "How do you protect liberty if you don't protect life? "

What life do we protect? You shed millions of skin cells every day, many of which are still alive until you so carelessly allow them to die. What about sperm cells? Are the Catholics right, and every masturbation is murder, a million times over?

Obviously a line needs to be drawn somewhere, and doing so at the moment of conception has just as many problems as defining it at the moment of birth.


RE: What's dumber?
By BansheeX on 2/21/2008 1:31:10 PM , Rating: 3
Human life was implied. I'm not talking about the liberty of protozoa here. Sperm or egg dying is not the same as when they have combined to begin the first semblance of what could be called human life. If people who support Roe vs Wade think that life does not begin at conception, then the other laws should at least reflect that, but they don't. And I'm not religious. I simply believe that, in the typical case, abortion is a very late, convenient destruction of life due to personal irresponsibility. The catholic church actually makes it worse with their opposition to contraceptives. I agree with the commonly held exceptions to abortion, but overruling Roe vs Wade doesn't make abortion illegal, it just leaves it up to the states.


RE: What's dumber?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2008 1:44:25 PM , Rating: 1
> "Human life was implied."

Sperm and skin cells *are* human life.

> "...the first semblance of what could be called human life"

Sounds like even you admit that calling a fertilized egg "human" is a gray area.

> "abortion is a very late, convenient destruction of life due to personal irresponsibility"

So you support abortion in cases of rape? Why is it that life less valuable in that particular case?


RE: What's dumber?
By dever on 2/21/2008 1:56:16 PM , Rating: 3
Common Asher, he's talking about something with the full prospect of being human, even if you, yourself, assume it is not human. None of the examples you give can fit that usually agreed upon assumption.

If your shedding or ejaculating leaves little Ashers about the house without the help of a female egg, please tell the Taiwanese.

That being said, I'd have to agree that there is no other logical or distinctive cutoff point to when life begins other than conception. If you know of another point, please let us know.


RE: What's dumber?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2008 2:20:14 PM , Rating: 3
> "If your shedding or ejaculating leaves little Ashers about the house without the help of a female egg, please tell the Taiwanese"

A fertilized egg isn't going to leave little ones around the house either, not without a whole lot of help from a female host. So what's the difference?

> "[there] is no other logical or distinctive cutoff point to when life begins other than conception"

Besides conception, various societies at various times have defined human life, and the rights embodied therein, to start from:

- coitus (prior to conception)
- viability (a month or two before birth)
- birth
- 2 years or more after birth.

I'm sure you automatically believe your own viewpoint is right, but then so did everyone else.