if there's an economic benefit to a specific type of taxation, i'm in favor of it. however i'd rather not reward my government's bad spending habits by giving them more money: infrastructure renewal is good; bank bailouts are bad.
Poll: Pornography Tax
- Thread starter Flying-Emu
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The internet is for porn. A few years back, traffic studies have shown that a large percentage of internet users, went online for porn. I cannot cite the sources because they were lost to my memory with time. So... you have unlimited, slightly dangerous porn out there. Not to mention all the streaming sites that rip off the copyrighted stuff.
Tax on porn however? A rather stupid idea, but in the actual crisis, I can see how some schemes might have thought of this as another good place for revenue. A 15% increase from 8.9% is not that much of an increase as you might think, unless you're buying 1000$ worth of porn each month. But if you can afford to buy 1000$ worth of porn, you should go to a hooker. They're cheaper.
Also, the poll should have stupid as well.
Tax on porn however? A rather stupid idea, but in the actual crisis, I can see how some schemes might have thought of this as another good place for revenue. A 15% increase from 8.9% is not that much of an increase as you might think, unless you're buying 1000$ worth of porn each month. But if you can afford to buy 1000$ worth of porn, you should go to a hooker. They're cheaper.
Also, the poll should have stupid as well.
The state has a budget shortfall and has to balance it somehow. Period.
While it seems like it's a ton of money all it means is that instead of paying 40 cents in sales tax on you magazine, you pay 90 cents.
You have a choice though since by law it has to go to a public vote, pay the extra 2 quarters, or lose police, fire protection, road repairs, school funding and things of that nature.
And since it has to pass with 60% of the vote or better, I doubt it's going to pass anyway.
While it seems like it's a ton of money all it means is that instead of paying 40 cents in sales tax on you magazine, you pay 90 cents.
You have a choice though since by law it has to go to a public vote, pay the extra 2 quarters, or lose police, fire protection, road repairs, school funding and things of that nature.
And since it has to pass with 60% of the vote or better, I doubt it's going to pass anyway.
De-Merit goods as is it often known are over-provided and over-consumed within a market, as such are often bad for us as people in someway like smoking, drinking and gambling. All are taxed in some hope to reduce the amount of consumption because smoking/drinking has negative health consequences and gambling can produce other economic negatives as well as addiction and driving people in debt and so on.
This i can understand, if we ignore our own personal prejudices we can see why they tax them, not only does it create revenue streams for governments but it also reduces to some extent the number of people comsuming that good (obviously price elasticity of demand plays a factor on how much that is by and of course on alcohol and smokes its minimal, but it's a meh issue).
I heard recently of a fat tax on people over 30 BMI, this i can understand, they create an extra strain on certain areas of the country likes its medical provision, same with cigarettes does. I also heard of a chewing gum tax, where they wanted to tax chewing gum because a lot of street litter is chewing gum wrappers and chewing gum, again something i can understand, it's a problem, maybe.
However porn is not a de-merit good, it is not over-provided or over-consumed in economic terms, it has no overtly massive negative impact on society, it doesnt cause ill health like smoking and alcohol, or real addiction like gambling. Ok, one can argue the odd weirdo does get a bit obsessed by it and a little schizo, but it isnt like everyone who watches porn is affected or even half or 1 or 2%, it's 1 to 2 people in thousands upon thousands, not enough to warrant a tax on everybody and do they really think the numbers of people consuming porn would really go down?
This is obviously just a blatent move to make shit loads of money and to appease the wanky shit eating tards that are opposed to porn and so on who make up a massive part of american society.
Also how does one over consume porn? Thats one of the biggest reasons for a tax, like on gas/petrol, smokes and alcohol.
In summary then, yes in my opinion taxing something that has no real grounds for taxation like pornography(in this case the only reason for the tax is to make money which shouldnt be the reason for the tax) tax on the individual product like alcohol, ciggarette's and gambling is not there as a revenue stream, is theres to reduce the numbers using it) is wrong, seeing as the tax even if porn was "bad" which it isnt, wouldnt do anything to consumption anyway seeing as everyone would shift their demand straight into the internet where it is free to all and then a whole industry in Washington would be gone and jobs lost.
This i can understand, if we ignore our own personal prejudices we can see why they tax them, not only does it create revenue streams for governments but it also reduces to some extent the number of people comsuming that good (obviously price elasticity of demand plays a factor on how much that is by and of course on alcohol and smokes its minimal, but it's a meh issue).
I heard recently of a fat tax on people over 30 BMI, this i can understand, they create an extra strain on certain areas of the country likes its medical provision, same with cigarettes does. I also heard of a chewing gum tax, where they wanted to tax chewing gum because a lot of street litter is chewing gum wrappers and chewing gum, again something i can understand, it's a problem, maybe.
However porn is not a de-merit good, it is not over-provided or over-consumed in economic terms, it has no overtly massive negative impact on society, it doesnt cause ill health like smoking and alcohol, or real addiction like gambling. Ok, one can argue the odd weirdo does get a bit obsessed by it and a little schizo, but it isnt like everyone who watches porn is affected or even half or 1 or 2%, it's 1 to 2 people in thousands upon thousands, not enough to warrant a tax on everybody and do they really think the numbers of people consuming porn would really go down?
This is obviously just a blatent move to make shit loads of money and to appease the wanky shit eating tards that are opposed to porn and so on who make up a massive part of american society.
Also how does one over consume porn? Thats one of the biggest reasons for a tax, like on gas/petrol, smokes and alcohol.
In summary then, yes in my opinion taxing something that has no real grounds for taxation like pornography(in this case the only reason for the tax is to make money which shouldnt be the reason for the tax) tax on the individual product like alcohol, ciggarette's and gambling is not there as a revenue stream, is theres to reduce the numbers using it) is wrong, seeing as the tax even if porn was "bad" which it isnt, wouldnt do anything to consumption anyway seeing as everyone would shift their demand straight into the internet where it is free to all and then a whole industry in Washington would be gone and jobs lost.
I approve of taxes on things that affect other people such as cigarettes and alcohol as long as the tax is applied to correct the problems caused by those things--cigarette taxes going to cancer research and supplementing insurance costs (kind of like a "you're-going-to-have-emphysema-one-day savings fund"), alcohol taxes going towards incidental costs of drunk driving accidents, &c. ... Although I think alcohol taxes are less effective than people hope, but that's a different thing. If the taxes went towards, say, bolstering the long-suffering sexual addiction programs and support groups, I could get behind it a little.
However! This is the important part to me: how long have people argued over what constitutes pornography? Yes, you can list certain things that are unequivocally pornographic, and you can do something like increase taxes on all products sold in certain stores and not "all porn" in general, but I doubt that's how it would work. The state of the art, today, is high sexualization, especially concerning minors (here I mean teenagers, not pre-teens or younger), and I prefer to err on the side of free speech and the free market.
In other words, if a movie or game or book bombs, I want it to be because people decided it was a piece of crap that wasn't worth their financial support, rather than looking at a questionably-pornographic, taxed work, and a substandard but non-taxed work, and choosing the latter because it's too much bother.
Oh, and yes--it's only going to drive brick-and-mortar adult stores closer to liquidation, if more people download/pirate porn rather than buying dvds, which I'm sure are feeling the economic problems along with everybody else. Porn shouldn't be relegated to a dark corner--that's when bad things happen.
However! This is the important part to me: how long have people argued over what constitutes pornography? Yes, you can list certain things that are unequivocally pornographic, and you can do something like increase taxes on all products sold in certain stores and not "all porn" in general, but I doubt that's how it would work. The state of the art, today, is high sexualization, especially concerning minors (here I mean teenagers, not pre-teens or younger), and I prefer to err on the side of free speech and the free market.
In other words, if a movie or game or book bombs, I want it to be because people decided it was a piece of crap that wasn't worth their financial support, rather than looking at a questionably-pornographic, taxed work, and a substandard but non-taxed work, and choosing the latter because it's too much bother.
Oh, and yes--it's only going to drive brick-and-mortar adult stores closer to liquidation, if more people download/pirate porn rather than buying dvds, which I'm sure are feeling the economic problems along with everybody else. Porn shouldn't be relegated to a dark corner--that's when bad things happen.
they already have that in massachusetts, its a decriminilization, not a legalization though... i just cant beleive the government wouldnt want a peice of all the money that can and is being made (and don't give me any pot is just "too bad" nonsense, alcohol is just the same except with the added effect of getting angry easier... hence why drunk hunsbands come home and beat their wives but no high husband ever does that...)asinann said:
But to stay somewhat on topic, they should tax both.. it will be good for everyone
This is ridiculous. What if the government decides to deem anything showing a little skin pornography? Will Yahtzee have to pay extra to rag on the latest Tomb Raider remake? Will we have to pay the government for the lingerie sections of those useless catalogs we receive in the mail? Will we have to pay extra to see every single movie that has a sex scene? What's next? A video game tax? A lounging around the house tax? A not showing up for work tax? I say the government has no right to dictate what one does in one's own home, as long as long as one's actions harm nobody else. Ah well. I can always make up my own "sin"less religion, right? Right?
here in australia we have a goods and services tax applied to anything and everything we purchase, including pron.. but why buy what you can get for free on the internet?
HA! HA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Stop the tax? That's pretty damn funny? They don't stop taxing something after they don't 'need' the tax anymore, they just find another meaningless program to put all that money into, like giving all the illegal aliens in this state more money and food stamps so they can all drive their Escelades.(which if all those programs were cut of Washington could save 100s of millions a year on)Jagers1994 said:
This tax doesn't just apply to pornographic magazines and movies either, it applies to as the author of the bill put it, 'paraphernalia' which covers as much as sex toys and as far as I know could extend to things like lubricants and massage oil, so if you live in Washington and like having your woman give you massage from time to time be ready to pay another 19% on top of sales tax for it because that's what this guy is asking for.
This is another one of those so called 'sin' taxes just like the extra tax we have to pay on alcohol and tobacco both of which are bullcrap. Lets cut some of these special interest programs and maybe deport some of the illegal aliens and see where this state stands. Taxing porn is the wrong answer, even our good liberal buddy Ken Schram thinks so.
..."Give all the illegal aliens in this state more money." So because of the pornography tax illegal aliens benefit? Wow what a dick.tkaStryc9 said:
By the way "Stop the tax" means in a perfect society but there sure arent a surplus of those running auround. This is just a fucking plan not some ellaborate 100 some odd point strategy, that is to be put in place the second you conceive it, of making illegal aliens richer.
Just be a bigger asshole to you than you were to me check your fucking grammer. "That's preety damn funny?" Like its a question whether i'm funny or not. Punctuation is key. When you put a period its a statement. Like so.
You dont wanna see Hilary Clinton naked. or:
You dont wanna see Hilary Clinton naked!
This makes it sound like your joking or telling the person that "no you do not and stop having those deviant thoughts. A question mark makes it sound like you do and wondering why the other person does not. With your question mark it sounds like your sarcastically unsure.
You DONT wanna see Hilary Clinton naked?
Big difference