Blog: More Porn Tax Stuff
More on the Tax
Sorry for breaking this up, but people have been on me to write shorter blogs and post them more often. Since I could easily write all day about this porn tax I have been splitting stuff up.
Clarification: Judging by the email, I need to clear this up. Mark Kernes is 100% on the right side of this issue. My comments about his quote on the news earlier have nothing to do with his position on the porn tax. For all I know his quote was taken out of context. (And the lying cocksucker thing was a direct reference to something Mark wrote. I was calling him neither a liar nor cock sucker.) If his position is that drugs are not “allowed” on porn sets and that means they are not there or are not a problem, then he’s wrong, or lying, or blind or whatever. Guns aren’t allowed in schools, but they get there. Drugs aren’t allowed on some or maybe most porn sets but they find their way there. My comments about Mark and Shelly’s quote were that they represent two equally extreme and equally absurd points of view. We would have to hear them both in context to fully understand. Leave it to the mainstream dunderheads to paint it in such an insane display of black and white.
Eye Candy: Take break for a little fun with this hot blonde doing her thing on BigMouthfuls.com
Calderon Not Alone: Though he is the one driving this bus, Assemblyman Charles Calderon is not the only one looking to ram the 25% porn tax down out throats. By the way, it does appear that it would be an across the board tax. 25% charge at the door of the club, 25% more on any food or drinks and presumably any lap dances you get inside. One would assume that anything sold in an adult shop would also be subject to this tax. So condoms in a porn shop would cost 25% more than condoms at the 7-11. I also don’t want to leave the Republicans off the hook on this issue. There aren’t a lot of openly porn-friendly Republicans out there. If you give them a hundred ways to shut down the industry most of them would take ninety-five of them. That much is clear. On the other hand, this issue the one facing us right now happens to fall in a gray area where it is Democrats lining up to put adult businesses out on the street. After all of the support this industry has given to the Democrat Party, this is how they treat it? As a cash cow to be thrown under the bus because they know that no one will stand up for it?
Eye Candy: Let’s enjoy a little love, Marie Luv style.
Feedback: I was checking out the different news accounts of the coverage and found this user comment on an ABC story. This is what we’re up against.
So what would be the downside here? Many in the #### industry would go bankrupt? Hmmm… sounds to me like a win/win outcome either way
This is the exact response supporters of this tax are looking for. Short-sighted, narrow-minded and completely out of touch. I replied with the following.
The downside is simple. It would unfairly tax a legal industry and force it out of California taking with it 6 billion in taxable profits and 50,000 jobs. Instead of stealing 665 million, the state would stand to loose nearly that much in lost revenue and jobs. Beyond that, selective taxation on #### opens us up to taxation on other “bad” things like fried food, ice cream, sugar, video games, TV (lack of exercise is making us fat after all), SUVs and anything else Sacramento decides to target.
I didn’t even bother to suggest to that person that the tax patrol can label almost anything as “bad” and then throw a tax on it. I won’t even get started on the whole list of things that they could come after next.
Eye Candy: Who doesn’t love Lacey? Lacey Maguire that is.
Lubben, Shelly: Since she is right in the middle of this mess, now is as good a time as any to discuss my mixed and confusing feelings about Ms. Lubben and how she spends her time on this earth. Unlike many folks in this industry I don’t dismiss Shelly as an ex-porner turned Bible-thumbing moralist. I don’t regard her simply as someone who would shut down the industry and have me looking for a new job at the drop of a hat. She may be all of these things, but I have a great deal of respect for much of what Shelly tries to do. I actually got into a rather heated discussion about Shelly in Las Vegas. Because I don’t automatically throw her overboard at the drop of a hat I stand out for some reason. Perhaps it my moderate core that keeps me standing up for her even as I shake my head when I hear her testify before the Assembly. It’s getting late so I’ll hit on this more tomorrow, but for starters let’s put the good on the table with the bad. Yes, Shelly would have everyone believe that every porn set is crawling with drug addicted zombies, sex offenders and that every woman who ventures in front of the camera is doomed simply because she is a porn star. On the other hand, she offers outreach to those women who want to find a life after porn. Who else is actually greeting these young women with open arms, offering them job outreach, financial assistance and emotional support? That’s the part of Shelly’s worth that I find worthy of support. There is a lot more to say, but Chiller is about to show “The Horror Show” from 1979 with Tony Perkins introducing us to some of the great monsters of horror films. I’m going to catch it and finish this tomorrow.
