Chacham's Journal: Article on taxing prostitution

In Las Vegas, Nevada, there is a 7.3-percent amusement tax. What falls under the tax is outlined by the city. Nevada already seems to allow brothels. This article talks about Las Vegas wanting to put the brothels under the tax as well.

It's strange. People are doing what they want to do. And the Democrats, who reportedly espouse freedom, also try taxing such freedoms to death. First it was cigarrettes, now they're moving onto greasy foods and prostitution. Maybe those promoting the unfettered use of drugs can get support by asking that it be taxed?

Amazing. And I thought slashdot moederators were strange.

Drugs Taxation

[On Lawn]

A little late there Chacham. Legalizing drugs for taxation has long been a platform of the "legalize it" crowd.

The principle of the sin tax is not to make money for the government, its supposed to offset the social costs of these sins, by making those responsible for it pay for it.

Unfortunately, a government that is hungry for free money (free as in not needing to beg people for it or convince people they need it) latches on to it like a part-shareholder and rarely puts all the money towards solving the maladies it was designed for,

Wow

[glh]

What scares me most about this is that Brothels are legal in Vegas..

A minor point

[MiTEG]

Prostitution is only legal in Nevada counties with populations under 250,000, which makes it illegal in Las Vegas. While there is prostitution in the city, I don't think there are many brothels to speak of, making Vegas prostitutes exempt.

It's interesting that the committee chairman is from Las Vegas. I have a feeling casinos are largely behind this, but for what reason I'm not sure. It's in their best interest for this amusement tax not to go through, so maybe they lobbied to add this as a deal breaker provision. Or maybe they're trying to keep people in the larger cities. I don't think morality has much to do with it though.

luxury or vice/sin tax

[memfree]

This is exactly the sort of thing I find most reasonable to tax because average workers (though perhaps not every worker) do not *need* to pay hookers to perform their work. The average worker needs food, clothes, a phone, and some form of transportation (which may be shoes) to maintain a job, but not much else.

In my state, Pennsylvania, most clothing and most groceries (except candy, colas/sodas, hot food, etc.) are not subject to state tax because its presumed they are needed items. Cars, movies, dinners out, cigarrettes, booze, and just about everything else you can name all gets taxed with the rationale that most of your spendings on any of those items are for an excess rather than a need.

I can't recall if they offically labelled our recent increase in cigarette taxes as a "Vice Tax" or not, but they did up, and the legislators said their hope was to drive the price high enough that smokers would quit their bad habit. I'm pretty sure a tax on prostitution would get labeled that way -- a way of saying, "We aren't making this illegal, but we think it is so morally wrong that we want any partakers to very literally pay a price for choosing to partake in sin."