Recent legislative efforts to single out adult businesses for special taxation haven’t panned out, so expect a new approach next session: A bill to be introduced would set up a special occupation license for such businesses. The well-organized opposition can be expected to argue that it’s unconstitutional to single out adult businesses for special taxation, in part because smut shops and strip clubs are entitled to First Amendment protections of free speech. Proponents will say X-rated businesses merit higher taxes because of their link to the societal costs of sex crimes. One worthy question that never gets much attention in such debates: How do lawmakers who’ve sworn never to vote to raise taxes find it so easy to make an exception for sex businesses?
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
56 Comments
Isn’t the religious community going to be upset about the added taxes put on Bibles because of all the smut it contains?
Given our lawmakers passion for outlawing strip joints, and their total inaction on homelessness, I propose the following law:”It shall be a misdemeanor offense for a person to remove their clothing in view of the public unless there is present a homeless person of appropriate size and gender to pick up said clothing and put it on.”
Well, at least they’re not going with the mandatory 10 percent tax this time.Some of my buddies were going crazy trying to figure out where they were going to put the dime :)
Anyone know of any reputable data suggesting a link between adult businesses and the dollar costs of societal ills. If there aren’t any, I can’t see where the government has much interest/madate to interfere with these busninesses. Not that I think these places are wonderful; that is reflection of my values. My, or anyone else’s, values should not abridge the rights of others.
The Holy Bible should be free to anyone who wants to read and learn.
jed – good one!
;^)
I agree hy.Also, the holy hole should be free to anyone who wants to learn….
It’s why they’ve put that sin tax on tobacco and alcohol too.
It’s really ridiculous how the government can impose their beliefs upon us and not a darn thing we can do about it.
Sin Tax: the way for so-called religious zealots to feel good about themselves, and make a buck doing it. Their logic is convoluted at best, and down right unconstitutional at worst.
I do agree XXX rated internet sites should all have a http://www.whatever.xxx URL. That would help keep them from being “accidently” accessed by kids, but take the so-called sin tax and shove it. It reminds me of the Beatles song, “Tax Man”, where everything is taxed.
Hell, go to a national consumer driven income tax and forget the rest of this tax nonesense.
I don’t see the tobacco and alchohol taxes as a moral issue at all.I’d love to see the percentage of people who have never bought tobacco or alcohol of some kind in their lives.The health costs of these habits alone to government entities is staggering I’m sure. Not to mention prisons, the court system, etc. for alcohol related crimes and criminals (DUI’s, etc.).The so called sin taxes are possibly one of the more fair taxes we have. The users are paying for the costs incurred by the abusers of the product.
Kia, everyone in the world has a vice. My vice just happens to have a 30% tax. While maybe yours is having sex with a different woman every night. (just an example). What tax would you be paying?
I think Rhonda’s just worried about her night job !
Mom I’m sure you know the health risks involveed with your habit. Suppose next year, 10 years, 30 years, you come with a disease that is a side effect of the habit. You have no insurance at this time and have all your treatment done under some kind of gov’t care. The 30% you’ve spent on the habit as long as you’ve had it isn’t even going pay for the costs of your treatment.It shouldn’t be my responsibility to cover the cost of the side effects of your vice or anyone elses.
I don’t know what the tax on a bottle of wine is exactly, but I’m paying taxes on my vice just like anyone else.
So, Mr. Kia, with all due respect, should we just let them die in street and send the “body wagon” to pick them up daily, like they did during the Black Plague? And who gets to be “Commissioner of Bad Habits” that decides whether the cause of death is “natural”, or just the decedent’s “stupidity”? Or, if it is determined that they have paid the “appropriate” sin tax, then we’ll give them health care commensurate with their “sin tax” contributions? I’m sorry, friend, but your logic is based upon a totally false hypothesis. Better luck next time.
I have read enough of your posts to know that you are not an idiot. You’re just dead wrong this time.
No pun intended.
Of course we shouldn’t just let people die in the streets, that is why I think the alcohol and tobacco taxes are justified because of health and crime costs that come along with.I don’t know honestly what I think about the tax on the skin industry per se.I sure don’t think that is going to prevent any sex crimes.
How about a 10% sin tax on churches that preach about sin? Why not? If we made movies about parts in the Bible they’d be considered porn. A guy has sex with his two daughters. Some guy shooting his load on his dead brother’s wife. A bunch of soldiers going into a city and raping underage girls.
One guy on this forum already said it was all holy. If it’s holy then why place an extra tax on it? At least the porn shops and titty bars pay property tax while churches that preach hate get subsidized by the taxpayers.
The religious zealots need to get over the fact that they cannot legislate morality. I am sick of the ultra cons trying to shove their values down my throat.
Doug… now what church is it that gets subsidized by the government? Inquiring minds would like to know because that would be ILLEGAL. Separation of church and state yaknow…. also the reason they don’t tax churches….
The only money churches get from taxpayers is money they choose to give.
Property taxes pay for this like fire and police services yet the churches get these services without paying property taxes. So who pays for these services? It’s the taxpayers like porn shops and titty bars. If the government thinks they need more revenue then just tax those businesses that have been getting a free ride all this time at the same rate they charge everyone else. Separation of church and state you know. Currently the churches are given special treatment (which fundies like to refer to as persecution). That’s endorsement of religion.
Actually, kansassam, the reason the states exempt churches, et al from the property tax has nothing at all to do with the First Amendment. I do not have the citation at hand, but I recall a decision by SCOTUS which (in dicta, I believe) stated that the First Amendment would not be violated by a state levying property taxes on a church.
The traditional rationale for exempting the property of a church, and by extension, most if not all entities exempt from income taxation under sec. 501(c)(3), IRC, is that the charity performs necessary societal functions which would otherwise need to be performed by the government, e.g., feeding the poor, clothing the poor, educating the young, etc., and in exchange for this, the charities should be granted an exemption from property taxation as by performing said functions, the government and its taxpayers are saved money.
Colorado considered a ballot initiative a few years ago to levy property taxes on churches that limited the provision of services to its members. This failed, but (again from memory) there was no legal action taken against the item being placed on the ballot based upon a First Amendment challenge. The rationale given by the proponents of the initiative was that assuming the traditional rationale for exempting church property from ad valorem taxation was valid, any church limiting its services (such as using an exercise facility or gymnasium) exclusively to the members thereof violated this rationale, and thus such property should be subject to said taxation. I suspect there may well be additional challenges to the exemption in the future on this basis.
Doug..
No, that is protection from undue influence of the government, which also protects the government from being controlled by the church. Is it unconstitutional to not tax churches? How about church charities? If they tax.. they need more programs to fill in. It could become a negative cash flow to tax churches……
Doug, the exemption from taxation has also been discussed by SCOTUS in cases which have held that such exemption is not violative of the Establishment Clause. However, in these cases, the Court has also made it clear that the exemption is “legislative grace”, as I recall the term, and not constitutionally required. Thus, could a church be charged a fee in liew of taxes to pay for necessary police and fire services, much as the University of Kansas pays the City of Lawrence, or as are often paid by corporations who receive IRB financing with tax abatements a part thereof? My recollection of these cases would indicate that such fees would be permissible, so long as the intent of the ordinance, regulation, statute, etc., was neutral to religion and one of general import.
Exempt the charitible activity regardless of who is doing it. Tax any property or activities that are not charitible purpose.
So, if we make toys for the needy during half-time Monday nights only that activity should be exempt; not the entire evening of football and beer-drinking.
I’d have no problem with churches deducting their charity work from their tax rolls as any person who donates to charity can do. However a lot of churches don’t bother with charity and are more interested in profit. The YMCA does nothing but charity work hence they are exempt and the money they collect goes to more charity work. Spirit One Christian Center doesn’t do charity work but just brings rapists to town to preach to underage girls about how drugs and alcohol is a good excuse to rape underage girls.
A tax with deductions only encourages more charity work and let’s those societal leeches pay their fair share rather than having taxpayers foot the bill.
Ben: You’ve lost me on that one. How is Monday Night Football a charity event? Toys or no toys?
Doug: Go out and purchase a family membership at the new YMCA on West 21st Street, and then talk to me about charity and the “Y”. Have you seen that place?
The YMCA does nothing but charity work
Huh? I don’t see the Y anymore as anything but a glorified Gym.
Actually the State of Kansas supports the Westboro church by proxy three of the Phelps children have high paying state jobs, they donate all their income to their father he gives some back. And they use the money to fund thier activites, all at the taxpayer expense.
rm – if, during halftime, we do Toys for Tots we are doing charity work. I am focusing on the project itself, not the trappings around it.
Dingus: Home run. The State does support Westboro by proxy, and now, as if that wasn’t bad enough, let’s toss Phillkline back into the mix. It really makes one wonder, doesn’t it? No, actually, it makes me want to throw up! And, of course, we’re already supporting Brownback and Tihart, too. And wasn’t there some article yesterday about “improving our image”? You betchum, Red Ryder!
Ben: I’m sorry, I still don’t get the connection. It’s me, I’m sure, not you. Are you saying that we should tax some parts of a church or synagogue, but tax not other parts? If you are, I’m not sure that I agree with you. If you are saying something else, I’m still lost, my friend. Now, if I could just get those damned Mismas Cequila Tookies finished, it would probably make sore mense to me! :)
** “If you are, I’m not sure I DON’T agree with you.” Sorry there.
rm – yes, I would end up taxing portions of the church, synagogue, mosque, etc. I admit that the accounting could be complex but if you look at Form 990 there are ways to do it.
Basically what I am going toward is that your religious service in and of itself would not be exempted; however other works would be.
As has been pointed uot; churches are provided police/fire etc; they also generate traffic that often requires street improvements (we need a turn lane in front of my wife’s church).
I am simply separating the eclesiastical (which is not charity) from the charitible.
Don’t you think we pay enough taxes? Churches do enough good work to more than pay for streets, fire ect. It would be like taxing corporations. The corporations (and churches) wouldn’t pay the taxes. The customers (parishoners) would.
If all churches were really doing good work then I would have no problem with not taxing them. But when Central Christian Church has concerts and charge admission, then that is a business and it would not be fair to other entertainment businesses to NOT tax Central Christian Church. It is a matter of fairness.
How about the Fun Nights at churches? They are called Fund Raisers.”The power to tax is the power to destroy.”Somebody or Other
The reason non-profits (such as churches) are tax exempt isn’t what they do to receive money necessarily (grants – which churches are not eligible for, fundraisers – such as concerts, donations from supporters/members), it’s what they do with the money once it is received (helping people).
Ben, you seem to have some familiarity with tax exempt orgainizations, given the reference to Form 990. Unless the law/regulations have changed, however (have had no reason to find out), churches are exempted from the filing of a 990, absent UTBI.
I think you are correct VT. My point was that there are mechanisms to separate taxable from tax-exempt operations. That is all I am referring to – paying taxes on their non-charity activities.
well gee, i can’t wait till we start taxing people by the pound…
their weight.
I smell what you are stepping in Mom.And that is about the only positive I see in Socialized Health Care – eliminating the political power and bureaucracy (sp?) of the Insurance industry.
That’s just another positive byproduct of national healthcare.
Back to our original topic, sin taxes on strip bars. I’ve said this before, but here goes again; sin taxes are counterproductive if the goal is to get rid of sin. They give the government a vested interest in keeping us all sinning!
So if I just do some good with my money, then I can consider myself a tax-exempt status? That’s basically Mr. Kia’s theory. Think I’ll get a couple of my girlfriends and go feed the homeless and be tax-exempt. What a deal.
LOL!
I can see it now. Microsoft, Boeing, ABC, CBS, making massive donations in order to achieve tax exempt status! Every corporation and business and individual donating to charity in order to reduce or be free from property taxes. Well, we really don’t need those little things like roads or hospitals or police or fire departments or a postal service or even an army. I guess everyone will just have to donate to the federal and state governments then hm?
You guys crack me up!
sunny..
It worked for me! But it does take hours of paperwork and $750 to apply for status as a 501(c)(3) public charity.
I think we should triple or quadruple the sin tax and do away with property taxes. How can anyone gripe about a voluntary tax? And if it cost a small fortune to drink and smoke, many people wouldn’t and that would save billons in health care.
Tsk tskI gotta call ya on that one Mary.There are none so nasty and mean to smokers as…..ex smokers.
That would be you would it not?
There are none who hate property taxes so much as those who have high dollar property.
That’s you again right?
A little mercy for those of us not so reformed and blessed as you huh? Is that too much to ask?
Punitive taxes are fine. As long as you are not the group being punished. People who view or sell porn don’t hurt me. I don’t use the stuff.
MY choice for punitive tax collection would be luxury tax. Greedy bastards hurt everybody
Oh come on JR! You know you’d be better off if you quit smoking.
The more voluntary taxes are, the better. That way we ALL profit from the lottery, gambling, porn selling, drinking, and smoking. Why should I get punished just because I’ve worked my ass off for 25 plus years? It’s only fair that those of us who have a serious work ethic be rewarded for our efforts, not taxed to death.If you can’t afford to smoke, drink, gamble, etc, then don’t!
I don’t get it. Isn’t the extra sales tax enough on a so called luxury item enough? A big screen TV probably costs a minimum of $1,000 more than a regular one (That’s up to $85 more in taxes in my area).Our a luxury car is certainy going to cost ten’s of thousands vs. a pre-owned or economy car. That’s hundreds if not thousands of dollars more “luxury” purchasers are contributing.
All this sounds like still is hurt those who have more. Cut out the knees of those better off than you.
I’ve already explained how someone buying bigger and supposedly better “stuff” is contributing more in taxes.
Explain to me how this is more than just class envy and simple jealousy on your part? I’d really like to hear the theory on that. Sincerely.
I did not mean to be unkind Mary. But you know as well as I do that I am correct about ex smokers! One never really quits smoking. One just tries to keep that alluring poison as far away as possible so as not to get addicted again.
Kia?
Now I’ve never had a new car in my life. Let me explain why luxury taxes are fair.
Were I to go buy a new car, I would have to finance it. I would end up paying FAR more for the car after paying the interest on my loan. Such is not the case for a more wealthy person. They pay cash and get a break from the interest. We both pay the same in sales tax so that is a wash.
Society has to be financed somehow. Let those who enjoy it the best pay for the priveledge. They got the best seats. Firmly on the backs of the rest of us.
But if someone is buying something more expensive than you are, they are paying more in taxes. That’s why the flat tax proposals seem to be the most fair as well. Making more, spending more, they are contributing more dollars and making the same sacrifice as anyone else.I don’t buy into priveledge too much either. With the exception of what the wealthiest 1% (yes the Bush family but also your Kennedy’s, Heinz/Kerry’s etc.) that are trust fund babies, it is earned.I’d be happy at finding a way to cut into the trust funds of the likes of the next Kennedy (and Bush) generations as well as the like of the Hilton’s, etc.
I agree with you Mary. I hope they tax the crap out of the “sinners.” I hope the folks that patronize the nasty strip clubs go broke sticking their dollar bills in the g-strings of those girls. As far as cigarettes and alcohol, they should tax them high enough that when the draw that disability pension because they were stupid enough to smoke and to drink too much the rest of us can recoup the cost of their healthcare.
Mary,Nobody is going to raise sin taxes that much- the state needs the money from those taxes, and if people quit sinning, it doesn’t collect any money. Like I said, sin taxes are counterproductive!
Brenda’s right, the cost of taking care of those who are irresponsible with their health is astronomical, and it’s most often the taxpayers who get stuck with the bill.Achievement SHOULD be rewarded, and bad choices should have negative consequences, otherwise life gets really dysfuctional. When you reward irresponsibility and bad choices, then you just invite more dysfuction.Do away with property taxes, then people will buy more homes, bettter cars, etc. Tax the hell out of the things that are bad for us, then we’ll see less of the negative impact that those behaviors have on society. It’s a win/win situation as far as I can see.Quit smoking, JR. You’ll be glad you did when you’re my age.BTW, kids who grow up watching their parents smoke have a 50% greater chance of picking up the habit themselves than kids who doen’t have smoking parents.How’s that for a little guilt thrown in?