What is he thinking? (Political)

[Zeb_Carter]

SENATOR WANTS TO TAX HOOKERS

Iowa Senator Charles Grassley has decided, in his infinite wisdom, that the answer to getting rid of the sex trade is to tax it. As his theory goes, if you tax hooks and pimps, they'll be so out of money that they will cease the behavior of selling sex. Dream on, Senator. Is this what this man was sent to Washington to do? Figure out a way to tax hookers? First of all, on what planet does Grassley live that he thinks hookers and pimps are going to voluntarily hand over a large chunk of their earnings? Second, his plan to jail those who don't pay...how is that going to work? How is the IRS going to know how much they earned? Are johns going to start issuing 1099 to their call girls?

If Grassley is so intent on taxing hookers, how about decriminalizing prostitution in the first place? Make 'em pay for a license! And don't give me this morals nonsense. Hookers could not possibly be a greater blight on our society than politicians.

This just points out the further need for the Fair Tax. Once the power to screw around with the tax code is essentially removed from politicians' hands, then they won't have the ability to decide what behavior should be taxed and what shouldn't. It's not their decision and under the Fair Tax plan, it won't be. Grassley wants to waste $2 million of taxpayer money on an IRS office to prosecute sex workers for violating tax laws.

And here's something else: under the Fair Tax plan, everybody would pay. So even when pimps and prostitutes bought something, they would cough up their share of the tax. Besides, governments have been trying to shut down the sex trade for centuries. It is, as they say, the oldest profession. Well ... maybe the second oldest. There's always the tax collector.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

They've said this about drugs, too...

although look at cigarettes... they've taxed the hell out of them... has smoking decreased?

 

[rgraham666]

He's just following modern economic thought.

Taxes are bad for business, always. Makes them uncompetitive and eventually destroys them.

So if you want to get rid of a business you don't apporve of, tax it.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

They've said this about drugs, too...

although look at cigarettes... they've taxed the hell out of them... has smoking decreased?

But smoking is legal, the other isn't. How do you tax something when you don't know what's going on?

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Does that mean hookers have to file taxes? I wonder if they get earned income credits?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Does that mean hookers have to file taxes? I wonder if they get earned income credits?

Only if their earnings are below the poverty level.

 

[R. Richard]

But smoking is legal, the other isn't. How do you tax something when you don't know what's going on?

I might remind you that the government could never catch Al Capone doing something criminal. They did catch him failing to report the earnings from his criminal activities and threw him in prison.

There are only two cerertain things in life, death and taxes. They are working on death.

 

[Liar]

Taxing is validation. By taxing it you'd be saying it's a legit business, and if you're in a public office, a business good enough to finance your own salary.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Taxing is validation. By taxing it you'd be saying it's a legit business, and if you're in a public office, a business good enough to finance your own salary.

I don't think he see's it that way.

 

[Liar]

I don't think he see's it that way.

That's b'cuz he's dumber than a bag o hammers, perchance?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

That's b'cuz he's dumber than a bag o hammers, perchance?

Well he is from Iowa!

 

[wornoutkeyboard]

I once lived in a city (High Mormon population) that has a "sin" tax of 17% on anything that would be considered morally objectionale (condoms, cigs, alcohol, porn, rated R movies, etc). What i found rediculous about all of this - other than just the fact that it existed - was the condoms part. I'm just trying to see the objection to condom usage. Lets see - make em more expensive so that the poor who cannot afford the condoms (or the children) will keep popin out more babies. Yeah.... fab idea!

~WOK (who is charging herself a 17% tax for existing)


PS~ It didn't seem to do anything to curb the usage of addictive substances - it just made a bottle of maker's mark cost $47 and a carton or Marlboros $43 when I left.

 

[oggbashan]

They are taxed in the UK.

Prostitution is legal. Soliciting is not, nor is living off immoral earnings i.e. being a pimp. Prostitutes have to be self-employed...

Og

 

[Straight-8]

What I want to know is: do they have to declare their tips? If so, I want a piece of the taxation action. Love Hooker Tips!

 

[imalickin]

How are they going to know how much a hooker makes? I don't think pimps issue w2's or 1099's.

Besides it's an all cash business.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

But smoking is legal, the other isn't. How do you tax something when you don't know what's going on?

I assumed he was talking about making it legal. then taxing it.

 

[R. Richard]

How are they going to know how much a hooker makes? I don't think pimps issue w2's or 1099's.

Besides it's an all cash business.

In a whorehouse, they count towel usage. For a street hooker, they monitor the check in frequency for the local hot pillow motels. For a call girl, they estimate based upon lifestyle.

 

[imalickin]

In a whorehouse, they count towel usage. For a street hooker, they monitor the check in frequency for the local hot pillow motels. For a call girl, they estimate based upon lifestyle.

Ah, the big brother syndrome.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I assumed he was talking about making it legal. then taxing it.

I doubt that very much...he wants them put out of business, he doesn't want the business legitimized.

 

[Liar]

I doubt that very much...he wants them put out of business, he doesn't want the business legitimized.

So, he wants to tax illegal stuff? Is that even technically possible?

 

[3113]

I agree. This would make sense if he wanted to legalize prostitution, but you can't tax what isn't legal.

It would also make more sense if he just wanted to tax it rather than put it out of business. Tax anything too high and you just end up with a black market. Which, hello, leaves you with the same problem you've got if the thing isn't legal

Makes no Goddamn sense.

Now, if he wants to legalize it so the gov. can get a nice cut of those juicy profits, I'd call him a genius--not, as pointed out, that it's going to be easy to tax. But you see how things go with the example of liquor and prohibition. Alcohol is illegal, and so there's no quality control and only criminals get the money. Alcohol is made legal, now there's:
1) Quality control--so people don't die of bad bathtub gin.
2) You can put an age limit on who can drink it (i.e., prohibit little kids from buying it and most place will go along with the rule in order to keep their liquor license--as compared to when it's illegal so who cares who you sell it to?).
3) Tax it--so the gov. gets a percentage of the profits.

Win-win-win.

Legalized prostitution means:
1) Quality control (avoid the spread of sexual diseases by requiring a health check for a license).
2) Age limit (no one under 18 allowed).
3) Tax it--so the gov. gets it's cut.

 

[R. Richard]

In Italy they had "semi-legal" prstitution. The brothels operated openly and there was quality control and protection for the workers.

A woman ran for the Italian equvalent of Congress with a very strong campaign to close down the brothels. She won and did close down the brothels. She wa then visited by several of the girls who had worked in the brothels. They pointed out that they now had to work in the streets, which was dangerous. There was no quality control. In the winter, they would freeze their butts off and could they have their nice, safe , warm brothels back?

The Italian politicians had been willing to let the brothels operate as illegal but very quietly tolerated. However, when it came to standing up and voting to make prostitution legal, they were unwilling to risk offending the Italian voters. The girls still work the streets.

As to taxing prostitution. The government can and does tax illegal business. From a practical standpoint, they mainly tax those who receive the profits from the illegal business.

 

[Boxlicker101]

So, he wants to tax illegal stuff? Is that even technically possible?

Absolutely. Even though something is illegal, the income from it is still taxable. As somebody mentioned, that is how the Feds caught up with Capone.

Net income would have to be estimated, based on life style and bank records. Personally, I think it's stupid to have prostitution illegal, for reasons that have been pointed out already.

The Mormons frown on birth control just as much as the Catholics, maybe even more. To them, condoms, etc. are just as sinful as booze or dope.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

From the news article in my first post...

Grassley, R-Iowa, would hit pimps with fines and lengthy prison sentences for failing to file employment forms and withhold taxes for the women and girls under their command.

The proposal would make certain tax crimes a felony when the money comes from a criminal activity. A one-year prison sentence and $25,000 fine would become a 10-year sentence and $50,000 fine for each employment form that a pimp or sex trafficker fails to file.

...

"We need to simply treat the pimps and massage parlor operators the way we would treat anybody who takes the proceeds of a customer transaction from somebody and then gives a fraction of it back," he said.

Under tax law, that relationship makes the pimp an employer, requiring the filing of a wage statement and the withholding of payroll taxes, including Social Security.

So it would appear he doesn't want to go after the individual ladies of the evening, but their bosses.

 

[Boxlicker101]

From the news article in my first post..


Quote:
Grassley, R-Iowa, would hit pimps with fines and lengthy prison sentences for failing to file employment forms and withhold taxes for the women and girls under their command.

The proposal would make certain tax crimes a felony when the money comes from a criminal activity. A one-year prison sentence and $25,000 fine would become a 10-year sentence and $50,000 fine for each employment form that a pimp or sex trafficker fails to file.

...

"We need to simply treat the pimps and massage parlor operators the way we would treat anybody who takes the proceeds of a customer transaction from somebody and then gives a fraction of it back," he said.

Under tax law, that relationship makes the pimp an employer, requiring the filing of a wage statement and the withholding of payroll taxes, including Social Security.


So it would appear he doesn't want to go after the individual ladies of the evening, but their bosses.

That, at least, would be good news. The ladies of the evening work hard for their money and, usually, give value for value received. I have some doubt, however, as to whether a pimp is an employer or a manager who can, theoretically at least, be fired. A brothel operator would be an employer, but I don't know about a pimp.

I believe the punishments described here would run afoul of the Eighth Amendment. A ten year prison sentence would clearly be excessive punishment for failure to file a tax form.