Not that I buy the 1st Amendment arguments against this tax, I must still, nonetheless come out against the proposal here in Texas of a $5 per person tax at strip clubs. We will start with my general statement of being against each and every new tax proposal that will ever come out anywhere at any time. That having been said, let's look at what politicians are using to try to sell this tax. A few years ago, they tried to pass this same tax, with the promise of using the money for education. It was rightly ridiculed as "tassels for tots." Now they are saying (most of) the money will go to victims of sex crimes. A few things to note: 1) it is obvious that someone is just looking for an excuse to pass this tax, with the mistaken belief that this will "clean up" Texas or some such nonsense; 2) the promise of using the money (they say "most of the money") for sex crimes victims is bogus -- 10 to 1 if this tax is passed this money eventually ends up in the general fund.
What this really is is an attempt to implement yet another "sin tax." There are people out there who think that the nude body is evil, and that nobody should see a nude woman ever. Nude women in art is bad enough, let alone strippers! And don't even get them started with sex, which is evil in all cases except for in a marriage (and for some, that too can be evil if the sex isn't meant for reproduction). This attitude has created all too many psychoses, and is undoubtedly the cause of the high number of sex crimes in the U.S. Our schitzophrenic attitude toward things like sex is what causes problems.
6 comments:
You hit the proverbial nail on the head about psychoses caused by creating sin. It's so easy for the so-called leaders in society to point fingers at recreational habits or practices, when they create the problems themselves.
We see this all the time in government. The government passes a law that causes a problem. The government then blames it on the group they tried to regulate, and pass another law. This then causes problems. The government then "deregulates," but really changes the regulations, and when the changes cause problems, they declare that deregulation doesn't work, and that they have to re-regulate. In the meantime, if they had just left everyone alone, all the bad results wouldn't have happened.
How about a tax on attending Church
Services, to the tune of $5 per head,
with the proceeds to go to victims
of religiously-motivated hate crimes?
Just as fair.
Indeed, that would be in the same family of reasoning, wouldn't it?
I wouldn't be surprised if at least one state legislature or assembly isn't already considering a proposal similar to single dude's. It is always to fund a "solution" to the percieved problem, as you have pointed out. No government at any level ever has "enough" money, no matter how much we pay in taxes, so there is always the need to find something new to tax. Californication has already begun to effect every state in the union.
It's typically due to a vicious cycle. There is some minor problem the government sets out to fix. They cause the problem to get worse, so they have to fix it again. That causes the problem to get even worse, so they have to try to fix it again. That causes it to get even worse . . . etc.
Post a Comment