A Skin-Tax Sin Tax?
California's politicians love sin taxes, and why not? They're a convenient way to raise money by imposing the cost on a small group of unpopular people -- like smokers or drunks. That's why the politicos are always looking for new ways to raise "sin" taxes or create new ones, such as surcharges on gas-guzzling cars, or sugary sodas, or bullets. But if we really want to sin-tax our way to fiscal solvency, here's a novel idea: Why don't we impose a sin tax on ... sin?
You laugh, but they're doing it in Texas. Effective January 1 -- unless opponents can get the courts to intervene -- Austin is going to start collecting a $5 per-customer tax on nudie bars.
Think about how much money this plan could make here, in the smut capital of the world. Not only do we have scores of nudie bars, but this is also the home of the pornography industry, what with Larry Flynt Publications, the major porn studios, and innumerable smaller operations. What if the state put a $5 tax on every nudie-bar patron, a $1 surcharge on every DVD, a quarter on every magazine? Plus add in a 10 percent income-tax surcharge for all virtual "adult" businesses, like web pornographers and phone-sex operators.
Think we'll see Fabian, Arnold, and Don propose anything like that any time soon? I doubt it.
But why? If the argument for other "sin" taxes is that the vices in question impose a social cost, then that argument definitely applies to smut. Strip clubs invariably facilitate increased prostitution in an area, and that takes money to police. It also leads to the spread of STDs, which cost money to treat. Ditto for porn, which spreads STDs in its production, and has been found to lead to familial breakdown and sexual abuse through its consumption. Surely these social ills carry steep costs, much of which get passed on to the state through law enforcement, the judiciary, and public health.
So why not make skin peddlers pay their fair share?
Well, I suspect here the pols would retreat so some claim of privacy, You see, what you do with your own body is your own business -- unless it's drink a soda, or smoke a cigarette. Or something like that.
So much for that explanation. The real reason, I suspect, is that the pols feel it would seem moralistic or judgmental for society to impose a sanction on, oh, XXX gang-rape videos or gay bathhouses that have fueled the spread of HIV. But somehow imposing a sanction on your fuel, booze, or fast-food consumption is just looking out for the public good. Funny how that works.
For the record, I'm not really advocating a "sin tax" like the one I've outlined above. My sense is that such taxes have the unintended consequence of either legitimizing destructive behavior, or worse, making the state its co-sponsor (see gambling). Worst of all is when the state grows to become dependent on the perpetuation of the "sin" in question to balance its books (see smoking).
But I do think it's telling to see which "sins" the politicians set out to target, as well as which ones they don't -- and why.
Leave a comment