Alabama Proposes Whopping 40% 'Porn Tax' to Help Fund Essential Services

[PureX]

Still waiting for you to show how to tax an action which requires no exchange of money or personal information to happen.

For me the unconstitutionality of attempting to tax the act of accessing a particular kind of freely available information is secondary to the complete impossibility and thus idiocy of such an attempt.

This will be another flakey attempt at imposing conservative idiocy on the general public shot down in the courts, if it even makes it that far.

It's absurdly unworkable, but politicians LOVE sin taxes, and so will try and float any possible variation no matter how absurd, in the remote hope that they'll get away with it.

 

[Sitamun]

Yes comical, can you see anything in the op claiming to tax something free? Post it.

I was rather commenting that the idea wasn't going to generate nearly as much revenue as they seem to think, as the vast majority of porn is viewed for free on the internet, thus NO TAX MONEY. That was all I was commenting on really. There is absolutely no way to tax something no one pays for.

I think the idea of such a tax being unconstitutional is IF, and only IF, the state tried to tax a "free" item. I think there was a misunderstanding or miscommunication.

 

[Angel4Truth]

This will be another flakey attempt at imposing conservative idiocy on the general public shot down in the courts, if it even makes it that far.

It's absurdly unworkable, but politicians LOVE sin taxes, and so will try and float any possible variation no matter how absurd, in the remote hope that they'll get away with it.

Please do state what law it violates, to tax something, and show how this would be any different than taxing cigarettes, alcohol, gasoline, or a luxury tax.

I see a bunch of objections, but no facts.

 

[Foxfire]

How, cite where and how its a violation of the first amendment.

Cigarettes, gas, alcohol are taxed too and paid by only those who use them.

Never been a fan of creative taxation. It always finds a way to snowball.

The examples that you offer are all tangible and controllable commodities. The taxation of which involves a tacit compact that affords some level of implied social acceptability.

I'm not willing to concede to that contract.

Whereas the OP suggests taxation of visual intangibles. What one sees.

That's not an altogether implausible prospect. It isn't a huge leap from the "view tax" on luxury estate views implemented by New Hampshire along with a handful of local municipalities across the country.

But once started down that slope, where is the departure point that crosses over into a persons right to see?

 

[Ktoyou]

Wait, what?
You mean anyone can without joining and saying you are at least 18 years old to view?
That's kinda disturbing.

No, it would have to be purchased. I would not mind, if they get it right and not go crazy on the sale of literature when it is not sold in an 'adult' bookstore/ then I dislike porn:thumb:

 

[Ktoyou]

Alabama Proposes Whopping 40% 'Porn Tax' to Help Fund Essential Services; Bill's Definition of 'Porn' Seems Problematic



What do you think about sin taxes? Do you see any problems with some of the mediums listed above?

Id like to know how they intended to enforce these 2:

telephone communication
oral communication

And what exactly is defined as:

sexual conduct

Some people call flirting sexual conduct.

Sin taxes seem outmoded. It would run into problems when purchases made in the net. The interstate issue would be a nightmare. They would be better off trying to impose a sales tax and no state has done this yet?

It may get them votes?

The only thing I can see as fitting the sexual misconduct definition would be XXX rated movies, with no plot, only porn. Porn books and paraphernalia?

 

[Christian Liberty]

How, cite where and how its a violation of the first amendment.

Cigarettes, gas, alcohol are taxed too and paid by only those who use them.

Its not a first amendment violation. But its a bad idea. It creates a perverse incentive for government to support porn sales in order to make money for the State.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Its not a first amendment violation. But its a bad idea. It creates a perverse incentive for government to support porn sales in order to make money for the State.

You dont think a tax of 40 percent, is a deterrent?

 

[Ktoyou]

Its not a first amendment violation. But its a bad idea. It creates a perverse incentive for government to support porn sales in order to make money for the State.

perverse incentive?
support porn sales in order to make money for the State?

These are very poor arguments

 

[rexlunae]

How, cite where and how its a violation of the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...

Cigarettes, gas, alcohol are taxed too and paid by only those who use them.

None of which are speech.

 

[Mocking You]

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...

None of which are speech.

Take a look at the ticket stub from the next movie you attend and you will see that it's taxed. The next book you buy. The next magazine. Same principle would apply in Alabama. Did you read the article? Taxable items include magazines, books, written materials, picture, drawing, motion picture, etc.

There's a law in California that porn stars have to wear condoms. You going to argue that is unconstitutional? How about seat belt laws?

 

[rexlunae]

Take a look at the ticket stub from the next movie you attend and you will see that it's taxed.

Yes, it's charged sales tax. However, the tax is not determined from the contents, it's determined from the price. If the government could examine the content of a work in setting a tax upon it, they could impose an effective ban with a prohibitive tax.

http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/meet/09am/papers/kaminski_goodman.pdf

There's a law in California that porn stars have to wear condoms. You going to argue that is unconstitutional?

That's actually an LA county law. The Supreme Court recognizes the right of the government to implement certain regulations even in the face of the First Amendment based upon a compelling government purpose (see above link). If it survives a challenge, which isn't a given, it would have to be couched in a legitimate interest in protecting the health and safety of the porn workers. The burden isn't impossible to overcome, but I don't think simple moral disapproval would overcome the strict scrutiny usually applied to censorship laws.

I think it would break down as a workplace safety regulation, which is allowed. It's notable that the law only applies to works produced in Los Angeles County, not to those that are merely distributed here.

How about seat belt laws?

That's not really about speech, is it? Are you going to argue that being forced to wear a seatbelt is some sort of censorship? What are you trying to do, a splatter-paint work called Brains on Pavement?

 

[PureX]

Please do state what law it violates, to tax something, and show how this would be any different than taxing cigarettes, alcohol, gasoline, or a luxury tax.

I see a bunch of objections, but no facts.

Those are all objective commodities. This 'sin tax' is attempting to tax subjective content. How does the image of a woman's breast become pornographic, as opposed to it being biologically illustrative, or artistically expressive? What about a medical textbook that has drawn illustration of genitals, or of procreative interactions? And now days these text books will tend have photographs instead of drawings because they're more illustrative of the biological mechanisms involved.

Picasso did a lot of semi-abstract drawings and paintings of sexual couplings. At what point will the state determine and claim these are not abstract works of art but are pornography? And how could they possibly back up such a claim?

And how will the state know who is accessing a porn site on their computer, so as to tax the porn, when the site is in Russia and the viewer is in the privacy of his own home? And how will the state determine the value of the porn being viewed, when it's being viewed for free?

This whole thing is idiotic and unworkable. It's just politicians grandstanding, and hoping to find new ways of taxing the public while appearing righteous at the same time.

 

[HisServant]

The more you tax something the less revenue you receive from it.

I hope they built that into their budget or all this will do is cause an even bigger shortfall next year.

 

[PureX]

Alabama porno!

 

[annabenedetti]

:chuckle: That's awesome. Made me laugh.

 

[Mocking You]

Yes, it's charged sales tax. However, the tax is not determined from the contents, it's determined from the price. If the government could examine the content of a work in setting a tax upon it, they could impose an effective ban with a prohibitive tax.

A fair point. A workaround would be charging more for a business license to sell pornography.

That's not really about speech, is it? Are you going to argue that being forced to wear a seatbelt is some sort of censorship?

No, but opponents have called it an infringement on their freedom.

 

[rexlunae]

A fair point. A workaround would be charging more for a business license to sell pornography.

I don't think there's any difference, constitutionally. A discriminatory licensing policy would be censorship. I don't think they could even get away with a separate licensure for pornography sales.

No, but opponents have called it an infringement on their freedom.

Any law is potentially an infringement on a freedom. That doesn't make it unconstitutional. And I think there's a pretty clear government interest in preventing road deaths.

 

[fool]

The Internet is half porn and 90% of it is free.
This has been a Public Service Announcement.

 

[rexlunae]

The Internet is half porn and 90% of it is free.
This has been a Public Service Announcement.

I think you got those two numbers reversed.