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

[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