Original story This is interesting on a couple of levels. One is that it very much appears to be a punitive and opportunistic taxation, an attempt to discourage behaviour which is legal while at the same time using the proceeds to fund somthing more popular. The bit about "tassles for tots" is also interesting, that people would oppose a tax benefitting schools because they don't approve of the activity that raised the funds. It's yet another example of America's sick and twisted relationship with sex
Honestly I see little difference between this and taxes in tobacco & alcohol. It's not that unusual of a stance though. If these organizations take the money they are in a sense condoning the activity that raised the money - whatever that activity is. Think of it this way: What would you expect an elected official to say / do (at least publicly) if he found that he was getting donations from a group known to be involved in organized crime?
That was by no means an exclusive statement. Lots of cultures have really messed up relationships with sex. OK, but does that make those right, either? Case in point, using tobacco taxes to fund the NHS. As spec has often pointed out, tobacco users contribute far more to the NHS through taxes than they recieve in health care value. Is it right for one group, however unpopular, to be singled out to provide value to the rest of society? Lets look at a hypothetical. Most crime ias comitted by young, unmarried males. Would it be fair to raise a special tax levy on only unmarried males between the ages of 12 and 30 and use that money to pay for services to crime victims? It seems to me that taxes should be used not primarily as a punitive measure, but as a means by which all of society contributes to the common welfare. When you start using the government to reinforce divisions within society it tends to create more problems than it solves. If tha state of Texas wants to funs rape crisis services, a goal which I support, then it should do so through the general fund or sales taxes. Placing an increased burden on one small group is unfair and contrary to democratic principals. The difference here is that when a politician accepts funds for his or her campaign there is a reasonable expectation that the canidate will somehow act in the interests of the donor. It's a dirty little open secret of politics, but one that everyone pretty much accepts. As perverse as it sounds, the taxpayer has no real expectation of a return on their "investment" because the money they pay is not voluntary. Let me put it another way. If a business makes a donation to a canidate then it is reasonable to believe that canidate may be influenced by the business. If a business pays taxes and those taxes are used to fund a program, there is no expectation that the business will have any influence on that program. Having just written the last two paragraphs I'm astounded to realize just how monumentally F***ed up this "democratic" political system is. Now I'm depressed Final thought: They should have called it "tits for tots", after all, isn't that what they're designed for?
You raise some good points but that might be a whole other debate. I was just saying it was similar. True. But anytime a donation is made anywhere there is an implication of shared interest(s), of similar goal(s), and maybe even of similar outlook on life. It's also hard (/hypocritical) to say: "Thanks for doing what you did to raise money for us." when you don't approve of how the money was raised. But the taxpayer has (or should have) the expectation that the government they fund will be "for the people". Actually politicians can get into huge trouble if such influence is proven. In most democratic countries buying such influence is illegal. In Canada we currently have a bit of a flap going on with allegations of improper payments from a "lobbyist" (Karlheinz Schreiber) and a former Prime-minister (Brian Molroney). "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." - Winston Churchill (Interesting short article I just now stumbled upon) (And another) Partly, but they have other functions too
if you dont mind i will try to fix that analogy..... depends...... if they are rich, yes, if they are poor or mid classed, make them do forced labor periodically.... indeed...
There are gonna be some very disappointed/angry horny Texans out there now, could this lead to more crime?
Have to agree here. Tobacco tax comes to about £10.5 billion a year. treating smoking related disease costs about £1.7 billion a year (but on top if that come the smoking cessation programmes --about £52 million, if I recall). So the NHS should be about £8.8 billion up, right? But unfortunately not nearly all tobacco tax is channelled into the NHS. Allocation to public spending is never determined by where the money comes from. Road tax does not go just to roads, TV licences do not go just to the BBC etc. Instead, it may end up going to lofty goals such as the war in Iraq or another borked computer system for the CSA. Apart from the fact that 12-year olds have no taxable income, you'd sort of have to target the criminals specifically. After all, non-smokers are not expected to pay smoking tax any more than people who do not go to strip clubs are expected to pay, er, strip-tax. I can understand the argument that it makes a (sort of) unfair association between the sex industry and sex crimes. However, like with tax on alcohol and tobacco or indeed fuel, it is not about reducing consumption or compensating for negative side-effects, so to speak (in economical terms, for externalities) at all. As I said in the thread on "Sin taxes", it is about what I call "plausibly justifiable exploitation of reliable consumption patterns". Basically: people will want to smoke and drink, drive and look at titty. They are the easiest markets to exploit for tax without affecting consumption patterns very much. These taxes are also easiest to justify politically, because they're like, really bad for you/other people/the economy/the environment, and most difficult to argue against.
Nexxo: you have 2 quotes attributed to me for things that Cthippo said. Please fix. Thanks in advance.
Well this is fairly disgusting. The implication that men who go to titty bars are then going to go out and rape people, is a terrible one to be making. I can't say that this is the worst thing to happen in a while, but this does seem very unfair and fairly punitive.
There are a lot of reasons to be glad that you're not in Texas. This ranks somewhere around 62. -monkey
That was mostly sarcasm. Texas isn't so bad, I suppose. There are some parts that are desperately trying to hold on to that cowboy culture of yesterday. Lord that can get annoying after a while. -monkey
They're probably undergoing somthing of a culture shock with all the west coasters moving there because it'as the last affordable metro area in the country. I know several people who have moved to the DFW area in the last few years because even with two good incomes they could never afford to own a home on the left coast.
We do have some of the cheapest real estate in the country, but I don't think there's any real culture shock going on. The larger metropolitan areas have been pretty diverse for a long time. -monkey
Is it just me but I simply do NOT understand how people can just go to a strip bar and stare at chicks (or do more), how do perverts get satisfaction from looking at people, it sickens me.
