Pole Tax

[rowyn]

OK, this isn't especially a subject near and dear to my heart -- I don't much care if state governments decide to levy extra taxes on strip clubs. I figure it's kind of sleazy, the same way levying extra taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, gasoline, and gambling is kind of sleazy and done mainly because the government knows that these are markets unusually resistant to change based on cost. (Ie, you have to make gasoline or cigarettes really expensive before it starts to deter people from driving or smoking.) In essence: "We're charging them because we can get away with it." Fine, whatever. I'd kind of prefer a nice flat sales tax but I'm never getting it anyway, I give up.

But then I saw this argument: Texas said it isn't levying the fee to discourage pole dancing. Instead, the state says by deterring people from going to clubs, the fee would help reduce rapes that it claimed are linked to drinking alcohol while watching dancers disrobe.

OH PLEASE. You honestly expect me to believe that? Would it kill you to admit "we're taxing them because we need the money and taxes don't much affect their behavior, plus strip club patrons are a minority that's embarrassed by itself so they won't stand up for themselves anyway"? Nooooo, you have to come up with some incredibly lame explanation like "strip clubs cause rapes but we're too nice to outlaw them so we've decided to profit from it instead". 9.9

Comments

[level-head.livejournal.com]

I think you've got this exactly right. Were the evidence large, the behavior of the regulators (not the dancers!) would be obscene.

As to the flat tax, I think you're going to get it. Many conservatives have argued for the essential fairness and simplicity of a flat tax on all consumption. Their idea was to replace the current "progressive" income tax with the flat tax.

Right about now, the current administration must be thinking: "Why not have both?"

===|==============/ Level Head

[rowyn]

I think inertia is way too far against it for the kind of flat sales tax I'd like. Which would be "government at all levels can levy the same % value-added tax on everything, and that's the only tax rate they can tinker with". It's the exact opposite of the slice-and-dice, exempt-and-tax mentality that Congress loves so much, because that lets them reward beloved constituencies (lower middle class, home owners, etc.) and punish (or try to) despised ones (upper class, smokers, etc.) Even if a significant minority, maybe 20%, would prefer a VAT, they're not going to overcome the weight of an enormous bureaucracy PLUS all the politicians who cherish the ability to redistribute taxes according to their view of justice.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

If you're going to pick one segment of peoples' incomes to tax, it seems like taxing their savings and investments would be better for the economy, and also more likely to be 'fair' in the sense that you're not driving people out of the market (of LIVING) by taxing necessary expenses.

It's the same theory behind taxing corporate profits, but letting them deduct expenses.

Of course, that might not be good for banks. >:)

[rowyn]

Ummm ... I guess it'd be better for the economy if you assume that savings and investment are bad for the economy? I don't think that's a widely-held assumption among economists, though. :D

When Telnar and I talked about doing a flat VAT, we figured on giving a "rebate for being an American", where everyone would get an $X annual or (more frequent) check to reflect that while we didn't really want to tax for necessities, we also didn't want to get bogged down in deciding what a 'necessity' is. ("Should I be taxed on my $50,000 residence? What about if it's $1 million? Should I be taxed on food? Is caviar food? Howabout diet Coke? Bottled water?")

[level-head.livejournal.com]

I agree that it will not be used as a substitute for the current system (more's the pity). I am thinking that it will be proposed on top of the current scheme, as a federal sales tax.

===|==============/ Level Head

[rowyn]

Ah.

I should clarify: I favor a VAT as a replacement for our existing tax bureaucracy. I do not favor it as a wonderful new addition to make the current tax bureaucracy even more byzantine and incomprehensible. O.o

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

We used to call them "sin" taxes down here in Texas. Of course, with the Republican hatred for the word tax and them being firmly in power nowdays, they've done everything possible under the sun to hide the fact that yes, they are taxes, and yes, they themselves created them.

[rowyn]

I think part of the reason they don't want to use the "sin tax" argument is the same reason they run into crimalizing problems -- 1st amendment. Smoking and drinking aren't protected under "freedom of expression", but nude dancing actually is. So they're running into legal problems single strip clubs out for a tax where they don't with other products.

But I don't see how the "but this tax stops rape!" argument helps any with the constitutionality question. Unless you argue that nude dancing fails the "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" test. Which would be an even DUMBER argument. :D

Anyway -- agreed that it's still a sin tax, and calling a tax anything else is silly at best, and doublespeak at worst.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

This isn't *really* related, but it reminds me of the new language all the stupidly overcomplicated contracts for simple things have been adding lately.

Late fees aren't 'fees' now -- they're 'liquidated damages' related to the cost of tracking the delinquent account.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, there's a lot of mind-numbing idiocy of that sort.

Gov't regulation: "You can't charge a document preparation fee on consumer loans".
Bank: "Okay. Can we charge origination fees?"
Gov't: "Sure, those are fine."
Bank: "We'll be sure to rename all our document preparation fees to 'origination', then."

x.x

[rowyn]

That was me -- for some reason, over the last few weeks, my phone gets logged out of LJ after 0-10 page loads, seemingly at random.

[jurann.livejournal.com]

Um, yeah, if alcohol + strippers = rape, then the government's OBLIGATION would be to ban them, period. =P That's just... They shouldn't even have opened their mouths. =P

[rowyn]

And even if you make the case that you can't ban stripping because of free-speech rights, there's no such case for alcohol. Texas could certainly prohibit strip clubs from selling alcohol.

The strip + alcohol = rape argument itself ticks me off, though. With the whole implication that patrons are somehow proto-rapists who can't help themselves in the face of strippers and alcohol and just have to go out and rape someone afterwards. 9.9

[jurann.livejournal.com]

Well, in a Chritian morals sense the alcohol + strippers = rape formula makes perfect sense! Men get all jacked-up on booze and out of control, and then they just TAKE what they want! Oh the humanity! But the reality is that 1) WHO are these drunk men raping? It's certainly not the strippers, they're protected by bouncers and hired muscle. 2) MOST guys I know can't even get it up when they're so drunk that they might TRY to rape someone - let alone are they physically coordinated enough to subdue an unwilling person for sexual purposes... 3) WTF, seriously?!

[dungeon-grrrl.livejournal.com]

In fact, access to pron seems to reduce rapes. I suspect access to strips clubs would, as well.

[rowyn]

Do you happen to recall the source on that? I admit to being curious about the research in that area. I didn't think there was anything conclusive on it yet.

This reminds me ...

[detroitfather.livejournal.com]

I read something, perhaps 10 years ago, on Michigan's 10¢ soda bottle tax.

It seems that government really is just necessarily stupid. Because they claimed that the 10¢ deposit would (1) clean up the environment; and (2) raise all kinds of revenue for the state.

There was apparently no admission at the time of the legislation that these goals were antagonistic ones. If you want the state to keep the money, then you have to hope those bottles stay out there in the environment. And if you want the environment to be clean ... well, you have to give the 10¢ back! They were basically double-counting the benefit of the thing.

I think you are right about the "Pole tax" ... it is an easy revenue stream to tap.