Internet Porn Tax

Nick Gillespie | July 26, 2005

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), certainly one of the very most anonymous members of the crew known as World's Greatest Deliberative Nobodies, may be on the verge of becoming well-known. For being an idiot.

Lincoln, sez the Los Angeles Times, is

planning to propose a new 25 percent federal tax on Internet pornography and new requirements for adult Web sites to help prevent children from looking at them.

The bill, expected to be introduced next week...would impose the excise tax on transactions with for-profit adult Web sites, which typically sell monthly subscriptions to Internet users to look at pornographic photographs or videos.

Whole thing here.

Tip o' the pixel to Mike Snell, whose entertaining wine-and-tax-infused Web site is here.

Comments

Adam|7.26.05 @ 3:58PM|#

A Democrat looking to raise taxes? No fucking way.

|7.26.05 @ 4:02PM|#

Okay, all you lawyer types, school us. There's got to be a buttload (no pun intended) of 1st Amendment and Interstate Commerce issues involved ....

|7.26.05 @ 4:04PM|#

The bill, expected to be introduced next week...would impose the excise tax on transactions with for-profit adult Web sites,

So what if someone starts a non-profit porno site? Would they still have to pay the tax then? After all, isn't it just a charitable donation?

The Good Senator's website

The Wine Commonsewer|7.26.05 @ 4:06PM|#

Thanks Nick, I appreciate the mention.

Not that I ever met any tax I liked, but if you must have a porn tax, 25% seems really steep to me.

|7.26.05 @ 4:14PM|#

"So what if someone starts a non-profit porno site?"

Or an online porn church. Y'know, pagan temple prostitute kinda' thing...

|7.26.05 @ 4:26PM|#

The recent public offering of Party Gaming on the London Stock Exchange is instructive. The company is now one of the FTSE 100. It gets most of its business--mainly on-line poker playing--from the US. Management had the balls to call the bluff of various US regulatory agencies (with Blanche's mindset).

|7.26.05 @ 4:27PM|#

Well, this stupid politician is at least smart enough to know that if you pick a socially unpopular item (or at least, people make the pretense of it being a "bad thing"), you can tax it like crazy. For example, the way smokers are taxed on cigarettes. Or the proposed "junk" food taxes.

Now, of course, if this thing were actually put into law (which I don't think it will make it past the Bill O'Reilly blabbering stage), I guess these sites could always go offshore, or make a deal with Indian leaders to relocate their servers to reservations, alongside the cigarette stores.

Also, there is so much free adult stuff on the Net, who is he going to tax? I can't think of a single guy I know who surfs the Net for adult material that's actually paying for it. What he's going to do, propose a P(orn)-Chip for every PC in America to log whether or not you've been watching Paris Hilton Do The Nasty?

Also, this politician might want to explore some legacy technology for children using the Net, called "Involved Parents Who Don't Use PCs and TVs as Babysitters"

I hear that technology can work wonders ...

|7.26.05 @ 4:27PM|#

When exactly did the government get into the thieft as its prime excuse for existence? I mean, it wasn't always like this, was it? Didn't the colonists rebel against England because we didn't like being taxed all the time?

|7.26.05 @ 4:28PM|#

So... the puritans in power seem to have found the answers to their prayers from the Raich ruling. Just shut the shit down via interstate commerce.

I'm not sure if Lincoln is aware that there's untold terabytes out there that can be accessed for free. I'm also not sure if Lincoln is aware that the best stuff is foreign made, which wouldn't be covered by any taxed anyway, unless it's a consumer-side tax. (US stuff is all silicone and hairless. Ick.)

Thanks TWC, for the heads up. Did you see my apology from last week? (About the poor choice of using your linage instead of mine as an evolutionary example. I was tired, and didn't realize it could have been misconstrued as an insult until the next day.)

|7.26.05 @ 4:30PM|#

1. Please explain to me how a 25% tax will keep children from viewing prnography.

2. Also explain why anyone with a reasonable grasp of economics should not know that additional taxation will just hurt the people attempting to do business legally within the U.S. while providing tax revenue, instead of forcing those law-abiding sites to go offshore and therefore provide exactly zero tax revenue, not unlike online casinos.

|7.26.05 @ 4:32PM|#

"So what if someone starts a non-profit porno site?"

Hi, I'm Sally Struthers. Millions of men in poverty sticken countries without Internet access across our globe don't have access to Paris Hilton or bukakke tapes.

For just 50 cents a day, your donation can supply a bachelor party of four in a third world country online porn for several hours.

Won't you please help?

A wet dream is a terrible thing to waste ...

|7.26.05 @ 4:33PM|#

Its all about the children eh?

Mom and Dad still too busy to supervise junior, so let the government do it.

|7.26.05 @ 4:44PM|#

So, how are they going to tax websites hosted outside the U.S.? Are we going to adopt Chinese blocking technology? :(

|7.26.05 @ 4:53PM|#

There's an old joke that only idiots pay for porn on the Internet.

Thus, $0 x 0.25 = $0.

I can't imagine an easier way to dodge a tax entirely.

|7.26.05 @ 5:05PM|#

They'll have to pry the porn away from my dead, RSI stricken hands!

|7.26.05 @ 5:06PM|#

They should only tax sucky porn, like Playboy nudes and upskirt shots. Good hardcore porn should be considered a public service.

|7.26.05 @ 5:11PM|#

Edited for brevity, paraphrased for topicality


All sites can be indecent sites
Though recent sites are bolder,
For filth (I'm glad to say) is in
the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed,
Everything is lewd.
(I could tell you things about "Coed-Cam,"
And Larry Flynt, there's a dirty old man!)

I thrill
To any site with Pam or Jill,
And I suppose I always will,
If it is swill
And really fil...thy.

Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?
I've got a hobby: e-mailing Lady Chatterley.
But now they're trying to tax it all
away from us unless
We take a stand, and hand in hand
we fight for freedom of the press.
(and commerce)

Smut! (I love it)
Ah, the adventures of a slut.
Oh, I'm a market they can't glut,
I don't know what
Compares with smut.

Hip hip hooray!
Let's hear it for the Free Market!
Don't let them tax it away!

|7.26.05 @ 5:30PM|#

I went to her Web site, and Senator Lincoln's face would look really cute PhotoShopped onto a hot (if a tad on the skinny side, for versimilitude) naked body.

|7.26.05 @ 6:07PM|#

A wet dream is a terrible thing to waste ...

A wet dream wet-deferred ...

B.D.|7.26.05 @ 6:09PM|#

[i]Or an online porn church. Y'know, pagan temple prostitute kinda' thing...[/i]

There already is one: http://www.whitehouse.gov/

The Wine Commonsewer|7.26.05 @ 6:46PM|#

Speaking of Porn Churches, I used to hang with a guy named B. Gonz (same guy that fooled the UCLA prof with his carbon dated chunk of wood from the bushes of the 405).

He claimed to worship at the Church of Head.

'Nuff said.

Nuclear Warhead Regards, TWC

The Wine Commonsewer|7.26.05 @ 6:49PM|#

KMW,

No offense taken and no apology required. That is a major limitation of this kind of communication. No nuances, no facial expressions, no sardonic smiles, so sometimes it is hard to get a read on exact meaning and vice versa (is my comment being read in the context I meant it).

I didn't respond over there because I figured the thread was well past done and you wouldn't see it.

Then I got busy with some other stuff. I think they call it work.

And I had to post that bikini clad hottie with the two bass over at winecommonsewer.com.

|7.26.05 @ 6:59PM|#

An internet Church of Porn could have as its slogan - "Paying for Porn is against my Religion"

|7.26.05 @ 7:57PM|#

So now we see the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

The Democrat (Lincoln) proposes a tax (what a surprise) that can be easily avoided. She is either pandering to her base or ignorant of economics. Probably both. The end result will be little different from today, as providers relocate servers and consumers update bookmarks. Again, assuming anyone is dumb enough to pay for porn in the first place.

The Republican (Sensenbrenner; see next H&R item) proposes jail and fines. He is either pandering to his base or ignorant of human nature. Probably both. The end result will be several (many?) people ruined, as they are dragged into court. Even if they escape the penalties, they have incurred huge losses in the forms of legal fees, lost time, and damage to their reputations.

So which party are we supposed to think is the lesser of two evils again?

|7.26.05 @ 7:58PM|#

Yeah, TWC, she was nice...

|7.26.05 @ 9:58PM|#

Wouldn't that just create more incentive to offshore our lucrative porn industry? I hear Elbonia doesn't have a comparable porn tax...

|7.27.05 @ 8:29AM|#

It's interesting that only libertarians defend porn. All the others fall over themselves attacking it, though I suspect they have bigger porn stashes then the Vatican. I mean, it's not just libertarians buying this stuff, is it?

I'm totally not into S&M, but Lincoln needs to be sent to the dungeon, and get a nice spanking. She's a bad, bad little girl.

|7.27.05 @ 12:06PM|#

Is it possible to get the Sorority Voyeur Dorm classified as a church? Can I get a witness?