Considering my proposal to initiate an excise tax on nude or semi-nude forms of
live entertainment in California, I was attracted to your entry. It is apparent
you do not share my enthusiasm for my suggestion. Understandably, this option
is controversial; however, in light of the state's lack of funding, I believe
my suggestion would be a practical solution that can help alleviate some of our
economic burden. Individual spending on this type of entertainment is not
exactly high on the priority list when compared to other needs such as food,
housing and medical care. Obviously, when patrons visit such businesses, they
have extra money to spend. The revenue enhancement option should be considered
by state legislature not only for what it will do, but more importantly, for
what it will not do. It does not place further burdens on hard working
middle-class families nor does it take away needed social programs. It does not
take away funds from schools or increase fees for students. Policymakers must
recognize that the long-term growth of our economy is not tied to rich strip
club owners but to the success of students. Furthermore, institutions of higher
learning are among California's largest employers. This proposal only seeks to
uncover its share of the bare profits. Although your post only addresses taxing
"naked ladies," I also argue for taxing nude men. Some opponents of the excise
tax on "ladies" may not be against imposing this fee on gay or male dancers. Do
you believe it is wrong to impose a tax on both male and female dancers?
I understand your concern regarding taxes focusing on specific groups of
people. However, do not all taxes discriminate? From reading your entry, it
appears you are against the excise tax because it discriminates against a
certain group of citizens. If someone earns a high level of income, is that
individual not taxed higher than someone who earns minimum wage? When my father
purchases a pack of cigarettes, he is also paying an additional sum to the
government. However, this extra fee does not eliminate his right to smoke. I do
not agree that my proposal would violate the First Amendment right of free
expression. No one is suggesting closing these income earning businesses. The
additional $5 or $10 charge should not deter anyone from their constitutional
right to be excited by naked dancers. However, I doubt our Founding Fathers had
this type of public conduct in mind when writing the First Amendment. Although
you are opposed to the nude excise tax, as indicated by your reference to the
First Amendment, I argue that any downfalls are insignificant when compared to
the economic benefit. Californians are slowly emerging from the longest and
most severe recession in modern times, and we need any and all immediate
revenue.

Posted by Hector F. Rodriguez on Mar. 1, 2010 at 04:55 PM