|
Of course, there's the little problem of the First and Fourteenth Amendments... |
|
influence people's behavoiur.
How Republican. |
|
|
"It makes sense to tax Jack Daniels more than carrot juice, cigarettes more than celery sticks, and lap dances and porno stores more than 7-11’s." |
|
"influence people's behavior. How Republican." ?
This was proposed by a Democrat in the state assembly.
Just another mistaken slam against conservatives. |
|
"It makes sense to tax Jack Daniels more than carrot juice, cigarettes more than celery sticks, and lap dances and porno stores more than 7-11’s. "
Who am I quoting here?
I'll give you a clue. His name is at the top of this page.
(and since when are republicans conservative?) |
|
From wikipedia:
"Calderon was first elected to the Assembly in 1982. In 1988-89, he became leader of a power struggle for control of the Assembly. The "Gang of Five", as they were called–Calderon, Gary Condit, Steve Peace, Gerald Eaves and Rusty Areias–were CONSERVATIVE Democrats who tried to wrest power from Willie Brown, then Speaker of the Assembly."
Liberals want to be your mommy.
Conservatives want to be your daddy.
Libertarians want you to take care of yourself. |
|
|
Porn will just move like all the other businesses that CA taxes to death. |
|
I should explain, that I was being sarcastic with the "how Republican" comment.
Republicans, as I recall, are supposed to be the guys trying to get government off our backs.
At least, once upon a time they were.
|
|
|
It won't be hard to move the porn industry to another state. It's not like they have high productions costs and elaborate sets. The industry is already battling against so many companies using so many girls from the former Soviet block countries and ease of "amatuers" to produce their own stuff. |
|
|
-- no pun intended. So now, social degeneracy runs headlong into naked avarice, as Democraps are so desperate for more of our income that they are willing to tax the kind of behavior they usually champion. What’s a leftist to do? |
|
If I lived in CA I would not be at all disappointed to chase that slime out of the state. Michael is right on this one, as long as the taxes aren't being earmarked for something specific.
Targeting behaviour is more problematic when the funds acquired go to some "wonderful" new program for the children. When the behavior is cut back (the goal of a punitive tax), the new program needs to look elsewhere for funds. This happened in CA when cigarette taxes were raised for a children's health program. No liberal would cancel a government program whose source of funds dried up because people stopped smoking. |
|
|
I guess, endorse it, just like the trotskyite Medved. |
|
Thank you for clarifying, that you were being sarcastic. You had me confused for a while, too, because as we all know, “sin” taxes are certainly a staple of one of the two major parties, and it ain’t the Republicans.
On a related subject, please don’t make the mistake of confusing Medved’s views with conservatism.
|
|
|
Sorry – I posted before I saw your last comment. Apparently you do understand Medved. |
|
If you don't protect the rights of others, nobody will be left to protect yours.
Medved is wrong on this one. But like you, he's happy to have his "moral" agenda promoted by the force of government at the expense of our unalienable rights.
But it's okay to tax model trains to the max because I think they're stupid and would never buy one anyway. |
|
|
Great idea! I don't like it, so it is okay if the government uses it's heavy hand and threat of violence against it. Others would say the same thing about gun manufacturers, oil companies, car dealers or even religions. And you write on a conservative website? What a joke. I think pornographers are pretty scummy but, as long as everyone is a willing participant, then leave them alone. Using the tax code to change social policy is a Democrat screwjob, not Republican. BTW-Max-I got your sarcasm, thanks for clarifying anyway. |
|
|
Any time I hear the phrase "It's for the children" I get ready to grab my ankles. That guarantees that the new program will not help kids, will cost far more than purported and will not accomplish it's goals. It is code for "Open your wallet and dump it out". |
|
Medved feigned conservatism long enough to sell a book and help destroy the Republican party by aiding the presidential primary victory of McCain.
You'll see more and more of his true colors as he returns further and further out of the closet...
I was an idiot, but have since learned. Haven't listened to Medved since November! |
|
[Any time I hear the phrase "It's for the children" I get ready to grab my ankles.]
I have the same reflex when someone says "Bipartisan support".
[California faces a staggering budget deficit]
So, instead of stopping runaway spending, taking on the State employees unions, we'll just jump on the pro-tax bandwagon.
|
|
Comparing model trains to the filth put out by the porn industry has got to be one of the most morally ignorant arguments I have seen in a long time. Porn is a horribly destructive force in our society.
I agree with Medved on this one. As he said (and many commenters seem to have missed), the Republican legislators preference of cutting spending and not raising taxes is the general ideal. When a state needs money, sometimes more taxes and fees are required. They can't borrow like the Federal government (that's good in many ways), so the choice is cut (which has been near impossible) or tax. |
|
|
Ask me why I became a libertarian. |
|
California has so much more revunue than just a few years ago. THIS IS A SPENDING PROBLEM! CUT THE SPENDING!!!
A "porn" tax would not impact me directly, but I'm against that as a new tax. It would be arbitrary and enforcement would be convoluted.
ENOUGH! |
|
Advocacy of "sin taxes" are nothing new. No matter what the product of service, it springs from the same impulse -- if you can't censor something out of existence, then make it as unattractive as possible to manaufacture, distribute and sell.
It's a lousy idea no matter you slice it, inevitably opening the door to arbitrary distinctions about defining "porn" (and don't give me the old Potter Stewart trope about "I know it when I see it".) And it's also unconstitutional, too.
Amazing. "Conservatives" such as Medved decry the "nanny state" if it involves taxing certain forms of food and drink, but have no problem with taxing to death certified "immoral" activities.
And you wonder why the libertarian movement is growing all the time.
|
|
|
Forget the porn industry, after all, it's far more reputable than our state legislature and local politicians, not to mention congress. Hollywood puts out more filth than the porn industry, tax them into submission. |
|
Michael:
What you're saying, of course, is that the public policy justification for higher taxes for porn are the same as it is for liquor--there are secondary societal costs associated with its behavior.
The former contributes to prostitution, the disintegration of families, drug use, etc. They're certainly tangential impacts, but they do result in increased costs to law enforcement and our judicial system.
Here in Colorado, cities apply for "gaming impact grants," which demonstrate the secondary impact to law enforcement of gambling--which are not inconsiderable.
From a political science perspective we can debate whether a municipality/county/state should tax these activities, and it's a fascinating debate.
However, quite apart from the academic debate, those costs must be covered somehow; so if you don't tax them, you should demonstrate how you would propose we pay for them.
Regards,
Phil Mella
http://clearcommentary.townhall.com
|
|
Tax abortion to death, excuse the pun.
...if only we could tax crack, we could solve our national debt, they'll pay anything for that stuff. |
|
Steven Den Beste: "Of course, there's the little problem of the First and Fourteenth Amendments..."
garageman: "And it's also unconstitutional, too."
-- What is unconstitutional? taxing porn at a higher rate? NOT!
CVN65: "so it is okay if the government uses it's heavy hand and threat of violence against it."
-- I was unaware of the threat of violence included in Rep. Calderon's proposal.
Right Makes Might: "[Democrats] are willing to tax the kind of behavior they usually champion."
-- Democrats "champion" the activities of the porn industry? Since when?
hambones: "When a state needs money, sometimes more taxes and fees are required. They can't borrow like the Federal government"
-- States sometimes borrow money from banks, just like everybody else. |
|
Pornography is as American as apple pie and it takes a great deal of creativity to create it. There is no credible evidence that proves that porn is a destructive force on society. It actually does you a favor from freeing you from the mental prisons that are families, nagging housewives and little brats. That is a negative influence on our society and the more swingers there are, the better the society.
And PS: Stop badmouthing my town. Hollywood is the greatest town in the world, and we make more lucrative exports than any other American industry. If anything should be taxed, it's those obscenely greedy money-grubbing mega-churches that keep all its money to themselves rather than helping the less fortunate they pledged to help. |
|
Why Republicans are going to become a permanent minority party.
They want to Tax just like Democrats, they just differ on the things they would tax.
This is how Democrats get Republicans to work at increasing their power, by taxing industries where they can get convergence, like porn.
The sin Tax.
scratch a new-con you get a Socialist. |
|
that he's no conservative. He's the pluperfect example of a neo-con: overly aggressive and imperialistic on foreign policy while at the same time a flaming social liberal.
Joe Lieberman with a mustache.
I guess he's still trying to get over his guilt trip for being a draft dodger and protester during the Vietnam War.
Totally disgusting. Exactly why I stopped listening to his radio show, and took his book to the range and shot it to pieces.
|
|
|
Makes one wonder what a rebate would consist of. |
|
|
With the internet and scads of free porn, why does anyone pay for it anyway? Seriously, if they tax porn, and porn does not move out of state, they will deflect the cost to the consumer. That consumer will either pay even more for porn, or just find it for free. It is free all over the place online. Either way you slice it, the tax probably won't work for raising more revenue. It may actually lose revenue for the state. That's fine if you want to get rid of porn, but they don't. They want money. Politicians don't understand simple economics. If costs get too high, you either cut costs by doing less or make a move to where it costs less to produce. If CA does this, I predict they collect even less revenue. |
|
Conservative position. It's anathema to Libertarians, sure, but Conservatism is the philosophy that tries to preserve traditional institutions and beliefs, like marriage and the family and traditional morality.
So saying that Medved is not a "conservative" for wanting to tax porn is a mistaken statement. If Medved had been claiming to be a Libertarian, then you would have a point. |
|
You're saying that using the power to tax as a tool for social engineering is conservative. Nothing could be further from true conservatism. That's liberalism/socialism at its worst.
This is no different from proposals by anti-gunners to raise the tax on ammunition to a buck a round; it's a blatant attempt to eliminate a lawful practice by making it unaffordable, and a cynical attempt to circumvent the legislative and judicial processes that would address the issue directly.
Don't like something? Tax it to death!
Like it or not, porn is legal. It's entitled to be treated absolutely no differently than any other legitimate business, including that 7-11 Deadhead uses in his essay.
|
|
definition of "conservatism" is also incorrect.
True conservatism is a philosophy grounded in the belief that the Constitution means what it says about limited powers of government.
Unfortunately, the word "conservative" has been hijacked by all kinds of folks who want to redefine it to mean using government power to impose their OWN views of morality and lifestyle on society-at-large using the bludgeon of government power. They're no different from liberals, other than they disagree on the issues to be "regulated".
When I was a kid, some books were "Banned in Boston" as being too prurient. That wasn't conservatism; it was censorship.
|
|
|
No way to fill the California tax void. |
|
|
Does anyone listen to this guy anymore? |
|
I like that better than my own "Deadhead"!
|
|
Sin taxes are a bizarre and contemptible abuse of that which was most fundamental to the founding of our great nation. INDIVIDUALITY. Jefferson was inspired by the vision of the hardworking, thoroughly independent farmer as the enduring bedrock of our nation. Independence and individuality-fundamental to our founding concepts. Yet there are social orders, such as religions, that mandate a commonality of values and beliefs.
Since we must have religions and they must have their dos and don’ts our founding fathers were wise enough to recognize that those differences would exist and to account for them by separating church and state. What Medved wants to do is impose his morality, if not by making something illegal, then by punishing those who don’t think as he does with taxes. He can’t make porn illegal because of that pesky old constitution our founding fathers structured to protect against such zealots. But, unfortunately, we can tax ourselves when feeling guilty about some aspect of our conduct OR when we identify a group whose conduct we don’t like.
Enter a tax on tobacco in California to pay for expanded pre-school. What better cause and what more maligned activity could be brought together? The problem is, of course, that this kind of “morality” tax has no limits-just like the unprincipled spending that begat it. If you think about it you can come with all kinds of things that aren’t ‘just right’ and all kinds of deserving causes. All you then need is enough folks to agree with you and you have your new tax. No need to spend responsibly; no need to recognize the differences of others; just wonderful opportunities to punish those whose conduct does not quite suit US.
If something is really not OK in our society then outlaw it. If it’s not something that should be illegal-leave it the hell alone!
|
|
|
We have always had ' sin ' taxes since the start of the Republic. The Whiskey Rebellion reminds us of that!! Still, porn has so little redeeming value and the San Fernando Valley is the center of this slime in Ca. There are two Calderons in the Leg. Both are Dems. Both Hispanic. There may be more feeling in that community on this than the Libertarians on the board think. After all if the state hits my martinis, and cigs, which I don't partake of, why not porn which as one wag noted can be gotten off the Net and Cable anyway. They are taxing literature. Ha. No skin off the First Amendment here or my teeth either. Tax away libs. After all, it is your own BASE that has always defended porn via the ACLU and all other liberal whack jobs!! LOL Oh, and make the revenues go to upgrading the reading curriculum in the horrid public schools of Ca. |
|
It doesn't.
Period.
It needs less. |
|
First, let's just admit one thing: taxing porn is not likely to reduce its popularity among addicted perverts. Thus moral arguments are largely irrelevant.
Second, porn taxes and cigarette taxes are no different from any other tax as they hit the economy just as hard. It is silly to argue that if anyone deserves to be taxed, it is the porn seller/buyer. Taxes do not discriminate, but rather affect the entire population. When the porn producer/buyer loses an extra dollar to the government, that is one less dollar that would have gone to his tailor/grocer/etc. The porn man is not the only one to suffer; everyone does, and the result is a net loss of productivity.
If this tax is enacted, the Californian people will just be that much poorer. C'mon Medved, think this stuff through before you blog it and give conservatives a bad name. |
|
|
Mr. Medved, I prefer tax money from one dollar lottery tickets to money from hookers. Please, snap out of it. |
|
I get you hate the lottery, for being a poor person stupid tax. I get you hate porn for being...well porn. You don't have to be a prude to know that it is a destructive industry to many involved and it is an industry.
But if California decides to raise taxes on the porn industry, what stops the porn from relocating to Las Vegas (I hear that there are a lot of affordable houses on the market there). The porn industry is not made up of steel mills and factories that are difficult to move. Taxes are lower in Nevada. And it would seem appropriate to have the porn based in "Sin City."
A symbolic gesture at best, not one that would raise any meaningful revenue. It might make a good fact pattern to study at business and economic schools for what happens with selective taxes.
|
|
to levy additional taxes on those who cause costs to society then tax the criminals. Anyone convicted of a misdemeanor pays an extra 25% in state taxes, felons pay an extra 50%
Much easier to prove that a convicted criminal caused harm than some lonely nerd renting a DVD to watch at home.
|
|
Medved. One problem with your logic - it's an immoral institution just as with Indian casinos. Government should not be in the business of promoting immoral business. (R)nold's embrace of the Indian casino's heir ins Cullyforjna made me want to hurl. The Cal GOP's sponsership of it made me close my political donation checkbook for good. Casinos part fools least able to part with their money from their money. Paying back "white debt" to Indians by making the destitute even more destitute is despicable - more so as guv-mint policy.
Likewise taxing porn, an industry that has ruined lives, marriages, and health will give it the right to demand protections and service from the government taxing it just like any other business. It's crimminal behavior so treat like that. |
|
|
I do not understand why we need to put a sin tax on anything. Whatever happened to conservatives who actually believed in individual liberty. I drink, I smoke, and I enjoy healthy sexual relationships with people of the opposite sex and only these former democratic moralists disagree with this point. Morality should not be regulated or controlled because if porn is "filth" then do not watch it even though most people who say they do not watch porn actually have watched pornography in the past. Goldwater and Reagan would be spinning in their grave right now. In summation, the same rights that allow individuals to own a gun is the same right that individuals can utilize to produce, participate, or watch pornography. |
|
There are lots of things that are associated with societal decay - Pornography, foul language, rudeness, dirty underwear. Why not tax them all?
Many people get bad ideas from books so let's tax bad ideas by taxing the books that have them. Its not censorship since you can still buy the book, it's just that you have to pay more for it. It will help to defray the cost of people acting on those "bad ideas".
We can have a committee composed of pillars of the community and they will decide the level of taxation for each book by evaluating the "badness" of every idea in the book.
"Romeo and Juliet" promotes teenage promiscuity and rebellion against parental authority. That terrible influence should cost at least twice as much as most plays.
Gilbert and Sullivan promoted laughing at authority so "The Pirates of Penzance" and "HMS Pinafore" have got to cost more.
What begins with taxing ideas that most people hate will end with taxing only ideas that the government hates.
Taxing porno isn't just wrong, it is cultural suicide.
When Medved talks about "smaller government" you have to ask "Smaller than what? The Third Reich?" |
|
|
Medved wants higher taxes and larger government to feed the police state he desires. |
|
You know what? You make a lot of sense!
|
|
You wrote, "He argues that it’s not just a question of more money for the state, but of purveyors of so-called “adult entertainment” paying off the societal costs of the toxic, addictive product they produce."
Californians WON'T be taxing the "porn" producers, smart guy! Like ALL taxes, the taxes will be levied against the common man who "partakes" of such activities by purchasing said porn. Don't get me wrong! It works for me! |
|
|
I never said that the particular bill threatened violence. Just to humor me, refuse to pay taxes or cooperate with govt agents for about a year and see if large men with guns show up at your door. That is the threat of violence- the govt will forcibly deprive you of your liberty if you do not play along. Do try to keep up. |
|
balance their budget in 1 month...or maybe a week if the fruits and nuts are taxed...
|
|
Government needs more money in order to buy more votes. It is that simple.
Tibby |
|
How 'Brent Bozell' of you.
It's people like you that I have to sort through when having a political/economic discussion with a liberal. I keep getting accused of approving nonsense like yours, and spend more time sorting through your brand of socialism rather than actually promoting true Conservatism.
Thanks a bunch-- you selective commie. |
|
|
All this is is a step towards making it legal.More government intervention. |
|
"Micheal [sic] How 'Brent Bozell' of you. "
-- LOL. That's dead-on.
|
|
"I never said that the particular bill threatened violence."
-- But you say that the gov is willing to use violence in order to enforce it. If you had written "threat of prosecution" instead of "threat of violence" I never would have mentioned it.
"That is the threat of violence- the govt will forcibly deprive you of your liberty if you do not play along."
-- So, "forcibly deprive you of your liberty" means 'arrest you', and by "play along" you mean 'follow the law'; right? |
|
How about if the state deals drugs, sells cigarettes, donates siringes, provides rum, builds cassinos, and picks dollars out of lap dancers' bras? Besides that, even if it is child porn, it can help the schools, and is a form of free expression which could be provided in public libraries.
My point is, and I do have one, is that the instant California finds a source of revenue, it will become sacrosanct. I cannot imagine how Michael Medved would argue introducing money from prostitutes into the state income. Imagine the possibilities for the underworld to support the State. |
|
|
Did'nt Yoda say something like..."Once you start down the dark path forever will it dominate your destiny"? If Porno is considered "toxic" why tax it? If you do the state will support it to the hilt forever. It is a little like cigarette tax no? Here is a toxic product that the state will tax an thus support. What will happen is that private industry producing the product will just raise the price to keep their profits and who will end up paying is the community for their toxic product. The support of any toxic product by government is the poisoning of the community for a profit and by definition is immoral. |
|