An article on Economist.com has brought to my attention an interesting phenomenon. There has recently been a $5 surcharge implemented on entry fees to strip clubs in Texas. This "pole tax" is expected to generate $40 million in revenue each year. The interesting part is this- the proceeds are earmarked for helping to support victims of sexual assault.
A major issue here is that this action draws a direct link between club patronage and sexual assault. Does this villify a perfectly legal and legitimate business sector?
The State representative that proposed the measure defends it by saying that both sexual assault and strip clubs objectify women. This was enough of a link for the legislators of Texas to pass her proposal. But is it really enough of a link, is there more being implied by the surcharge than she's really letting on? When a similar proposal was made a few years ago, the main difference was that the beneficiary would be the public school system. This was deemed inappropriate, rightly so, as schools should not be linked with these cesspits. But is this new proposal more appropriate?
To me it sounds as though Texas is basically saying that strip clubs and sexual assault are inextricably linked, and that the patrons of these businesses must be penalised for their objectification of women, which is similar to sexual assault, or I could go a step further and say that I would understand if these customers felt that an accusatory finger was being pointed at them in relation to sexual assault.
The article tells us that targeted taxation has become quite fashionable in recent years. Examples include taxation on retailers of fizzy drinks funding a healthy eating promotion in San Francisco, which seems like an appropriate suggestion, and proposed taxations on video games raising funds for the juvenile criminal system, which is a link similar in questionability to the strip club taxation.
Adam Smith tells us that we should only tax when it is absolutely necessary. I am sure that there is a necessity for extra funding to support juvenile criminal facilities, or Rape Crisis centres, but it is crucial that taxation is spread fittingly throughout the population, and that everyone pays their fair share toward healing the ills of society. The example of retailers of fizzy drinks being forced to pay a surcharge that would fund healthy eating seems acceptable to me (if I am accepting targeted taxation as a valid system) , as the retailers are directly responsible for supplying a product that is detrimental to a healthy diet.
Retailers can then choose to stop supplying the product, or pass on the cost to their customers, thus raising awareness that the drinks are bad for your health.
Using this analysis on the strip club surcharge, club owners can choose between getting rid of the girls, or passing on the cost to the chumps who sit there gawping at them, thus raising awareness that strip clubs objectify women.
The difference here is that while retailers of fizzy drinks are directly responsible for the negative effects on society that are hoped to be curbed by a healthy eating plan, we cannot say that strip club proprietors are providing a service that is directly responsible for sexual assaults on women.
The reason we cannot say this is because once we admit to something like that, it questions the legality of strip clubs. How can something that is responsible for, or encourages, something like rape, ever be justified?
This is the snake pit legislators will find themselves in sooner or later if targeted taxation continues to escalate. targeted taxation is essentially a fine- pole tax is a penalty being paid by all customers of strip clubs for the actions of rapists.
A major issue here is that this action draws a direct link between club patronage and sexual assault. Does this villify a perfectly legal and legitimate business sector?
The State representative that proposed the measure defends it by saying that both sexual assault and strip clubs objectify women. This was enough of a link for the legislators of Texas to pass her proposal. But is it really enough of a link, is there more being implied by the surcharge than she's really letting on? When a similar proposal was made a few years ago, the main difference was that the beneficiary would be the public school system. This was deemed inappropriate, rightly so, as schools should not be linked with these cesspits. But is this new proposal more appropriate?
To me it sounds as though Texas is basically saying that strip clubs and sexual assault are inextricably linked, and that the patrons of these businesses must be penalised for their objectification of women, which is similar to sexual assault, or I could go a step further and say that I would understand if these customers felt that an accusatory finger was being pointed at them in relation to sexual assault.
The article tells us that targeted taxation has become quite fashionable in recent years. Examples include taxation on retailers of fizzy drinks funding a healthy eating promotion in San Francisco, which seems like an appropriate suggestion, and proposed taxations on video games raising funds for the juvenile criminal system, which is a link similar in questionability to the strip club taxation.
Adam Smith tells us that we should only tax when it is absolutely necessary. I am sure that there is a necessity for extra funding to support juvenile criminal facilities, or Rape Crisis centres, but it is crucial that taxation is spread fittingly throughout the population, and that everyone pays their fair share toward healing the ills of society. The example of retailers of fizzy drinks being forced to pay a surcharge that would fund healthy eating seems acceptable to me (if I am accepting targeted taxation as a valid system) , as the retailers are directly responsible for supplying a product that is detrimental to a healthy diet.
Retailers can then choose to stop supplying the product, or pass on the cost to their customers, thus raising awareness that the drinks are bad for your health.
Using this analysis on the strip club surcharge, club owners can choose between getting rid of the girls, or passing on the cost to the chumps who sit there gawping at them, thus raising awareness that strip clubs objectify women.
The difference here is that while retailers of fizzy drinks are directly responsible for the negative effects on society that are hoped to be curbed by a healthy eating plan, we cannot say that strip club proprietors are providing a service that is directly responsible for sexual assaults on women.
The reason we cannot say this is because once we admit to something like that, it questions the legality of strip clubs. How can something that is responsible for, or encourages, something like rape, ever be justified?
This is the snake pit legislators will find themselves in sooner or later if targeted taxation continues to escalate. targeted taxation is essentially a fine- pole tax is a penalty being paid by all customers of strip clubs for the actions of rapists.
3 comments:
Why the devil have you labelled this with civil rights? Seeing girls dance around a poll is hardly a civil right, even in Texas!
I wasn't sure whether to reply here or on the boards, but the label decided for me :P
Firstly, this isn't all that shocking, federalism has led to a fair amount of crazies with little bits of power that they like to use. There are hundreds of examples of crazy state laws, snopes.com has a good selection.
Secondly, going to a strip club is a luxury, so if the democratically elected legislators of a region wish to tax the crap out of it, fine by me.
Thirdly, as to the link, while it may be a bit daft, again I go to democracy, and if the elected see it as enough of a link, who are we to judge?
My real problems with this are the, shame, practicalities. Is funding for sexual assualt victims so low that this is necessary? Because that's a big problem if they're strapped for cash!
Also, how do you think a sexual assault victim would feel about their therapy or rehabilition or whatever being paid for by some perve?!
Oh and on the whole notion of punishing strip club goers for the actions of rapists, now that truly is a tenuous link! Targetted taxation is not a fine. If it was, it would be called a fine. There is a big difference between a littering fine and the plastic bag levy. Rich people don't get taxed higher because they use up more roads than everyone else, governments choose to tax them higher as it is an effective system. Now, whether or not the taxation in question will be effective is quite doubtful, but I'd have not problem with the principles underlying it.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ha ha ha ha The civil rights tag was especially for you!!
there is indeed a big difference between a littering fine (punishment for littering) and a plastic bag levy (choosing to use a new plastic bag to carry purchases).
the levy is to discourage people from using plastic bags, and the revenue acquired from this goes toward environmental initiatives.
so a levy on going to a strip club is to...discourage people from going to the clubs? I can see how club owners could balk a little at the implementation of this levy.
as for the revenue acquired going to help those affected by sexual assault, I stand by my comments that I think this is wholly inappropriate, as like it or not, it does create a link between strip clubs and sex crimes, one which has not been backed up by any kind of evidence, unlike a levy introduced on plastic bags.
And of course legislators are going to pass the legislation as long as there is some plausible link- strip clubs are not exactly favoured by public officials due to the nature of such businesses and the fact that discriminating against the demographic that choose to go to them is not going to detrimentally affect a state rep one whit come election time.
I don't know Niamh, a strip club in Texas probably has a slightly higher quality of clientel than one in Westport!
Post a Comment