Saturday, May 24, 2008

Hungry For Money, California Democrat Proposes Porn Tax


















Calderon dances with Villagairosa .......................................................... Shelley Lubben

Democrats and other leftists around the globe have never hidden they love to tax any and everything. Bottled water was proposed, coffee, alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, even babies have been subjected to proposals for tax. But a tax on Pornography?

Yes, Pornography, the scourge of the religious and sanctimonious among us, is the latest to fall under a Democrats proposal to raise needed revenue to make up budget shortfalls in California. California Assemblyman Charles Calderon, Democrat from Montebello has proposed a 25% tax be placed on the “gross revenues from the sale of pornographic magazines, photos, books, films and videotapes, and on the gross earnings of live sexually explicit entertainment and pay-per-view pornography provided to hotel guests.”

Calderon’s AB 2914 is estimated to produce an extra $665 million a year for the cash strapped state buried in entitlements. Assemblyman Calderon said,
AB 2914 would tax adult entertainment and adult entertainment venues in a manner similar to the way in which cigarettes and alcohol are already taxed in this state. This measure would tax adult entertainment in a comparable manner, with the intent to use the funds to address the various secondary effects associated with the production and consumption of adult entertainment. The secondary effects of production are especially noteworthy as California is the capital of the adult entertainment industry in the United States.”


Secondary effects” include testing and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, treatment for drug and alcohol abuse, health care and mental health treatment as well as law enforcement efforts at combating it.

Calderon also claims the bill makes no moral judgment on the states lucrative pornography business, estimated earning some $3.5 billion a year,
it merely asks the industry to help mitigate some of its ancillary effects in the state that is its production capital.”


Fellow Democrat, Cathleen Galgiani of Livingston, has signed on as a Chief Co-sponsor of the bill.

Ex-Porn Star, Shelley Lubben, who supports the bill and campaigns on its behalf through a group known as Pink Cross says,
“[The] tax is justified because of the ill effects porn has on performers and consumers. Everything from addiction to drugs or sex itself, assault, disease, rape and prostitution can be counted as side effects of the industry.”


Opponents feel it would drive porn jobs out of the state or cause a drastic drop in revenues from reduced sales. Some have even brought up the possibility of the measure being unconstitutional, with legal opinions on the measure’s content currently mixed.

State Republicans have indicated they would oppose the measure because it is a tax increase, leaving the measure short of the 2/3 majority needed to pass the measure and impose the tax.

After a hearing earlier in the month the bill has been placed in the “suspense file,” leaving it able to be retrieved at a later date, or dead for this legislative session.

This writer has always maintained that Democrats would tax your ass if given the chance. California Democrat Charles Calderon proves they indeed would.

4 comments:

bigcock said...

Should Republicans who are against raising taxes be against this bill even though many in their base would like to give porn a hard blow? Some think taxing porn would give it some legitimacy. If I were in the biz, I'd leave the state if there were such a tax.

Lew Waters said...

Interesting name for a commenter on a Porn thread, LOL.

But, you are correct. It would grant legitimacy to the industry.

I also see it as insanity to tax something heavily you desire to do away with, only to become dependent upon those revenues and lose them as interest withers.

Then again, as I tried to portray, there seems to be nothing the Democrats won't try to attach taxes to.

I'm waiting for them to propose taxing illegal drugs as well.

Music said...

I think this is a perfect example of the Democrats finding a middle ground (applying a tax that targets smut which most respectable people but perhaps especially religious republicans would like to see eliminated) and the right being blind to the overall picture and refusing to budge and ending up with something they would rather not have, porn, when they could have easily cut down on it. I know some republicans are opposed to any taxes but bottom line you need at least some tax revenue, especially in a state that is majorly in debt. . . .Why not kill two birds with one stone? You personally are not going to feel the effects of it anyway unless you consume porn and I think most porn consumers wish they had a reason to break the habit anyway. . . If the tax creates less demand for porn then we still make some extra money for schools and roads and programs for old and sick people and Hugh Hefner forgoes an expansion on his mansion and a lot of nice girls find their way into more dignified careers. . .

Lew Waters said...

Why not just outlaw it, music? Why the need for excessive taxation on something the majority seems to not be interested in?

If they succeed, as they did with Tobacco and smoking bans, where do they go next?

What do they do once they get accustomed to the revenue as it decreases because their claimed desired outcome happens?

Do you really think the monies would remain only as called for?

Doesn't it bother you a little that Democrats answer to everything is to raise taxes on it?

What do they tax next to regulate behavior?