Legalizing prostitution in the U.S

[member006]

In all honesty, like abortion, medical marijuana and legalized doctor assisted suicide (in some states)...legalizing it will make it safer for everyone involved.

Will there still be crime involved with it? Yup. Will there still be murders associated with it? Without a doubt. Will people still do it illegally to stay under the radar of the rules (probably tax related though)? Sure. However, how many lives will it save?

But to take a step in this direction, as Americans, we first have to acknowledge the industry does exist and that sex does happen. We need to stop freaking out when Janet Jackson "accidently" shows her nipple during the Superbowl or someone says "fuck" on the radio. As a nation we need to step off our moral high horse, pull our head out of the sand and do something about it vs ignoring it. And will this ever happen? I'm not going to hold my breath.

:thumbsup:

Prostitution - like pronography - is a "victim less crime".

I am in full favor of decriminalizing and legalizing it.
I am not in favor of taxing it (just as I am not in favor of taxing many things - especially those taxes considered "sin" taxes such as taxes on alcohol etc.)cheers,

You of course have the right to feel this way but I am sorry, I disagree with you. Added taxes if they must come into play should be on vices. The things of choice not taxing to death the things of necessity like housing, food and clothing.

You don't need to smoke, you don't need alcohol and you don't need to pay a young lady for sex. If you make the choice to treat/entertain yourself with these luxuries then :dunno:. That's where the extra taxes should trickle in from I feel. Not by over taxing a working family just trying to make it with things that are needed.

You must also remember that these people would become tax paying citizens with taxable income. I pay taxes and so should they, this back alley business of prostitution has had the lions share to long I think. You would expect them to pay income tax wouldn't you?

LL

 

[Roughneck]

One man's "vice" is another man's manna.
What if I don't subscribe to your version of "morality"? Unless I'm harming you or the persons involved - what business is it to you or anyone else?

You would expect them to pay income tax wouldn't you?

Uhhh, unless you've never read any of my posts before - I categorically oppose the Income Tax ... be it you, me or the hooker and contractor. The United States didn't have an "Income Tax" till passage of the 16th.

And may I also point out - 'taxation' has historically been used to suppress the "vices" - be it alcohol, gambling or cigarettes (why else do you think they cost so much?). This attitude was borne out of the desire to control the behavior of others - to discourage "vice".

What's the moral difference between "outlawing" a 'vice' versus "enabling it" but taxing it to the heavens? There is no "moral difference" - only a practical one (only the rich will end up being able to afford it).

Treat adults as adults. I don't want you policing my bedroom habits any more than you'd like me policing your 'liquor cabinet'.

cheers,

PS: If you're talking "want" versus "need" - you don't need to eat beef and chicken. Should we start taxing meat and poultry higher than veggies?

You won't "need" extra taxes if you cut unnecessary spending - but that's a different day, different thread.

 

[member006]

Realistically though its like this. Taxes are here to stay like it or not. So I feel they need to be handled in a sensible manner and certainly not favoring vices. I see legalized prostitution as nothing but a win-win, from health care to tax revenue and all the good things it would bring in between. Just my opinion.

LL

 

[bodie54]

(only the rich will end up being able to afford it).

Yes. A sometimes overlooked reality when it comes to "vice" taxes is that they are inherently unequal for exactly that reason.

 

[Facetious]

When I was a child, I received a full sized commercial gumball machine as a gift from an aunt. Full sized jumbo gum balls for a dime ea.

My dad had the key though, that seemed to torment me such that I'd go to bed at night wishing that I had never received the machine in the first place, but I did, and here I was, plotting what I could do to get the key.

Having friends & relatives patronize the gumball machine, I began to wonder how much money was inside the machine.

I bugged my parents everyday about receiving the key and finally, one day they caved.

They Caved ? Nonsense ! They handed the key over to watch me cave.

"Son, I'm going to give you the responsibility to "handle the bank", If you're responsible in that endeavor, I'll allow you to warehouse the bag of gum balls."

In ten days I broke the bank ie - $00.00 Goose eggs . . . snake º_º eyes baby ! . . . and I had the nerve to ask him for some more gumballs to help out with "the loss" <-- This is your govt. asking for a greater percentage, or other mediums in which to tax us.

Weasely Wascally Bureaucrats coming up with crafty ideas in which how to garner revenues for the general rip off fund c/o your corrupt state legislature.

Thanks for reading :hatsoff:

 

[Roughneck]

Realistically

That's not really the point.

I could quote a dozen issues that are "contemporary" - including US forces occupying foreign land, the Federal Reserve's continual depreciation of our currency, Congress acting akin to a mere 'rubber stamp' to the executive.... et cetera.

ALL those issues would fall under your label of "realistically"....

... But that wouldn't make them "right".
Not by any stretch of the LAW.

Taxes are here to stay like it or not.

Again - it matters little if "I" 'like it or not'.

You aren't making a cohesive logical argument. Simply stating : "Taxes are here to stay, you like it or not" is no different from the storm trooper saying "Nazis are here to stay you like it or not". Or some government bureaucrat saying "The Department of Homeland Security is here to stay, like it or not".

Ad infinitum.

You ignored the fact I presented - namely that "income tax" was never a part of our history and it's a very "recent" phenomenon.

In any case - I was not the one who insisted that "vices" be taxed.

So I feel they need to be handled in a sensible manner and certainly not favoring vices.

Again - what you define as "favoring vices" may not agree with the vast majority of people... or even the tiny minority of some.

That's the beauty of a Republic - it matters not if you're the majority or minority... ALL 'rights' are protected.

I see legalized prostitution as nothing but a win-win

I see legalized prostitution as the FREE expression of adult human beings.

from health care to tax revenue and all the good things it would bring in between.

I think this is where we 'part ways'.

Your claim is "tax revenue and all the good things in between".
My claim is "why should it be taxed and since when did any government funded program be any efficient and do any good?"

Just my opinion.
LL

As it mine... :hatsoff:

cheers,

 

[member006]

:hatsoff:

Realistically though its like this. Taxes are here to stay if we like it or not.

Please don't split quotes it ruins the point that a person was making and if it helps in understanding what I was saying I added two words. I didn't mean you I meant in general. I never said YOU in my post, yet you quote me as saying it.

I am sorry RN but if you think the 'taxes are here to stay' statement was wrong I really don't know what to say.

LL

 

[lovejoy]

Gambling has long been accepted as a form of entertainment but prostitution will remain illegal in US forever except in Nevada.

Unfortunately, the conservative will continue to veto any laws to pass legalization of prostitution in the Congress.

Prostitution will remain as escort service, massage palour, and in the dark alley but also in Washington, D.C. serving the rich and famous.

America would not allow any legal prostituion so this thread is dead.

 

[pathfinder]

Legalize it.
Tax it.
Regulate it.
What's the problem? It's being done anyway. Just like drugs. Legal or not. If it were legal it would not only cut down on tax money being spent on arrests/incarceration/health problems, but it would bring money into the state or country's tax revenue. I don't see how this isn't something "they" would want to do. I guess it's an issue of morality or some crap like that... even though I'm sure some of those fat fucks in D.C. have gotten a hooker at some point.

 

[titsrock]

You aren't making a cohesive logical argument. Simply stating : "Taxes are here to stay, you like it or not" is no different from the storm trooper saying "Nazis are here to stay you like it or not". Or some government bureaucrat saying "The Department of Homeland Security is here to stay, like it or not".

Roughneck, this is the singular dumbest analogy I've ever read on this board. How are taxes comparable to Nazis? I assure you that the majority of Americans do not want taxes (and the services they provide) to go away completely. They want low taxes and an end to wasteful spending.

The meager existence of Nazis in America, today, makes for nothing more then an interesting philosophical debate about the purpose and importance of adhering to various "Rights"...

The DHS has not proven to be a useful government service. A lot of Libs and Wackoes would join you in wanting to take it down and dismantle it. FEMA, the Coast Guard, the Civil Air Patrol all ran more efficiently when they were separate entities.

 

[Facetious]

How about a woman's right to choose !!

:hatsoff:

 

[Member2019]

Re: Rhetoric v. reality ...

Among "people of faith" this issue goes far beyond matters of funding.

But you started with ...
In a country where ...

I honestly think some people need someone to disagree with sometimes. Seriously, those people are a minority. Furthermore, they are against government funded stem cell research. They can't do anything about private, and most don't.

That's what I was pointing out. That's the "controversy."

The fact it's legal doesn't mean it's a given, as in universally accepted. As we all know Roe vs Wade remains one of the most controversial, divisive issues in this nation.

It's a given. The only way to reverse it is by a supermajority in a federal Constitutional Amendment.

If they cannot have a state sponsored title of marriage then there's no "yes and no", simply a no.

A title doesn't define my marriage.

I live for the day you walk in, as for a "civil union" form and you, the individual with the right get to choose your box on what the title is. Until then, both the Democrats and Republicans, both the mainstream gay rights movement as well as religious right, are just wrong.

I don't believe in "special rights." That not only goes for the religious right, but those who want "gay marriage" to be "special" over any other union as well, or "the only equal to straight marriage."

Those aren't demographics that are highly likely to oppose legalizing prostitution, so your point, if you're looking to make one here pertaining to the subject, is lost on me.

My point is you started with ...
In a country where ...

In a country where ...I said "generalized", meaning at minimum the majority.[/QUOTE] No, not the majority.

A majority of the American public is not against stem cell research.

A majority of the American public believe in Roe v. Wade and believe it should be upheld.

A majority of the American public believe gays should be allowed to marry, although there are some semantics beyond that (which I don't think anyone has an overriding majority).

In fact, prostitution does not correspond well to these subjects.

 

[Member2019]

I am sorry RN but if you think the 'taxes are here to stay' statement was wrong I really don't know what to say.

But what type of taxes? And what for? And who do we sent them to? One big federal? The states? Both? And how much to each?

One reason I really like Roughneck is because he asks those same questions, and we don't deal in absolutes. I think the 35+ thread applies here as well.

It's not about "taxes being here to stay", but about people actually questioning, "why should we keep some existing taxes?" as well as "why should we enact yet new ones?"

There are common tactics used to justify taxes, raising taxes, etc... If you've lived in the same area for 25+ years, you can quickly attest that they use the same justifications over and over, misappropriating the previous taxes gained for things other than what they promised.

Schools are especially overused for local and state taxes, whereby the administrators and administrative buildings are improved, not the schools and the teacher's salaries.

 

[titsrock]

I find it amusing that you, Prof, and Roughneck, are against taxing Prostitution, in our hypothetical, even though the point of these taxes, would go to providing "health and ethics" standards...like some sort of regular mandated testing, and these taxes would not go to some porkbarrel slush project for somebody. I'm sure most tax payers would object to general tax dollars going to this service if they have no intention of ever using it. Most tax payers do not oppose the ideas of education/health/police/fire dept..they may quibble about the execution of these services, but that's a different debate.

In this hypothetical, how can a private company provide better service for the customer and better conditions for the lady? How can you assure me that a company wouldn't merely cobble together fake tests, fake IDs, fake whatever in order to soak the customer and screw over the lady?

 

[bodie54]

Feeling argumentative, Prof?

It's a given. The only way to reverse it is by a supermajority in a federal Constitutional Amendment.

LOL I am not Fox. The civics surrounding Roe vs Wade were never at issue in this discussion. The only thing that appears to be at issue is that you and I have different definitions of the word "given", at least in this context.

A majority of the American public is not against stem cell research.
A majority of the American public believe in Roe v. Wade and believe it should be upheld.
A majority of the American public believe gays should be allowed to marry

At no time did I claim otherwise.

If you go back and read where and how I used the word "generalized" you will find it was strictly in reference to my opinion that prostitution will not become "generally" legalized in the forseeable future.

 

[member006]

But what type of taxes? And what for? And who do we sent them to? One big federal? The states? Both? And how much to each?
One reason I really like Roughneck is because he asks those same questions, and we don't deal in absolutes. I think the 35+ thread applies here as well.

It's not about "taxes being here to stay", but about people actually questioning, "why should we keep some existing taxes?" as well as "why should we enact yet new ones?"

There are common tactics used to justify taxes, raising taxes, etc... If you've lived in the same area for 25+ years, you can quickly attest that they use the same justifications over and over, misappropriating the previous taxes gained for things other than what they promised.

Schools are especially overused for local and state taxes, whereby the administrators and administrative buildings are improved, not the schools and the teacher's salaries.

If you read my posts you would be aware of 'what type' I was talking of.

You must also remember that these people would become tax paying citizens with taxable income. I pay taxes and so should they, this back alley business of prostitution has had the lions share to long I think. You would expect them to pay income tax wouldn't you?

LL

Also sorry but we are getting a bit off topic. This meat of this thread wasn't about taxes. Its about legalizing prostitution, seems the only discussion now is taxes. I simply stated regulate them, tax them and bring in the needed revenue. I also stated protect them as well as the public and many other things that legalizing it would do. My opinion.

Why should prostitutes and pimps make a good living and not pay taxes? If you all think they should get by with it, while the rest of America struggles, then please book ticket to D.C. You belong there with the rest of the light bulbs and their ideas.

Do you think it should be legalized?

LL

 

[l.t.21378]

Prostitution will never be fully legalised, I can see some states going through with it, but never fully. That's what I think at least.

 

[xxaru]

I find it amusing that you, Prof, and Roughneck, are against taxing Prostitution, in our hypothetical, even though the point of these taxes, would go to providing "health and ethics" standards...like some sort of regular mandated testing, and these taxes would not go to some porkbarrel slush project for somebody. I'm sure most tax payers would object to general tax dollars going to this service if they have no intention of ever using it. Most tax payers do not oppose the ideas of education/health/police/fire dept..they may quibble about the execution of these services, but that's a different debate.

In this hypothetical, how can a private company provide better service for the customer and better conditions for the lady? How can you assure me that a company wouldn't merely cobble together fake tests, fake IDs, fake whatever in order to soak the customer and screw over the lady?

Why would you want to test prostitutes?

 

[Member2019]

I find it amusing that you, Prof, and Roughneck, are against taxing Prostitution

We're against various new taxes. If there is a general income tax, then it would apply equally.

In this hypothetical, how can a private company provide better service for the customer and better conditions for the lady? How can you assure me that a company wouldn't merely cobble together fake tests, fake IDs, fake whatever in order to soak the customer and screw over the lady?

Huh? Don't you understand most of this is already private in other industries today? What government provides "testing"? What government provides most "IDs" (other than DL and Passport)?

I think you're mistaken on what the government exactly does, God help us!

 

[Member2019]

Feeling argumentative, Prof?
... LOL I am not Fox ... The only thing that appears to be at issue is that you and I have different definitions of the word "given", at least in this context.

Okay, points taken. My apologies then.

Just understand I don't focus on the "religious right" as the "norm" any more than the "socialist left."