backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 87 comment(s) - last by JustTom.. on Feb 5 at 1:23 AM
Tax revenue will help move delinquent 17-year-olds into juvenile detention

This week, Wisconsin state Senator Jon Erpenbach proposed a bill that would add an additional tax on video games and gaming equipment, like consoles and accessories.

The new tax would levy a 1% surcharge on the sale of video games and related equipment, with funds applied towards the cost of moving non-violent, delinquent 17-year-olds into the juvenile detention system, as they are currently treated, prosecuted, and incarcerated as adults.

According to Erpenbach, the tax has nothing to do with dissuading gamers or casting videogames in an undesirable light; rather the idea is that the tax is “a kind of kids-kids thing,” with gamers helping out fellow youth stuck behind bars in an adult prison system.

Despite the fact that the bill’s emphasis is on moving non-violent youth offenders into the juvenile court system, gamers have latched onto the tax as an unfair attack on their hobby. Justin Sallows, an adult Wisconsin gamer speaking to WISC-TV, thinks that the tax is “a real problem ... even if that’s not what the intention is, it creates the impression that there's something wrong with the video games because we need to put some extra tax on there to try to dissuade people from playing them.”

Wisconsin’s justice system arrests and charges 98% of its 30,000 17-year-olds arrested yearly with minor offenses, and the cost for transferring them into the juvenile system is expected to be very high, said Erpenbach. “I think it's the right thing to do because not all 17-year-olds belong in the adult system when it comes to non-violent offenses.”

Not all gamers fit the age group that Erpenbach is targeting, however. Sallows, for example, is 37 years old: “I just think it's pretty unfair to attack gamers and have them pay for something they, more than likely, have nothing to do with.”

Erpenbach maintained that he is open to suggestions. “If we're going to do this for kids maybe this [tax] would be a good way to go about it. And if it's not the best way, I'm open to any other way,” he said.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Another Tax
By mdogs444 on 12/27/2007 9:31:57 AM , Rating: 1
Wow, go figure....a Democrat wanting to impose yet another new tax. May citizens who buy video games pay more money to help out young criminals to get easier sentances by going to juvenile detention instead of adult prison.

Yeah, that ought to teach them a less! Throw them in detention hall with other kids, instead of harsher penalty and being stuck with big Bubba.

Hell, maybe the Senator will impose a larger tax than the suggested 1% and give the criminals no prison sentence and instead, let them stay at home and use that tax money to buy them video games.

Penalize people spending their hard earned money so that it can be redstributed to criminals.

Another democrat earmark...go figure.




RE: Another Tax
By Bioniccrackmonk on 12/27/2007 9:53:49 AM , Rating: 5
For once you are right. Democrats shouldn't be imposing new taxes on video games. They should focus their sights on reinstating taxes that Bush and his Republican fingerpuppets gave to the one industry that is making record profits in the billions every quarter. I guess when you have allies in the white house you really can get what you want. Cheney, Halliburton, no bid contracts, nah, too much of a coincidence to actually have happened.


RE: Another Tax
By FITCamaro on 12/27/2007 10:18:37 AM , Rating: 3
All repealing those tax breaks on the oil companies would have done would be to raise the cost of gas for us the consumer.

Now yes, I agree with you. I think its ridiculous that an industry making billions a quarter in profits has tax breaks. But when repealing them means that they're just going to pass that lost money on to me and you? I'd rather they just get the tax breaks.

As far as mdogs post, well said. All this would do is show 17 year olds who like to cause trouble that they have less to fear of causing trouble. Personally I feel anyone committing an adult crime should be tried as an adult. If you shoot someone, you shouldn't get out in a few years just because you were 16 at the time. You were grown up enough to shoot someone, you're grown up enough to face the consequences. And many gangs out there use minors for violent crimes because there's the chance they won't be tried as an adult.

And besides, what does taxing video games have to do with delinquent teenagers? Absolutely nothing. All it is is trying to further the stereotype that video games cause violence.


RE: Another Tax
By F00bar3 on 12/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: Another Tax
By mdogs444 on 12/27/2007 10:39:17 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, the Republican controlled Congress approved the $7.7 Billion tax break to oil companies to claim deductions for oil & gas production and refining.

The thought behind the deduction is that the bottom line for oil companies (or any company for that matter) is always increasing profits each quarter/year. By giving tax breaks, they will be able to charge less for oil and still make the same amount of profits. Since we, the people, already pay the tax breaks out of our tax dollars, we would be seeing a discount on the oil at the pump. By getting rid of the tax deduction, the oil companies are going to increase their prices to account for the $7.7 Billion that they are not getting.

So anyone here can pick their poison, but the fact is that we all (or 99.9% of us anyway) need gas & oil. We will be paying our same federal taxes (unless the democrats get into office and increase them) - so if we are paying taxes, why not have some of that go to paying for our oil, rather than it not paying for our oil and then we just paying higher prices at the pump?


RE: Another Tax
By sinful on 12/27/2007 11:47:47 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
rather than it not paying for our oil and then we just paying higher prices at the pump?


Because you're sabotaging the competition / alternatives.

It's like giving Ford a huge tax break and not giving one to GM. You've essentially made GM vehicles more expensive, and thus less competitive, with Ford. In fact, even if GM comes out with a superior car and can do it for less than Ford, if Ford's tax break is enough it doesn't matter - Ford can still charge less. And it's not just GM that's at a disadvantage now, it's EVERY car company that didn't get the tax break.

In the same vein, giving the oil industry a huge tax break penalizes any alternatives to oil that might be in development, by essentially making them more expensive in comparison.

Considering we want alternatives to flourish, it seems silly to give more and more benefits to the oil industry.


RE: Another Tax
By mdogs444 on 12/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: Another Tax
By retrospooty on 12/27/2007 1:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
You give Al Gore far too much credit for having any affect on this world.

This is a 100% oil company created mess that benefits nothing but oil companies and thier cronies - Helped along by the oil companies best allies the Bush admin.

Welcome to the world you live in.


RE: Another Tax
By Bioniccrackmonk on 12/27/2007 1:51:18 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, Al Gore is given way too much credit and I think the government of the UK put it right by banning his video from their schools. Propaganda at it's best right there.


RE: Another Tax
By mdogs444 on 12/27/2007 1:56:01 PM , Rating: 3
Unfortunately, they did not "ban" it I dont beleive. I think they are requiring him to show a certain disclaimer prior to the audience viewing the movie stating that it is political propaganda and that much of the information in the movie is not backed up scientifically.

Don't get me wrong, he has a freedom of speach as does anyone else. But forcing political propaganda in schools, as well as falsifications of global warming, is just as bad as teaching students that only creationism is right, or that evolution is only right. To be shown in a public school,it should be created in a non agenda orientation, non propagandized topic, and only 100% real facts stated so that students (and other people alike) can make their own judgements.......


RE: Another Tax
By Ringold on 12/27/2007 3:03:58 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Considering we want alternatives to flourish, it seems silly to give more and more benefits to the oil industry.


I guess maybe if all you watch is Katie Couric you'd of not got the memo, but "alternatives" to fossil fuels are getting showered in tax payer dollars in a way oil could only dream of. Ethanol has benefited from being a defacto "pick a winner" government technology for the future, despite being wildly inefficient. It's making a lot of people very rich.

You do point out one problem with the tax code, though. It's easy to propagandize, because tax breaks are offset with tax breaks, credits, subsidies, etc etc etc to the point where it can be difficult to see whats happening.

Which is, by the way, exactly the way the government likes it.


RE: Another Tax
By Bioniccrackmonk on 12/27/2007 10:48:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
All repealing those tax breaks on the oil companies would have done would be to raise the cost of gas for us the consumer.

quote:
Now yes, I agree with you. I think its ridiculous that an industry making billions a quarter in profits has tax breaks. But when repealing them means that they're just going to pass that lost money on to me and you? I'd rather they just get the tax breaks.


So by having these tax breaks, does that explain why gas prices have been going down and not up?

quote:
As far as mdogs post, well said. All this would do is show 17 year olds who like to cause trouble that they have less to fear of causing trouble. Personally I feel anyone committing an adult crime should be tried as an adult. If you shoot someone, you shouldn't get out in a few years just because you were 16 at the time. You were grown up enough to shoot someone, you're grown up enough to face the consequences. And many gangs out there use minors for violent crimes because there's the chance they won't be tried as an adult.


His post was more of a slander on democrats then it was a response to the actual article. Besides, I never said anything about sheltering kids from ajudication if they committ a crime. I personally believe that if they do the crime, they should do the time as well. No argument there.

quote:
And besides, what does taxing video games have to do with delinquent teenagers? Absolutely nothing. All it is is trying to further the stereotype that video games cause violence.


Absolutely nothing, I never said it had anything to do with it. In fact, I do believe I said Mdog was actually right in this instance in my OP.


RE: Another Tax
By F00bar3 on 12/27/2007 10:54:31 AM , Rating: 3
I guess I have to spell it out. THERE WAS NO TAX CUT FOR OIL COMPANIES. Liberals most effectively lie through ommission. Yes, there was a bill reducing certain taxes on oil companies, but included in that Republican bill were other taxes that not only eliminated any net tax break, but actually RAISED taxes on the oil industry.

This is from the non-partisan factcheck.org

It’s true that many generous subsidies were proposed and debated, but those were stripped out before the bill was passed in the midst of rising oil prices. As we reported last year, the bill as it was passed contained $14.3 billion in tax breaks, but the bulk of the cuts went to electric utilities, and nuclear, and also to alternative fuels research and subsidies for energy-efficient cars , homes and buildings – not to the oil industry. And as the CRS notes, the breaks that the oil and gas industry received were more than offset by tax increases contained in the same measure.


RE: Another Tax
By Bioniccrackmonk on 12/27/2007 10:57:25 AM , Rating: 2
From Mdog up above in response to your previous post:

Actually, the Republican controlled Congress approved the $7.7 Billion tax break to oil companies to claim deductions for oil & gas production and refining.

The thought behind the deduction is that the bottom line for oil companies (or any company for that matter) is always increasing profits each quarter/year. By giving tax breaks, they will be able to charge less for oil and still make the same amount of profits. Since we, the people, already pay the tax breaks out of our tax dollars, we would be seeing a discount on the oil at the pump. By getting rid of the tax deduction, the oil companies are going to increase their prices to account for the $7.7 Billion that they are not getting.

So anyone here can pick their poison, but the fact is that we all (or 99.9% of us anyway) need gas & oil. We will be paying our same federal taxes (unless the democrats get into office and increase them) - so if we are paying taxes, why not have some of that go to paying for our oil, rather than it not paying for our oil and then we just paying higher prices at the pump?


RE: Another Tax
By Bioniccrackmonk on 12/27/2007 11:00:25 AM , Rating: 2
Meant to hit preview on this one and not post, sorry about the double post.


RE: Another Tax
By Bioniccrackmonk on 12/27/2007 10:58:11 AM , Rating: 2
From Mdog up above in response to your previous post:

Actually, the Republican controlled Congress approved the $7.7 Billion tax break to oil companies to claim deductions for oil & gas production and refining.

The thought behind the deduction is that the bottom line for oil companies (or any company for that matter) is always increasing profits each quarter/year. By giving tax breaks, they will be able to charge less for oil and still make the same amount of profits. Since we, the people, already pay the tax breaks out of our tax dollars, we would be seeing a discount on the oil at the pump. By getting rid of the tax deduction, the oil companies are going to increase their prices to account for the $7.7 Billion that they are not getting.

So anyone here can pick their poison, but the fact is that we all (or 99.9% of us anyway) need gas & oil. We will be paying our same federal taxes (unless the democrats get into office and increase them) - so if we are paying taxes, why not have some of that go to paying for our oil, rather than it not paying for our oil and then we just paying higher prices at the pump?

quote:
I guess I have to spell it out. THERE WAS NO TAX CUT FOR OIL COMPANIES


Since you are spelling it out for us, you should probably use spell check first. just a thought.


RE: Another Tax
By F00bar3 on 12/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: Another Tax
By Bioniccrackmonk on 12/27/2007 1:12:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So my spelling error is more significant than the fact you lied?


For someone who is so adamant about using sarcasm, you sure did miss the point there, and not be a small margin either. Talk about going over your head.

quote:
Can you address the statement you made about Bush and his 'fingerpuppets' giving the oil companies a tax break?


It has been addressed by the very person you are agreeing with, he got to it before I could. Take a look at Mdogs444 multiple responses and you can read about it yourself.

quote:
I know you won't comment on the lies you are helping to spread, but do yourself a favor. Since self-riteous left wingers are always admonishing people to 'think for themselves', why don't you study the issues instead of posting moveon.org talking points?


Amazing how people who have nothing intelligent left to say revert back to children and spit out the first thing they can think of. Grow up.


RE: Another Tax
By Spuke on 12/27/2007 5:34:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Amazing how people who have nothing intelligent left to say revert back to children and spit out the first thing they can think of. Grow up.
I actually think his post wasn't bad. Calling a spade a spade, so to speak. I'll make one comment that is sure to get ignored.

Lies and half-truths covered up to look like intelligent statements are NO different than obvious childish remarks. IMO, those lies and half-truths covered up to look like intelligent statements are actually more dangerous because it causes people to take pause and consider the lie as truth when in fact it's just BS covered in chocolate.


RE: Another Tax
By Bioniccrackmonk on 12/28/2007 9:05:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lies and half-truths covered up to look like intelligent statements are NO different than obvious childish remarks. IMO, those lies and half-truths covered up to look like intelligent statements are actually more dangerous because it causes people to take pause and consider the lie as truth when in fact it's just BS covered in chocolate.


That double edged sword swings both ways. Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it is a "lie/half-truth" and didn't happen.


RE: Another Tax
By Bioniccrackmonk on 12/27/2007 11:08:51 AM , Rating: 2
Please provide the exact link to this article.


RE: Another Tax
By mdogs444 on 12/27/2007 11:12:50 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Another Tax
By Bioniccrackmonk on 12/27/2007 1:53:26 PM , Rating: 2
That was a good article and I wasn't aware they had already addressed it. Thanks for the link/update.


RE: Another Tax
By mdogs444 on 12/27/2007 1:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, they did address it about 11 months back. Not sure I agree with the outcome, but I was trying to be non biased in stating the facts of what happened. ;-)


RE: Another Tax
By mdogs444 on 12/27/2007 11:09:47 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
So by having these tax breaks, does that explain why gas prices have been going down and not up?

The prices are going to keep going up regardless of the tax breaks for several reasons:

1. Dictators controlling the oil supplies, like Hugo Chavez
2. The politically created & exaggerated "Energy Crisis"
3. Increase in demand globally
4. Refusal of OPEC to increase production
5. Refusing to survey the US for oil
6. Threat of a decrease in oil demand in the future (CAFE standards, etc)

The oil companies & its investors are not going to sacrafice profit just to make it easier on yours or my wallet. So by the government using some of the money we've already given them to help ease the pain of the ever increasing oil prices...i see it as a good thing. Rather than use that $7.7 Billion on earmark programs (in which Congress just passed $10Billion on earmarks, like a doll house museum)...it could be used on oil and help every person in the country.


RE: Another Tax
By JustTom on 12/27/2007 2:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
The primary reason for petroleum price increases is speculators.


RE: Another Tax
By mdogs444 on 12/27/2007 2:44:16 PM , Rating: 2
Good call, forgot about that one. There is also the "threat" of damage to their structure...like if they caught a terrorist plot before it happened.


RE: Another Tax
By FITCamaro on 12/27/2007 11:20:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So by having these tax breaks, does that explain why gas prices have been going down and not up?


I would hardly call $2.80 a gallon (in my area) down. Prices fluctuate with demand. Also it fluctuates with world events. Regardless of what the actual impact on the cost of gas those events may bring.


RE: Another Tax
By FITCamaro on 12/27/2007 11:25:36 AM , Rating: 2
Also I wasn't talking to you about my comments on the original article. Just voicing my opinion.


RE: Another Tax
By McFatty on 12/27/2007 1:26:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
All repealing those tax breaks on the oil companies would have done would be to raise the cost of gas for us the consumer.


Really? Where do you get that idea from? Oil companies are already making record profits, so why do gas prices keep going up? Just because a company is making more money, it doesn't mean they'll reduce the price of their product. Especially when its a product with near infinite demand. Think about it.


RE: Another Tax
By Bioniccrackmonk on 12/27/2007 1:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed


RE: Another Tax
By MrBungle123 on 12/27/2007 2:07:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really? Where do you get that idea from? Oil companies are already making record profits, so why do gas prices keep going up? Just because a company is making more money, it doesn't mean they'll reduce the price of their product. Especially when its a product with near infinite demand. Think about it.


There is more than one oil comapany, competition will lower prices as taxes go down. There are more factors than just taxes that go into the cost of the finished product so the impact of the tax decrease could be relatively low on a per gallon basis at the pump.


RE: Another Tax
By mdogs444 on 12/27/2007 2:19:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really? Where do you get that idea from?

Outside of common economic understandings - my guess would be an agreement between the lobbyists & the people in government.
quote:
Just because a company is making more money, it doesn't mean they'll reduce the price of their product.

Very true. In fact, common economics show that companies will charge as much as they can until demand starts to decrease. However, by taking away the tax break, that forces they profits of the company not to be as high - and when it comes to oil companies, you and I both know it doesnt make a difference because they are at record profits. But, when showing the botton line net profits to the stockholders, they are going to see a decrease in profits, and raise the cost accordingly so that they profit more than the previous quarter/year.

As always with economic policy, there are two sides. But in this case, I think there was some sort of agreement between the U.S. big oil companies and Washington in regards to the tax breaks.

quote:
Especially when its a product with near infinite demand. Think about it.

Very true. However, look at some of the past policies directly effected oil prices, and how the CAFE standards & alternative energy sources of current policy mirror the old policies & outcomes....

In 1978, OPEC declared an oil crisis due to the shah of Iran fleeing into exile and the Iran-Iraq war. Because of these events, OPEC increased the price of oil from $14 a barrel to $37 a barrel. In 1980, Congress passed Carter's "Energy Security Act" that created the Sythietic Fuels Corporation (SFC). This company in the US would create over 2 million barrels of synthetic oil a day within 7 years - as a way to start gaining sole energy independence. During the time that SFC was in business, OPEC went into shock and lowered the price of oil from $37 a barrel back down to $14 a barrel. Given the fact that sythetic oil was so much more expensive than crude oil when it lowered in price, the SFC was shut down.

In closing, its inevitable that the world will someday run out of oil, just as someday we will die, and someday etc, etc. However, the real FACT is that we have no idea when we will actually run out of oil - the conspiracy theorist have been saying that we will run out in 10 years....but they've also been saying that every 10 years since 1915. We've had several oil/energy "crisis"'s in the past - and all were politically created, and had nothing to do with actual shortages or decreasing supplies. The other FACT is that we havent much explored for oil since the prices went back down in 1980. However, we do know alot more exists, but due to special interest groups that dont want us to drill on our own soil, we haven't.

So my bottom line is that there is more to blame than just the "oil companies making record profits". They do so because our politicians allow them to do so. Just as much as some people want to blame certain politicians for siding with the oil lobbyist, there are as many people who blame the environmentalist for standing in the way of increasing our own domestic oil supply and lowering or reliance of foreign oil.


RE: Another Tax
By JustTom on 12/27/2007 2:51:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Very true. In fact, common economics show that companies will charge as much as they can until demand starts to decrease.


That is not quite correct, companies will seek to maximize profits (if we disregard external factors such as anti-trust, market penetration etc.). This is not quite the same as lowering prices as soon as demand drops. For instance Company A sells 10 widgets at USD 10. It raises prices to USD 20 and demand drops to 8. Despite the drop in demand the company would benefit and would be likely to implement such an increase.


RE: Another Tax
By mdogs444 on 12/27/2007 3:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
The company will still opt to raise the price if they only sold 5 widgets at $20 a piece, as opposed to 10 widgets at $10 a piece. Less cost of materials, labor, shipping, etc. Very common economics.

But in the case of oil, the US is the biggest importer (or was anyway, not sure if China is now). If we cut back on our consumption BECAUSE of high prices & false "energy crisis", then the oil companies will lower prices to settle the market and make sure we lower consumption to the point that their profits are dropping. Just my view, but im not a economist by trade, so...


RE: Another Tax
By JustTom on 12/27/2007 10:55:00 PM , Rating: 1
True, although since oil is fungible the effect of anything short of a major disruption of American demand would be likely be offset by more oil being sold elsewhere.

From what I have read American demand for gasoline is pretty non-elastic; at least to this point there has not been a significant lessening of consumption.


RE: Another Tax
By mdogs444 on 12/27/2007 11:05:11 PM , Rating: 2
True, there has not been a lessening of consumption. However, the governmental threat of decreasing consumption and leaning towards isolational energy dependence scares the crap out of the countries who drill for oil.

Much of the aid (monetary, military, and governmental) they get is in exchange for fair trade on oil. If we reduce or eliminate our dependency, those countries will lose all positive ties with the American government. Not exactly something in their best interest.

For example, and not trying to bash these two countries at all, but we get the overwhelming majority of our oil from Canada and Mexico. That gives them protection by US government - and leads to those countries not needing any major military force of any kind. Now, imagine if either of them tried to screw with the oil trade - do you think we would offer them military protection anymore? Probably not. Would they be scared that the US would overtake their country for its oil? Probably so.

In closing, the point I'm trying to make is that these oil producing countries can create a "politically created energy crisis" to force a decrease in American demand, and it would harm them just as much, if not more, than it would the US. Actually, in the late 70's/early 80's during the last political oil crisis - President Johnson is reported to have had a country already targeted and approved to invade and take their oil supplies by force. OPEC caught wind of that, and had they not dropped their price back to $14/barrel from $37/barrel, there would have been a major assault on an oil producing country.


RE: Another Tax
By JustTom on 2/5/2008 1:23:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
President Johnson is reported to have had a country already targeted and approved to invade and take their oil supplies by force


Johnson was president in the 60's, I think you might mean Nizon who was president during the oil embargo in the early 70's. I have heard theories on this before but I don't really give them credence, America was still hungover from Vietnam and it is extremely unlikely that any president would have been able to ram through a war to seize oil.


RE: Another Tax
By FITCamaro on 12/27/2007 9:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
Gas prices keep going up because the cost of oil keeps increasing. They're not going to lower their profits to keep prices the same despite higher oil prices.


RE: Another Tax
By MrBungle123 on 12/27/2007 11:16:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
For once you are right. Democrats shouldn't be imposing new taxes on video games. They should focus their sights on reinstating taxes that Bush and his Republican fingerpuppets gave to the one industry that is making record profits in the billions every quarter.


When large corporations make more money they use it to buy more stuff from other companies and hire more people which in the end HELPS the economy. I do not understand the mentality of liberals who want to tax the success of large corporations which provide services to millions of consumers and jobs for thousands of others. It may come as a shock to some but if you bring down the "big evil corporations" like exxon, micorsoft, and those polluting electric companies with their big bad power plants you'll destory the economy. You'll put huge numbers of people out of work, you'll lower the standard of living for everyone that relies on those companies products on a daily basis, and you'll have less money for your bleeding heart handout programs because you won't be recieving the hundreds of billions of tax dollars that those organizations already pay.

Large comapnies are built by providing people what they want, you CANNOT build an enormous orgainization from the ground up by swindling, cheating, and destroying everyone around you. (in the private sector anyway)

The reason the corporations and rich people are always the ones who recieve the tax breaks is because they are the ones that pay the taxes. Joe Schmoe working at moms bread basket down the street for 15 cents over minimum wage pays virtually nothing in taxes, what little they do pay is almost always given back to them in the form of an income tax return. He pays a small percentage of his wage in taxes, while the big evil CEO at the head of *insert company name here* pays 40+ percent of everything he makes in taxes. You can't lower taxes by giving tax cuts to people that don't pay taxes.


RE: Another Tax
By mdogs444 on 12/27/2007 11:22:03 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You can't lower taxes by giving tax cuts to people that don't pay taxes.

Great line MrBungle - I couldnt agree more.

But the problem here with the liberals is that they want to increase the taxes on the CEO even more, and give that money to the bread basket worker in the form of a check.

Ahh, redistribution of wealth at its finest.


RE: Another Tax
By FITCamaro on 12/27/2007 11:29:47 AM , Rating: 1
x2


RE: Another Tax
By tdawg on 12/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: Another Tax
By mdogs444 on 12/27/2007 3:16:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I know I pay a couple thousand in taxes each year that is deducted from my check and I don't get nearly that much back in returns. That "small" percentage hurts me much more than it does someone that makes a lot more than I do.

By a "couple thousand", I hope you aren't referring to paying $2000 in federal taxes and only getting $1985 back.

That "small" percentage may hurt you, but that percentage is also a larger percentage to someone who makes more than you. If you pay $2000 in taxes this year, the person who makes double what you do is probably paying much more than $4000 in taxes. In fact, they are probably paying closer to $5000 or $6000....and also getting less of that amount back.

So I dont see where your class warfare argument has any merit.

quote:
Trickle-down economics. We all know how well this worked back in the 80s

Actually they do: "Since August 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.5 million jobs created over the 12 months that ended in November. Our economy has now added jobs for 51 straight months – the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 4.7 percent." http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/index.ht...

Take your socialistic & class warfare argument elsewhere.


RE: Another Tax
By tdawg on 12/27/2007 4:22:48 PM , Rating: 2
mdoggs, I didn't attack you on anything here, so why do you have to throw punches to feel like you made a point?

To clarify: I get back a small percentage of my income tax I've paid throughout the year. If I pay $2000, I sure as hell don't get back $1985. I get back something like $200-$300 dollars.

Are you saying that it's unfair for a person that makes double what I make to pay double in taxes (same tax percentage), because that's how it should work. Everyone has the same tax responsibility within the same tax bracket. If I pay 15% in taxes, the other people in my tax bracket should also be paying 15% in taxes (minus deductions for education, children, etc). I don't know where you get this class warfare issue--everything's a war to Republicans these days, with the exception of the war on drugs, which both sides "fight" and the war on poverty, which both sides ignore. Please point out where I suggested we become socialists?

Over the course of this administrations reign, the majority of jobs have been low-paying service jobs that have been created, not meaningful jobs with livable wages. There's no cause-effect relationship between lower taxes and more jobs. Companies fight to grow no matter what their tax bracket and growth means more jobs. Successful companies create a need for a growing work force, failing companies do not. This exists both in the presence and absense of tax breaks.


RE: Another Tax
By mdogs444 on 12/27/2007 4:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
mdoggs, I didn't attack you on anything here, so why do you have to throw punches to feel like you made a point?

I apologize if you feel I am attacking you, and perhaps I misinterpreted what you were saying. Its not attacking you personally, its just that I dont believe in taxing the wealthy a higher percentage because they make good life decisions. Thats penalizing people who are smart.
quote:
To clarify: I get back a small percentage of my income tax I've paid throughout the year. If I pay $2000, I sure as hell don't get back $1985. I get back something like $200-$300 dollars.

Im not sure how you do your taxes, but that doesn't seem right. Unless someone else is already claiming you as a dependant and getting your tax write off (like a parent or guardian).
quote:
Are you saying that it's unfair for a person that makes double what I make to pay double in taxes (same tax percentage), because that's how it should work

No, thats exactly what I believe in. That everyone pays the same percentage. Which is why I believe in the FairTax - a flat rate sales tax, so the more money you have, the more you spend, and the more you pay in taxes.
quote:
Everyone has the same tax responsibility within the same tax bracket. If I pay 15% in taxes, the other people in my tax bracket should also be paying 15% in taxes (minus deductions for education, children, etc).

This is a different story and contradicting to your previous statement. You believe this should only be the case for each bracket - but why do we need to have brackets? You do realize that if the tax bracket was set at $50k, then the guy who actually makes $51000 has a lower total net income than the guy who makes $49000 because of a higher tax percentage.
quote:
I don't know where you get this class warfare issue--everything's a war to Republicans these days

Its not a "war" per say, but its a debate on what each person deems to be "fair". Its always "fair" to you when its not more of your money that is being taken and not given back. I dont make as much as to be considered in the "wealthy" bracket, but I do believe they are getting shafted in all this, while the "non'wealthy" get something for free.
quote:
Please point out where I suggested we become socialists?

I apologize if I misinterpreted your post, but it sounded to me like you wanted to be taxed less, and have people who make more money than you taxed at a higher rate because they aren't as hard up for money as you are. Thats socialist - redistribution of wealth/class warfare.
quote:
Over the course of this administrations reign, the majority of jobs have been low-paying service jobs that have been created, not meaningful jobs with livable wages.

I dont know if thats 100% accurate or not. But the administration cannot control what types of companies open up. But its proven fact that if companies have more money, then they can, and usually do, use it for an increase in business & employment. By decreasing taxes and letting individual citizens have more money, then they also have more to spend on products. When they spend on products, businesses make more money, increase production, and hire more workers. Its a basic economic principal that the conservatives believe in.

I am yet to see a recent administration who increased taxes, and resulted in an increase in spending, employment, and exports.


RE: Another Tax
By tdawg on 12/27/2007 5:29:17 PM , Rating: 2
mdoggs, thank you for that post. Very reasoned and logical; now I feel there's a real debate here. :)

I only speak of tax brackets, because that's how it's structured now. I'm definitely not an advocate of making the rich pay 40% in taxes while the poor and middle class pay 5% or less. A flat tax sounds fairest to me where everybody pays 15% of their earnings to the government. Your example of the arbitrary tax bracket lines does a good job at highlighting a problem with the current tax system. I think those of us that do pay our fair share just feel slighted when someone with a ton of money gets to take advantage of tax loopholes that knocks their tax percentage to a ridiculously low level. You can't be happy that Warren Buffet or Bill Gates pays less of a percentage of their earnings in taxes than you, right?

Regarding my own taxes, I don't remember exactly how much I get back each year, but since I'm single with no deductions, like a house or something, I guess I'm not eligible for any tax breaks. Who knows, maybe I'm not doing my taxes to my best advantage.

I'm not looking to have my tax rate cut at the expense of other individuals, as I feel it's important that everybody help fund the needs of the government in a fair manner. However, giving big takes breaks to large corporations to keep them doing business in a certain state or in the country is hard to swallow. They are earning money just like their employees are, yet their employees potentially shoulder a bigger tax burden, percentage-wise, than the company as a whole.

I don't blame or applaud the current administration for the creation of jobs in certain sectors. As you said, it's not the government creating the jobs, but rather the company themselves. The administration in it's earlier days did a lot to tout job creation to show how good the economy was doing, even though a lot of the jobs were not providing livable wages.

I still think job growth can easily be explained independent of tax breaks. A failing company that gets a tax break doesn't mean that they'll suddenly be well run and growing, resulting in the need for more employees to work in more locations/facilities. I think a successful company becomes successful no matter what their tax responsibility and with their success, their shareholders demand growth, which leads to new employment needs and new jobs to staff to feed the company's growth. I don't remember seeing any evidence in my economics course in college that pointed out a cause-effect relationship between lower taxes for companies and an increase in job creation, or the "trickle-down effect". It could be argued that tax breaks to the individuals of society increase disposable income, resulting in increasing purchases, which lead to increased sales for companies' products, new growth for said companies and a need for new employees to feed that growth.


RE: Another Tax
By mdogs444 on 12/27/2007 5:53:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can't be happy that Warren Buffet or Bill Gates pays less of a percentage of their earnings in taxes than you, right?

The difference here is that Gates & Buffet are not salaried employees. They make their money off capital gains - which in a sense, are investments. Capital Gains are taxed at 15%. Everyone has a right to play the stock market, housing market, etc. But those people made smart decisions in order to allow them to have enough money in savings to start playing the investment market. Not much I can fault them for - except for Buffet being an idiot and spinning the tax criteria to make it look like the types of taxes he pays are the same type as his secretary. Also, look at the people who are trying to decide your tax criteria & what type of percentage you pay....all the democrats (including Buffet) want to increase federal taxes...but they are almost all trust fund babies who dont pay federal taxes outside of their government salaries which are only pennies of their actual incomes. Also, you hear Buffet saying he wants to increase taxes on the wealthy, but you dont hear him saying he wants to increase capital gains taxes - because that would effect his business.

Now as far as the democrats idea (independant of Buffet) of increasing the capital gains tax from 15%-30%, it would cause an econominic depression in the stock market. Anyone who owns stock and made any money at all on the stocks they own is going to sell all at one time - while the tax is 15%, before it jumps to 30% because they dont want to lose their profits. Can you see the major problem with that?
quote:
However, giving big takes breaks to large corporations to keep them doing business in a certain state or in the country is hard to swallow.

I dont think so. Giving a company tax breaks to keep their business in the US and employing US citizens as opposed to moving their business to China or India, is whats best for this country and its people. If the company leaves because of no tax breaks, then not only do our citizens pay for it due to losing their jobs, but our economy also does becuase that money is taken out of our economy, and also decreases our GDP.
quote:
The administration in it's earlier days did a lot to tout job creation to show how good the economy was doing, even though a lot of the jobs were not providing livable wages.

But we need those jobs to increase. We need positions like that for unskilled labor so we can decrease the number of people on welfare and increase the number of people who actually pay taxes insteading of living off social policy.
quote:
It could be argued that tax breaks to the individuals of society increase disposable income, resulting in increasing purchases, which lead to increased sales for companies' products, new growth for said companies and a need for new employees to feed that growth.

That, my freind, is the proven feat of Reaganomics. During Reagan's tenure, income tax rates were lowered significantly, with the top personal tax bracket dropping from 70% to 28% in 7 years, but payroll taxes increased during Reagan's terms as well as the effective tax rates on the lower two income quintiles. Real Gross Domestic Product growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession and grew during Reagan's remaining years in office at an annual rate of 3.4% per year, slightly lower than the post-World War II average of 3.6%. Unemployment peaked at over 9.7% percent in 1982 then dropped during the rest of Reagan's terms, and inflation significantly decreased. A net job increase of about 16 million also occurred.


RE: Another Tax
By tdawg on 12/27/2007 7:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote:

It could be argued that tax breaks to the individuals of society increase disposable income, resulting in increasing purchases, which lead to increased sales for companies' products, new growth for said companies and a need for new employees to feed that growth.


That, my freind, is the proven feat of Reaganomics. During Reagan's tenure, income tax rates were lowered significantly, with the top personal tax bracket dropping from 70% to 28% in 7 years, but payroll taxes increased during Reagan's terms as well as the effective tax rates on the lower two income quintiles. Real Gross Domestic Product growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession and grew during Reagan's remaining years in office at an annual rate of 3.4% per year, slightly lower than the post-World War II average of 3.6%. Unemployment peaked at over 9.7% percent in 1982 then dropped during the rest of Reagan's terms, and inflation significantly decreased. A net job increase of about 16 million also occurred.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're describing is not "trickle-down" economics (which is what was being debated), but rather a form of "trickle-up" economics, right? Tax breaks to the citizens equals better business conditions for companies?


RE: Another Tax
By mdogs444 on 12/27/2007 7:44:51 PM , Rating: 2
The "trickle down theory" of economics combines the reduction of taxes for both the upper class citizens as well as businesses - which is exactly what Reagan did. The "trickle down" philosophy is if the rich do well, benefits will "trickle down" to the rest. Lower taxes on high income or capital gains will benefit most of the population, etc. This comes in the forms of increasing employment, productivity, GDP, as we previously discussed.

"Trickle up" economics is a theory that increasing the standard of living and disposable incomes for low class families will benefit the society and economy - which has been proven not to work. By increasing the minimum wage, all you are doing is forcing businesses to pay higher wages, and charge more for their products. That leads to inflation of the dollar, higher costs of living, and that makes the increase in minimum wage useless.


RE: Another Tax
By Alexstarfire on 12/27/2007 5:40:19 PM , Rating: 2
Well, while I believe that the FairTax is easily the best way to go I would be a lot more pissed if we didn't have brackets, and still not have the FairTax. What you have to realize is that EVERYONE needs a certain amount of money to live on. If you make $25,000 a year and 15% of that goes to the government, you are left with like $21,500 which isn't much to live on, of course neither is $25,000 but still. Even if the person who made $1,000,000 a year paid 90% taxes they'd still have 4x more money than the other guy grossed. I understand that it sucks to have to give up the money that you rightfully earned, which is why the FairTax is great, but if you could barely live off of what you gross pay is then I don't know why you have to pay as much tax as the guy who makes 10x the money you do. Sure, they may give up a little more money, but if that helps 10 people scrape by by not paying as much taxes, then I think it's a good trade off. It's kind of like a forced donation. It sucks for the guy who has to pay more taxes, but I'm sure the $150,000 that he gets is plenty to live off of too.


RE: Another Tax
By mdogs444 on 12/27/2007 6:00:14 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, everyone needs a certain amount to live on, but thats why we also have social policies. The majority of the middle class believe in 3 things: we want lower taxes, we want the lower income classes to pay their share, we want the upper class to be able to keep their share. Being taxed higher because you made better decisions is a for of penalty.

This is why I love the saying in one of our most important documents of all time:

"All men are created equal" - you're on your own and you make your own destiny.


RE: Another Tax
By MrBungle123 on 12/27/2007 6:40:45 PM , Rating: 2
There are some cases where poverty is not a persons fault, but most of us are without excuse.

Everyone is given a free education to grade 12, after that higher education is available for those who wish to persue it. It expensive yes but to cover the cost grants/scolarships are given to people wishing to go, loans are available regardless of your families background. If you are willing to work for it there is no limit to what you can do or how far you can go in this country.

Those who live below the poverty line for their entire lives for the most part do so because of a lack of drive and willingness to better themselves.


RE: Another Tax
By tdawg on 12/27/2007 7:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
Free education, or more accurately, taxpayer-fronted education / government-funded education is not created equal. While every citizen may have access to some form of education thru grade 12, it's not guaranteed to be the of the same quality. It's not just a matter of completing the 12 grades that prepares you for college and life after school, but rather the quality of that education. In Seattle, WA alone, school districts are failing to maintain consistent education standards and meet standard needs of the students. And I'm not talking about "No Child Left Behind"; that program is a joke. We need real federal funding for public education that pays good teachers a fair wage so that they stay in the district to teach their students. Otherwise, they leave the poorer paying school districts for the greener pastures of better schools. Taxes provide the majority, if not the sole source of funding for public education.

There are valid obstacles to everybody getting the same education and similar opportunities, as well as job opportunities. My situation and potential opportunities vary widely from a kid growing up in the Mississippi delta. My school district may have provided stronger teachers and my surroundings provided fertile opportunities to get a job that offers a liveable wage. This viewpoint of yours is the "just world" viewpoint that equates to everybody can stay alive if they just try; if someone gets murdered, they probably deserved it. "The poor are just lazy" is far from accurate stereotype.


RE: Another Tax
By mdogs444 on 12/27/2007 7:58:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In Seattle, WA alone, school districts are failing to maintain consistent education standards and meet standard needs of the students.

Thats pretty much the same in all major cities - especially in the low income neighborhoods.
quote:
We need real federal funding for public education that pays good teachers a fair wage so that they stay in the district to teach their students. Otherwise, they leave the poorer paying school districts for the greener pastures of better schools. Taxes provide the majority, if not the sole source of funding for public education.

True to a point. First, its the local property taxes that fund most of the school districts. That is one of the major reasons low income & low class cities have poorer quality school districts due to lower funds available. Not to mention that many people just do not want to work in schools that are situated in questionable neighborhoods.
However, are you going to fault a teacher for wanting to better their career by making more money, as well as taking an opportunity to go to a nicer school or a safer community? Also, there are notoriously good school districts out there - like Naperville, IL where I lived for a short time - in which people purposely move there just for the school district even though the property taxes and housing costs are very high.
Basically, the government promises that each person out there is eligible to receive an education - but it falls on the responsibility of the local government, not the federal government, to regulate the actual schools.
quote:
"The poor are just lazy" is far from accurate stereotype.

Its not exactly "politically correct", or always true, but I also believe what he said is quite accurate. People who are poor, and have always been poor, and will always be poor - is because of lack of motivation and willingness to better themselves. If you are not disabled, there is no reason that you should be on welfare for an extended period of time, let alone your whole life. If you are, chances are its because you made an unwise choice: you got pregnant as a teenager, you dropped out of high school, you decided you did not want to go to college, you got caught breaking the law in a medium to serious infraction that you need to state on job applications prohibiting your ability to get a trusted position from any employer, and the list goes on and on and on. These are personal choices.

"All men are created equal" - but what you do during your life and the choices you make dictate what your standard of living will be.


RE: Another Tax
By Ringold on 12/27/2007 10:15:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
People who are poor, and have always been poor, and will always be poor - is because of lack of motivation and willingness to better themselves.


I've got to agree with you, and disagree with what the op said.

Yes; the quality of schools varies, we can all agree on that. As I've brought up before though, I went to an "F" rated inner-city High School for a 'magnet program', aka a desegregation program, and saw first hand the situation. Many teachers weren't half as enthusiastic as the ones from my suburban middle school, many were just trying to get their time in for retirement, and still others were bitter. They weren't "worse" than the teachers elsewhere, they were just understandably frustrated that they pour their hearts in to classes of thugs, drug dealers and future drop outs that don't bother to show up all the time, cheat, show up high on drugs or smelling of booze, etc.

The problem was these kids from lower class / low income backgrounds weren't interested. They didn't care, they never had cared, and even if they did then, 8 years of going to school because it was a baby sitting service for single parents rather than an educational goal meant they could barely read or do simple math. Then they drop out, or get socially promoted up and out after 4 or 5 or 6 years. They had other priorities; their gang, their drugs, their hoes, their babies or their expensive shoes (I saw at least two fights simply from one person stepping on anothers shoes -- WTF).

It goes back to the individuals -- they don't care. Can you blame them? Their parents know only poor ways, so the kids can't help but learn those poor ways. After a generation, the parents know no other way. I read recently that for the lowest 1/5th of income earners in the US, their net household wealth was $57. Yep. That's right. Less than I spent on dinner today. $57. Bet a months pay their kids wear nicer shoes though.

From the Economist:
"A third factor is that even when blacks earn the same as whites, they tend to be less wealthy. In 2000 the average white household in the bottom fifth of income-earners was worth $24,000. For black households the figure was $57"

I'm not sure what the answer is; better parenting is obvious, but not sure how to bring that about. My economics background suggests removal of the social safety net; if they were hungry, they'd have incentive to acquire and keep jobs and build skills, but that's not politically correct. The results from the welfare reductions in the mid 90s is proof positive I'm correct to some degree, but tough love doesn't sell well. What I do know though is that blaming schools is a ridiculous cop-out. Teachers, generally, do what they can with what their given. Garbage in, slightly refined garbage out.

Perhaps a more PC phrase; You can bring a horse to water, but can't make him drink.

Not to say teachers unions aren't vile institutions, but that's another issue entirely.


RE: Another Tax
By onwisconsin on 12/27/2007 10:46:51 AM , Rating: 2
No, wrong, it's Wisconsin's State politics at work. Before this, it was the "cable competition bill" pushed via special interests by AT&T. Then there's the Wisconsin Mfgs and Commerce (another group) pushing corporate taxes on to property taxes - which schools heavily rely on and have been cut back because of the burden.

I love Wisconsin, but the politics are f***ed up...


RE: Another Tax
By dluther on 12/27/2007 4:50:49 PM , Rating: 2
Biased much?

I mean really, aside from proposing something asinine such as a tax on video games, let's posit that juvenile detention facilities for 10-17 year olds are favorable alternatives to throwing them down the same hole with murderers and rapists. Now try and stretch your imagination just a little bit further, and assume that these things aren't built for free, and that the money that is required to build them doesn't grow on the government's secret orchard of money trees.

In order to provide people the social services necessary to live in a civilized society, money is required. And since the only source of revenue generally available to the government is tax revenue, that's where it comes from.

quote:
to help out young criminals to get easier sentances [sic] by going to juvenile detention instead of adult prison


I believe the thinking behind such a facility is to straighten them out while they're young. And really, how you fail to see the nobility in that sentiment is beyond reason save this: if it works, you won't have to pay for their continued imprisonment. Obviously, the parents aren't doing such a grand job in raising these rebellious little miscreants, so that job has to be left to someone who can instill within them some sense of right and wrong, and hopefully set them on the side of right.

And this doesn't apply to those kids who just exercise bad judgment, do something stupid and get caught doing it. For the most part, families that discipline their children through a combination of love, a thorough explanation of actions and consequences, privilege revocation, manual labor, and the firm application of a belt to the ass seem to produce offspring that are generally more socially well-adjusted and appreciative of the consequences of wrongdoing.

However, a more pressing question is 'how can we apply such a tax fairly?' It seems obvious to me that the majority of parents and guardians seem to be doing at least a passable job in rearing their offspring, so is it "fair" to penalize normal, law-abiding citizens and make them pay for such a facility? Well, yes and no. No, because the majority of these people are simply unaffected by such a facility; yes, because the success of such a facility may actually protect the general population, perhaps by saving them from being robbed at gunpoint or killed by a drunken driver. Certainly that's a leap of logic, but the underlying principles are there.

The bottom line is that directed taxation is never popular with the group being taxed. Drinkers don't like alcohol taxes, smokers don't like tobacco taxes... We could keep going.

They're not saying that all video game players are juvenile delinquents. But the vast majority of juvenile delinquents sure seem to play video games.


RE: Another Tax
By Ringold on 12/27/2007 10:26:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The bottom line is that directed taxation is never popular with the group being taxed. Drinkers don't like alcohol taxes, smokers don't like tobacco taxes... We could keep going.


Drink enough alcohol, you'll die. Drink slightly less over prolonged periods, you're doing brain damage and more likely to end up on the public's dime in a nursing home or in a hospital.

Smoke enough tobacco, almost a promise you'll get cancer.

There is no such absolute relationship with video games -- that is the point. I've played first person shooters, but I'd never shoot anybody -- unless they were threatening me, but that's my right to do so then. I'm fairly certain I and those like me can continue to play games and be no more likely then anyone else in past generations to commit violent crime or be a leech on society.

You do note, though, that everyone would share in social benefits provided by more effective handling of juvenile criminals. No argument from me there. But the proper method would be to tax all the beneficiaries, ie via the state income tax, property tax or local sales taxes.

Picking video games is, due to the lack of a strong direct connection between video games and violent crime, social engineering, plain and simple. Thats the point.

By the way, saying they all play games.. Do you have kids or know any kids? That'd be like saying all the criminal ones wear clothes. No shit. They're kids. Guess what? I wear clothes too. Keep your hand on your wallet and walk away quickly.


Lame and Unfair!
By mellondust on 12/27/2007 9:33:39 AM , Rating: 3
Why should I have to pay more for my games becuase some teenager can't control their own behavior. What is wrong with these people that come up with these crazy tax laws. Stupid lawmakers!




RE: Lame and Unfair!
By Christopher1 on 12/27/2007 9:52:58 AM , Rating: 2
I have to agree. Really, they should be threatening the parents of these children with big fines for letting their children get that out of control.... though really, most of these teenagers and children who are violent and destructive are only doing it because they have nothing else to do in their lives (no outdoor activities, no video games to play, etc.).

If they had those 'time-wasters' (and the majority of 'in-trouble' kids are poor!) they wouldn't be out doing some of the things they are doing.


RE: Lame and Unfair!
By AntiM on 12/27/2007 10:20:54 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. The only way to keep kids out of the judicial system is to prevent irresponsible people from having kids in the first place. Hopefully the proposal will be quickly shot down. Maybe there should be a dumb proposal tax. Every time a politician makes a dumb proposal, they have to donate $10,000 to the education system or a planned parenthood clinic. There should also be a stupid parent tax...


RE: Lame and Unfair!
By Polynikes on 12/27/2007 10:23:37 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you, minus the parents getting fined... Some kids are just beyond control. (ie. crazy.)


RE: Lame and Unfair!
By tallcool1 on 12/27/2007 11:58:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why should I have to pay more for my games becuase some teenager can't control their own behavior.

Because Democrates think that way.
Remember that next time you vote in 2008.


RE: Lame and Unfair!
By MrPickins on 12/27/2007 12:43:36 PM , Rating: 2
What's a democrate?

Is that where you get to try out a new type of box?


RE: Lame and Unfair!
By Bioniccrackmonk on 12/27/2007 2:02:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because Democrates think that way


I find it funny how people on this site like to lump/generalize one person as a whole group. So this one democrat came up with a bad idea, that automatically makes them all stupid. According to your logic then, since Larry Craig was caught tapping his foot under the stall, does that mean all republicans do that as well?

Remember that when you vote in 2008.


RE: Lame and Unfair!
By mdogs444 on 12/27/2007 10:50:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So this one democrat came up with a bad idea, that automatically makes them all stupid.

I didnt see anyone say that all democrats are stupid - that would be a matter of opinion anyway.
quote:
I find it funny how people on this site like to lump/generalize one person as a whole group.

He isnt generalizing this person as a group. He is generalizing the groups basis. The democratic party believes in increasing taxes and big government. The republican party believes in less government and lower taxes.

Of course each individual person's view on each specific issue is going to vary a little bit. But what this specific Senator is proposing is typical and falls within the realm of the democratic party's beliefs.


Seems kinda unfair
By monitorjbl on 12/27/2007 9:39:17 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
rather the idea is that the tax is “a kind of kids-kids thing,” with gamers helping out fellow youth stuck behind bars in an adult prison system.


If it is supposed to be a "kids-kids" thing, it seems a tad unfair that the kids can't vote on it. Besides, most gamers younger than 18 have their parents buy games for them, so it's really an "adults-kids" thing, and God knows adults have enough taxes now.




RE: Seems kinda unfair
By rdeegvainl on 12/27/2007 9:57:31 AM , Rating: 2
Really when it comes down to it, kids are the minority when it comes to making game purchases, the average aged gamer is well into adulthood, and they are the ones with the money to buy the majority of said games. This is just a politician who is taking things at face value and not actually doing any real research into anything behind the public image. But then again, public image is what gets them elected, so why bother.


RE: Seems kinda unfair
By FoxFour on 12/27/2007 10:27:31 AM , Rating: 2
As long as there are politicians*, there will be new and creative taxes levied on citizens. Governments spend a lot of money that has to come from somewhere.

Up here in Canada, the very first bill to be passed after every election (municipal, provincial, or federal) is a salary increase for the elected reps.

*Or any class of individual(s) that make(s) decisions "for" the rest of society -- politicians, royalty, military dictators, whatever.


RE: Seems kinda unfair
By rcc on 12/27/2007 12:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
lol, perhaps we should just tie politicians wages to the average income? Then they wouldn't have to spend the time voting on increases. And, they'd get rewarded for promoting economic growth.


RE: Seems kinda unfair
By Bioniccrackmonk on 12/27/2007 2:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
I would say the same thing happens here in America as well.


Just keep adding on...
By MaceDew on 12/27/2007 4:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
From Wikipedia
"Wisconsin has a 5.0% state sales tax, with most of the 72 counties charging an extra 0.5% "County Tax". Five counties (Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Washington, Waukesha) have a 0.1% tax that funds the building of Miller Park in Milwaukee. Brown County (Green Bay) has a 0.5% tax for the reconstruction of Lambeau Field. Prescriptions, most non-prepared foods (including meat and dairy) are exempt; however over-the-counter medications are not.[58]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_Un...

SO that would end up being 6.6% or 7.0% sales tax on video games and accessories overall.

Thats just a bunch of BS. I am just just P.O.'ed right now. I agree that 17 year olds that have committed a non-violent crime should not be sent to spend the time with Bubba in the big mans house. The olny reason that video games and accessories are being targeted is because they are growing so rapidly and make lots of money and will continue to do so for a long time.

Here is more info on the Senator Senator Jon Erpenbach.

http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=tem...

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/senate/sen27/news/




RE: Just keep adding on...
By mdogs444 on 12/27/2007 4:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
In Ohio, the sales tax is determined by county. The county I live in already pays 7.5% sales tax. So when it comes down to buying a car here vs. a county in Wisconsin at 7.5% vs. 5.0%, you do the math....


RE: Just keep adding on...
By MaceDew on 12/27/2007 5:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, now add another 1% on top of your 7.5% when you but a video game item. I think anyone that buys video games and accessories would be upset with the 1% increase. In ’06 video games, sales made $12.5 Billion. If all the states had this 1% on video games, that would be $125 Million in tax from these sales.

My point being an extra 1% on anyones video game tax is not the right way to go.


RE: Just keep adding on...
By scd88 on 12/27/2007 5:53:19 PM , Rating: 2
Ohio has lower tax rates compared to Wisconsin. The range of tax rates for Ohio is .0649 to 6.555. Wisconsin's tax rates range from a low of 4.6 to 6.75. Ohio also has higher personal exemptions, an Ohio resident can deduct 1400 for an individual compared to in WI it is only 700. And the same goes for filing jointly, 2800 and 1400 respectively. For each child the exemption is the same as an individual in each state. This is probably why you are paying a higher Sales tax. WI resident are already getting it stuck to them in the form of Income tax where Ohio is making up for it in Sales tax.

Source for tax rates and exemptions: http://www.taxadmin.org/FTA/rate/ind_inc.html


Just 17-year-olds?
By Polynikes on 12/27/2007 10:22:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The new tax would levy a 1% surcharge on the sale of video games and related equipment, with funds applied towards the cost of moving non-violent, delinquent 17-year-olds into the juvenile detention system, as they are currently treated, prosecuted, and incarcerated as adults.

17-year-olds should be tried as adults. They know just as well as any 18-year-old the morality of their actions.




RE: Just 17-year-olds?
By MightyAA on 12/27/2007 12:25:53 PM , Rating: 2
Right... I did some really dumb stuff as a 17 year old. At 18, I wasn't much better.. just more careful. We're talking the joy riders here, the dope heads, the party crew type people going to the big boy jail. I had a friend spend 30 days in county jail for trying to outrun cops on his dirt bike... kids will always do stupid stuff; it's part of growing up. And in today's society, they are more likely to hit you with some time than drop it as a "boys will be boys" thing. Guess that's why the juvy hall is already filled up...

Personally, I don't see a non-violent offender surviving well in an adult prison filled with hard core criminals. I don't mind paying $0.50 per game so these kids won't get raped in prison or be forced to become violent themselves to survive. So, lets see.. I buy about 10 games a year; omg.. $5.00! I'd rather pay that than deal with a pissed off, emotionally unstable 18 year old who just got released from serving hard time after being someones wet nurse because he got caught with a couple joints.


Charge the parents, not the gamers
By JohofNovi on 12/27/2007 11:13:45 AM , Rating: 2
Parents of delinquent children should be billed for every day the child is incarcerated. That is how it should be. Why tax or "charge a fee" to law abiding citizens for something we had nothing to do with? This is a classic example of government creating a tax that does nothing to deter the cause of the expense. Democrats and Republicans are just as likely to screw the masses if they think they will get more votes for creating a "feel good" project that is funded by a tax increase. If they raise your taxes, vote them out. Period. I don't give a damn what party they are from.




By Ringold on 12/27/2007 3:14:44 PM , Rating: 2
QFT.

"So say we all."


another rediculous law..
By hitman699 on 12/27/2007 11:19:47 AM , Rating: 2
video games should be taxed at whatever the same rate is for any product sold in the state is.. This silly law is even more silly then the new one in texas that charges $5 per person to go to a strip club..to pay for rape victims.

One of the states main jobs is to provide for the incarceration of inmates. If they have no juvenile system set up for the 17 year old.. then they need to find the money and eliminate spending in other places rather then tax a certain group to specifically pay for it. they should try to raise the sales tax for everyone if they feel this is right. see how well that goes over. this new trend of picking small segments so they can get re-elected without people saying you raised taxes on me.. (most kids don't vote right).. If I was a wisconsin resident.. Id be protesting the persons office doing this daily and sure as hell be protesting against his re-election. kids for kids thing... lol.. should be a government doing its job and what it already collects taxes for.. thing




RE: another rediculous law..
By LumbergTech on 12/27/2007 1:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
what percentage of strippers do you think were raped and or molested?


I live in Wisconsin
By hobbes7869 on 12/27/2007 6:59:44 PM , Rating: 2
and like to buy/play video games. I will just order online or buy off ebay. Too bad WI is going to lose my $.50 worth of taxes to help juevy deliquents. Where the hell are their parents?




RE: I live in Wisconsin
By Ringold on 12/27/2007 10:31:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where the hell are their parents?


Their WoW alliance meeting in TeamSpeak is running over schedule.


Whatever happen to "Hard Time?"
By enlil242 on 12/27/2007 10:42:28 AM , Rating: 2
Why should they be coddled. I say make the experience so miserable they never want to come back... Bring in an R. Lee Ermey type to learn them little bastards a thing or two...




why not have a child tax
By fic2 on 12/27/2007 11:08:56 AM , Rating: 2
When you have kids you have to pay a tax (say $100) for the problems that your child will be causing the state in the future. Makes more sense it is more of a parents helping kids thing.

Or how about fining the parents of the kid that gets in trouble. After all it was their lack of parenting skills that caused the problem to begin with.




Wisconsin criminals.
By scrapsma54 on 1/9/2008 3:54:37 PM , Rating: 2
those are the kids that steal (consoles), beat up teachers, and Plant fire crackers in cats rears and they are paying for them? IDC about you people with kids in jail but I'd rather pay taxes on the presidents car than on your apes.




"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki