Cigarettes, alchohol, gasoline, airlines and a host of other industries have specific taxes they have to deal with. The costs often get passed on to consumers. This would not be the case in adult porn because consumers could easily buy from offshore companies that didn't have this expense.

Lightspeed and others, you need to be aware that taxes like these get applied to gross revenue, not net revenue. They would take a percentage of your total sales. You would simply not be able to profit if your price point remained the same as your offshore competitors.

This is constitutional and probable. Governments often turn to taxes on unpopular products to raise revenue. The very first tax in the United States was on alchohol which led to the Whiskey Rebellion in the late 1700s. The term is called an excise tax and the governmet has used it as a fund raising vehicle since the beggining because they often get passed through congress.

i feel sick reading this

Porn Tax, Child Abuse, and the Clergy...... Why we are the victims!
 

Today's Read: Tax on porno and child abuse.......

What is really fucked up about this is this is that in the same newspaper that reports the new 25% tax to protect kids is an article about two church daycare centers in Jacksonville, Florida being shut down for sexual child abuse of kids from 5 to 14 years of age.

When was the last time you heard of a mainstream adult webmaster, adult bookstore clerk, or titty dancer charged with child abuse?

The church groups are pointing fingers at the adult industry as "after your children" and pedophiliacs. In reality, the opposite is true.

We are the victims of a coordinated, well financed, and slanderous scheme to control the sexuality of the population. Even since the early days of the Catholic church, the clergy has realized that the Church's control over the population is directly linked to its control over the laity's sexuality. Hence, the Church's opposition to birth control, gay rights, divorce, abortion, pornography, etc. Do you see a pattern???

Moreover, with all their dirty laundry hanging about, i.e. priest and church workers molesting kids, they have to divert attention from themselves by blaming the adult industry and wrap themselves in a "protective cloak of God's love and purity" and hope the people won't get wise to their subterfuge.

Here is a website for you to look at and it doesn't include the Catholics:

http://reformation.com/
Then click on the "Reformation.com" folder in the left blue panel.

They call us perverts after the children while they are really the one's committing the crimes.......

We should expose this truth to our communities and ask them to take action against these people through increased penalties, zoning restrictions, background checks, licensing requirements, and everything else that they have done to the adult industry.

I think I'm gonna give this post its own thread..

Are you a retard? It's adding a 25% tax to surfers that come to your site. So if you charge $30 then that's $7.50 in taxes either you make the surfer pay, you eat or you take away from affilaites. In ANY of those scenarios you'll end up losing money.

How charging 25% porn tax somehow "protects" children from "evil" porn is something I have yet to figure out.

The Supreme Court either has or will determine the constitutionallity of the above.

FYI the war in Iraq is not a war as war can only be declared by Congress. The President has the power (under the War Powers Act)...granted to him by Congress many, many years ago...to engage our military forces without any approval of Congress and certainly without any approval of the UN.

The Congress (after 9/11) did...overwhemingly...vote to allow the President to use our military forces "as he sees fit"...and in addition specifically voted...overwhelmingly...to use our forces in Iraq. The UN does not play a role in the US constitution not does it play a role in...or on what occasion the US President and or the Congress can engage our military forces.

i know how the system works. :1orglaugh
people make mistakes, and this was one of them.
instead of labeling it unconstitutional, ill call it "selling out"

My local paper doesn't publish letters to the editor that aren't supportive of conservatives. :(

Who said the War Powers Act is constitutional? :)

This email will of course not accomplish anything except to make you look the fool. An intelligent well thought out email would have been appropriate...this email is not either...and could be construed as being harmful.

Good news for Canadians, we might be playing a bigger role soon :).

Pfft! Tell any of our folks coming back with limbs blown off (or the families of those who return in caskets) that they weren't in a war :disgust

(Yes, I know you were referring to "technically")

You are correct.

I found the letter to be concise, passionate and to the point. :glugglug

Harmful? Like denying people their rights? Look... this is the U.S. I am free to express myelf as I deem fit.

Both you and Rick are wrong. This topic is about taxing protected speech. You can't tax speech. This has been decided by the Supreme Court many times.

Actually, there are two grammatical errors at the end of the note but it's early Saturday and I am sleepy!

Thank you for the kind words.

I think when it comes down to it they would declare that it is "entertainment" and fair game to taxation as other entertainment already is.

Of course you have the right to express yourself and if you choose to make yourself out to be a fool in the eyes of the Congresswoman you have that right also...but it could also be construed as reflecting badly on those that are in this business.

The tax would be on a service provided...not on free speech.

You are correct.

First it wont happen because the christian right want us all thrown in jail, a tax makes us a legimate business without question. I also think for people like lightspeed and solo girl sites, it wouldnt effect sales greatly. Tawney or Naughty Allie or Mandy Blake are a one of a kind thing if you want to see them you are going to pay. Where if you have a site thats not around one chick I can see people going else where there is no connection.

i have a question. why do you blindly follow everything the government does and argue about how right it is. we all know the system isnt perfect, as i pointed out, yet you post paragraphs basically representing your position as "if the government says its ok, then it must be." if you read that article i posted, it basically shows how the supreme court expanded the governments power to play muscle for anyone with money and yet you argue its constitutional because the vote was 5-4 in favor? its only constitutional to 5 people in power while 4 disagree and even warn about the rulings possible outcome. i guess from now on ill use quotes showing whats true in the powers that governs eyes instead of what the actually document dictates.

You are completely wrong. It is commercial speech, not a service. The Supreme Court has ruled that commercial speech can not be directly taxed. Minimal local taxation, e.g. sales taxes, is legal as long as it isn't applied unequally.

I am free to make a fool of myself but I wasn't. Much greater minds in this country such as Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, etc. wrote much, much harsher words than I did! Read a little history. They actually proposed rebellion.

The South is racist and close-minded.

I do not "blindly follow everything the government does and argue about how right it is."

I do not agree with many of the Supreme Court decisions or the legislation passed by the Congressional or the policies of the Executive branch.

In the case of the Supreme Court's decision to expand eminent domain to include proterties for private use...I deplore the decision (I never liked the original)...but the Court decided that it is within the Constitution and the majority court has always been the determiner of what is Constitutional and what is not. I am a pragmatist...not an idealist.

It is an entertainment service and as has been pointed out an entertainment service is currently taxed.

using that logic news papers could be heavily taxed as well. i wonder how far we are from that reality

Well...it would be a strech to classify "news papers" as being an entertaiment service...although the news is often entertaining...but in answer to your question how in the hell could I possibly know?

Wouldn't this legislation violate the Internet Tax Moritorium that was also passed by Congress? Just another Christo-Nazi assault on our industry. We will watch the bill for any signs of progress; but, it will probably die in Committee.

Sorry the ACLU is too busy protecting child molesters and terrorists.....

I highly suspect that you are correct on both points...but some people seem to cater to the "sky is falling" syndrome.

There is far to much truth to your post.

Restaurants are levied a special tax not levied on other businesses in many jourisdictions, casinos are almost always are. Taxation in our country is not equal, let alone consistent.

I live here. I can vouch there is truth in that statement. :helpme

You are correct.

maybe you will consider doing so when you make more than 25$ a month.

Bush is a pornstar!

cartoons, horoscopes, personals, opinion pages. none of those are news

Thank you for pointing out the obvious...but I personally do not expect newspapers to be classified as an entertainment service and taxed as such...anytime soon. Do you?

Listen Bringer, I already agreed with you once in another thread .. .and now you force me to agree a second time in the same week ????

This hurts you know :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

What's funny about TheKing ( aside that he is a gov cocksucking sheep) is that this tax has no influence on him...

25% or 50% or even 90% of 0.00 income is ZERO!

:2 cents:

And if they made billions you can bet some polititian would be going after their chunk of it :upsidedow

i was simply pointing out the parts that might put papers into the entertainment section. who knows if it'll happen. i never expected walmart or any other asshole with money who likes my ocean view to cherry pick my property and have my local government force me to move so we'll just wait and see what our non elected leaders force down our throats. unpopular speach is often mislabeled in attempts to squash it. please dont reply to this post, i know you disagree and i really dont care.

the sky is falling

In reference to newspapers being taxed - they would be protected under the 1st amendment of freedom of press and this has been upheld many times.
The supreme court has struck down a law which imposed a special tax on large newspapers, Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue,460 U.S. 575 (1983) , and a law which imposed a tax on some magazines but not others based on their subject matter, Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221 (1987)

I will ignore your request and reply anyhow. I cannot see anything in the post that I disagree with.

FYI...I disagree with much...if not most...of what government does...be it local City Government...County Government...State Government...or Federal Government.

As for the rest of your post...like most of your posts...pig shit.

BTW...my biggest bones to pick have usually been with City and County government as I used to have properties and City and County goverment effect properties. I kind of miss the City and County "wars".

I'm curious if this will apply to both a 25% tax on the profit made by an affiliate making a sale on their end plus a 25% tax on the income received by the paysite.

:/

This as with many of the other changes going on right now in the adult industry were totally predictable.

:pimp

Big differecene. None of those are speech.

Still, the taxes you list have nothing to do with free speech. Porn is speech, whether it's offensive to some people or not.

Bottom Line: Government Greed... with Child Protecton as justification (for doing it).

When this gets in front of your regular Legislative MORNs all they see is Child Protecton and they compleetly ingnore the legal system (created by them) has been completly INCOMPETENT in keeping KNOWN Child Predators from killing children again and again.

I live in Florida... children abducted every week here and often killed... and that's just the ones that are found. Most are probably dead and never found. Point being, if they are unwilling to stop Convicted Child Predators (by not releasing them from jail)... why should we believe that they can protect children from a resource as abundant and as easly accessable as the Internet.