Gagamus

Nintendo or Bungie gave us 2007's GOTY, in my eyes.

In the eyes of the collective industry and fans, Activision did with COD4, though. The Orange Box was the awesome Portal with some other stuff I really didn't care for packaged in.

TF2 didn't work well on Live. Half-Life 2 just didn't do it for me with the likes of Mario, Halo, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Portal, etc begging for my time.

GorbyGipper

It's happening a lot more with Witzbold in charge of the Banhammer.

RPharazonius

Oh c'mon, don't be one of those douchebags. You know damn well I meant Valve.

dead_red_eyes

When was the last time you heard of a anarchistic Democrat? Anarchism is anathema to both major parties. In fact the closest thing to an anarchist in this race is Paul, and even he is far from being one.

And yes, I do support Paul even though I strongly disagree with some of his more nativistic positions.

fyre

baked ham

Blizzard dominates with WoW and went all Republican.

:)

kgetz3

Look, I don't believe that we can just shut down government in one fell swoop. Taxation, for the time being, pays for useful services that protect me (ideally) like the military, the police, the emergency response teams, and the fire department's equipment. But the government can take steps towards reducing the taxation of its citizens by eliminating the IRS, because we don't need to spend as much as we do on the military, for one (pursuing an empire rather than protecting our citizens), and we continue to spend money on things we don't need to be spending it on (that Israel example, for one). We already have a sales tax in most states, and that should be about enough for the time being, if we cut spending. All of this doesn't change the fact that the government doesn't seem to need our money to spend it, if you look at the 5 trillion dollars in debt that George W. Bush has put this country in over the past 8 years. There are a lot of things that can be done, but at this point, the government at the state & federal levels are taking my money when I earn it, taking it when I spend it, and they'll take it when I die. And they take it from the companies when they buy products from overseas, and they take it when they sell certain products, like alcohol and cigarettes, and gasoline. I think it's quite rational to at least prevent them from taking it when I earn it, which is currently where they take the majority of what they take from me on a personal level.

I don't believe the government has any intrinsic right to take my money. I live in Jersey City, and I have a pretty tough time figuring out why I have to pay New York City taxes (because of employment in that location), New Jersey taxes (because of my residency) and federal taxes, and social security mandates. I don't have kids going to public school, I pay to use mass transit, and the police, fire, and emergency medical expenses are a miniscule fraction of what the governments spend. The IRS is a colossal inconvenience, and I'd rather just be taxed at the register than to have to go through all this paperwork just so the government can take my money. And because I make slightly more money than the amount that the government deems is "too much" (75,000), I don't get a refund check. Meanwhile, me and the people who make more money than I do are paying for these tax refund checks, and I don't get one. The cost of living here is huge and 75,000 doesn't go a long way when a 2-bedroom apartment for a 4-person family costs 3500 dollars a month, not including heat, AC, electricity, water, and other utilities. But apparantly I'm too rich to deserve a tax refund.

I don't think I'm being hypocritical. Maybe a bit dodgy, though, because I don't know how to solve the problems that I perceive to exist. I am not and never will be a politician, or a lawyer, and I'm no expert on tax laws. But I do know that how the government takes our money "in exchange for services rendered" is in no way different than the way mobsters demand money from locals "in exchange for protection." But if you don't pay for that protection, the mob kills you. In the case of the US government, the mob puts you behind bars.

Meanwhile, they give tax exemption to churches, who receive the same public funding service as the rest of us. Police, fire departments, whatever you can think of, they receive the service. I don't see why Bill Gates has to pay for those services out the wazoo from his earnings, but the churches get those services free. Don't give me "charity" as a reason, because Bill Gates gives a whole lot of his money to charity, too.

The government lets their employees retire at insanely young ages. I've got friends who've been retired since their early 40's. These are people who worked for 20 years and then retired, and they're going to be living anywhere from... what... on average about 30 years, and up to 50 or even 60 years longer on government pension = aka, our tax dollars. These government employees shouldn't get to retire so young. That's just another thing that's going on that I disapprove of. Meanwhile, I work my ass off and won't get to retire until I'm damn near 70 years old, and when I do, I get paid from my 401k which I've invested in, not from the taxpayers coffers.

Baaah. Look, if you don't agree with me, that's fine. But you'll never convince me to be okay with the government taking my money as they do, and spending it as they do.

baked ham

Likewise. It sounds like we have some of the goals, but a completely different approach.

I appreciate it, and if I came off as demeaning to you with my first @doubtful comment, then I'm sorry.

No worries, it's not like I was completely innocent; I did accuse you of being in 'silly land,' which really doesn't sound so bad now that I think about it. I don't remember a political discussion that didn't have some slings and barbs in it.

Apology accepted and extended to you, as well.

doubtful

The government does not have the right to take my money. It's thievery. That's what it is.

I don't think there are many people, other than the Paulites who have come out of the woodwork of 'silly land' lately or the extremely greedy who dispute the governments right to take money from the citizens and in return provided services. You may not agree with all of the services they provide (psst, neither do I or anyone else, which is why we get to vote for people who will spend the money differently), but you don't, as a citizen of the country, get to avoid paying taxes. Which is not really what you're advocating at all anyway.

You still recognize the governments right to tax it's citizens, you just want to change the method. I'm afraid you're being inconsistent in your position. Is it or is it not treason for the government to take your money? You're so confusing.

Treason is when a citizen of a country advocates a position or action that would be harmful to the government and country as a whole. The government collecting taxes to run the country is not treasonous; the suggestion that we could have a government that doesn't collect revenue to run one is.

The fact that they report the FairTax tax rate as in inclusive tax rather than exclusive immediately indicates they want to hide the true magnitude of the tax.

If you have a 30% tax rate and you buy something that costs $1.00, most people would immediately recognize that you would pay $1.30 for it. That's how exclusive taxes are calculated.

An inclusive tax of 23% means that when you buy a product for $1.00, you pay $1.30 for it. What? Here is how it works: inclusive means you include the tax in the total before you figure the rate:

$1.00 + $0.30 = $1.30

$0.30 / $1.30 = 23%

Start a policy off with shady calculations like that, designed only to fool people into thinking the tax rate will be lower, and it deserves the intense critical analysis it gets.

But there is one thing I do know, and that is that I'm in favor of pursuing new legislation that can provide a viable alternative to the income tax and the IRS, and I'm certainly in favor of cutting spending.

I don't advocate abolishing the IRS, but I do thing there is grave need for tax reform and spending reform. I am certainly in agreement with you there. What I don't support is a policy which would weakening the US economy, especially now.

doubtful

baked ham

baked ham

For instance, they give 30 billion dollars to Israel. I don't want them to give money to Israel, but they do it anyway. That's 100 dollars from every man woman and child in this country. And we all know that not every man or woman works and pays taxes, and the vast majority of the children don't. So it's really more than 100 dollars taken from each taxpayer and given to the Israelis.

This is one example of the wasteful spending. The spending that has absolutely nothing to do with me. If they're going to take money money in exchange for providing me with some service... okay. But, the vast majority of that money is going towards other things, things that don't provide me with anything that could possibly compensate for the ammount of money they've taken from me.

I find that treasonous. If you're okay with that, then fine. But don't expect me to be okay with it, please.

As for the Fair Tax not exempting the purchase of every day products like food and clothing, well... if the fair tax system as it's currently written would increase the ammount of taxes paid by the average citizen and the revenue earned by the government in any way (ideally speaking, excluding black market influence, etc.), then I can say that I'm not in favor of it as written. Personally, I don't know that it would. I've read that it would lower taxes, and now you're saying and quoting articles that say that it would raise taxes. Who knows what to believe? It's complicated, isn't it? But there is one thing I do know, and that is that I'm in favor of pursuing new legislation that can provide a viable alternative to the income tax and the IRS, and I'm certainly in favor of cutting spending. I don't think the government should be earning and spending nearly as much as they do, and so I think that a system similar to the fair tax, that cuts out a mandatory income tax, would be effective if it had low(ish) rates, certain exemptions, etc. Because the government claims too much of our money as it is, and any reform that can come would, in my opinion, need to result in less taxation. Significantly less.

baked ham

It was never constitutionally legally for the federal government to impose permanent, mandatory income tax. This country did just fine before without it, and it'll do just fine in the future without it.

That's akin to saying the country did just fine when women couldn't vote and black men only counted as 3/5 of a person. Times have changed since the days of our Founding Fathers.

Hence the amendment to the Constitution that allows for the collection of income taxes which you cited.

Are you going to honestly make the argument that any amendments, ratified by the states, that aren't in the original Constitution should be ignored?

You've ventured into silly land, the reason I don't have political discussions on the internet normal. It's like having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

doubtful

The writer is under the assumption that the government needs to spend as much money as it does.

A trimmer budget (which I agree is something we need) still doesn't explain the disingenuous and illegal accounting practices the FairTax employees to try to make revenue seem greater.

You say the opinion article is wrong, but you don't address the fact that the actual policy does not make exceptions for food, homes, clothes, anything. Who could buy a home with a 30% or more federal sales tax added in? In one fell swoop you'd collapse an already struggling housing market.

There is no way that a sales tax only system would work. It would stifle the world economy because American people, the world's consumer base, would buy less goods. The less goods they buy, the more the government would have to raise the sales tax, even with slimmer budgets.

At what point are the sales taxes so high that the black market is so big that the rich, who can afford to circumvent the rules, are contributing next to nothing?

It can't work, and it's too dangerous of a concept to try out on my country. I care way too much about it to line up behind a crazy zealot and drink his treasonous Kool-Aid.

doubtful

???

baked ham

[en.wikipedia.org]

Read up about it yourself from a bunch of random people on the internet. They do a better job of describing it from all the perspectives than Bartlett does, who has formulated his opinion on how he thinks it would effect the economy, and then goes on to write a selective article outlining things that he thinks can prove his opinion. Well, he can't. He can "convince" you but he can't "prove" anything he has said. The fact is, there is disagreement within the economic community as to how the reality of the "tax rate" would be effected would the Fair Tax law be put into action, but, as I implied earlier, to blingly believe Mr. Bartlett that the existence of said legislation would effectively increase the taxes that Americans pay is a bit ridiculous. There are a multitude of factors involved, and merely eliminating the IRS isn't going to make matters any better, you have to get spending and borrowing in check.

And, finally finally (that's two, because I realize I said "finally" earlier, haha0.

[en.wikipedia.org]

This.

It was never constitutionally legally for the federal government to impose permanent, mandatory income tax. This country did just fine before without it, and it'll do just fine in the future without it. Just because congress passes an amendment to the constitution doesn't make it right or necessary. It generally just tends to serve toward the fucking up of the document.

Case in point: another amendment from six years later, that has at least been recognized for its egregious abuse of federal power & since been repealed: [en.wikipedia.org]

baked ham

Plsk1n

1) Ron Paul isn't perfect, but I do like his policy more than the other candidates. I don't think the fair tax is the perfect, but I do think it can work better and more fairly than the income tax.

2) Working for Ron Paul doesn't make you in any way like Ron Paul, nor is one's opinion permanent. Look at Alan Greenspan, who used to be a gold-bug Ayn Rand devotee in the 70's, but as we all know, he is a diametric opposite of his formal self today.

baked ham

A system which does not incorporate any kind of mandatory income tax could work if the government spends less money. It's important for the government to spend less, and as such, the government can stand to take less from its citizens.

baked ham

baked ham

Educate yourself, my friend. I'm right, and you're condescending.

[online.wsj.com]

And that is from the Wall Street Journal editorial page, not exactly a bastion of liberal thought or a forum opposed to allowing the rich to keep more of their money.

If you're accusing me of not understand the fair tax, than I assume you levy the same accusation towards Bruce Bartlett, the author of the article.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Crazy thing about Barlett, too, he used to work for Ron Paul in 1976. Guess he saw the light.

The FairTax would destroy the US economy. Support of such destructive policy is nothing short of treason.

But why let facts and evidence influence your beliefs.

doubtful

All that said, I agree with the principles you're espousing, if not the necessarily the specific solution proffered. I think we could go the other way and eliminate sales tax in favor of a flat-tiered income tax (so people making under 75k get Rate A, over 75k but under 250k Rate B, and everybody above that Rate C), simplifying the tax code and eliminating things like the deductions, loopholes, and relatively meaningless and controversial stuff like "capital gains" and the "death tax", while also eliminating payroll tax completely (as my man Obama has promised to do). The things that have to happen to make that work (since it will be ultimately much less income for the government):

1) Major reduction in Military Spending.
2) A mandated freeze on foreign borrowing by the government: if we can't afford it we don't do it.
3) The political will to curtail/phase out Social Security and replace it with smaller, cheaper, and more flexible alternatives, particularly the millions of non-contributing SS-Disability beneficiaries (the ones who never paid into the system, not people who were disabled on the job) need to not be paid out of that same pot that actual workers put their money into.

Of course I'm a leftist who advocates government subsidies for domestic gun sales and manufacture, as well as a reconstituted state militia system, so I'm a bit wacky :)

DaiMacculate

Second, a lot of people here seem to be under the impression that the government needs to take as much money from us as they do. They don't. Not only that, but they don't have the right to take it from us. They've bastardized the law over the last 150 years to make the income tax a permanent instutition, which it was never supposed to be, and was not at one point in this country's history.

baked ham

The sales tax propositions don't tax stuff like food and clothing.

That is absolutely not true. The FairTax would put a sales tax of over 60% on all goods, including homes and food.

The FairTax also uses some shady accounting techniques to balance the books, like the government would pay itself sales tax and then claim it as income (even though that would be a net of zero).

Any large increase in sales tax would create a huge black market, too. Luxury goods would be purchased abroad and imported illegally.

doubtful

I wasn't expecting him to win, just hoping he can use the money so his ideas can reach a few more people.

cableshaft

It would also be interesting to compare donations by executives to the "rank and file"-- possibly even separating programmers from creative types. But this is already a very small pie to slice, so I don't how many statistically sound conclusions you could draw.

Anyway, we will know the game industry has matured and become politically savvy when they start giving money to everybody. Companies like Rockstar should be buying their way into the $2000-a-plate dinners of both Republicans and Democrats if they're going to play ball.

beeporama (brian.j.parker)

cametall

You've clearly made your opinion known twice already by the post I'm responding too.

Nothing is wrong with having an opinion, but pretending to be "above" speaking politics, all the while throwing a not-so-sly allusion to your political preference in every other comment is just lame.

brent_w

Hell, they pretty much already had made portal before valve got them.
Portal is just Narbacular Drop with fancy graphics and some witty writing.

brent_w

timpig3000

Also why on earth did that PopCap guy drop $250 on Hillary a few months before coming to his senses and backing Obama?

Ugh.

Elliuotatar

It's like they said.. leave it to politicians to tell you to go to hell and make you think that you actually look forward to it.

Plsk1n

terraform

Crawl to China

Spik3balloon

Demaar

RawSteelUT

OBAMA
DLA Piper -- Global Law Firm
JP Morgan Chase -- Global Investment Banking
Lehman Brothers -- Global Corporate Equity

CLINTON
DLA Piper -- Global Law Firm
JP Morgan Chase -- Global Investment Banking
Lehman Brothers -- Global Corporate Equity

MCCAIN
Goldman Sachs -- Global Securities
Blank Rome LLP -- Interstate Law Firm
Greenberg Traurig -- International Law Firm

PAUL
U.S. Army
U.S. Navy
U.S. Air Force

topaz420

And he came off as the sanest one in the debates. Mind you, I think all the Republicans are a bunch of crazies who I wouldn't trust to run a backyard football game. Obama is the only candidate who won't send your country to hell.

Sabre_Justice: Okay, no more long name.

This makes me warm inside

topaz420

DiscipleofJamzy

Great company = Valve = Democrats
Crappy company = Activision = Republicans

I concur with this analysis if you were to take Infinity Ward out of the Activision part of the equation

Kj719

I'm pretty sure Kirbytheslayer is saying this:

Q. Which company came out with the best game of 2007?

A. Steam

Q. Which company release a lot of sequels, and derivative games, while innovating nothing?

A. Activision

Hopefully I got that right for you Kirby.

dead_red_eyes

He wouldn't have even been considered relevant if people hadn't pledged their support with their dollars.

Cola82

swordfish2eva1

myxylplyx

Hivemind indeed!!! It definitely is more disconcerting that Activision didn't vote for both parties. That shit really blew me out of the water. $15,210 to Republicans is in-fucking-sane.

EA was split right down the middle for contributions ... which makes me happy. At least they have some sensible people over there, which is more than I can say for the folks at Activision.

Fucking awesome that Steam voted for Obama instead of Hillary ... priceless!!!

dead_red_eyes

Kj719

Hint: Republicans hate disabled people.

NKato

myxylplyx

Please, by all means ... go start your own forum.

dead_red_eyes

My initial argument is that getting rid of the income tax and going with a full blown regressive sales tax would only make things worse for the poor!

Kj719

myxylplyx

Things have gotten much worse since then. Shall I?

myxylplyx

You've got to have a federal government to maintain, manage, and provide fail safes for all this stuff. The modern world doesn't allow for Ron Paul's brand of libertarianism. His plans would require our taking a few giant technological and economic leaps backward.

Also, he supports the gold standard. So, either he watches too many Monex commercials, or he's and idiot. Or both.

Sparkamus

P.S. I definitely would like to see the Bush tax cuts that lowered the tax rate on the rich reversed.

Kj719

myxylplyx

myxylplyx

Progressive Tax System: [en.wikipedia.org]

Kj719

It's not that. It's that it had nothing to do with the article at hand. And Witz and the other editors threatened to ban people who just posted unrelated random "Funny" videos that had nothing to do with the issue at hand. I was trying to tie it into politics.

@Kirbytheslayer: Hot Tears of Shame for Life!: You jackass. I clicked on that link. Scarred for life.

Kirbytheslayer: In-Kirby XMB

Anyhoo, Obama all the way at this point...

And really, don't just bash Activision all the time and use that against a party

Sonic_and_Tails

bobafett356

Voteforme2020

myxylplyx

If I recall correctly, Obama is NOT a gamer. However, he is smart enough not to attack something he doesn't understand, and says that parents should just pay more attention to their kids, unlike Hitlery, who demands that independent industries must be dismantled and replaced with government run ratings boards, and supports bills that makes access to mature content to minors a FELONY offense.

Pezdispenser

Kj719

Detre

That video is his contemporary analysis of the effectiveness of a Libertarian society enacted through Anarchist style views, and how it's effectiveness would be greatly diminished in actualization.

Kirbytheslayer: In-Kirby XMB

Kj719

+ Watch video

myxylplyx

I know politics can be summed up to this, for everyone:

[www.fullyramblomatic.com]

Good Day.

Kirbytheslayer: In-Kirby XMB

Erwin

Not necessarily, with the sales tax you are taxed on consumption. The sales tax propositions don't tax stuff like food and clothing. The rich buy luxury items and generally consume more while the lesser classes buy less and consume less, they also (ideally) would buy less luxury items.

Look at the UK though, their sales tax is outrageous and their income tax is about on par with ours.

chunks4123

Foxdie

superberg

And a one percent sales tax is ridiculous, we'd have no money for anything.

SuperCracker

SG_Mahonay

sammyDAsammon

Income tax makes much more sense than sales tax. If the gov't has to raise a certain amount, without an income tax the sales tax would have to be up around 30-40% at minimum. If you spend all your income on money, that means you effectively paid 30-40% of you income on taxes.

The problem is that this affects everybody. That means that the poor and the rich are all paying the same percentage in taxes. In actuality, the rich save so that means their tax rate is smaller and the poor tend to spend more than their means which means their tax rate is higher.

Kj719

You guys should look up the one percent sales tax.

It is TRULY an amazing replacement for the income tax.

jkingsowner

Uh, no? You don't replace it with anything... No regressive tax is going to appear out of nowhere.

Are you one of those people who are super excited for the retarded economic stimulus package?

jkingsowner

Detre

baked ham

Kj719

PS: I've never played CoD4.

Kirbytheslayer: In-Kirby XMB

And, for Ron Paul supporters, it's about his message not himself.

jkingsowner

You can tell because YouTube's dimensions are 425x355. *forehead slap*

KTShyGuy

weasl

Oops.

Danin

BROKERED CONVENTION!

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

jkingsowner

...and then there are the crazies who think he's actually going to win.

Archaotic

Uh, no, he doesn't want to abolish taxes. Just the federal income tax, which we really don't need if we knock down the size of government to ten years ago.

And, have you ever heard of a brokered convention? There will be one, because no Republican candidate will be able to lock in a nomination until that Republican National Convention. He has a chance.

jkingsowner

Erwin

He wants to abolish taxes! Thats RIDICULOUS. It takes money to run a nation.

Doomstink

Archaotic

Maldron

Luke Plunkett

jkingsowner

dead_red_eyes

Kirbytheslayer: In-Kirby XMB

Nice to see EA playing both sides tho.

dead_red_eyes

Maybe Activision charges $6.252 for their Guitar Hero 3 download packs, and they chipped in their fractions.

Ampillion = That Man.

HykCraft

PCapologist

PCapologist

Anyway, I beg of you, Kotaku editors, why can't we just leave the politics out of this? Even if it's gaming related, it's really not. This involves people in the gaming industry, but it's really a political thing. Fuck politics. Gah.

baked ham

Ron Paul, psshhh, we want Ron Popeil

MonkeyBiz

My life would be a sad one if I based it upon a need for everyone to agree with me.

Cola82

And in typical fashion, EA plays both sides. Ah, politics, how I loathe thee.

Archaotic

Sollus

HigglyPiggly

myxylplyx

Maniclysane

KuromanKuro Live and PSN

I saw Obama speak in Virginia Beach last sunday. It was great.

I also find it add how many donated to republicans. I personally thought game developers would be more liberal for some reason

ArmyofJuan

TheCleaningGuy

rannic

GregoriusH

Now I'm not trying to get too political here, but let's point out something interesting:

Which company came out with the best game of 2007?

Which company release a lot of sequels, and derivative games, while innovating nothing?

Kirbytheslayer: In-Kirby XMB

Ampillion = That Man.

Maldron

blackadvent