Congress to Revisit Virtual Goods Taxation

News.com has the word that congress is set to re-visit taxing virtual goods, a concept they shelved a while back in order to consider the matter more fully. That's given the Congress' Joint Economic Committee time to come to a decision about what exactly the value of virtual goods means for players and game-makers. An economist with the group told CNet to expect their report sometime next month. "What that report will say is unknown, as the committee has kept entirely quiet about its thoughts. However, it's clear that something will happen. 'Given growth rates of 10 to 15 percent a month, the question is when, not if, Congress and IRS start paying attention to these issues,' [senior economist Dan] Miller, who is a fan of virtual worlds and economies, told CNET News.com in December. 'So it is incumbent on us to set the terms and the debate so we have a shaped tax policy toward virtual worlds and virtual economies in a favorable way.'"

Re:This is proof that income tax is a fraud

[insignificant_wrangl]

O.k., lets take a deep breath. I don't like paying taxes either, but if you read the articles, you'll see that Miller is proposing taxing players who have accrued millions of real world dollars:

LaPiana said that there is little question that the transfer of such assets could be taxable, since it is property. However, he did say that the taxes would accrue only if the total value of the estate's assets, at the time of death, exceeded the limit set by the state in which the deceased had lived. In most cases, he said, that amount is $2 million, though some states, like New York and New Jersey, have lower limits.

There are not that many instances in which someone has that level of virtual assets, although the recent reports that Second Life land mogul Anshe Chung had amassed $1 million in virtual land and other holdings certainly suggest her heirs might have some interesting inheritance tax issues if she dies.

If people are selling virtual goods in real markets, then I don't see the big deal taxing them. Yes, sometimes that money goes to things we don't appreciate, but other times it goes to things like education, research, roads, and all that other fun stuff. And if we want the government to support issues such as net neutrality, then we're going to have to let them get their hands dirty. I do think its a bit funny that they can't understand how to craft sane intellectual property laws yet are ready to tackle virtual taxation, but this thread already has its share of bitchin' and moanin'.

No taxation without representations

[RealGrouchy]

I'll start paying taxes for virtual goods when my character can vote.

- RG>