Book Acela now - Amtrak.com
- Related Stories
-
Is tomorrow's Clapton playing 'Guitar Hero'?
November 28, 2007 -
Digital kids: Growing up wired
November 15, 2007 -
This summer camp is all about technology
August 9, 2007 -
Net generation comes of age
July 9, 2007 -
A new crop of kids: Generation We
January 22, 2007
The New Mexico legislature has introduced a new tax measure, HB583, that would force consumers to pay a 1 percent excise tax on purchases of video games, gaming consoles, and TVs. The revenue generated from the game and TV tax would be used to fund a new state educational effort aimed at getting kids out of the house more. True to the aim of the measure, they have even given the bill the creative title, "The Leave No Child Inside Act."
Specifically, the new fund would empower officials at the New Mexico states parks division and public education department to do the following:
• Develop curriculum-based programs for teachers to use on public lands and at other outdoor learning sites for outdoor education initiatives;
• Develop hands-on teaching materials for children for use in outdoor education programs;
• Provide transportation for children to experience outdoor education programs;
• Provide substantial and frequent outdoor experiences for children; and
• Increase outdoor nature-oriented physical activity programs for school-age children.
Apparently the measure has the strong support of the Sierra Club and other environmental groups thanks to its "get outside more" focus.
I can certainly sympathize with the underlying intentions of this measure. As a parent of two kids, I already find myself mouthing the same lines to my kids that my parents said to me when I was growing up: "Turn off that TV and go outside and play for a while!" There's certainly something to be said for getting our kids off their duffs and outside to engage in some exercise and real-world exploring. But a TV and video game tax is the wrong way to accomplish that objective.
Any time government officials single out a specific type of speech or expression for unique treatment (or blame, as seems to be the case here), it raises sticky legal issues. Over the past decade, various courts across America have handed down an unbroken string of victories for the video game industry when they have challenged state or local efforts to regulate game content. In each decision, the judges made it clear that video game content represents constitutionally protected speech.
Older court cases dealing with other media have also made it clear that public-policy makers are forbidden from using the power to tax in an effort to discriminate against speech or expression that they disfavor. In cases such as Grosjean v. American Press Co. (1936), Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue (1983), and Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland (1987), the Supreme Court has held as unconstitutional state laws that singled out newspapers or magazines for unique tax burdens.
The New Mexico tax proposal raises similar fairness questions. Why just blame video games for kids not getting enough time outdoors? How about a tax on social-networking Web sites or instant messaging? Many kids are spending almost as much time online right now as they do playing video games. And what about other types of non-digital games that might keep kids indoors?
My daughter spends a lot of time playing Sudoku puzzles, for example. Perhaps we should tax Sudoku books, chess boards, and even arts and crafts! After all, the goal here is to do whatever it takes to get kids outside, right? Or is it really just to get kids to stop playing video games?
Either way, legislators shouldn't be using the tax code to play the role of nanny for our kids. It is the responsibility and right of parents to determine how their kids are raised. Many of us would agree that more outdoor time is a laudable goal. But should the government be using the tax code to accomplish that objective?
The Sierra Club and America's countless other environmental organizations already have extensive outreach efforts and awareness-building programs funded by private donations. If nature lovers and public-policy makers want to lobby fellow citizens to spend more time in the great outdoors, that's fine. But don't start taxing all the games and electronic equipment in our homes to get us to do so.
Biography
Adam Thierer is senior fellow at the Progress & Freedom Foundation in Washington, D.C.
See more CNET content tagged:
New Mexico,
tax,
kid,
video game,
children
1. Some politico needed an issue
2. The Parks dept needed funding
3. Parents needed to feel like someone was doing something useful
4. And some far lefties got their tax fix for '08
Done Deal BABY!
However, this just seems like a seriously lame excuse for a tax.
Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com
So, the tax we will let them place on games will cover range of games including those that cover educational topics like music, typing, math, writing, vocab, etc.....
I wonder if the idiots proposing this have some idea of the damage they're creating with this new frankinstien law?
IDIOTS to my right, IDIOTS to my left, IDIOTS in front of me and IDIOTS behind me.
The world has too many idiots.
He's already banned soda vending machines from schools, replaced those with juice and water. Banned the candy bars and junk food machines from school cafeterias as well and mandated PE, no more getting out of it. They've been trying different methods for PE to make it fun so kids want to do it, and teaching excercises to keep fit that they can do at home like a personal trainer. Both my parents are midschool teachers in NM and both have said that the improvements in the last few years have dramatically helped the kids there, they have more energy at the end of the day, and consequently learn better and grades are up. Huge huge impact.
I dont particularly agree with this tax but I dont see it as any different from the cigarette tax or gas tax, its not a tax on content of the games. If it helps the kids and doesnt get swiped to pay for other programs like social security does so often then I'm willing to pay it. There is a massive epidemic of childhood diabetes here, especially among the big native american population. This is the first generation of kids projected to not outlive thier parents. Maybe its not so bad in your state, and your kids cafeterias were not run by cocacola and frito-lay to require as drastic of actions as we've taken here.
Another one is that it taxes all buyers, not just children, who are the proported targets of the tax.
What you're really advocating is on a direct course to prohibition aimed at video games, not alcohol this time.
It is not, and should not be, the responsibility of the government, to dictate how parents raise their children other than the basic protections of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of the children. Sure, I'd love to be able to raise my two sons with the resources Hillary and Bill used for Chelsea; but it's not financially feasible to do that for every child in America, much less my two kids. And Chelsea got WAY more than the minimum required.
This tax fails to address the reason(s) why children play video games over outdoor activities. There are more than enough organizations that promote outdoor activities now: Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Campfire Girls, YMCA camps, etc. The resources are available. The choice to use them requires parental involvement, not taxes aimed at children's games.
Dollars to doughnuts by the time New Mexico gets their hands on the extra tax money, it will be diverted (partially or completely) to use for things other than outdoor education programs.
Finally, New Mexico isn't any worse off for outdoor activities than any other state in the union. Part of the problem is that there isn't enough public lands for people to find and use. What good is a lake when every square inch of property around it is bought up, built on, or posted? Massive waiting lines to get into Yosemite or Yellowstone, rationing to go hiking the Appalachian Trail, radical leave no trace (pack your urine and feces out with you) requirements for hiking the pacific crest?
And don't forget the Monopoly board.
Or their school supplies. (Damn kid wanted to get his homework done - imagine that!)
Myself, on the otherhand, was saluditorian in high school, now have 3 degrees, but I live on pain killers and other meds from chronic medical problems due to mercury poisoning when I was 8 from local tap water in New Mexico. All because I did a few sports and drank a lot of water rather than softdrinks. Its taken over 20 years of work to get my bloodwork to somewhat reasonable levels, adults who were affected by this got well in a few years. Small mishaps in childhood health really impact you for the rest of your life :(
Smart kids doesnt necessarily mean healthy kids, unfortunately.
1) It will not work, as people will pay 1% more. (What is this money really for?)
2) Kids should not be outside all day every day, either (sun burns or worse... especially in New Mexico)
3) Which is worse? Kids playing video games, or kids joining local street gangs? Hmmm...
4) It is not the government's place to tell parents how kids should spend their time
5) If the government really wants kids to have play time, give them time during the school day to go outside and play... what does it hurt to add an extra 30 minutes? (Rotate the teachers watching the kids, teachers do paperwork... cost can be maintained at current levels.)
6) Logic like this would lead to taxing computers or anything that gets a kids attention that somebody feels "too much of" is not a good thing.
I hope this gets killed before it goes too far.
We have troops heading to Iraq from....
We have places we could drill for oil in....
New Mexico
And you attack the video game industry, a multi billion-dollar industry that provides jobs for thousands, if not a million, Americans
Why did we vote for you?
We have troops heading to Iraq from....
We have places we could drill for oil in....
New Mexico
And you attack the video game industry, a multi billion-dollar industry that provides jobs for thousands, if not a million, Americans
Why did we vote for you?