Taxing adult entertainment -- are you for or against it?
 

An interesting article on XBIZ takes up the issue of adult entertainment taxation, something that several state legislatures have considered and/or passed in recent years, and the question of whether such taxation would serve to "legitimize" the adult industry, or simply burden it with another impediment to making sales.

As Larry Walters points out in the article, the devil obviously would be in the details of such a proposal. For the sake of argument, though, set aside those undefined details, and let's say Congress came up with a constitutionally-sound law mandating a 10% adult entertainment tax that would cover a wide range of services and products (DVDs, subscription sites, VOD, sex toys, etc. etc.) -- would you be inclined to accept/support the idea, or would you want the industry to fight it, tooth and nail?

anything that deals with taxing online purchases is silly in the global world of the internet.

Why? that's fucking stupid. Who gets the tax money?

common..

i hate all taxes

I am against any more taxing of anything.
We get monetarily raped on a daily basis from this corrupt government...

very interesting men!

Jesus man who the hell would favor more taxing when the current tax money is just disappearing before it's paid.

come on, that's stupid, who in their right mind would support it? I don't see any webmaster benefiting from it at all...

fuck taxing anything!

I think it would legitimize the industry no more grey. That's not a bad thing.

I just don't care. Fortunately I'm not in the USA and I'm paying just a fixed 6% tax from all my income. :2 cents:

is this industry illegal? NO
Do we pay high taxes as is? YES

I am just failing to see the benefit of shrinking my real income by another 10% :error

Fuck... lucky you! Where do you live?

As noted in the article, most of these proposals are tied into the notion of mitigating the "impact" of adult businesses/content, and the legislators who propose them typically suggest that the revenue be used for things that other legislators will find it difficult to vote against, like women's shelters, rape crisis counseling, child protective services, etc. etc.

My knee-jerk reaction is to be against such a tax. I understand Bill Margold's argument that being subjected to adult-specific taxes might contribute some perceived legitimacy to the industry, but I concur with Jennifer Kinsley that those who oppose porn and would like to see it banner or heavily restricted will not be swayed in their opinion by the fact that the industry pays taxes.

I just find it to be an interesting argument, and I do wonder if Margold might be right that such taxes are inevitable here in the U.S.

dude where do you live, Monaco?


How much for a condo?

I am so moving there.

Um, where is there again?

Moscow, Russia.

More than anywhere else - Moscow is a most expensive city according to CNN business and other sources.

I believe you will face GREAT problems with a visa. But you may try if you dare :)

Here:
http://www.russiablog.org/MoscowRiverNight.jpg

I seem to recall a marijuana stamp tax, a machine gun tax, and a few others that did not really legitimize those industries at all and were used to dismantle them and make them illegal.

I also do not like a tax on a given item as it associates it with an issue, aka sin tax. Alcohol causes deaths and health issues, cigarettes the same, gas causes pollution and uses roadways, and so forth. What does porn do to deserve a tax? We already pay for our bandwidth, we pay an income tax, we are small business owners as it is so please just leave us alone.

surprised it has not happened yet

fight it tooth and nail. Once they put a tax on something it will never come off. Every yesr they need extra money they will just raise it.

The argument forwarded by people like Charles Calderon is that porn businesses (brick and mortar businesses in particular) have "negative secondary effects," and the tax revenue would be put to use in ways that mitigate those secondary effects.

While I personally think that secondary effects arguments are extremely weak, it is an unfortunate fact that courts across this country have long accepted the secondary effects rationale as legitimate with respect to brick and mortar adult retail businesses (and other types of brick and mortar businesses as well), and they have placed the bar extremely low for municipalities that want to restrict the operation and location of such businesses.

Essentially, all a city has to do is present evidence that supports their contention that adult businesses do produce negative secondary effects, and then cite those findings within their zoning regulations. The evidence doesn't even have to be compelling at all -- I've seen many fundamentally flawed studies accepted by courts as evidence in zoning disputes. (Just ask attorneys like Luke Lirot in Fla, or Alan Begner in the Atlanta area; the hurdles that the city must clear with respect to their evidence of secondary effects is laughably low.)

This is why cities can dictate a broad range of operating conditions to adult businesses, like limitations on their operating hours, lighting requirements, rules regarding their exterior signs, etc., and the courts will typically uphold those regulations, so long as the city supplies somewhere in town for local adult businesses to operate legally. That somewhere can be a mosquito infested swamp for all the court cares, so long as it can reasonably be considered part of the city in question.

Such secondary effects arguments haven't gone far with respect to online content, but I don't expect that legislators will stop trying to apply the same logic to online adult businesses any time soon.

soon there will be a tax for the air we breathe ... fucking bastards!

What do you think?? Does anyone like friggin' taxes??

Absolutely.

The "negative impact" doctrine is outright bullshit to begin with.

:2 cents::2 cents:

It doesn't legitimize anything. Cigarettes and gambling pay high taxes (at least here in Europe) and that doesn't make it look better :2 cents:

The taxes are just a kind of bribe you pay the gov to let you do business

very good read thanks :) I'm not sure what I think ??

I'm against it! We get taxed enough as a company/individual.

Paying the US government with more taxes, will not give us any benifit, beyond those we already have as citizens.

no more taxes. pretty soon they are gonna tax us to go tot the bathroom

Besides taxes inevitably lead to more taxes...lonce they start with a baseline tax on adult items they will just increase it yearly until they kill off the industry.

They need the money to pay for those 158 international military bases and to fund the latest top secret death machine

The proposed tax is a consumer burden . A $29.95 membership would require a $3.00 tax be collected from the CONSUMER and then be remitted to the IRS at specified intervals.. Same as a sales tax basically..

Your burden is the paperwork and accounting.. More burdensome than this is the fact that billing backends will have to be modified to add, track & collect this tax in a manner that does not tax those that are excluded from the obligation to pay, such as surfer in other countries.

When I buy merchandise online from a business in another state I am not obligated to pay, however, a consumer buying online from a business located in his or her home state IS obligated to pay.

The tax itself is not such an issue.. it's the paperwork, accounting, tracking and collecting that's the bigger problem..

Worst case scenario, surfers will seek out pornsites with a lower cost membership.

how the fuck are you going to tax something which you can not define beyond " I know it when I see it"