Democratic U.S. Senator proposes federal tax on internet pornography.

[grundle]

I am against this tax.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-pornography-tax,1,5625098.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

4:40 PM PDT, July 22, 2005

Bill Would Tax Internet Pornography

By Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- <b>A Democratic lawmaker is planning to propose a new 25 percent federal tax on Internet pornography</b> and new requirements for adult Web sites to help prevent children from looking at them.

<b>The bill, expected to be introduced next week by Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., would impose the excise tax on transactions with for-profit adult Web sites,</b> which typically sell monthly subscriptions to Internet users to look at pornographic photographs or videos.

Money collected from the tax would be used for law enforcement and for protecting children from Internet-related crimes.

Lincoln's spokesman, Drew Goesl, declined Friday to discuss the provisions. "We prefer to wait until the bill is introduced to discuss it," Goesl said.

A draft of the legislation circulated this week among pornography and free-speech groups. Companion legislation was also expected to be introduced in the House.

Called the Internet Safety and Child Protection Act of 2005, the bill also proposes new rules for Web sites to verify they do business only with adults. It would compel sites to use specialized software to verify a customer's age, subject to enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission.

An FTC spokeswoman said the commission was not aware of the proposed bills.

[OldDude]

They already tax death and taxes (you pay income tax on your Social Security tax). If they tax sex too, they've got you coming, going and in between.

[grundle]

They already tax death and taxes (you pay income tax on your Social Security tax). If they tax sex too, they've got you coming, going and in between.
Well then we'd better eliminate those other taxes!

[classicman2]

Sen. Blanche Lincoln is on my favorite U. S. Senators list.

We can dismiss the rants of our anarchist friends who seemingly want to rid the country of taxes.

[Jason]

I'm all for sin taxes. Besides, there's so much free porn out there, why would you ever pay for it?

[mikehunt]

so when the porn server moves overseas then what?
ridiculous

[wildcatlh]

People pay for porn on the net? :hscratch:

[OldDude]

We can dismiss the rants of our anarchist friends who seemingly want to rid the country of taxes.

Just to offset those who wish to tax everything.

Although given my rather low alcohol consumption, I'd be much better off if they just taxed alcohol, tobacco, gambling and porn instead of income and assets.

[classicman2]

You have definite anarchist tendencies. I wonder why you don't profess the libertarian philosophy? ;)

BTW: I don't wish to tax everything.

[dtcarson]

I'm all for sin taxes. Besides, there's so much free porn out there, why would you ever pay for it?

Me too. Sin and luxury taxes.
Who needs porn
booze
cigarettes
heavy metal or rap music
hardback novels
dvd's
cd's
cars
homes larger than 500 square feet per inhabitant
recreational vehicles
cable television
internet access
etc.
Most are 'sins' in somebody's mind, and all are luxuries.

Or we could just establish the FairTax, make it irrelevant what someone earns, only relevant what they buy. And totally fair.

Right now there is so much taxation and at so many levels, any clearthinking individual who doesn't resent 'the rich' [that is, someone making more than them], automatically and reflexively resists any new taxation. Maybe that'll make it harder for the politicians who try to create a new irrelevant tax stream to pass them. Taxes should be to run the government, and the government should be run based on its 'income', not the other way around; if things are 'bad', make them illegal or prohibited. Otherwise they're a bunch of goddam hypocrites. Well, that is probably still true anyway.

"Sin taxes" are a load of bull. If it's a 'sin' [which is a religious concept anyway, and don't we have 'separation of church and state'?], make it illegal.

[al_bundy]

They already tax death and taxes (you pay income tax on your Social Security tax). If they tax sex too, they've got you coming, going and in between.

i think you spelled coming wrong

[Myster X]

Where will it all end?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/debrasaunders/ds20020403.shtml

California State Sen. Don Perata wants to tax bullets -- at a rate of five cents per round -- and he plans to ask the state legislature to put a bullet tax on the November ballot.

"Bullets cause injuries that are expensive to treat, and generally speaking, the public is footing the bill," Perata told KTVU last week. He added that a bullet tax -- with the revenue going to California's trauma centers, since they treat gun wounds -- makes as much sense as the 50-cent-per-pack cigarette tax that sends money to health care and anti-smoking education.

Great idea. So, as long as we're calling for new taxes on things we don't like under the pretense that the tax makes sense because of government costs incurred by a minority of practitioners, why stop there?

Let's levy a new health-care tax on cars because, according to the Centers for Disease Control, cars injure more kids than guns.

Let's tax fashion magazines because they contribute to anorexia, which drives up health costs.

Let's tax potato-chip makers for contributing to obesity, which also increases health-care costs.

Let's tax movies that show movie stars smoking, thus encouraging teen-agers to smoke, because teen-agers can grow into old farts who get cancer and drive up Medicare costs.

Ditto movies with sex scenes -- which can contribute to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

Let's tax gay bars and bathhouses because drinking and mingling can lead to the transmission of HIV and other STDs.

For that matter, let's tax singles bars for heterosexuals, too.

Let's tax chaise longues because sitting on them can contribute to skin cancer.

Let's tax swimming pools because drowning is the second-leading cause of accidental death for children under age 14.

Let's tax all religions with clergy who molested children.

Let's tax TV. Tax it two ways. First, put a tax on all TV sets because watching too much television can be bad for children's school performance. Then, take the study that showed that 28.8 percent of kids who watched three or more hours of TV a day committed "aggressive acts" -- versus 5.7 percent of kids who watched an hour of TV or less, and legislate a cable tax that is commensurately larger based on how many channels consumers buy.

Let's raise bridge tolls at night because teen-agers are more likely to die in nighttime crashes.

Let's tax gambling to pay for anti-gambling education.

Let's tax fast-food to pay for public service announcements that nag junk-food eaters and tell them that they're fat.

Let's tax fast-food to fund a tax credit for yogurt, fruits and vegetables so that people will eat more healthy foods.

Let's tax cell phones because they can cause car accidents.

Add a tax for billboards, car radios, other dashboard controls and take-out food because the American Automobile Association found that outside distractions, switching radio and other dashboard controls, and eating or drinking caused more accidents than cell-phone distraction.

Let's tax men because men are more likely to commit crimes that land them in prison.

Let's tax motorized scooters because we don't own one and they look like they'll cause accidents.

Tax ski resorts and bicycles because they put people in trauma centers, too.

Give a tax rebate for people who buy ski helmets and bike helmets.

Let's tax churches that hurt gay people's feelings -- which, do-gooders say, leads to suicide.

Let's tax dogs and cats so that the law-abiding folks who pay to register and neuter their pets can pay for a tax that never will be paid by less responsible pet owners who don't register or neuter their pets.

Let's tax everyone who does things we don't like because they should be more like us.

Let's tax bills proposed by busybody politicians who feel it's their job to single out activities they don't like for extra taxation.

Better yet, let's not vote for them.

[CRM114]

Allow me to cry a river for our citizens paying taxes on porn. Ahem.

OK. Now, when cigarettes no longer cost $4.50 a pack because of taxes that politicians from both sides of the aisle wholeheartedly support, I'd consider being dismayed by porn tax. Until then, I could give a rat's ass.

[classicman2]

California State Sen. Don Perata wants to tax bullets -- at a rate of five cents per round -- and he plans to ask the state legislature to put a bullet tax on the November ballot.

A number of years ago the late Sen. John Chaffee, (R/RI) proposed the same thing on the federal level.

[classicman2]

OldDude,

CRM114 brings up a salient point about taxes on cigarettes.

What is your position on that?

Are you opposed or for those very high taxes on cigarettes.

Or is it merely your porn that you don't want to be taxed? :lol:

[grundle]

so when the porn server moves overseas then what?
ridiculous
Then they'll pass taxes against outsourcing!

[kvrdave]

Let's tax the cow when we get the milk for free. :lol:

It doesn't affect me, so I don't have a real strong opinion. Actually, I don't have a real strong opinion because it seems unworkable.

[OldDude]

OldDude,

CRM114 brings up a salient point about taxes on cigarettes.

What is your position on that?

Are you opposed or for those very high taxes on cigarettes.

Or is it merely your porn that you don't want to be taxed? :lol:

I just worry about pols constant need to steal money from the pockets of citizens and squander it. However, I have decided to join the "self-interest" party. I will support all the "sin taxes" pols want if they agree not to tax my income, or real and intangible assets.

For an atheist, I don't sin much, at least not on those things, and I'd make out like a bandit. The rest of you may or may not. The only taxes should be sin taxes.!!!!!!!!!!

[classicman2]

Then they'll pass taxes against outsourcing!

You're finally coming around.

That's exactly the approach we should take. Use to tax code.

[grundle]

You're finally coming around.

That's exactly the approach we should take. Use to tax code.
I didn't say that I would support such a tax.

I am against such a tax.

[classicman2]

There is no hope for you, is there?

[darkflounder]

They can tax my porn when they pry it from my stiff, sticky fingers!

And I'm opposed to using the tax code for social engineering. A tax is meant to provide the government with operating capital, not to punish people for activities that certain people in the government disagree with.

Abolish all current taxes and move to a flat-rate consumption tax.

[DVD Polizei]

Only tax the viewers. Not the porn providers. :up:

[Breakfast with Girls]

OK. Now, when cigarettes no longer cost $4.50 a pack because of taxes that politicians from both sides of the aisle wholeheartedly support, I'd consider being dismayed by porn tax. Until then, I could give a rat's ass.Don't worry, they'll raise taxes on your cigarettes again soon enough. They'll use it to continue funding unworkable or feel-good initiatives, or maybe just give themselves a raise.

[Red Dog]

I wonder how Senator Nimrod plans to tax offshore porn sites (for those who actually pay for porn)? After all, the US gov't has done a masterful job trying to regulate internet gaming. :lol:

[Myster X]

Don't worry, they'll raise taxes on your cigarettes again soon enough. They'll use it to continue funding unworkable or feel-good initiatives, or maybe just give themselves a raise.

Stop giving that idiot Rob Reiner ideas.

[Julie Walker]

I don't get this,since don't the porn companies have to pay taxes at the end of the year like any other business??

I'm sure some try to slide passed paying taxes,but I'm sure some/most of them do pay taxes.

So what good will a porn tax do?????

[Red Dog]

So what good will a porn tax do?????


It is like why gov't enacts any sin tax - BECAUSE IT SO EASY TO DO SO TO GET $$$$$.

It is generally hard for people to give up their 'sins,' and only a small segment of the population would object strenuously, and if they do in this case, they'll simply be labeled as pervs who shouldn't be listened to.

Gov't does it for money; not for some altruistic reasons.

[BigDaddy]

I don't get this,since don't the porn companies have to pay taxes at the end of the year like any other business??

I'm sure some try to slide passed paying taxes,but I'm sure some/most of them do pay taxes.

So what good will a porn tax do?????

Kind of like the Gaz Guzzler tax on cars that get bad gas milage.

[Toad]

A debate on taxes...this is FUN stuff!

FWIW, I would support this tax. I would support most any tax that aims to protect children, so long as it has a rational purpose and is not overly burdensome.

[classicman2]

FWIW, I would support this tax. I would support most any tax that aims to protect children, so long as it has a rational purpose and is not overly burdensome.

I agree.

[Giantrobo]

So, the Gov can take my land, negate my votes with court rulings, force us to intergrate with 3rd world nations soley to benefit of big biz, and now they wanna tax my porn....the Terrorists have won.

[Toad]

Run for office and change it.

[Giantrobo]

It is like why gov't enacts any sin tax - BECAUSE IT SO EASY TO DO SO TO GET $$$$$.

It is generally hard for people to give up their 'sins,' and only a small segment of the population would object strenuously, and if they do in this case, they'll simply be labeled as pervs who shouldn't be listened to.

Gov't does it for money; not for some altruistic reasons.

you got that right :grunt:

I'm glad someone here sees through the bullshit.

[Toad]

That's a pretty broad generalization, especially when it does take much to see the "altruistic reason" in this particular proposal.

[Giantrobo]

A debate on taxes...this is FUN stuff!

FWIW, I would support this tax. I would support most any tax that aims to protect children, so long as it has a rational purpose and is not overly burdensome.


If I knew the money would REALLY go for "protecting children" then I -might- be open to it. But we all know the gov is full of shit and will siphon off this money for other purposes.


I don't have the "numbers" but this same arguement, "to help the kids(in this case CA schools)", was used when California wanted to start the lottery. But from what I've seen and heard California schools are almost at the bottom of the barrel in terms of overcrowding, not having proper supplies, and other important things. What happened to all the Lotto money that was supposed to be helping CA schools???

Let's face it. the Gov is simply finding new ways to take people's money. Don't think it's anything else.....

[Toad]

Ok, well then to counter your argument, I'll give you the Georgia lottery which was designed to "help the kids." My wife and I got a free college educations out of it.

Also, don't lump me in with the rest of you who "know" the government is "full of shit." I'm not one of you.

[Giantrobo]

Ok, well then to counter your argument, I'll give you the Georgia lottery which was designed to "help the kids." My wife and I got a free college educations out of it.

Cool. That makes 2. :p

[Toad]

No, there was another.

[Baron Of Hell]

Princess Leia?

[Red Dog]

Ok, well then to counter your argument, I'll give you the Georgia lottery which was designed to "help the kids." My wife and I got a free college educations out of it.

Also, don't lump me in with the rest of you who "know" the government is "full of shit." I'm not one of you.


So long as you're happy that the government took (and using the word 'take' is generous given the attrocious house odds the bookie, oops, I mean state, offers in lotteries) the money predominantly from the poor to finance your education. ;)

[Toad]

Yeah...because only the poor can afford $1 lottery tickets...

[Red Dog]

Yeah...because only the poor can afford $1 lottery tickets...


Do you not believe that the poor makes up a large percentage of lottery ticket buyers?

[Toad]

No, I don't believe that, but I'm curious to see statistics on the Georgia lottery system prooving me wrong.

[Toad]

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~eoster/powerball%20note.pdf

See page 15 for an interesting chart.

[Red Dog]

No, I don't believe that


I got a nice piece of land for you then. Maybe you just don't want to feel guilty. ;)

[X]

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~eoster/powerball%20note.pdf

See page 15 for an interesting chart.Did you read the conclusions on page 8 and at what size prize the lottery stops being a regressive tax?

Did the Georgia lottery hit $806 million? And how many times?

[Red Dog]

Did you read the conclusions on page 8 and at what size prize the lottery stops being a regressive tax?




Yep.

Plus we have to remember that Multi-million Lotto is far from the only lottery. There are also daily pick-3 and pick-4s, not to mention scratch-offs where the top prizes only go into the thousands.

[X]

Yep.I bought tickets for the California lottery only twice. (I'm ashamed to admit that I ever bought any.)

Only when the prize went over $60 million did I think it was worth throwing away $5. It wasn't.

[Toad]

Did you read the conclusions on page 8 and at what size prize the lottery stops being a regressive tax?

Did the Georgia lottery hit $806 million? And how many times?

Nope, I didn't read it.

I have no idea if it did.

I have no idea how many times.

I posted the link as an informational study; it's not Georgia-specific obviously.

[RoyalTea]

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~eoster/powerball%20note.pdf
See page 15 for an interesting chart.what I get from that chart is that the poor people are regular lottery ticket buyers and the rich only buy the tickets when the publicity is higher.


and you might want to check out page one of the source you provided:
An out-of-sample extrapolation of these results suggest that the lottery becomes progressive at a jackpot around $806 million.I don't remember too many $806 million dollar jackpots.

[Toad]

You're ashamed to admit you bought lottery tickets?

Weird.

[RoyalTea]

You're ashamed to admit you bought lottery tickets?

Weird.I'm ashamed of the time I took a dollar bill out of my wallet and set it on fire.

[X]

You're ashamed to admit you bought lottery tickets?

Weird.Not weird at all. I have a couple statistics degrees and I'm not living in desperate poverty.

[Toad]

I don't care if you are the lottery president, it still seems weird to me that you're "ashamed" that you spent $5 on a lottery. I guess that's another topic for another time.

Back to porn...

[Red Dog]

I bought tickets for the California lottery only twice. (I'm ashamed to admit that I ever bought any.)

Only when the prize went over $60 million did I think it was worth throwing away $5. It wasn't.


I used to buy lottery tickets on rare occasions. I knew it was a sucker bet. Then I learned exactly how bad of a sucker bet it is - the house edge is around 50%. Haven't bought any since then. Just for comparison, the house edge in blackjack (assuming basic strategy) is under 1%.

[RoyalTea]

I used to buy lottery tickets on rare occasions. I knew it was a sucker bet. Then I learned exactly how bad of a sucker bet it is - the house edge is around 50%. Haven't bought any since then. Just for comparison, the house edge in blackjack (assuming basic strategy) is under 1%.Some people have told me that they'll buy a lottery ticket for the higher jackpots. They see it as spending a couple bucks on a ticket is worth it to them because that gives them a chance to talk about all the stupid shit they'd buy if they won.

They're not paying for the astronomically low-odds the ticket provides, but they're paying for the fun they get thinking about it.

[Red Dog]

Some people have told me that they'll buy a lottery ticket for the higher jackpots.


Those were the rare occasions when I would buy lotto tickets.

[classicman2]

No lottery or lotto - just the ponies. ;)

Had a pretty good weekend as a matter of fact. :)

[wendersfan]

You're ashamed to admit you bought lottery tickets?I certainly would be.

[OldDude]

Kind of like the Gaz Guzzler tax on cars that get bad gas milage.

Which no one actually pays. The US car makers simply make it a "flex fuel vehicle" capable of running on 85% ethanol. This makes it's "tax mileage" 1/0.15 it's real mileage. Voila, it's not a "gas guzzler", why it barely sips gasoline. :lol:

Remember, nobody "discovered" this loophole. Congress went out of their way to make it. Nevermind there is almost nowhere in the country you could buy E85 if you wanted to.

[wendersfan]

Which no one actually pays. The US car makers simply make it a "flex fuel vehicle" capable of running on 85% ethanol. This makes it's "tax mileage" 1/0.15 it's real mileage. Voila, it's not a "gas guzzler", why it barely sips gasoline. :lol:

Remember, nobody "discovered" this loophole. Congress went out of their way to make it. Nevermind there is almost nowhere in the country you could buy E85 if you wanted to.So we should more heavily tax gas stations who don't offer it!

(With ideas like this I'll be running for Congress in no time!) :D

[OldDude]

That would be one approach. I'm not saying E85 is great or will save the nation, but if Congress wants to dink with it, they should have at least ensured availability, or perhaps even required its use to avoid guzzler tax (I wouldn't know how to enforce that last one).

There's just something wrong in a phony bending of the rules, where you know people can't even get the fuel you incentivized. I believe the term is "fucking hypocrites."

[bhk]

Originally Posted by X
Did you read the conclusions on page 8 and at what size prize the lottery stops being a regressive tax?

Did the Georgia lottery hit $806 million? And how many times?
:lol:
My father calls the lottery "stupid tax."

[wendersfan]

:lol:
My father calls the lottery "stupid tax."My term is "the tax on people who are bad at math".

[movielib]

I used to buy lottery tickets on rare occasions. I knew it was a sucker bet. Then I learned exactly how bad of a sucker bet it is - the house edge is around 50%. Haven't bought any since then. Just for comparison, the house edge in blackjack (assuming basic strategy) is under 1%.
Does that 50% figure take into account the payouts for jackpots over years (or the lower "lump sum") and the taxes? I think it's more than 50%. Anyway I've seen higher figures.

I've never bought a lottery ticket. Two reasons. Of course there are the horrible odds. My other reason has to do with the fact that the state runs a scam that they wouldn't let any private business get away with.

[Red Dog]

I think the 50% figure reflects the entire lottery offerings btwn high payout lotto, scratch-offs, and pick 3/4s.

[X]

My other reason has to do with the fact that the state runs a scam that they wouldn't let any private business get away with.That has been my primary objection to lotteries. The state running a numbers game that individuals get thrown in jail for.

But since it's for the children...

[Red Dog]

My other reason has to do with the fact that the state runs a scam that they wouldn't let any private business get away with.


Why do you think states are so afraid of internet gaming? They'll say it is because they don't want children gambling on the net and people to become addicted to gambling within their homes. The real reason is because they stand to lose a lot of money.

[grundle]

Do you not believe that the poor makes up a large percentage of lottery ticket buyers?
Most lottery tickets are bought by people who don't understand math. And those people tend to be among the poorer people in the population.

[classicman2]

I wonder how internet betting on horse racing has affected the gambling addiction rate?

[Red Dog]

I wonder how internet betting on horse racing has affected the gambling addiction rate?



That's the other bullshit aspect of internet gambling. Gambling on the ponies on the internet (aided by horse racing television outlets TVG and HRTV - both recently added to my cable system) is apparently no problem in many states. Where are the 'think of the children' and 'addiction' cries for that.

[wendersfan]

Why is it that only people who gamble on horse racing, as opposed to those of us who just watch them, call them "the ponies"? :lol:

[classicman2]

To bet horse racing on the internet, it has to be legal in the state you're betting from.

I bet on horse racing, and I generally call it horse racing. I hit a pick 4 Saturday. It didn't pay too much.

BTW: You know who owns TVG, don't you?

[Red Dog]

To bet horse racing on the internet, it has to be legal in the state you're betting from.



I know - I signed up for a TVG account to take advantage of their recent Bet $50 Get $50 promotion. First thing that pissed me off was that they didn't have Pimlico on it so I couldn't bet the Preakness. Second thing that pissed me was when I was in Delaware the day of the Belmont and they wouldn't accept my bet. I ended betting $50 on some random race in the middle of the week by spreading the $50 around. I hit on one the bets so I did a little better than break even and then picked up the bonus $50 for the trouble. Immediately withdrew all the money from the account. Shitty experience although I was impressed how fast the check came in the mail.

I don't know who owns TVG. I think Magna owns HRTV.

I'll just stick to betting horses through offshore bodog from now on. No hassle and no transaction fees.

[mikehunt]

for the children :lol:
-rolleyes-
like a porn tax would keep kids from finding porn online and getting porn spam in their email

[Struz]

Leave it to the Democrats !

[X]

Leave it to the Democrats !Isn't this something that would be more expected from a Republican?

[mikehunt]

maybe, but at least some democrats are pretty bad about censorship too
gore's wife, lieberman, hillary

[wendersfan]

Isn't this something that would be more expected from a Republican?
Allow me to break it down for you:

<b>Attitudes towards pornography:</b>

Democrats: "Lets tax it!"
Republicans: "Let's ban it!"

See how that works? :)

[OldDude]

Yes, but Democrats would probably agree with banning free porn because it is so hard to tax.

[wendersfan]

Yes, but Democrats would probably agree with banning free porn because it is so hard to tax.Well, yeah. I was referring to good ol', cornfed, American porn. :D