PDA

View Full Version : Charles Grassley wants a sex tax


FringeNC
06-28-2006, 10:54 AM
How utterly ridiculous. This has nothing to do with raising revenue. This is simply an attempt to federalize the prostitution issue. Republicans are supposed to be states'-rights, but often show the same proclivity as Democrats to federalize an issue if it suits their immediate concern. This is certainly a local issue, not a federal issue.

Expanding the power of the IRS is frightening. We already have the IRS as a drug enforcement agency (the Jason Grimsley case). What we need to do is go to a consumption tax and eliminate the damn IRS, not expand its powers!

The Republicans desperately need a shot of Reaganism. Both parties now seem to support the all-powerful federal nanny state.


Senator seeks tax on pimps, prostitutes (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/27/pimp.tax/index.html)

Grassley: 'It's a no-brainer to have the IRS go after sex traffickers'

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa is hoping to stamp out the sex trade by taxing pimps and prostitutes, then jailing them when they don't pay.

The Senate Finance Committee is expected to vote Wednesday morning on the pimp tax. The bill also calls for more jail time for sex workers.

If passed, the provision will authorize at least $2 million toward the establishment of an office in the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation unit to prosecute unlawful sex workers for violations of tax laws.

"Recent headlines have focused on sex trafficking in connection with the World Cup in Germany," Grassley said. "This vile crime is under our noses in the United States, and it's a no-brainer to have the IRS go after sex traffickers. Prosecuting these tax code violations can get these guys off the street and yank from their grasp the girls and women they exploit."

Grassley said the problem is "especially horrible" when underage girls are involved.

Asked if taxing sex workers would legitimize their trade, a Grassley spokesman said the goal was simply to find "yet another alternative to track the money flowing in this industry to get at potential criminals."

Currently, the IRS has to prove a prostitute's or pimp's income to pursue a tax law violation. But under Grassley's proposal, a pimp could get up to 10 years in prison for each prostitute for whom the pimp hasn't filed a W-2, which means a pimp caught with 10 unregistered prostitutes faces a century in prison.

Carol Leigh, a representative of the Bay Area Sex Worker Advocacy Network in San Francisco, California, called the proposal short-sighted.

"Forced labor, kidnapping should be targeted. But this legislation broadly targets the sex trade in general, and could target your local strip club," Leigh said. "We want laws enforced against those who abuse us, against those who are violent, and enforcement of labor regulations. That is the only truly effective way to protect the welfare of the women who work in the industry."

HC_Chief
06-28-2006, 10:57 AM
lol

"People are breaking the law!"
"Well dammit, that means we need more laws!!"

derrrrrr :drool:

oldandslow
06-28-2006, 11:03 AM
Both parties now seem to support the all-powerful federal nanny state.

Yep.

Baby Lee
06-28-2006, 11:11 AM
Guess I'll stop paying income tax too. Everyobdy got my back?

I can't for the life of me understand this line of thinking. You don't just love the drug and sex trade, you love it so much that those who engage in it should be exempt from the taxes every other working stiff has to pay?

WTF??

htismaqe
06-28-2006, 11:24 AM
Hell, they don't need to pay taxes at all.

That's what the middle class is for.

FringeNC
06-28-2006, 11:27 AM
Guess I'll stop paying income tax too. Everyobdy got my back?

I can't for the life of me understand this line of thinking. You don't just love the drug and sex trade, you love it so much that those who engage in it should be exempt from the taxes every other working stiff has to pay?

WTF??

There are already huge taxes on prositution. They are called jail time and fines. I think it is a little perverted to use the broad powers of the IRS to go after local crime. Again, this has nothing to do with raising revenue.

Shouldn't states and localities get to set the fine for prostitution? Now they are effectively cut out of the loop, because the feds can set whatever penalty they want for unpaid sex transactions.

Implicit in the punishment for illegal activities is the non-paying of taxes. To me, it's double jeopardy because you simply cannot file a tax return for illegal activities without admitting the crime!

htismaqe
06-28-2006, 11:34 AM
There are already huge taxes on prositution. They are called jail time and fines. I think it is a little perverted to use the broad powers of the IRS to go after local crime. Again, this has nothing to do with raising revenue.

Shouldn't states and localities get to set the fine for prostitution? Now they are effectively cut out of the loop, because the feds can set whatever penalty they want for unpaid sex transactions.

Implicit in the punishment for illegal activities is the non-paying of taxes. To me, it's double jeopardy because you simply cannot file a tax return for illegal activities without admitting the crime!

Um, prostitution isn't illegal EVERYWHERE.

FAX
06-28-2006, 11:36 AM
Tax a pecker. Kill a pecker.

FAX

Baby Lee
06-28-2006, 11:39 AM
There are already huge taxes on prositution. They are called jail time and fines. I think it is a little perverted to use the broad powers of the IRS to go after local crime. Again, this has nothing to do with raising revenue.

Shouldn't states and localities get to set the fine for prostitution? Now they are effectively cut out of the loop, because the feds can set whatever penalty they want for unpaid sex transactions.

Implicit in the punishment for illegal activities is the non-paying of taxes. To me, it's double jeopardy because you simply cannot file a tax return for illegal activities without admitting the crime!
Let me make sure I understand you completely.

Illegally obtained INCOME should be tax-free INCOME?

FringeNC
06-28-2006, 11:40 AM
Um, prostitution isn't illegal EVERYWHERE.

Exactly. And it is indeed federally taxed in Nevada.

FringeNC
06-28-2006, 11:43 AM
Let me make sure I understand you completely.

Illegally obtained INCOME should be tax-free INCOME?

I'll say it again. Without a transaction being legally recognized, an IRS penalty represents double-jeopardy. Isn't that obvious?

go bowe
06-28-2006, 11:43 AM
Guess I'll stop paying income tax too. Everyobdy got my back?

I can't for the life of me understand this line of thinking. You don't just love the drug and sex trade, you love it so much that those who engage in it should be exempt from the taxes every other working stiff has to pay?

WTF??pretty much...

call it hazardous duty pay...

or legalize it then tax it...

legalizing most if not all drugs and then taxing them would generate enough taxes to cover the sex industry...

go bowe
06-28-2006, 11:46 AM
Let me make sure I understand you completely.

Illegally obtained INCOME should be tax-free INCOME?generally, it doesn't bother me...

while the fringe man called it double jeopardy, i would characterize it more as a case of self-incrmination under the fifth amendment...

Predarat
06-28-2006, 11:47 AM
If they tax it they damn well better legalize it. Its about 200-300 bucks a pop for a quality call girl that is supposed to be clean. Supposed to be the key word there. From what I hear those legalized brothels are about the same but the girls are required to have a check up. Everyone wins there.

banyon
06-28-2006, 11:49 AM
I'll say it again. Without a transaction being legally recognized, an IRS penalty represents double-jeopardy. Isn't that obvious?

Um, that's not double jeopardy.

this however...

http://news.adventist.org/data/2002/04/1020806998/jeopardy!%20250.jpg

FringeNC will unfortunately not be joining us for Final Jeopardy today. :)

Baby Lee
06-28-2006, 11:50 AM
I'll say it again. Without a transaction as being legally recognized, an IRS penalty represents double-jeopardy. Isn't that obvious?
Actually, if it's anything, it's a colorable violation of the 5th amendment against self-incrimination.
But then, I don't recall the line on 1040 where you're required to list 'drug dealer' or 'prostitute.'
Double jeopardy is being tried tried for the same crime. So far as I know, reporting your income is a separate act from blowing some dude for $$. Two acts, two violations.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2006, 11:57 AM
What makes anyone think all prostitutes or pimps will comply?

The little I've read about this issue, is that they prefer not to be under any govt radar and some do not want to register.

FringeNC
06-28-2006, 12:04 PM
Um, that's not double jeopardy.

Might not be the classic case of double-jeopardy, but the effect of it is EXACTLY the same as double-jeopardy.

Here's two crimes:

1)You rape a women, get caught, suffer the local penalty
2)You pimp out a women, get caught, suffer the local penalty...oh, and now we are going to add federal layer onto that too. Also, you are guilty of not paying your taxes.

This added federal penalty distorts our whole system, and in my view, represents double-jeopardy. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be shocked if there weren't a few legal scholars who viewed this as double-jeopardy.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2006, 12:06 PM
This added federal penalty distorts our whole system, and in my view, represents double-jeopardy. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be shocked if there weren't a few legal scholars who viewed this as double-jeopardy.

Well that's part for the course in our day.

BTW I wholeheartedly agree with you that this is purely a local issue.
And I thought you made a great point that it sets up federalization of prostitution along with everything else.

FringeNC
06-28-2006, 12:24 PM
Banyon and Baby Lee:

"But under Grassley's proposal, a pimp could get up to 10 years in prison for each prostitute for whom the pimp hasn't filed a W-2, which means a pimp caught with 10 unregistered prostitutes faces a century in prison."

Is 10 years the standard penalty for failing to file a W-2? If not, aren't the feds in effect, throwing an additional penalty upon pimping?

go bowe
06-28-2006, 12:31 PM
* * *
But then, I don't recall the line on 1040 where you're required to list 'drug dealer' or 'prostitute.'
* * *actually, the 1040 does ask for your occupation and i would guess that making a false statement on your return is a violation of law...

go bowe
06-28-2006, 12:34 PM
Might not be the classic case of double-jeopardy, but the effect of it is EXACTLY the same as double-jeopardy.

Here's two crimes:

1)You rape a women, get caught, suffer the local penalty
2)You pimp out a women, get caught, suffer the local penalty...oh, and now we are going to add federal layer onto that too. Also, you are guilty of not paying your taxes.

This added federal penalty distorts our whole system, and in my view, represents double-jeopardy. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be shocked if there weren't a few legal scholars who viewed this as double-jeopardy.two crimes...

two prosecutions...

not double jeopardy...

and if you find any legal scholars who call this double jeopardy, they probably beleive 9/11 was an inside job...

what we would call a fringe lunatic... (no offense intended)

htismaqe
06-28-2006, 12:49 PM
Might not be the classic case of double-jeopardy, but the effect of it is EXACTLY the same as double-jeopardy.

Here's two crimes:

1)You rape a women, get caught, suffer the local penalty
2)You pimp out a women, get caught, suffer the local penalty...oh, and now we are going to add federal layer onto that too. Also, you are guilty of not paying your taxes.

This added federal penalty distorts our whole system, and in my view, represents double-jeopardy. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be shocked if there weren't a few legal scholars who viewed this as double-jeopardy.

Your premise of double jeopardy assumes the part in bold.

Baby Lee
06-28-2006, 12:52 PM
Your premise of double jeopardy assumes the part in bold.
no, his premise assumes that blowing a guy and filling out a tax return are the same act.

FringeNC
06-28-2006, 12:55 PM
two crimes...

two prosecutions...

not double jeopardy...

and if you find any legal scholars who call this double jeopardy, they probably beleive 9/11 was an inside job...

what we would call a fringe lunatic... (no offense intended)

If failing to file a W-2 in the prostitution industry is a much stiffer (no pun intended) penalty than a random individual gets, there is a federal penalty for pimping. Do you disagree?

banyon
06-28-2006, 01:11 PM
If failing to file a W-2 in the prostitution industry is a much stiffer (no pun intended) penalty than a random individual gets, there is a federal penalty for pimping. Do you disagree?


yes, I disagree the penalty is for the failure to file/report income, not for the pimping. Simply because it is a subset of the normal "failure to file" rule in no way constitutes double jeopardy.

htismaqe
06-28-2006, 01:12 PM
no, his premise assumes that blowing a guy and filling out a tax return are the same act.

Well, there's that too.

I'm just saying, his analogy doesn't work.

Whether or not they get caught, a paycheck has changed hands without a W-2 in place. That's illegal in and of itself.

Chiefnj
06-28-2006, 01:27 PM
Can I use a BJ as tax write off as a medical expense? Mitigation, treatment and prevention of stress related illnesses?


Topic 502 - Medical and Dental Expenses

If you itemize your deductions on Form 1040, Schedule A (PDF), you may be able to deduct expenses you paid that year for medical care (including dental) for yourself, your spouse, and your dependents. A deduction is allowed only for expenses paid for the prevention or alleviation of a physical or mental defect or illness. Medical care expenses include payments for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or treatment affecting any structure or function of the body.

FringeNC
06-28-2006, 01:30 PM
yes, I disagree the penalty is for the failure to file/report income, not for the pimping. Simply because it is a subset of the normal "failure to file" rule in no way constitutes double jeopardy.

So a normal person gets a fine, and a pimp gets 10-years? Is it not obvious from Grassley's comments that he seeks a federal penalty for pimping. That's what this is all about. He admits it.

I just don't see how it is possible to give two classes of people two entirely different penalties for the same W-2 violation. If you aren't a pimp, here's your slap on the wrist. If you are a pimp, you get ten years.

It's obvious that the purpose of this legislation is to impose a federal penalty for pimping using the IRS as a cover.

I admit I am no lawyer. Whether it is technically double-jeopardy or not, the fact remains that the effect of this law would be no different from having an explicit federal trial for pimping after the local trial.

Sully
06-28-2006, 01:34 PM
So a normal person gets a fine, and a pimp gets 10-years? Is it not obvious from Grassley's comments that he seeks a federal penalty for pimping. That's what this is all about. He admits it.

I just don't see how it is possible to give two classes of people two entirely different penalties for the same W-2 violation. If you aren't a pimp, here's your slap on the wrist. If you are a pimp, you get ten years.

It's obvious that the purpose of this legislation is to impose a federal penalty for pimping using the IRS as a cover.

I admit I am no lawyer. Whether it is technically double-jeopardy or not, the fact remains that the effect of this law would be no different from having an explicit federal trial for pimping after the local trial.


Why should you care unless you are a terrorist...err...I mean pimp.

Sorry about that, I cut and pasted that from the pro-wiretap stuff.

FringeNC
06-28-2006, 01:41 PM
Why should you care unless you are a terrorist...err...I mean pimp.

Sorry about that, I cut and pasted that from the pro-wiretap stuff.


Well, I'd be willing to give the FBI a potentially little more power to go after Islamizoids. I'd prefer not to give any power to IRS to go after an activity in which both parties voluntarily engaged in.

It's funny. The liberals fret about potential abuses down the road from these powers federal agents are given to combat Islamic bad guys....yet don't seem to be bothered by making the IRS a federal police force to enforce federal laws that have no business being federal laws.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2006, 02:06 PM
It's funny. The liberals fret about potential abuses down the road from these powers federal agents are given to combat Islamic bad guys....yet don't seem to be bothered by making the IRS a federal police force to enforce federal laws that have no business being federal laws.

That's because they're not really liberals in the true, original sense of the word which is the "classical liberal" of the Enlightenment, of limited gov't, freedom and reason. They're prooooooooooooooooogressives, or social democrats or worse anarcho-socialists.

Baby Lee
06-28-2006, 02:11 PM
or worse anarcho-socialists.
Shhhhh!!!!
It's been a pleasant week.
Call his 'name' and he might come back.

vailpass
06-28-2006, 02:28 PM
What's wrong with sex acts?

BucEyedPea
06-28-2006, 02:39 PM
Shhhhh!!!!
It's been a pleasant week.
Call his 'name' and he might come back.

http://www.pewterconnection.com/html/emoticons/notaword.gifOh! Yeah!http://www.pewterconnection.com/html/emoticons/badteeth.gif

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2006, 03:12 PM
Shhhhh!!!!
It's been a pleasant week.
Call his 'name' and he might come back.
I think he's gettin'/got married this week. He won't be around for a while during his honeymoon....er, eh......:spock:

Would he? :hmmm:

I suspect that's why he was so crabby--crabbier than usual even. Cold feet and all....

BucEyedPea
06-28-2006, 03:24 PM
:hmmm: Maybe marriage will soften him up a bit?

Especially since he's for the lady wearin' the pants. :)

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2006, 03:27 PM
:hmmm: Maybe marriage will soften him up a bit?

Especially since he's for the lady wearin' the pants. :)

Heh. I doubt it. His anger issues appear pretty deep-seeded. I have no doubt she will be wearin' the pants....which may actually increase his latent anger. :hmmm:

banyon
06-28-2006, 03:27 PM
Who in TF are you guys talking about?

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2006, 03:29 PM
Who in TF are you guys talking about?How many seething angry anarcho-socialists do we have? :spock:

htismaqe
06-28-2006, 03:31 PM
How many seething angry anarcho-socialists do we have? :spock:

Some of us have only recently shed our remaining dignity and jumped into this cesspool called DC.

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2006, 03:32 PM
Some of us have only recently shed our remaining dignity and jumped into this cesspool called DC.

Heh.....Hamas.

banyon
06-28-2006, 03:33 PM
How many seething angry anarcho-socialists do we have? :spock:

Are you talking about Taco or 'Hamas'? Maybe I just don't understand what you mean by "anarcho-socialist"

who is marrying them? :eek: :p

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2006, 03:36 PM
Are you talking about Taco or 'Hamas'? Maybe I just don't understand what you mean by "anarcho-socialist"

who is marrying them? :eek: :p

TJ.....I hadn't thought of that. Heh. ROFL

No, Hamas is reportedly marrying his girlfriend....but maybe I'm making too many assumptions. :hmmm:

Iowanian
06-28-2006, 03:42 PM
I typically Like Grassley....hate Harkin.

I think they should legalize hookin' and put a pedometer on their jaw and cooterbone.....tax them by the insertion like a toll booth.

Baby Lee
06-28-2006, 03:48 PM
I typically Like Grassley....hate Harkin.

I think they should legalize hookin' and put a pedometer on their jaw and cooterbone.....tax them by the insertion like a toll booth.
There ain't no cooterbone. That's MAN baby!!!

BucEyedPea
06-28-2006, 03:57 PM
TJ.....I hadn't thought of that. Heh. ROFL

No, Hamas is reportedly marrying his girlfriend....but maybe I'm making too many assumptions. :hmmm:

We could always look at the bright side...perhaps he'll get so brow-beaten he'll become a conservative! ROFL

Baby Lee
06-28-2006, 04:08 PM
We could always look at the bright side...perhaps he'll get so brow-beaten he'll become a conservative! ROFL
Liberal is fine, hell anarcho-socialist is fine, invective filled a-hole? . . . not so much.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2006, 04:21 PM
BL true enough.
Your post reminds me of a favorite Robert Frost quote.

"A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel."

Miles
06-28-2006, 11:53 PM
So a normal person gets a fine, and a pimp gets 10-years? Is it not obvious from Grassley's comments that he seeks a federal penalty for pimping. That's what this is all about. He admits it.

I just don't see how it is possible to give two classes of people two entirely different penalties for the same W-2 violation. If you aren't a pimp, here's your slap on the wrist. If you are a pimp, you get ten years.

It's obvious that the purpose of this legislation is to impose a federal penalty for pimping using the IRS as a cover.

I admit I am no lawyer. Whether it is technically double-jeopardy or not, the fact remains that the effect of this law would be no different from having an explicit federal trial for pimping after the local trial.

Tax evasion is the same crime for everyone and the sentencing is based on the standard federal guidelines. All that senator is trying to do is have what has long been illegal enforced. Though obiously his motivations are purely political.

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2006, 08:03 AM
We could always look at the bright side...perhaps he'll get so brow-beaten he'll become a conservative! ROFL


ROFL


:spock:

Hey, what are you tryin' to say....:hmmm:

htismaqe
06-29-2006, 09:07 AM
Tax evasion is the same crime for everyone and the sentencing is based on the standard federal guidelines. All that senator is trying to do is have what has long been illegal enforced. Though obiously his motivations are purely political.

I can assure you his motivations aren't political. He's been a Senator since before I was born and he's from Iowa, where his constituents could really care less about prostitution.

He's the kinda guy that honestly believes this kind of stuff needs legislation. Whether or not his attention is focused correctly is debatable.

FringeNC
06-29-2006, 09:29 AM
Tax evasion is the same crime for everyone and the sentencing is based on the standard federal guidelines. All that senator is trying to do is have what has long been illegal enforced. Though obiously his motivations are purely political.

If I understand what you are saying is that if a pimp doesn't pay his taxes, it will be mandated under Grassley's bill the that he get the max. possible under federal guidlines?

If so, that doesn't change my assertion at all. There are federal guidlines that a judge can choose from for everyone else; for a pimp, he gets the max.

htismaqe
06-29-2006, 09:33 AM
If I understand what you are saying is that if a pimp doesn't pay his taxes, it will be mandated under Grassley's bill the that he get the max. possible under federal guidlines?

If so, that doesn't change my assertion at all. There are federal guidlines that a judge can choose from for everyone else; for a pimp, he gets the max.

Why are you spending all of your time on this thread? Don't you have some ho's to take care of?

:D

FringeNC
06-29-2006, 10:35 AM
Why are you spending all of your time on this thread? Don't you have some ho's to take care of?

:D

Yeah, can we have special forum as a virtual marketplace for my ho's? I'll cut you in.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 10:55 AM
Why are you spending all of your time on this thread? Don't you have some ho's to take care of?

:D
He's getting off on it! ROFL

Hydrae
06-29-2006, 04:48 PM
Let me make sure I understand you completely.

Illegally obtained INCOME should be tax-free INCOME?

You want to ensure everyone pays taxes, revamp the manner in which it is collected and get the heck out of my paycheck! :cuss:


I'll stay off the soapbox for now.