Home News Rhode Island to Tax an Extra 10% on M-rated Games

Rhode Island to Tax an Extra 10% on M-rated Games

written by Tyler February 25, 2018
Rhode Island representative Robert Nardolillo

Well, in the long line of dubious and vapid responses from politicians over the past few weeks, there’s another one to chalk up to the old conservative board. The state Of Rhode Island General Assembly posted a press release detailing a proposed bill to implement a 10% tax on M-rated games. There are some dangerous and quite suspect phrases used, so I’ll touch on each one.

Representative Robert Nardolillo III (R-dist. 28, Coventry) had this to say:

“There is evidence that children exposed to violent video games at a young age tend to act more aggressively than those who are not … this bill would give schools the additional resources needed to help students deal with that aggression in a positive way … Our goal is to make every school in Rhode Island a safe and calm place for students to learn. By offering children resources to manage their aggression today, we can ensure a more peaceful tomorrow”

Okay, now there is no scientifically proven evidence that correlates aggression with children exposed to violent video games (Quite the opposite). When you have politicians like former reality-show hosts and this precious gem using hyperbole and anti-facts like Nardolillo, it’s a slippery slimeball slope. Also, I’m not sure why a bill is being introduced in Rhode Island to manage children’s aggression when, not mentioning that perhaps it starts at home, but parents should not be buying M-rated games for kids anyway.

Rhode Island representative Robert Nardolillo

This guy wants to put an extra tax on teeth video games

Secondly, the press release indicates:

“The legislation would levy an additional 10% tax to video games sold in Rhode Island with a rating of “M” or higher. Revenue generated by this tax would then be placed in a special account for school districts to use to fund counseling, mental health programs, and other conflict resolution activities.”

“Revenue generated would then be placed…”. So, some revenue? A tiny bit of revenue? Sorry, how much? I love gray areas used for legislative jargon. Since it’s not giving specifics, I would wager it’s not 100%. The only reason there are no bills banning or criminalizing sales of violent video games (in any capacity, even to minors), is they are protected under free speech.

At the end of the day, this is just another disappointing attempt to scapegoat video games and distract from actual solutions to violence among youth. Don’t get me wrong, it would absolutely splendid if schools had bigger budgets and resources for troubled kids, but this is just a fictitious bill that does more wrong than good.

What do you geeks think? Would you be okay with paying an extra 10% on some video games? Sound off in the comments!


Want more geek?