http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw119011_20050727.htm

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) is introducing legislation to impose a 25% tax on memberships to internet pornography sities.  I saw another Tipper-type fuddy-duddy, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) tonight on TV praising the effort.  Other Democrat hand-wringers supporting the proposed legislation: Kent Conrad (ND), Evan Bayh (Ind.), Tom Carper (Del.), and of course, Joe Lieberman (Conn.)
Regardless of whether or not I like porn, I object to this legislation because of I'm favor freedom of expression without a bare minimum of government intervention.  In the 1980s, I objected to the record album rating system proposed by the PMRC Washington wives.
The first thing pro-censorship people in America say is that they're not for censorship, they just wanna protect the kids.  These Democrats don't really believe the tax will keep porn out of the hands of kids.  That is, they don't if they know anything about kids online and the lengths they'll go to access porn. 
(mind you, I'm talking off the top of my head here)
The tax is just a first proposal to get the ball rolling.  There are politicians on both sides of the aisle who would love to get control over the internet.  Pornography is the least defendable popular subject matter on the 'net.  Since it's Dems who got the ball rolling, the initial proposal is a huge tax.  If it was Republicans who wanted to crackdown, they would have proposed draconian punishments for violators.  Six and one half dozen of the other. 
The internet is the last mass medium where there's a "wild west" spirit of information conveyance.  Give the government and inch, they'll take a mile.  Only a marginalized First Amendment absolutist like me would dare say:
1. The guise of "protecting kids" is not a good enough reason to let the government meddle with the www.
2. Viewing pornographic images in itself doesn't turn kids into cannibalistic serial rapists.

A more salient positions is, they're coming for porn now, what next?  How much of the internet are we going to let the government control?
I have done more than my share of porn perusing and already you must "prove" you are at least eighteen to gain membership.  Of course, if a twelve year old has a purloined credit card, or if a fourteen year old gets his eighteen year old brother to sign up for him, the age restriction is skirted.  What kind of invasive procedures do these Dems want to deploy in order to close such loopholes?
Is the government going to make it illegal to access servers hosted in other countries where the U.S. restrictions don't apply?

I mean, the questions go on and on and on!

Now, as for my thread title: Suggested GOP strategy: oppose internet porn tax!
Twelve to seventeen year old boys are the most porn-wanting segment of the population.  They can't vote yet, either.  If the GOP sends the underlying message:  "The Democrats wanted to take away your porn, and we stopped them!"  They will win EVEN MORE young men over to voting Republican.  They will not see the Republican party as just the party of preachy stiffs like William Bennett and Sen. Santorum.  The GOP will be able to refurbish it's libertarian side.  The Republicans have this unfulfilled promise of "getting government off your back."  They do this just fine when it comes to rich guys, corporations, and evangelical preachers.  They fail miserably when it comes to Joe Blow bogged down in red-tape and overbearing regulations.  Maybe it's time to tell Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell to cool their heels and say, "we've got a generation of young men to win!"
I know the GOP won't do this of course.  They're only libertarian when it comes to Wall Street (and guns) and they are up to their necks in fundamentalist dogma!

Furthermore, I just despise it when prudes and busybodies set the Democratic agenda.  If this bill passes, the spammers and the porn hosts will circumvent the law within 72 hours and the Dems will lose their First Amendment base, whether members of that base are into porn or politics or both.

You mean you oppose a tax increase?

Welcome to my world.  Now if you'll do that on everything, especially the death tax.

You mean you oppose a tax increase?

Welcome to my world.  Now if you'll do that on everything, especially the death tax.

There is NO death tax.
There is an estate tax.  It applies only to very wealthy families, and it works.
The internet porn tax will cost more to enforce than the revenue it reaps, and will NOT work.

There is NO death tax.
There is an estate tax.  It applies only to very wealthy families, and it works.
The internet porn tax will cost more to enforce than the revenue it reaps, and will NOT work.


Oh really?  Then why is any estate worth over $1,500,000 taxed at almost 20%?

And the last time I checked, that is a lot of families.  The reason why so few are taxed is because a lot of people have had to do legal tricks to avoid it.  A good example is my boss.

3 years ago he changed insurance companies.  Up until that time, he was a sole owner of 2 family owned businesses.  They both are in the same building, which is owned by my boss.  Now between the 2 businesses, there are a total of 8 employees.  Of these, only myself and 2 others are actual "employees".  The other 5 are all family (my boss, his 2 sons, and their wives).

At the time of the new insurance estimate, it was discovered that the "Net Value" of these businesses is around $1.75 million.  Now very little of that is cash, most of that is tied up in the land, tools and equipment, and inventory for a computer shop and a motorcycle shop.  They realized that if he died, they would have to sell one or both companies in order to pay that estate tax.

The way around it was to change from sole propriator to a privately held corporation.  This kind of "property game" is what a lot of people have had to do in order to protect their children's inheritance.  If he had died before this discovery, more then likely both companies would have had to be sold in order to pay the taxes.  Unsold parts and inventory do count as part of the estate, and it does not take much to add up fast (they have roughly $150,000 in tires alone in inventory).

So by saying it only applies to the richest people is not quite true.  If the money is only in cash, then the person can simply pay it off with part of that cash.  But all to often, it is real property involved.  Houses, farms, businesses, things of that nature.  And all to often part or all of it must be sold to pay the taxes.

And all to often, our parents and grandpartents do not realize the value of their property until it is to late.  The couple that lived next door to us when I was growing up is a good example.  They bought a house in LA in the 1950's, at around $20k.  When the wife died in the early 1990's, her son had to sell the house to pay taxes, because the value was well over $750k.  That was before a lot of the tax reforms of the last 10-15 years, so he had to sell his childhood home.

You can take advantage of corporation loopholes to avoid taxes for a business asset, but not for a house.

There is NO death tax.
There is an estate tax.  It applies only to very wealthy families, and it works.


I discovered this interesting little article right after I posted the last message:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/234212_estatetax28.html

Now do you really believe that there is no "Death Tax"?  ANd do you really believe that estate taxes only affect the rich?

I find it interesting that you scream about the abuse of corporations, yet at the same time your claim hurts small farms the most.  I see farms in Alabama being liquidated all the time, mostly being cut apart for subdivisions unless some big corporate farm company wants it.  This is because even modest farms often have from 100-300 acres of land.  So by keeping estate taxes in place, we are somply giving perople like Simplot more power, and taking it away from small independent farmers.

And back to the original topic, I am against this.  It is an attempt at censorship, and it is unworkable.  Who will pay this tax?  The site owners, or the people who buy subscriptions?  This will simply force the few sites that are not already off-shore to move them off-shore, removing even more tax revenue from the country.  And I would question the legality of trying to make the customer pay this tax when he/she makes a subscription.

And lastly, who decides if something is "pornographic"?  Are pictures pornographic?  What if it is a picture of an artistic nude, is it still pornographic?  What about erotica?  There are no pictures involved, and I have read mainstream books (read "Belinda" by Anne Rice) that are far more graphic then a lot of "erotic stories".

I see this as an impossible law, that will do not good, other then to make some "anti-smut" crusaders pat themselves on the back.

For once I actually agree. The last thing the bereaved need to be worrying about is giving the government a ridiculous cut of their inheritance. Losing a loved one is difficult enough.

One thing I do oppose is this Porn tax. WTMF, what did porn ever do to anybody?

This "protecting children" BS is a scam. I am confident that there are very few kids (and lets face it, boys) uner the age of maybe 15 that are gauking at netporn on a daily basis, and even if they were, who cares? It's a family issue. I think that it's OK for someone who's like 16 or 17 to be looking at adult material (I think as a society we need to just accept once and for all that teenagers masturbate, and nothing will ever stop them).

This is just a case of the morality police once again, and I am livid at the leaders of the Democratic party for this slow, but ever-so crass and obvious shift further to the right. If this is how they're planning to win more votes, they're in trouble. Pissing off your base is never a good strategy. This is even sicker than the idiot Dem down here in Texas who proposed ans achieved a state law banning all cheerleading deemed too provocative (deemed by whom exactly, we still don't know).

Speaking as a Democrat, I am all too keen on telling those leaders who are proposing and/or supporting this bill to get their act together or get the hell out of our party.

This "protecting children" BS is a scam. I am confident that there are very few kids (and lets face it, boys) uner the age of maybe 15 that are gauking at netporn on a daily basis, and even if they were, who cares? It's a family issue.


Actually, I would argue with you on that.  I work on computers for a living, and on at least 75% of computers I get there are porn cookies that can be traced back to children living in the household.  Mostly, it is probably curiosity.  Children are curious creatures, and they will do a lot of things "naughty", simply because it is forbidden.  I remember sneaking into the garage to look through my grandfather's Playboy magazines when I was 10 or so.

The problem is that I see no way to enforce this.  The Internet is International.  All a pornographer has to do is move their website to a host in another country, then they can tell Congress to urinate on a braided strand.  There is no way they can force an "Overseas" company to follow their rules, even if the owners are US citizens.  Look at Internet Gambling, which is already illegal.  Nothing they have done has been able to stop that yet, why do they think this will stop porn?

I think it is more of a case of politicians trying to make themselves look good, by taking something that nobody can complain about.  Much the way that Hillary is screaming about GTA.  If she really cared so much, where has she been the last 5+ years?

The only thing wrong with Playboy is thjat it makes teenage boys think that girls fold it two places and have staples in their belly buttons.

Seriously, this "porn tax" business is just too silly. 

The estate tax, on the other hand, has the (minimal) effect of keeping the playing field equal from generation to generation.  I think it was Smith-Barny's slogan "I got my money the old fashioned way, I earned it."  Without the estate tax that would have to change to "I inherited it."

The estate tax, on the other hand, has the (minimal) effect of keeping the playing field equal from generation to generation.  I think it was Smith-Barny's slogan "I got my money the old fashioned way, I earned it."  Without the estate tax that would have to change to "I inherited it."


Personally, I have much less objection to estate taxes when the tax is on cash.  I even have less issues if the tax was levied if a business was sold within 3-5 years.  It is when all assets are taxed that I have serious issues.  If my boss died tomorrow and the business was not a corporation, the tax would roughly be $750k (or more).  Since there is nowhere near that much liquid capitol available, it would mean selling the business to raise the money.  And his sons have worked here since they were teens (they are in their 30's now).  They have spent over half their lives building it up, and they intend to keep running it long after their dad retires or dies.

The Bill Gates of the world have enough lawyers, that the trust funds they set up will prevent their children from being paupers.  It is those who leave behind property (farms, family businesses, homes, etc) that I am most worried about.  In most cases like these, there are little to no cash assets, so they must either take a loan out or sell it.

I'm sorry I replied to the "death tax" comment.  Hearing poor guys beat the drum for rich guys makes me feel all icky inside! 
http://www2.eckerd.com/images/site/photos/vomiting.jpg

You cannot have a free society if you constantly quash expression on behalf of the kids and the grannies.
I have seen porn on the internet that even porn fans would call "sick."  However, you gotta reeeaallly know how to look for it!
:P
You know, I ain't talking whitheouse.com versus whitheouse.gov
Anyway, what's going on in the .gov Whitheouse is infinitely more detrimental to the kids of America than anything a kid could see in the .com Whitheouse.  Give me an effing break!
Heaven forefend a sixteen year old see a photo of two men bl*wing eachother, but it's just fine to send that same sixteen year old to blow men to bits just two years later in some imperialist venture.
The medium that imparts the most iniquitous values to children is commercial television, especially TV commercials.  Think about it.