Nevada state Sen. Bob Coffin (D-Las Vegas) announced yesterday that he would entertain the notion of holding hearings before his Senate Taxation Committee on proposals to legalize and tax prostitution in areas of the state - including Las Vegas and Reno - where it is currently illegal. “(Prostitution is) going on now,” Coffin explained, “unregulated and unsafe. I have not decided about whether or not I’d support the legalization and control of it in urban areas, but I think it’s an idea worth entertaining.” Finally, a “broad”-based business tax we might be able to support!
Posted on January 23rd, 2009 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: Nevada
“unregulated and unsafe.”
The tone of Senator Coffin’s statement is that he views this as an opportunity to expand and enlarge government.
I wonder how many government employees he envisions adding to the state payroll to regulate and control this industry.
Seems sound. Let the legislative process hash this one out. It could be a diamond in the rough and save face for all…
To Chuck: please oh please raise the level of intellectual acumen re this blog site…start blocking the profanity and derision. The behavior is disgusting and not worthy of your goals and aspirations. Please add a language filter to the puerile and ineffective rants. Some will call this action censorship, others will call this ‘its about time’; raising the intellectual capacity and manifesting cerebral power is best. Nevada’s reputation will prosper.
Should I read any more profanity and downright disgusting behavior, I shall no longer read the blog and spread the word.
It should be entertained, as the local police force spends thousands a year controlling it, why not make tax revenue from it. Also other quick revenue generators: ( I mean why not, Gibbons broke his pledge anyways)
1) Mining….which has never paid it’s fair share, increase royalty fees.
2) Make a deal with the casinos, they will not have tax increases if they support a lottery, like the majority of the States do.
3) I stll believe a 50% increase on taxes for booze and tobacco is justified.
The main problem I have with taxes on items is that in a lot of cases, there’s a dual purpose to the tax. For gasoline, alcohol and tobacco, one of the purposes is to raise revenue. The other purpose is a social purpose. “Maybe if we tax cigarettes enough, people will smoke less or quit altogether.” “If we tax fuel enough, maybe people will start driving less, walk more, use the bus, buy a smaller more fuel efficient car, etc.”
What really bugs me is that the social goal of reducing consumption of the item in question sometimes is actually achieved. That doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is that instead of saying, “Hey, great, fewer people are smoking now,” or, “Hey, great, we’re using less gasoline because people are changing their travel habits,” the government takes the attitude, “Gee, we’re getting less revenue from gas taxes or cigarette taxes, so we need to raise taxes on something else to alleviate the shortfall.” Why can’t these people understand that a revenue shortfall is the price they’re going to have to pay to achieve the social policy goal they set? Why can’t they anticipate this when they propose the tax increase? Didn’t they ever study economics?