Possible UK initiative to raise taxes on violent games?

Ostriig on 11/3/2009 at 22:02

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/4968581/Tax-violent-video-games-to-beat-knife-crime-says-Damiola-Taylors-father.html)

Quote:

Mr Taylor, who advises Gordon Brown on knife crime, said he would be urging the Prime Minister to impose new taxes on the games.

[...]

Violent games are “too cheap” and taxes on them should be “very high”, Mr Taylor told MPs.

People like this shouldn't breed. Anyway, to those more familiar with UK's legal history, what do you think is the chance something like this would actually go through?

dvrabel on 11/3/2009 at 22:54

Zero.

jtr7 on 11/3/2009 at 23:12

We should hear from the gaming companies about it soon, if the lawmakers actually end up taking this seriously, otherwise it should be an eye-rolling blip that no one comments on, unless the media pushes the issue.

That wouldn't help to fight piracy much.

steo on 11/3/2009 at 23:21

The fuck is up with all these 'x is bad, let's make it more expensive' initiatives?

Fragony on 12/3/2009 at 00:12

Quote Posted by dvrabel

Zero.

Ha, Brown may be an absolutely terrified dhimmi-apparatski but a leftist government will never turn down extra tax revenues to finance DU!!! IST VERBOTEN!!!

june gloom on 12/3/2009 at 00:37

I love England. Can you imagine the shitstorm if that crap was tried in the States?

Muzman on 12/3/2009 at 04:19

As I recall Joe Leiberman's views on games were fairly popular. So if you subtract the national obsession with the word tax I imagine it'd be about the same.

Fafhrd on 12/3/2009 at 04:29

Quote:

Tax violent video games to beat knife crime,

Oddly enough, today I was given a butterfly knife by one of my co-workers...at a video game company.

demagogue on 12/3/2009 at 04:59

What I don't like about stuff like this, to get all economic-y on it, are people trying to toy with the current rage with externality theory and market-based regulation like sin taxes ... who obviously have no clear idea what an "externality" actually is or what they're doing when they fuck with the market of an industry.

It works when there is a real, calculate-able social cost that's not reflected in ("external to") the market price of supply/demand -- stuff like environmental harm of production or a health risk after you buy it. It has to literally cause harm you can literally calculate and get into the price, so the market properly "recognizes" it ... not this hazy "predispose" shit that could mean anything or nothing, and have nothing to do with the market transaction at all.

They just see it used in other places and think it's a good idea, "Oh, it's not 'hard' regulation just softly tweaking the market to socially good ends", and arbitrarily run with it in whatever they don't like. And because a lot of other people don't get it either, there's a risk they can actually get away with it.

Koki on 12/3/2009 at 07:20

Quote Posted by Ostriig

People like this shouldn't breed.

You mean brits?