"Supreme Court (Texas) to hear appeal on "pole" tax!!

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/conte..._appeal_o.html

the comments towards the bottom always catch my eye (especially since its being held in a Catholic venue...)...

Its just wrong and to show how great the accounting is for this, I have never paid this tax at a club I frequent. I am welcomed in and tip the lady at the door and nothing ever said so the tax is on the people that probably won't be spending any money. Way to go government.!

I'll probably be there for the arguments. As I understand it the club does not have to charge the tax. The tax is a $5 payment that the club has to pay for every guest they have. A club can choose to have a "no cover" night and not break any law, the problem will be that when it reports to the state it will have to pay $5 (out of its pocket, or maybe the girl's pocket it) for every guy that was in a club for that particular period. I think it's every month or less.

I have no problem with the tax. ITS A LUXURY TAX. Its the same as the huge tax on cigarettes and gasoline. I don't hear anyone whining about those taxes. Hell, if they want to put a tax on marijuana and hobbying, I say: GO FOR IT!!!! This country is how many billion dollars in debt?

So many of us forget that TAXES pay for a LOT of amenities. How often do you use I-10, 410, 281, 1604, 151?????? What about those stop lights? What about the lone star card that grandma uses? If I had a hobby tax of 10% per customer, I would be OKAY with knowing that 10% of my rent, groceries, utilities, and TUITION was covering grandma's prescriptions or a free medical clinic.

The people down the street got their 19 year old son back in a body bag. His buddies from Iraq/Afghanistan said that "There isn't enough money for us to have decent armor. If we would have the right equipment, he probably wouldn't have died."
Now, I'm not a big supporter of this war, but taxes pay for soldiers' safety.

Taxes pay for your childrens' schooling.

You don't want to pay 5 extra bucks at the titty bar because....
1. you are not ok with grandma being able to buy groceries
2. you think that people don't deserve free education
3. The national debt is going to fix itself
4. You think the public streets, parks, and fire department all pay for themselves







Yes, my father and mother have matching "TEA" party pajamas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests,_2009

So yes, I've heard the other side of the story like a bajillion times

I have no problem with the tax. ITS A LUXURY TAX. Originally Posted by brittanylennox

Not that it's a big deal, but a luxury tax is often applied to luxury items such as cars, and boats. Maybe you mean the commonly used term sin tax, although I don't think that tax is right either since there are no goods transferring hands.

I have no problem with the tax. ITS A LUXURY TAX. Its the same as the huge tax on cigarettes and gasoline. I don't hear anyone whining about those taxes. Originally Posted by brittanylennox

I know we run in different circles, but I always hear bitching about taxes on cigs and gas.

Now, I'm not a big supporter of this war, but taxes pay for soldiers' safety. Originally Posted by brittanylennox

Sadly, we haven't paid for anything yet. This conflict has been mostly financed by credit. But yes, we will pay, and pay plenty.

You don't want to pay 5 extra bucks at the titty bar because....
1. you are not ok with grandma being able to buy groceries
2. you think that people don't deserve free education
3. The national debt is going to fix itself
4. You think the public streets, parks, and fire department all pay for themselves Originally Posted by brittanylennox

That would be nice, but the article states that the tax was used to raise money for sexual assault prevention and an insurance fund for low-income Texans.

Now, I haven't been to a strip club for over ten years, so this doesn't really concern me, but why are strip club patrons being the ones targeted? It seems to me that sexual assault prevention and insurance for low income Texans should be funded by the whole population.

I should steer clear of this but after meeting with my cpa this week I'm pissed. About 33% of my net income is being paid to the government. I just need to vent so I apoligize in advance. I don't mind paying for defense schools and medicine. It just bugs the shit out of me when I see landscaping being done on the side of the highway. Just don't mow it and the natural trees of that area will grow. So there you go there is a double savings. Oh yeah our government calls that creating jobs. I'll stop I could go on and on, we just need a little less government involvement with our lives, just my .02$.

SWWaustin-
I use the term "sin" and "luxury" interchangeably. Either way, gas, titty bars, cigarettes, boats, and sports cars are not "necessities".

Yes, yes... we ALL should be paying for insurance for low income texans and for battered women's shelters, etc. Its the GOVERNMENT. I'm happy that they're even attempting to pay for this stuff. The politicians realize that people HATE being taxed (source: see my parents) and if they can raise the money without the general population "thinking" that their taxes went up, then hey... they're gonna get "re-elected".

My point about "taxes" is that people whine about them. We often forget that taxes pay for A LOT of amenities.



Ski hog- I feel your pain. I come from a family that also has 33% of their income removed. Mom and Dad make too much for me to get financial aid at school, but they don't make enough to pay for it. (Hence my getting "student loans"... or so they think....if only they knew where the money was REALLY coming from).

I agree that the side of the interstate doesn't need miracle grow and pretty flowers planted.

I am also a big environmentalist, so I LIKE the idea of trees growing. However, if the shrubbery is not contained, then you get raccoons, deer, possums, and other animals living near the highway. DEER + CARS = bad

Taxes reduce prosperity and largely are directed to corrupt political projects. True charity administered by groups like the Salvation Army are 300% more effective than government programs. Let individuals choose how to spend their money and you don't get false values; why is college so expensive and why should everyone need it. Remember what JFK said as he rammed through his big tax cut agenda "a rising tide lifts all boats".

Oden-
You probably don't drive do you? You don't use public streets or sidewalks? You went to private school; sent your kids to private school? You've never had to call the police, ambulance, or fire department? You must have NEVER EVER been to the emergency room or hospital where the RESIDENT physicians do NOT receive a salary from the hospital, but from a GRANT from the federal government (funded by tax dollars). You have never listened to "public radio" funded by tax dollars.

I do NOT think the government is 100% efficient. BUT NEITHER IS ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION.

Oden, private charities allow us to dictate HOW we want our money spent; but how often do YOU donate??? The amount that people donate is simply NOT enough.

I do NOT think the government is 100% efficient. BUT NEITHER IS ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION. Originally Posted by brittanylennox

Government, however, is the least efficient. To use your examples, do public schools have better test scores and teacher-student ratios, or do private schools? Which has a better reputation for services and service, and does so at a profit: FedEx or the US Post Office? Would you rather need an MRI in a country with national healthcare and the subsequent twelve-week waiting list, or be in a country where you can actually get an MRI before you die?

Throughout history, government has been the least efficient and least effective means of solving a problem. There are those who still insist on trying it for themselves, though. (Just think, this time it might work!)

If y'all want my opinion on the pole tax and general "sin taxes", you need look no further than my native Washington state. We led the nation for years in maintaining high sin taxes and our "governor" was one of the leading state's attorneys to sue the cigarette companies. All that money was squandered hither and yon and virtually everywhere except where they claimed it was due to go. Now our state budget is a wreck because years of expensive taxes led to less actual revenue (luxuries and sin are not nearly as inelastic a consumable as politicians seem to think) and state health care is no further forward.

I understand that seeing perceived governmental waste can be frustrating. For those of us that have to declare our income, and have Uncle Sam take his share, it can be downright painful. Many people have seemingly passionate opinions based on taxes. However, what about the main point of the case, which will ultimately be decided in the courts. Is targeting patrons at strip clubs a violation of first amendment rights?

Is targeting patrons at strip clubs a violation of first amendment rights?

Ye gods, I hope they came up with a better argument than "right to assemble in public." That's terrible. Requiring permits (ie; payment, a tax) and restrictions has been established as constitutional for... someone help me out, that was during desegregation in the 50s, right? 1957, I think?

Harassment of a legal business by a taxing authority would be a better rebuttal. Slander would be another - the inference of saying strip club customers should be rightfully singled out as owing society money for sexual assault victims is rather bold. Of course, I'd like best if they found a magical legal theory which rendered unconstitutional any political statement smacking of, "This person is not like you so you should let us do whatever we want with their money and rights, because we would never do it to YOU". That would be asking too much, though.

They should probably go with the right to bare arms, legs, and ass.

I'm agreeing with you that the current method of government is not great. Yes, our public school system is a joke. But its better than nothing. Imagine what it would be like if the only schools were private schools? We would be living in 1635. Only the people who have money would be able to educate their kids.

The other question is... are private schools really better????
Right now, I'm in college, and its a private school. I have a whole litany of issues with that damned school. I have friends at State schools who have NO WHERE near the problems that this little gem of an institution has. So, I wouldn't go as far to say that all private schools are better than public schools.


I look at my life and think, "wow, what a shithole..." But, I see people all the time who barely bring home 200 bucks a week. How do those people afford to send their kids to private school? Damn, how do those people feed their kids?

sorry, double post