tuscl

Questions about dancers permits.

londonguy
Breathe, breathe in the air
Do some cities/towns not require dancers to have permits? What's the reasoning behind a dancer needing one, if it's an age thing are permits also required for other jobs that require a minimum age? Any other reasons?

10 comments

  • ppwh
    •
    6 years ago
    I think this pretty well sums it up:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nmfRzRl…
  • jackslash
    •
    6 years ago
    Only some cities require dancer licenses. For example, Detroit requires a license but its suburb of Inkster does not. There are several reasons for requiring a stripper to obtain a permit. (1) It is a tax and governments are always ready to impose a tax, especially on those who have little political power. (2) The license requires proof that the dancer is over 18, which may (or may not) protect minors. (3) The dancer must undergo a background check, making sure the dancer is not a felon or has outstanding warrants.
  • dcmarvelguy
    •
    6 years ago
    I believe this is an answer to all your questions:
    https://ddfnetworkvr.com/
  • shadowcat
    •
    6 years ago
    The city or county will argue that permits for the clubs and each dancer are necessary to cover the cost of the police needing to make more calls to strip clubs than other businesses. Which does not explain why some cities don't require it or the vast differences in how much they cost. For instance the City of Atlanta charges dancers $350 while Chamblee, a suburb. where Follies is located only charges $100.
  • lotsoffun201
    •
    6 years ago
    Las Vegas requires a “sherrifs card” which is akin to a dancer license.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    6 years ago
    As jackslash said, it's easy to impose taxes on unpopular segments of society: cigarette smokers, people who drive too fast, "polluters," the wealthy, and strippers. Governments in general are very good at separating costs and benefits. Sometimes they concentrate the benefits and diffuse the costs, such as when they subsidise a certain industry at the cost of, say, and extra dollar per year for the average taxpayer (knowing full well that no one is going to take to the streets to protest over a single dollar). But other times they diffuse the benefits and concentrate the costs, such as when they tax the rich to pay for a government program (knowing that most people, and even many rich people, fully approve, so that they have little to fear from retribution at the ballot box).

    Strip clubs are unpopular with large swaths of American voters, and even many strip club patrons would agree that a licensing fee would seem "justified" if the proceeds were applied to, say, fighting STDs, or to public education, or for the increased cost of policing as shadowcat pointed out. (Of course, many bad neighborhoods also require an increased police presence due to there being a high crime rate in the area, and yet cities don't typically assess those neighborhoods with higher taxes to pay for it.)

    Some of the time, these license fees are just a convenient way to close budget gaps in a way that isn't politically unpopular. Other times, there are dark racist undertones: some towns and cities in America have a history of anti-miscegenation laws, intended to prevent interracial sex, and while the public sentiment has clearly changed, some of these laws nonetheless remain on the books, in the form of "entertainer's licenses" or "cabaret licenses" which once we're intended to make sure that certain women only worked in certain places, and that people stayed with "their own kind."

    Some may say, how about we don't impose a fee, and we just license them to make sure that they're not underage? Well, it's still a bad idea because dancers are still entitled to their privacy. This is one of many reasons why it's a bad idea to make people get a license to dance naked:

    http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/17/stripp…
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    6 years ago
    The reason is that some jurisdictions do not like strip clubs, so they want to intimate young women from dancing in them. Courts could declare such permits requirements unconstitutional, if someone has the funds with which to fight it.

    Santa Clara County has such a requirement, at least for Sunnyvale.

    SJG
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    6 years ago
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    6 years ago
    Texas passed a strip-club tax about 2 years ago where the clubs have to pay $3 for every patron that walks thru the door - thus no more free-cover on dayshifts, the club has to pay $3 for ever patron even on dayshift thus the clubs have to charge at least a $3 cover-charge to not be losing $$$ - in reality it's being passed-on to the customer in many cases unless the club decides to eat part of the cover-charge (i.e. a club may still only charge $10 cover as they did b/f the tax but $3 goes to the state for a "human trafficking fund")
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    6 years ago
    ^^^^ Also something which could be found unConstitutional.

    The tax is just there because some people don't like strip clubs.

    SJG
You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion