A Porn Tax, Reconsidered

Back in 2005, CNET wrote: "Jerome Barron, a former Dean of George Washington University Law School" said a porn tax would violate the First Amendment: "You can't use the taxation power as a weapon of censorship." But, suppose one were to consider a "porn tax" simply as a way to raise revenue, rather than as something as sob-sistery as Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln when she proposed a Porn Tax in order to make the internet a "safer place" for children.

God knows we need the money, and most other sinners, like drinkers and smokers, currently pay taxes for their sins. Suppose we didn't impose the tax on porn film producers, since that might raise First Amendment questions, or directly on viewers of "sexually-oriented material". Suppose instead, we taxed the distributors. Would it be too much to insist that every hotel that carries a Pay-Per-View porn channel, and retains a large percentage of the revenue, pay the federal government a dollar for every flick ordered by its guests. Maybe it hurts the hotel's bottom line, but they can always solve the problem by charging one dollar more for the pleasure of seeing dirty movies right in your hotel room.

Local governments need more money right now, even more than the feds do. They can't print it, but they do retain the power to license cable systems in their community. Why can't they ask for a dollar every time one of their cable Pay-Per-View viewers orders an X-rated video? The cable system lists Pay-Per-View usage separately on its cable bills and could easily account for and promptly pay our struggling local municipalities. I think the taxation is reasonable and the collection does not place an undue burden on the cable system--of course, if the cable system thinks it does, it can also try and pass the costs on to its viewers.

The federal government might also be eligible to impose a tax on cable systems. The government taxed movie tickets in 1942. Before the Second World War, the Saturday afternoon ticket at my neighborhood theater cost me ten cents. After Pearl Harbor, they raised the price to eleven--a dime for the theater and one penny for the war effort. Nobody questioned its unconstitutionality. Our coming depression poses almost as much of a danger to us as the Nazis did. If it was Constitutional to tax movie tickets in '42, why we can't we tax porn in 2009?

Of course, there's that old question: just what is porn? There's no question in my mind that hardcore X-rated Pay-Per-View explicit sex movies will make the cut. But what do you do about softcore -- the kind of stuff that HBO and Showtime send into our homes after 10pm almost every night of the week -- full nudity for women, simulated sex acts, and everything except genitalia (with occasional exceptions) for men. Well, most of the sex-oriented channels must be specifically ordered and I'd like to see the IRS get a piece of that additional revenue, as well--there's no reason that the two highly profitable premium movie networks shouldn't contribute a bit to the national deficit as the national economy goes into the dumps.

If we could only get the blue-noses to shut up about "saving our children" and accept a Porn Tax as a way to save us all from another tax increase, maybe we could actually get it through Congress.

Next week, I'll suggest we legalize marijuana and tax that, too -- any po(r)t in a storm.

Comments

[Lon]

I should note that I assume that pornographic movies rented in hotels are taxed at a rate similar to other movies and I don't have any problem with that. It is only the singling out for a special tax that seems problematic.

[Lon]

One minor point, Blanche Lincoln is form Arkansas not Missouri.

I think there is something problematic in taxing based on content. Even if the intent is not to prevent the material (and it is hard to believe any tax would actually elimnate porn, the demand is too high) the ability to abuse such a power is pretty great.

It also is not clear the basis for the sin tax here. Cigarettes are taxed separately because they increase health care costs and they cause harm to smokers in general. It is not clear that hotel porn is in someway indicted in some internet costs, or whatever the defensible exchange here is. Do watchers of porn have higher health care costs than those who don't watch? Or do they provide some other greater monetary cost to society?

[research]

I would rather see sexual material than violent hateful material or religious fanatic propaganda.

Tax Income.

[JimR]

Wow... that's a really BIG porn tax you've got there... do you think it can satisfy all of us?

[Chicago48]

Not entirely against it, however, some raise a good question -- why not tax violent movies too? . We're digging up graves to find tax revenue, we've run out of options for raising money.

[jeffrey678]

This is hilarious ! Will the porn tax be on a sliding scale? Will it be a progressive tax or flat tax ?

[sdsurfer]

Why not a violent movie tax or a Batman franchise tax? How about a blog tax? Or a latte tax...ohh wait they tried that in Seattle. Making micro taxes on select groups is an inherently unfair way to raise revenue. Drinking and smoking both impose significant costs on society. Porn, Batman, blogs and lattes at worst have minor societal costs, but under this type of thinking would bear a disproportionate burden. That is simply unfair. How about we go back to being honest with the electorate and raise revenue in a progressive manner by explaining the situation and raising income taxes and fees rather than trying to find groups that are unable or unwilling to stand up against an unfair suggestion such as this.