Making Prostitution Legal

Who will be gaining more, is it the provider or the john ?

Both. It is a market of supply and demand. It will always be met. Prices may change.

Just like that unnamed industry they made legal in Colorado, pros and cons for both.

Pros for providers:
No fear of arrest.
Social stigma may disappear.
Will legitimize source of income.
Ladies will be able to advertise openly.

Cons for providers:
Likely will be legislated up the ass, licensed at substantial cost, with heath check "stamps" required.
Competition will increase with the influx of ladies afraid to do it before.
Rates may dip if more choices are openly available, but if "taxed" like cigarettes, prices may be forced up unreasonably.
Providers who were hiding all of their earnings before will have to keep records, shell out taxes, and pay regulatory fees if they go "public."

Pros for clients:
No fear of arrest.
Social stigma may disappear.
Will legitimize how you spent your income.
Additional variety may induce lower rates.
Easier time searching widespread escort ads, and no need to clear the browser history afterward.
The nervous can ask to see a lady's license and current health check "card."
Might be able to deduct "stress-reduction therapy" from taxes with a doctor's note.

Cons for clients:
Your ATF may get all booked up if she advertises and markets herself professionally and widely.
You'll spend more if it's more convenient. (Get that doctor's note.)
Costs may actually rise due to fees, "consumption" taxes, notels raising rates.
Your significant other will STILL beat your ass if she finds out, which might be more likely if public records go along with legalization. Every valid business has to keep books.
Divorce lawyers will see a big upswing in business. (That would be under "Pro" for them.)

All major corporates will invest into this and lots direct/indirect jobs. I will buy the stocks if they ever list them in NYSE.

All major corporates will invest into this and lots direct/indirect jobs. I will buy the stocks if they ever list them in NYSE. Originally Posted by GringoakaHG

Hell yeah! I'll be right there with you on E*Trade.

Diversified portfolio: redheads, blondes, spinners, BBWs, AA, Asian...

You left out one of the biggest cons from that unnamed industry that's in place for all states; none of them are allowed to have a bank account.

the major con i see as a John is i go bankrupt rest all is good to go

Who will be gaining more, is it the provider or the john ? Originally Posted by ECCIE2NDAVE

Neither. The taxpayer will. More taxable income/goods and services, lower vice costs.

You left out one of the biggest cons from that unnamed industry that's in place for all states; none of them are allowed to have a bank account. Originally Posted by Fishpie

Ah, yes, that's true. If prostitution is legalized ONLY on a state level, that could be a problem. Escorts who have accounts now might find them frozen if they started reporting, and credit cards issuers would be very reluctant to process charges knowingly and might cut off existing lines of credit.

Every action has a reaction, like a line of falling dominoes. The only way that the unnamed industry and the legalization of prostitution are going to be 100% effective and without consequence is if they are done on the federal level.

Neither. The taxpayer will. More taxable income/goods and services, lower vice costs. Originally Posted by Mythos

Yep. The extra taxes and saved federal funding can build more schools, roads, fire stations, and better police forces, and LE can focus on real crimes. (They would, of course, still go after the underage and trafficked.) Would be a big boon to many city and state economies floundering now, but I doubt I'll live long enough to see the Bible Belt give in unless the Supreme Court forces it.

Prostitution is already legal on the federal level.

Or maybe better off stated that it's not illegal.

Just like that unnamed industry they made legal in Colorado, pros and cons for both.

Pros for providers:
No fear of arrest.
Social stigma may disappear.
Will legitimize source of income.
Ladies will be able to advertise openly.

Cons for providers:
Likely will be legislated up the ass, licensed at substantial cost, with heath check "stamps" required.
Competition will increase with the influx of ladies afraid to do it before.
Rates may dip if more choices are openly available, but if "taxed" like cigarettes, prices may be forced up unreasonably.
Providers who were hiding all of their earnings before will have to keep records, shell out taxes, and pay regulatory fees if they go "public."

Pros for clients:
No fear of arrest.
Social stigma may disappear.
Will legitimize how you spent your income.
Additional variety may induce lower rates.
Easier time searching widespread escort ads, and no need to clear the browser history afterward.
The nervous can ask to see a lady's license and current health check "card."
Might be able to deduct "stress-reduction therapy" from taxes with a doctor's note.

Cons for clients:
Your ATF may get all booked up if she advertises and markets herself professionally and widely.
You'll spend more if it's more convenient. (Get that doctor's note.)
Costs may actually rise due to fees, "consumption" taxes, notels raising rates.
Your significant other will STILL beat your ass if she finds out, which might be more likely if public records go along with legalization. Every valid business has to keep books.
Divorce lawyers will see a big upswing in business. (That would be under "Pro" for them.)
Originally Posted by Fancyinheels

Canada recently legalized at the Federal level and many countries in Europe have legal prostitution ... Even if it were legalized, would you actually "register" with the government as a Provider? I suspect not.

In several of the countries I travel, it is more socially acceptable. I think everyone expects that if college-age guys go out on fri/sat and don't find a civi, that they go to a lady bar and hook up for 100. Nobody seems to be hiding it.

I will say, though, that many ladies I've been with are still ashamed of what they do or what people think. Some are embarrassed to be seen walking into the hotel or restaurant with me (although I'm a handsome fuck).

The younger they are, the worse it is. Funny, civi's are even more embarrassed to check in my room with me. They aren't hooking but fear everyone in the hotel thinks she is because she's in with a rich white guy.

Both will lose because the government will set the prices, controlling demand and supply,,,It's best to keep that economy more underground and more capitalistic,,,If supplier's price is too high, then there is no demand. Either she corrects it or she will not survive in the business,,,If buyer really wants the product, he will spend the asking price,,,If he does not like the price, then he can move on to another supplier. Government interference stifles competition that helps to regulate the overall prices.

Both will lose because the government will set the prices, controlling demand and supply,,.... Originally Posted by TheCat'sMeow

hey idiot. it's pussy, not a FERC pipeline

Neither. The taxpayer will. More taxable income/goods and services, lower vice costs. Originally Posted by Mythos

The taxpayer always loses because he has to pay no matter who or what is included in the tax scheme,,,More Wal-Mart products are bought by soccer moms than whores' time bought by Johns,,,Tax revenue from prostitution isn't going to be all that great in numbers compared to what can be gotten from the average taxpayer,,,No one cares about lower vice costs because the taxpayer is always billed for that. One way or another PoPo is going to find a way to grease its machine which means higher costs for the taxpayer.