It turns out that, since in this country the 16% VAT that is already squeezed out of everything that moves is never enough, now Claudia Sheinbaum's government has come up with the brilliant idea of adding an extra 8% tax on "violent" video games. Because, of course, if there is one thing that characterizes this administration, it's its obsession with taking care of our "mental health"... with cash.
Yes, you read that right: if a game has blood, guns, or digital guts, the SAT will see it as a Marlboro with a PlayStation controller. The measure, presented in the 2026 Economic Package, aims to equate Mortal Kombat with a Coca-Cola and Grand Theft Auto with a pack of cigarettes. At this rate, get ready because next up is Tetris paying IEPS for inducing anxiety in Mexicans.
The geniuses who designed this proposal seem convinced that violence in video games turns people into real-life hitmen. Something that, according to the American Psychological Association (APA) and the World Health Organization (WHO), is already clear: there is no conclusive evidence linking playing Call of Duty with going out to commit shootings.
On the contrary, studies published in Frontiers in Psychology (2021) and American Psychologist (2019) indicate that violent video games do not increase real aggression, and can even improve cognitive skills, coordination, memory, and even foster teamwork (more than some public officials, by the way).
Proper regulation forbidden, bleeding taxpayers allowed
But no, the 4T prefers the easy way: if you can't handle the cartels, improve health or the economy, go after the gamers. Because it's easier to label video games as "harmful" than to accept that the real problem of violence lies in the State's inability to confront organized crime, when we live in a country more violent than any nation at war.
What is truly ridiculous is that in no serious country has anyone invented the genius idea of taxing video games for being violent. In Germany, a country known for having one of the strictest rating systems on the planet, the policy is clear: if a game exceeds certain limits, it is censored or its sale is restricted, but an extra tax is never imposed on the consumer. The German logic is to regulate access, not bleed wallets.
Japan, birthplace of much of the gaming industry, has a rating system as strict as CERO, where minors simply are not allowed to buy adult titles. But the Japanese State has never thought of treating gamers as digital Marlboro smokers. What it does is promote the industry, because it understands that it is a cultural and economic engine, not an excuse to collect more revenue.
Australia, where censorship is mostly for show and many games end up in the "Refused Classification" category, also doesn't impose taxes. If a game is too strong, it is not sold. Period. But there, they don't have a government asking families to pay more for every digital bullet fired in a shooter.
In the case of the United States, the epicenter of culture wars and home of the ESRB, the story is even clearer: in 2011, the Supreme Court determined that violent video games are protected by the First Amendment. That is, they can't be treated as pornography or as drugs. Taxing or limiting them unjustifiably is, literally, unconstitutional.
"Healthy" taxes with a Morena flavor
So it is clear: while serious countries discuss classification, prevention, and access, in Mexico the discussion is about how to invent one more tax to squeeze citizens. Here, mental health is not protected nor is there a cultural debate about the industry; what is protected here is the government's cash register, bankrupt due to misuse of public resources.
