Sin Tax.

what bothers me is the lack of honesty. you want to put a two, three, maybe a five percent tax on strip clubs, OK, maybe you will raise some revenue. Put a 25% tax on, as I understand is being proposed, well, be honest. You are not trying to raise revenue, you are trying to close the clubs down.

Doesn't seem like a big deal in scheme of things. It isn't like it is creating a whole new class of "criminals" for the government to declare War on. Just another small parcel of government slop.

The government gets enough money. There should be no new taxes and the current taxes need to be cut across the board by at least 20%. Let the government learn to actually budget rather than spending so recklessly that they make the phrase "spending like drunken sailors" an insult to drunken sailors.

imnumnutz,

Honesty in government? "...what bothers me is the lack of honesty." Remember the Clinton/Gore "wire all schools" BS? The phone companies could not even put on your bill the reason for the tax. There is a local establishment, however, that has on their receipts, a local "homeless" tax. People go nuts about this, but guess what? I bet nothing well change and the same complainers will again elect the same idiots that put the tax there in the first place!

Often it seems like there isn't any real choice, but the lesser of 2 evils. And, once in office they pretty much do whatever regardless of what they claimed to have stood for when seeking election.

Actually, this tax was declared unconstitutional recently by a district judge. However, that decision is under appeal by the state. Here is the article.

Judge strips Texas of its 'pole tax' The Legislature's imposition of a $5-per-patron fee on strip clubs is declared unconstitutional. By Miguel Bustillo, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer April 7, 2008

HOUSTON -- Texas was forced by federal law to end its poll tax on voters four decades ago, and now another levy has put the Lone Star State in constitutionally murky waters: the "pole tax."

Texas lawmakers last year imposed a $5-per-patron fee on strip joints to raise more than $40 million annually for anti-sexual-assault programs and healthcare for the uninsured.

The fee, which took effect Jan. 1, infuriated the owners of Texas' 162 strip clubs, who said politicians were cynically taxing a population they knew would not fight back. After all, critics reasoned, men who make a habit of drinking and stuffing currency in the attire of scantily clad women are usually not eager to tell the world about it at legislative hearings.

"It's not like Al Sharpton is going to show up and protest that we're being discriminated against," said a man who identified himself only as Dave, as he exited the Penthouse Club in Houston.

On March 28, however, Texas strip club devotees found a powerful ally: An Austin judge declared the pole tax unconstitutional, saying it infringed on expression protected by the 1st Amendment.

Travis County District Judge Scott H. Jenkins said in his ruling that laws limiting such expression had to pass strict constitutional tests and that the pole tax didn't because, among other things, indigent healthcare had no connection to strip joints.

"There is no evidence that combining alcohol with nude erotic dancing causes dancers to be uninsured," he wrote.

A spokesman for Texas Atty. Gen. Greg Abbott said Abbott would "vigorously appeal" the decision. And state Rep. Ellen Cohen of Houston, the former head of a women's shelter, said she was prepared to write a narrower measure.

"We need more funding for sexual assault victims, to get the word out and to educate people," the Democrat said of her law, which had bipartisan support. "That's what this is all about, and there is general agreement that it is a good thing."

Stewart Whitehead, an attorney for the Texas Entertainment Assn., which challenged the law along with an Amarillo topless bar called Players, stressed that adult businesses supported rape crisis centers and other programs Cohen wanted to beef up. However, he said, strip clubs do not want to be singled out for taxation.

"We hope this sends a message nationally that these establishments are protected by the 1st Amendment and you can't impose an unfair tax on them just because they are an easy political target," Whitehead said.

Texas lawmakers tried to pass a fee on strip clubs in 2004 to finance education, but the levy, derogatorily dubbed "tassels for tots," failed.

When lawmakers debated the new fee last year, supporters did not claim a link between strip clubs and sex assaults, only that a business that hired women would benefit from programs women used.

But after the law wound up in court, lawyers for the state argued that it was really a regulation, and summoned witnesses who said strip clubs contributed to sexual violence.

"Our customers are not happy about that. They find that very insulting," said Dawn Rizos, co-owner of the Lodge, a lavish club near the Dallas Cowboys stadium that has a VIP room inspired by the movie "Casablanca." "We obviously don't feel there is any correlation between what we do and [sexual] assault."

Rizos said some club owners thought Texas should fine sex offenders to pay for the programs, a model already used to raise revenue from drunk drivers. Hoping to avert a long and costly legal battle, she said some would also accept being part of a solution -- as long as others were taxed.

"I'm in the minority here, but I would not mind partnering with the state to do something like this that would help a lot of people and put a positive face on our industry," she said.

Texas, generally conservative, has a tradition of tolerance toward topless bars. But the moral tide has turned against the clubs over the last decade, and many are facing stricter regulations. In Houston, the clubs recently lost an 11-year fight to overturn a city ordinance that bars them from being within 1,500 feet of day-care centers, schools or churches. Some owners say they'll conceal dancers' nipples to barely skirt the law.

Owners have already raised cover charges and drink prices to generate the extra $5 per customer for the pole tax, which strip clubs were supposed to pay the state in quarterly installments starting this month. Smaller clubs could go out of business, owners say.

But experts say that at the dozens of larger, more upscale clubs, $5 is nothing compared with the sums tucked into G-strings.

I never met anyone in government (politician, staffer, judge,appointee,etc.) that didn't have a plan to spend someone else's money or to find a segment they could tax with the least amount of uproar. The smaller the government the better. That way we can keep our eye on things and follow what's left of our money. Government doesn't solve problems, people solve problems, mostly on their own or through competition and the market. In fact, it's the government-is-the -answer-types that got various levels of government on the backs of strip clubs. We always have to fightg for our liberty and that begins with protecting our money and shielding it from more taxes. Now pardon me while I step off my soap box.

Put a hefty tax on professional athletes and/or tickets to those events

carteblanche,

And your reasoning would be...?

The idea of taxing any person or business for a non-essential purpose(rape counseling center, etc)usually leads to just another layer of bureaucracy - generally funding for a duplicate of some other agency which provides a similar service. The reason for these duplications is so politicians can take credit for creating something that is perceived to be beneficial to his/her constituents, and thus gain popularity for the next election....sorry for getting so long there! What I like to see are user fees: pay a fee - get a specific service in exchange.

This all leads to a concept that came to me last month when I was in ESL. Washington Park, IL is little municipality of 5,000 or so residents. The area is run down (low property values), the streets are in disrepair, lots of burned-out houses, very few sales tax generators; WP is poor. BUT it is the home to 7 or 8 strip clubs. Big flashy clubs and small hole-in-the-wall clubs. The smaller clubs are known for the extraordinary mileage available, and the big fancy clubs are known for pretty girls and...moderate mileage. All clubs sell liquor by the drink.

Over all, there does not appear to be very much interaction between LE and the clubs. One gets the feeling that the clubs are pretty much left alone to do as they choose. I am aware that there have been a few "enforcement actions" taken over the years -like about 10 years ago when it was decided that DATY at the stage might pose a health hazard, and that stopped in a hurry.

It occured to me that perhaps these clubs pay a fairly hefty annual "adult entertainment license" fee. A fee large enough that when multiplied by 7 or 8 adult establishments, produces an amount that is hard for the town to ignore. I would think that a town of this size might have an annual budget of $2 million or so. An annual adult license fee of $25k per club could yield $200k for the town, PLUS the town's cut of sales tax on drinks sold - assuming sales tax applies to drinks. All total, the town could realize upward of 25% of its annual budget from the strip clubs. All in exchange for a laissez-faire attitude from the jurisdiction.

I doubt that the annual fee really is $25k, but the exercise of going through the math here illustrates how significant adult entertainment's DIRECT impact on a small local economy can be. Obviously it should be important to WP, and I suspect that it is.

Somebody else can do the math on Brooklyn, just up the road. It's probably even more surprising.

Well, I was curious about the population of Brooklyn, so I went to a search engine and got a link to Wikipedia. According to the Wiki content, "In June 2007, it was reported that three-quarters of Brooklyn's revenue of $380,000 comes through sales tax and a $30,000 licensing fee from the adult clubs.[1]" 2000 pop. = 676.

I assume that the other one-quarter of Brooklyn's income comes from that speed trap on the south edge of town.

Just curious, but does anyone know how the law defines a strip club? And aren't there already pretty hefty amusement taxes on places that provides live entertainment, which presumably covers strip clubs (as well as sporting events)? Seems to me there are already a large number of such descriminatory taxes on the books, including taxes on visitors at airports and hotels. Isn't this the same thing? Seems to me it's just another attempt for governments to tax anything they can.

I understand the frustration that most of us have with government and their agencies. But in fairness, I have to point out a couple of exceptions. The Social Security Administration was outstanding when I applied for my retirement benefits last November. They were fast and efficient. Also my county tax office was fast to inform me that that I was eligible for a seniors discount on my property taxes. It has saved me $800/year. Now if the would just leave strip club alone!

Boy the perks of being an old pervert...