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.
