Comments on: CE Week #2: “Porn tax proposed to buttress budget”

By: Tommy Urann

Tommy Urann — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 22:37:01 +0000

In Response to Brennan

I completely agree that it’s a comforting thought that somebody is actually trying to help our economy out. I think that if all states try to bring themselves out of debt a little bit at a time, than we may have found a small piece of our solution. Taxing pornography is a tax that will obviously pass if it makes it that far. I really want to run with this state and national debt subject though. I think that if every state could get themselves out of debt(or pay off some debt) that would really boost morale in states. Maybe this would lead to more power given to the states versus most power being held in the federal government. I know I’m taking this a little far but I just think that it is amazing how much harder people will try when they feel like they are working towards something. Citizens of any state may feel like they have accomplished something if their state comes out of debt, in return they have more confidence in the system and spend more. It may sound a little far fetched but it just came to my mind while I was reading Brennan;s post so I though I would mention it.

By: Alena Schoonmaker

Alena Schoonmaker — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 22:17:10 +0000

In response to almost everyone:

Somebody has to say it. An article like this can’t get by without somebody taking the low road and mentioning that this is a TERRIBLE IDEA. Sin taxes are the most outrageous and horrible things ever heard of. It’s restrictive of civil liberties. Who is the government to force upon Americans a certain way of life? If someone wants to live below society’s “perfect” moral system, he or she should be allowed to. Society should not be able to impose on individuals’ right to sin. Put the Ten Commandments away, and every other thing that is considered “sinful.” It’s not up to society, and it’s not up to the government. It’s up to the individual. No taxation without representation? Not anymore. Now it’s no taxation, unless it’s fornication. If somebody finds pornography to be disgusting, then that person should not watch, read, or look at pornography. Everyone has a right to his own opinion. If society gets its way, and passes this heinous blight on liberty, then the internet will be overrun. Why would someone by something with an 18.5% tax when he or she could get it with no tax off of the internet? It doesn’t make fiscal sense. The government can do what it wants, it always has, but one day it will realize that basic human perversion will survive. You can’t kill cockroaches.

By: Clarin McDonald

Clarin McDonald — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 21:43:24 +0000

In response to Ashley Rowe:
I don’t really see how this proposed tax on pornography could be seen as a bad thing. I think that any amount of restriction the government places on such a horrible thing as p0rn, should be viewed as a good thing. I guess what you are saying is that it can be viewed as bad because this tax would force people to use the free p0rn on the internet, a place where it can not be regulated. But I think that at least the government would be doing something to show that they care about the effects of pornography, even if it is just for the revenue. Also, I am not really sure if this tax would encourage this type of behavior in adults. If anything, would cause people to not want to buy it any more because of the high price. Maybe not the people who are already highly addicted to p0rn, but at least it could stop new people from starting. I would definitely agree with you on the fact that the government shouldn’t just stop at taxing p0rn, but they should go further to regulate the type that appears. Then this would really show that the government cares about getting rid of this business.

By: Rachel Damiano :)

Rachel Damiano :) — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 21:40:42 +0000

In response to Dave: I agree that people are able to get the disgusting pictures and grotesque things associated with the pornography industry all over the internet. I like this tax and think it will do something for our society, not necessarily the economy, because it will force men to rethink their addiction. Hopefully this action will also lead to less crime in our state. Think about this, it is statistically proven that men that prey on young girls and young women are also very addicted to pornography. If there is anyway that we can limit, or make it harder for these men to feed their addiction, we will be doing society a small favor. I also don’t agree with you, Dave, on your point about not being able to tax the Internet. I realize that a great many people believe it is too difficult to tax the Internet but I say otherwise. What if it was possible to charge a large amount in order to even set up a pornography website? I realize that people are creative and that they would probably find a way around it but not everyone could and those who couldn’t would have to pay for it. This at least would cut down the amount of websites by a small amount while still helping the economy.

By: Austin Ainslie

Austin Ainslie — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 21:12:12 +0000

In Response to Jordan,

I totally agree, those who want to watch it, will pay whatever it takes. Taxing those who want to watch this stuff will defiantly help the economy. Even if the people who buy adult videos switch over to the Internet, maybe they will get a virus and everyone will yell karma. The adult world is huge. It generates tons of money every year, so I don’t think that Hugh Hefner will be too pleased about this.

I don’t see how a bill like this wouldn’t get passed. It seems to me that a congressman would want to appear wholesome and have good morals to his constituents. This would defiantly help with the economic problem. Seeing how we, the state of Washington, have our own budget problem, it would be a good way to cut down that some billion dollar deficit. Even if this tax is imposed, I think that Gregoire could squirm her way out of the “no new taxes” because this tax isn’t really taxing everyone in the state. If this bill were put to a state vote then no doubt it would pass. It could be one of the few bills that go through Congress and then to state conventions for ratification.

By: Rachel Kerr

Rachel Kerr — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:28:19 +0000

In response to Jonathan Dyer:

“This is a win-win situation. Either the state makes bank taking this stuff, or it goes away” (Jonathan Dyer). Nice summary. If you think about it, the only downside to this tax is the internet piece, and, even then, legislators may find a way to tax it eventually in the future. It’s not like we would really lose any money in the process since there aren’t any start-up costs or such to worry about. Like both you and Annika said, an internet tax would indeed kick-start some life back into the economy. It would certainly have the potential for economic recovery within a few months at least, possibly a few weeks or days maybe. So why not start this tax? Most of the people opposed to this new tax would probably be those who would have to cough up some money for their actions. Addictions, technically. Just like the other sin taxes, this material is disgusting, shameful, and doesn’t only harm the individual, so we really should place a sin tax on “nrop” (credit to Annika, thank you). There’s not much chance of us losing money on this deal unless ALL the consumers of these products turn to the internet, at which point we will hopefully have found a reliable way to tax the internet.

By: Savannah Hunka

Savannah Hunka — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:04:37 +0000

In response to David Marshall:

I agree that it would be very difficult to tax the internet and in a way how would it be regulated? However, in truth, people don’t just get p*rn off the internet so why not bring the tax at least into stores so some of the social service programs could be taken care of? I have to say that this issue is very controversial because on one hand p*rn is totally disgusting and I believe it degrades women, but also, if the government steps in doesn’t this invade on certain people’s freedoms of expression? How far will the government go to regulate people’s interests? However, by establishing a tax on certain products, I believe the consumption will decrease and so maybe it will create a higher standard in our society. You say that people who get taxed on this luxury won’t buy this luxury and then go on to say that people buy things they need, but isn’t it true that some people are addicted to s*x and p*rn? Just like cigarettes, if people want or need them, no matter how much it costs, they will find a way to buy them. In the end, the government needs money and so it will try and find it anywhere possible.

By: Sam Fitterer

Sam Fitterer — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:26:18 +0000

In response to Dave:
You bring up an incredibly good point. You can get p0rn for free on the internet, so here’s a little hypothetical: perhaps the 18.5 percent tax leads to a decrease in the purchase of pornographic material (which it inevitably will) more people will turn to the internet. This may cause adult entertainment stores to fail leading to an even weaker economy. Ooooo how bout them apples? I don’t want to call this tax unconstitutional, but the name for it certainly is. Sin tax? Last time I checked there is a constitutional separation of church and state. Therefore they should not be able to dub it a sin tax, some don’t believe in god or sin, in the Hindu religion sexuality and sexual material is part of their religion. If I were a Hindu and this bill passed I would definitely sue the government for calling my religious beliefs “sins.” Therefore this p0rn tax is an awful idea for those two reasons. I would even say it might hurt our state economy even more. The idea itself is not a bad one to raise revenue but it has some flaws that can’t be overlooked. Perhaps the tax needs to be lighter to encourage pornographic material consumers to keep buying locally rather than over the Internet.

By: Madelin Copus

Madelin Copus — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:19:37 +0000

In response to Dave responding to me:
These taxes on things that are “wrong” aren’t imposed because the products are “wrong”, they are imposed because they are addictive and potentially dangerous and the legislators proposing the tax know that if people want these things bad enough they won’t mind paying the outrageous tax. I don’t think that raising taxes on everyday items is a good idea because taxes are already putting strains on families with incomes on the lower end of the spectrum so increasing sales tax would push more people to the brink of poverty and then they will drop a tax bracket and the government will end up paying them money rather than the family paying income tax annually. See the ripple effect? Not a huge percentage of the population buys p0rn but those that do do so habitually so it will not be a complete waste. I really do think that this tax is a good idea because those people who buy p0rn buy it because its a craving, no different than a craving for a cigarette or a beer, what happens when you have a craving for those things? You buy them. And if you don’t your body throws a fit until you fill that craving so people who buy it are going to buy it again and make this tax worth while. I think that a House member proposing this tax on a national level, if it were not unconstitutional, would be a brilliant idea because the national p0rn industry would be an even more beneficial tax base. I firmly believe that this would be a good idea to increase the money coming in to the state.

By: Renee Davidson

Renee Davidson — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:26:04 +0000

In response to Kyle Hermens:
I agree with you for the most part. Yes, the Internet is probably the main way people can use p0rn, but there has to be other ways, too. You said in your comment, “So much of the pornography on the internet is comprised of free images, that I have to wonder how many people still use the physical stuff.” I think I may have an answer for you. I don’t honestly know if Playboy could be considered in that category or not, but I know there are still A LOT of people who subscribe to it. There are still adult movie stores. They haven’t gone out of business, so someone must be buying. The same goes for the X-rated adult stores with the naked mannequins that you can see in the window. Drive down Division long enough and you will see exactly what I’m talking about. I know this tax isn’t going to affect here, but I hope you can understand that, yes, a lot of people still use these other forms of p0rn. It seems like they are the only little businesses that aren’t going out of business right now.

By: Rebecca Rathbun

Rebecca Rathbun — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:05:02 +0000

In response to Annika LaVoie, I do not think that Social Security will be receiving the revenue from this tax as according to our textbooks or something we discussed in class perhaps, Social Security is profitable to the point at which the government borrows money from it to pay for other things. I agree that “it was never intended to provide complete financial support to millions of retired members for so many years” as they set the age that a person would be eligible for Social Security benefits at a number higher than most people lived to see. “This social security has been completely abused and we now have numerous people just waiting to hit the magic retirement age, live off of their social security benefits to buy a yacht and spend their next 20 years sailing around the world…all thanks to the government who has been sucked into this vacuum of demands for more and more money and special privileges.” While I am not at all familiar with the how Social Security benefits are determined, I do not think that someone could use the benefits to purchase a yacht. Also, that someone must be in fairly good health to sail around for twenty years. What I mean to say is that Social Security Services are social services are different things as Social Security became its own entity years ago.

By: Tyler Konsonlas

Tyler Konsonlas — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 06:23:23 +0000

I think this is a pretty good idea to add sin taxes on to this branch of luxury. I do not know if the increase tax should be as high as 18.5% sales tax though. The increase in the price will probably stop quite a few people from continuing their purchases, but overall this could generate a good bit of money from the people who continue to buy the items if it works. Extra money is needed to “help pay for social service programs”, so why not? The people who are addicted to the other items on the sin tax list, “tobacco, liquor and beer” have to pay up, so should the people who buy this stuff. The only problem with the plan is the fact that “It wouldn’t try to take on Internet pornography”. People can access pornography for free on the internet, and the taxes will most likely make the people who are unwilling to buy at these new prices to turn to the internet. And the pain from this increase could turn out hurting this business area more than the state will profit from it. This is probably why it was shut down the first time the idea was sent through, maybe they have it figured out this time though.
Connection: This is connected to the economy. Money needs to be generated from somewhere, and like Mark Miloscia said “Well, why not?” Hopefully it doesn’t turn around costing the business more than is gained through the process though.

By: Jonathan Dyer

Jonathan Dyer — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 06:07:48 +0000

This seems to be a sure fire way to increase revenue. It’s brilliant, and will be very effective. People will continue to indulge in such crazy, degrading things, so it will be a very stable revenue source. The public display of very intimate things is a disgusting, degrading, and will lower your I.Q. several points per second, but a lot of people will still actively engage in such degenerate things, so we should make them pay. This is a win-win situation. Either the state makes bank taking this stuff, or it goes away. The only shame is that we can’t tax online versions. That would probably make Washington the riches state in the nation. The proposed tax, if passed, will already do wonders for the projected deficits. I really don’t want to know what would qualify under the guidelines, and I’d prefer to keep it that way. People may not like tax increases, but it would be rather difficult for someone to oppose this, because they would seem like a disgusting piece of work. And as most of the constituents in the state probably (hopefully) won’t mind this tax, because most of them are concerned with Boeing or other such companies. Just like taxes on tobacco and alcohol, I don’t think supply or demand will be affected with this. I agree with Rep. Mark Miloscia, this is perfect.

Connection: We were talking in class last week on how such a tax, especially if applied to the internet, would end national debt. I think the state bugged your room and is now are implementing it. However, this actually could reduce the deficit buy quite a bit. If this succeeds here, it could set a national precedent.

By: Annika LaVoie

Annika LaVoie — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 04:55:39 +0000

Well, I think this idea of taxing nrop (think backwards…hopefully the censor isn’t that smart) would be a great idea but ultimately will never get off the ground. Especially since the Internet is nigh impossible to tax. The only substantial outcome we would see is the oblivion of nrop magazines, movies, and tv programs and an increase in free Internet viewings and downloads. Personally, I believe if Congress could somehow find a way to tax the Internet or even certain sites on the Internet like Wikipedia or something else as popular, as we talked about in class the economy would bounce back in a mere few days. The only thing where I disagreed with this nrop tax is where the government planned to use this money to help fund the ever growing, ever needier Social Security services. Honestly, I think we should cut back the social security system to what it was originally intended for: to provide minimal support. It was never intended to provide complete financial support to millions of retired members for so many years. This social security has been completely abused and we now have numerous people just waiting to hit the magic retirement age, live off of their social security benefits to buy a yacht and spend their next 20 years sailing around the world…all thanks to the government who has been sucked into this vacuum of demands for more and more money and special privileges.
Connection: The fact that as Americans we are “ideologically conservative but operationally liberal” meaning that when it helps benefit our own personal needs, we want the role of government to expand. Same idea as we all hate taxes but we want government to dish out the money…

By: Kellie Hensley

Kellie Hensley — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 04:06:09 +0000

Like we were talking about in class the other day, if you raise the tax on cigarettes to, lets say, 50 bucks a pack, those people who are addicted will still buy their 3 packs a day. But you’d think, (I really don’t know if this would be true or not…) that people probably would quit watching pornography because the price is going up due to the tax. However, like the cigarettes, it could keep the profit coming in. Like the article said, it is really hard to tax the internet, and in my opinon, people would stop watching p@rn if there was a tax on it, unless they are addicted to it like so many americans are addicted to cigarette smoking.This tax could be a good way to help out the economy, or it could put the pornography business in a slump. If we are going to put these “sin taxes” on other “sins”, why not pornography? I think that all the “exceptions” and stuff are going to be a problem if this tax goes into effect. People get mad already when they find out that things have tax on them, and imagine how angry they’d be about this. Using the internet there are ways around everything, someone would find a way to make a “tax free” site and everyone would take their business there, making the other sites, books, magazines, whatever, lose business and profits.

Connection: The economy and getting out of this crisis. People would be willing to pay a boatload of money for their addictions any day, is it a good idea to tax these items? Is this the stimulation that our economy needs to get in gear???

By: Rachel Kerr

Rachel Kerr — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 03:52:30 +0000

“P*rn tax proposed to buttress budget.” Nice examples of alliteration even if the article itself isn’t so squeaky clean. There are many different sides to this debate, and all of them are pretty legitimate at this point since the tax hasn’t been formally introduced yet. Even if you tax magazines, photos, movies, etc., people are still going to purchase them because they WANT to. As long as these items haven’t been deemed illegal, the people are still going to invest their money in these products. Along the lines of consumer interest, people have already found their simple solution to this tax: internet! The proponents of this tax can still expect to gain some revenue from sales, but the fact of the matter is that the internet really is somewhat like the Wild West. Nevertheless, this tax could probably somewhat help pay for social service programs. “Washington faces a budget shortfall that some lawmakers say could reach $8 billion.” It’s not like this tax is the only solution, though. We’re not even sure if it will get the green light this year or next year or even the year after that. The prime sponsor, Miloscia, doesn’t even believe the bill will become law this year. But odds are he’ll still fight for it anyway.

Connection: Economic Expectations. Even if this tax goes into effect, it’s not a guaranteed source of steady revenue. For those consumers paying extra on their “special” books and movies, they will most likely flee to the uncensored internet eventually anyway. Just like any single bill, we can’t expect miracles out of this one, but we can certainly hope for a small victory in the development of our social service programs.

By: Alexa Erickson

Alexa Erickson — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 03:47:21 +0000

In Response to Kyle:
When I first read this article, I was also thinking about the possible conflict of “trying to force a certain lifestyle” through taxes. However, I think that taxing this material is perfectly acceptable when we take into account that tobacco is taxed, in addition to alcohol. Consuming these products, too, is a certain way of life. The taxes on these products are not met with too much opposition, however. I think that the p*rn tax will possibly be met with opposition. That is, if people are willing to be accused of purchasing the material. Though consuming alcohol and tobacco certainly is “private”, this new tax might be opposed because it is a “private” matter. People are embarrassed about purchasing this material. It is not something that they let others see. People may drink at home and at parties without being laughed at, or smoke on street corners without receiving a second glance; however, when they purchase p*rn, it is not something that they are willing to brandish around. Putting a tax on this material may make purchasing it less discreet.

By: Ashley Rowe

Ashley Rowe — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 03:31:48 +0000

I have mixed feelings about this proposed tax on pornography, because it could be a good thing and a bad thing. It could be good because it could help raise revenue that the government doesn’t have. Doing this would not only raise money for the federal government, but could also raise money for the State of Washington. The only thing that I would be concerned about is how will the government regulate pornography? Are these taxes only applying towards movies and magazines that are purchased at stores or off the internet? It will be nearly impossible to regulate pornography on the internet, because there is no way the government can control thousands of sites that stream pornography.

Another concern is that some people may view this as the government encouraging this type of behavior among adults. The government needs to take this a step further and regulate the type of material that appears in these videos and magazines. The activities need to be with consenting adults, not anything with children or other perverse materials.

I would say that the government doesn’t have anything to be ashamed about. This has the potential of working! I say go for it!

Connection: This would help raise revenue for the state of Washington, which would help the economy. If the federal government did the same thing then we could raise enough money to lessen the effects of the recession. Also, this is a case of representatives doing what their constituents want them to do. If Washington residents are wanting to tax pornography, then I say let them tax away.

By: Alexa Erickson

Alexa Erickson — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 02:59:44 +0000

This is (theoretically) a wonderful way to collect revenue. It is such a good idea that I wonder why it hasn’t been enforced before. It’s also very clever – people who speak out and oppose this tax risk embarrassment. It will be assumed that they purchase p*rn if they oppose the tax, which could greatly affect their careers and reputations, especially if they are politicians. I think that many people will simply be forced to stay quiet as opposed to losing their reputations.

The only flaw in this law is that the material on the internet remains to be taxed. Because of this, I have trouble seeing how this law will be successful. Once people are see that what they can purchase in bookstores has a special tax, they will resort to the internet for their pleasures. In addition to this, I think that most people already take advantage of the internet. I do not think this will generate a lot of revenue. I said “theoretically” before because I think that it is a wonderful idea, but it won’t generate a lot of money if people use the internet in the first place. If there was a way to tax the material on the internet, this tax would be brilliant.

Connection: Class Discussion
I believe Mr. Kautzman has stated several times in class that an internet tax would be a brilliant way to generate revenue; however, as this article has shown, getting to that point is difficult.

By: Hillary Susz

Hillary Susz — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 01:33:46 +0000

This is good for everybody. It’s good for the idiots that actually buy pornography- this will force them to be politically involved and maybe gain competency because honestly, you’d have to be really stupid to actually pay for pornography. It’s good for the conservative house wives- their “social supremacy” will be more relevant than ever, and they will feel even more inclined to push their religious “truths” upon their “lost” peers. This isn’t a problem for liberals because they simply won’t care. This is good for the state governments because, obviously, they need the extra cash. It’s good for 40 year old men living in their mom’s basement- now, they won’t have enough money to spend on pornography, and maybe they’ll save wisely, and then move out. . It’s good for women who don’t have a lot of sex with their husbands- now; they can procreate and have more children. These couples will create a new, larger working force. Maybe our generation can now have social security. Plus, the Catholic and Mormon churches will be happy that people are having more children again. Maybe there will be more converts, and less of that evil ideal, birth control. It’s good for stockbrokers, senators, and old rich white men in general because they are the idiots actually buying pornography. Now, they will continue to buy overpriced sex and fuel the economy (tickle-down economics). I’m all for this “sin” tax. It’s good for all.

Connection: protestant influence in American culture. Because Americans are so closely related to Christianity, our general opinion on sex is negative unless in the context of marriage. In eastern cultures, a “sin” tax on sex wouldn’t be as heavily advocated, or even considered.

By: Megan Smith

Megan Smith — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 01:22:17 +0000

Sin taxes make sense. People like their cigarettes and their booze. Why not tax their pornography as well? “Miloscia’s House bill 2130 would add an extra 18.5 percent sales tax to ‘adult entertainment materials and services.’” That’s a hefty chunk of tax money onto pornography. Moreover, it’s not like many people are going to stand up, enraged at this new tax. Generally, people go into an upset over new taxes, but whose going to stand up and be the guy that says “I’m mad that pornography is going to be so expensive! I’m a regular purchasing customer, and I demand my rights as an adult entertainment fan.” Yea, I can’t see that happening too soon. Participating in any adult entertainment is still seen as taboo. People don’t leave out their dirty movies on the kitchen counters, and paraphernalia isn’t a gift you give someone for Christmas. So maybe this tax is “perfect.” However, the article point out that the bill wasn’t going to try to reap in tax from internet sales. “The internet is a Wild West.” There’s really no known way to make sure that you’re keeping every citizen from their desires. I imagine many people would prefer to get a quick fix for free, rather than pay up the 20-something percent sales tax. The adult industry has been suffering as is (not too many people interested in those entertainments when the economy is like it is.) You have to wonder how much this will affect our state. Hopefully more positive than negative, assuming that it passes.

Connection: The state of our economic situation. We’ve talked before about how low our economy has been sinking, and it’s become obvious when we’re so short handed on our budget that we’re resorting to taxes we’ve struck down without a second chance in the past. “It’s at least the second time such a proposal has been floated in Olympia. In 2004, Sen. Val Stevens, R-Arlington, proposed a virtually identical plan: Senate Bill 6741. It didn’t even get a hearing.” The budget is tight, and with the ever increasing demands of the bureaucracy, it’s hard to keep up. Unions are unwavering, and inflexible. How can we fight the slipping amount of money from our economy but tax what we can and try to get by?

By: Jordan Yaeger

Jordan Yaeger — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:27:33 +0000

Well I’m not going to lie but this article was amusing. I can’t say I have heard anyone deciding to tax “adult entertainment materials and services.” I did not realize that the adult entertainment business was a profitable enough industry to make a lot of money but I guess that is why the tax is so high. If this tax does get passed and for some reason the pornography industry is booming this could be quite profitable. 18.5% is a lot for a tax especially when that is on top of the state tax which is another 8.7% making the average person who wants to watch a different movie pay 27.5 cents on every dollar that X-rated movie is worth.

Something tells me that just based on how ridiculous this tax sounds. If I were a congressman and I saw that this was being voted on I would probably crack up laughing just at the thought of having to pay excess tax on a “special” kind of movie or other said paraphernalia. It is a good idea for generating revenue but I think the average sexual-entertainment-watcher will not be happy but I guess if they really want it to be happy then they will buy it, kind of like people who consistently buy alcohol and tobacco.

Connection: Revenue: Taxes are the way the government generates revenue and usually put this money into social programs that rely on tax dollars in order to keep running.

By: brennan waller

brennan waller — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:28:36 +0000

First of all, I appreciate how our state’s government is taking action to decrease our debt. Debt has been a serious concern throughout the past few years, and now we’re to the point where desperate measures must be taken in order to achieve our goal of eliminating our debt (both at the state and national level). I also appreciate the fact that we have, within our state’s government, someone who is willing to go out on a limb and throw in this idea of a pornography tax. These people are key to the legislative process, because they consider ideas that most other legislators wouldn’t even think of.

Anyway, getting to the point, I believe that a tax on pornography is a good idea. As explained in the article, our state already taxes other “sin” products, such as tobacco, liquor, and beer. In my opinion, pornography falls under the same category. In most instances, pornography is considered an addiction, just like alcohol and tobacco. Taxing addictions is one of the most effective ways of taxing our government uses. So, this tax will be a major factor in decreasing our debt.

Connection: In the last chapter, we learned about revenue. Revenue is essentially all the money the government makes. Tax is the government’s main source of revenue. So, a tax on pornography will help increase the government’s revenue, and decrease our debt.

By: Tommy Urann

Tommy Urann — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:55:46 +0000

WOW! What an idea! The pornography business is huge, why not tax it? If I had a say i would definitely agree that this would fit under the ’sin tax’ category. People still pay for cigarettes when they tax goes up, and beer, and liquor. Though pornography may not be ‘addicting’ to most, I’m confident that consumers would most definitely pay the extra tax to get their ‘fix.’ I think that Gregoire would be foolish not to impose a needed tax. No, this tax is not your average everyday tax, but it could make a world of difference. I don’t understand what the problem with the tax is, except, in my opinion, there has got to be a way to tax internet. I know it may not be the easiest thing to do, but that is one of the main sources of “Adult Entertainment Materials.” To be completely honest, and not to be crude, but if somebody can’t ‘get some’ I’m sure they wouldn’t mind paying a little more to do the job. It is no different than a smoker getting their nicotine fix; Well it may be a little different but you get the point. I can understand why Gregoire wouldn’t want to add taxes, but this tax isn’t on NECESSITIES, it’s a tax on frivolous expenditures.

CONNECTION:

We were just discussing in class the other day on how taxing pornography would be a great way to pick up some extra dough. In our discussion we mainly talked about internet taxing, but seeing as that is not possible at this point of time why not just start small and eventually work our tax into the world of the web. Yes, there may be some people opposed to this bill, but I’m almost positive that the married, parents, and white collared workers of Washington out number the alone-no love, single people out there.

By: Kyle Hermens

Kyle Hermens — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 05:48:53 +0000

I think this is an amazing bit of legislation. For one thing, if it passes, it will rake in revenue like no other. However, I think the main flaw with this tax is that it can’t tax the untaxable.Like the article had mentioned, the Internet is very hard to tax. So much of the pornography on the internet is comprised of free images, that I have to wonder how many people still use the physical stuff. It’s a gross truth, but it’s a fact of the matter. I don’t see any constitutional problems with this, though the power to tax could be abused this way. Trying to force a certain lifestyle by taxing things like pornography could potentially occur, though it might be Orwellian of me to think of it. However, the biggest thing that this article reminds me of is Net Neutrality. Specifically, proposed bits of legislation that would call for either a universal identification for the individual on the internet, as well as allowed providers to give preferential connections to certain customers that pay more. Net Neutrality is the idea that the internet should be equal, and free. Alot of the people pushing for regulation of the internet are music and movie companies who are being pirated.

Connection: Bureaucrats, whether in regards to internet regulation or the sin tax, will be the ones responsible for enacting such legislation.

By: Rebecca Rathbun

Rebecca Rathbun — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:48:43 +0000

Wow. “Washington has long had sin taxes, but they’ve usually been on things like tobacco, liquor and beer.” I think that a tax on the industry mentioned in this article would raise quite a bit of revenue. But, since the representative that proposed bill does not intend to target the internet, what I would think would be the most lucrative aspect of the industry would not be taxed. I do not fully understand why one would propose a bill that they do not believe will have a chance of becoming law especially after a similar bill was struck down without a hearing. “Both bills maintain that ‘adult entertainment materials and services result in increased costs to the state through the provision of increased governmental services, including human services and criminal justice services.’ ” With that reasoning, this proposed tax does make a certain degree of sense since the money raised through the tax would go to funding social services. Logically, this proposal and tax sounds rather reasonable, but I really do not think it stands a real chance except that this time around it is in the House rather than Senate.
Connection: The Economy. This bill is bring proposed to increase the amount of revenue taken in order to allow the government to provide further services as it is likely to have to provide more services.

By: Felica Soderstrom

Felica Soderstrom — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:45:02 +0000

I felt the same way as Miloscia did. “Wow. Well, why not?’ ” If tabacco can be taxed why not—-. I mean people who look at that for fun deserve to be taxed anyway. 18.5% is way to nice even. It would be a good source of revenue without outraging constituents, like the unpopular business taxes that were talked about in the article; not a good chance of it going out of state like boeing. Besides, taking from the people who buy —- to save the social programs in Washington is genious. It’s almost like stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, only not the same thing. The only thing that I worry about is the internet argument. Those same people can get the same exact things online without getting off their lazy butts. “The Internet is really tough to tax,” said Miloscia. “The Internet is Wild West.” If only there was a way to tax on-line. That would be brilliant. The other thing that is worrisome is that two people have proposes similar plans that have not even made it to hearing. Why would this time be a success? I hope he does send it for that statewide vote.

Connection: pleasing the constituents. In class we have learned about the importance of public opinion. Miloscia stated that he didn’t know if it would work because Gregoire promised not to raise taxes during a time of crisis. She obviously cares about what constituents think. The business tax example is good also. The constituents won’t worry about this like they worry about that, so it’s all good.

By: Malaika Chandler

Malaika Chandler — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:19:48 +0000

How cute. A smut tax. It’s kind of brilliant in it’s own way. If asked, people who say no to it’s passage will most likely be assumed users. And of course those who support family qualities will be for it. Gregoire shouldn’t be too worried about an adverse response to the bill. The people who would be affected most obviously have too much time on their hands, and if they don’t have to money to continue sating their desires-which I’m sure wouldn’t happen as they would just get more-they can find a more wholesome hobby.

It just feels like a good idea altogether. Which is why it surprises me that it didn’t make it nearly as far as it should have in the state Senate. Not even a hearing. What are those Olympian Senators trying to hide? Unless they figure most of their constituents are subject to the change. Oh well. I’m sure if they put it on the state wide ballot like they talked about, it would do well. Washington needs the money. And we know that there are people out there willing to pay it.

Connection: I know Kautzman has mentioned that the taxes on beer and cigarettes are there because people will pay them. It’s an addiction; people aren’t just going to say “What? A five hundred dollar tax on my smokes? Fine. I quit smoking! It’s too dang expensive.” No, what they would say instead is “give me two packs.” If people are addicted, they’ll buy it no matter what. Pornography is a very addictive substance and people would be very willing to spend more money if they had to.

By: Dave Marshall

Dave Marshall — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 01:44:03 +0000

In response to Maddy Copus:

I think that adding taxes on to certain things just because they are “wrong” is a horrible idea. Taxes should be added on to things that people buy every day, and that isn’t going to be affected by increasing taxes a little bit. If people are taxed for a luxury, then people aren’t going to buy that luxury. If people are taxed for a need, well, then people still have a need, and are going to buy it. But this p0rn tax is just a bad idea. For one, just like you said, this isn’t something that a lot of people buy, and therefore, a lot of people won’t get mad. Ok, well, if it’s something that not a lot of people buy then there is going to be such a small amount of income, it is going to not even be worth it. Plus there is just so many ways, as you pointed out, to get around it. And as for the fast food tax, I don’t think that could ever fly… Poor people (not to be stereotypical) buy fast food. Take the homeless for example. They can’t spend any extra money buying fast food with a tax on it… People eat McDonalds to survive.

(By the way, Mr. Kautzman, I just wanted to get this post out of the way for the weekend, and I saw Maddy’s article was a good one for me to challenge, so I seized ahold of opportunity, if you will.) So I hope it is a “legal” move to do a response before the weekend. No worries, you may respond at any time during the week once posts have been moderated – Kautzman.

By: Dave Marshall

Dave Marshall — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 01:02:14 +0000

Ok, I would just like to point out that, even if they do pass this, its never going to work out… I mean, who on earth would buy something that they can get all over the internet for free!? Honestly, I think this bill is going to be just one of those things that don’t really do anything for our economy. Actually, it’s likely that it will hurt our economy because people won’t be buying as much p0rn… And more on the subject about taxing the products, it talks about taxing the internet, and how it is so difficult to tax. Well, that, and also, how does someone tax something that’s completely free? I mean, there are so many loopholes around this idea, that I think Congress should totally just drop it…

Connection: We have discussed that deficit spending is one of the greatest ways to come out of debt. Raising taxes is perhaps one of the worst ways. Raising taxes causes people to spend less money, thus anti-stimulating the economy. Well, this will be anti-stimulating the p0rn business… And that will be taking away from the income the government could already be making on the sales tax from it…

By: Clarin McDonald

Clarin McDonald — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:21:50 +0000

I thought this article was very interesting. It’s weird to think that P0rn would be paying for our social services programs. As for me, I think that this is a great plan. People have just been using P0rn forever, and even though they do have to pay for it sometimes, at least this would make the price higher and maybe (hopefully) lower the amount that are using it. However, there are plenty of other “sin” taxes that have increased the cost of items, but that does not stop people from buying them. Although, this article does say that it would be hard to tax the p0rn on the Internet, so maybe we would see a decrease of sales and more usage of p0rn on the Internet. That would mean that the tax wouldn’t really be doing what they hoped it would. It’s sad to say this, but with all the people that use p0rn, the government could be making a lot of money. I think that if the ballot went for a statewide vote, it would definitely pass. Many people are disgusted by the fact that so many are using p0rn, and would like to see it taxed. However, I am sure those who use it would not like to see this bill passed.

Connection:
This connects to the other sin taxes that have been put in place, such as alcohol and nicotine. These taxes keep rising and that doesn’t keep people from not buying their “precious goods.” I am not sure why this sin tax should be any different.

By: Makayla Sander

Makayla Sander — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:19:33 +0000

I think that this is a very interesting idea. It seems like many of the other things like cigarettes and alcohol are all things that not only are included in the “sin” tax, but they are also things that are unavailable to minors. I thought that was interesting. I wonder how much revenue that tax would bring to the state? Would it tax just the sales of p0rn, or would it also tax the people who spend the time and money to produce it? In the article it said that a law very similar to this one was brought up in 2004 but that it failed almost immediately. Well, obviously something has changed. Either people are getting more used to the idea that the government needs to make some more money somehow, or people just aren’t as partial to p0rn anymore. The article also said that the government has a hard time passing any new taxes because the public is so against any raise in taxes, but I wonder how the general public would feel about this tax. Most of the people who vote are elderly and/or have a family, so I don’t see why they would really care if adult materials became more expensive. And, it seems to me that if they raised taxes on that, the government would be less likely to raise taxes on other things that really would affect more people.

Connection: The economy is in such bad condition, I don’t see why people would be opposed to some slight increases in taxes. I say if it helps get the economy going and as long as they aren’t permanent, then the government should go ahead and raise taxes on a few things to help the country.

By: Kathrine Kruse

Kathrine Kruse — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:22:14 +0000

This article was interesting, and the p*rn tax is a very good idea. Like we discussed in class, about the sin taxes, if people really want p*rn then they will pay the tax; same with tobacco and liquor. Maybe this little tax will clean up the state of Washington because then some people might not want to pay the extra tax so they won’t be looking at dirty images. However, the determined people will still go through with it. This is also very useful for Washington since we will be facing a short fall in the next two years. I’m sure this extra money will be helpful to fill in the gaps in the budget. It will also be interesting to see how much money these new taxes bring in. On the bad side, it’s bad that they cannot tax the internet because since the new taxes will arise on store bought p*rn, people might turn to the internet for their pleasures.

CONNECTION>>> The economy. This new tax should be very helpful to Washington’s economy. This will be the little boost we need to stay out of trouble.

By: pkautzman

pkautzman — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:55:59 +0000

By Maddy Copus

I think that Miloscia’s new proposed sin tax is brilliant. I really don’t see the adult entertainment industry as a huge player in the Washington economy so it’s not likely to cause a huge fight with many constituents in Miloscia’s district or any other district in the state. Imposing the 18.5% tax on “magazines, photos, movies, videos, cable TV programs, “telephone services,” audio tapes, computer programs, and unspecified paraphernalia” should provide a huge boost to the state economy. If the state legislature sees it reasonable to impose “sin taxes” on products such as beer, wine, hard liquors, cigarettes, cigars and other tobacco products why not tax another sin? And while we’re at it why not tax the fast food industry? We tax the rest of the products contributing to gluttonous behavior so why not tax fast food too?A fast food tax I do not think would be as likely to pass as the porn tax because the fast food industry serves such a higher portion of the constituents, but one can try.
I think that the issue with internet porn is a very complicated one. If a law is passed requiring all sites publishing porn to charge for access then sites would be created under aliases for other businesses or whatever in an attempt to avoid requiring the viewers to pay for it. The other issue with this is that websites are viewable world wide, so it is impossible to tax only the Washington viewers.

Connection: Boosting economy. The new tax would be a good way to boost the state economy which may in turn lead to an increase in the national economy. It’s a long shot but one can hope that it can improve.

By: Renee Davidson

Renee Davidson — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:34:55 +0000

You know, this actually doesn’t sound like half a bad idea. Yes, there would be plenty of people who wouldn’t be very happy with it, but shouldn’t they have to pay a little extra to pleasure themselves like that? Pornography is disgusting. It may not have exactly the same effects as alcohol or cigarettes, but it is something that I personally would put in the same category with them. People who smoke and drink have to pay tremendous amounts of money in order to feed their addictions. Pornography should be the same way. I don’t know, nor do I want to know, what articles fall under “unspecified paraphernalia”. I know whatever those are have to be bad and there should probably be a tax on them if they aren’t even supposed to be specified.
As I started reading this article, I was wondering how there were ever going to tax the Internet. As I continued reading, my question was answered, they wouldn’t. The only problem with this is anyone who wants pornography is just going to go look on the Internet, rather than go buy it. The government isn’t going to make any money off of the tax if that is the case. That’s the only problem with the Internet, it makes everything so much easier for the people, but it makes things harder for the government in cases like these.

Connection: I don’t know much about pornography except for the fact that it can be found basically anywhere on the Internet. In class about a week ago we were talking about how hard it would be to tax something on the Internet. The Internet isn’t really owned by anyone. It would be too hard to just tax Americans when everyone can look at the same sights worldwide. I’m sure there is the technology, but there isn’t enough willpower to actually go through with something like that. Because it isn’t owned by any one person or country, you basically can’t tax things on the Internet, it just doesn’t work.