Hi y'all - as I'm always in the market for a bargain, I wonder if your proposed tax on prostitution would be a flat tax, or one based on service provided eg. 3% for a handjob, 5% for a blowjob, 25% for a tickle - I'd better not go any further. Of course it would be applicable to both sexes but would trannies have to pay double? What about overheads - would they be deductible? I suppose there would have to be sexpenses. It seems as though a whole new bureaucracy would spring up.
On Oct 16, 1:41 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Very good article. I think we should get rid of the government middle > men and let Costco/Wal-Mart buy it directly from the distributers. > Then the government should directly tax alcohol more heavily. :-) I > think that prostitution, alcohol, gambling and other services/goods > that do enhance the health or productivity of citizens and may > potentially be damaging (addiction, etc.) should be taxed heavily (but > legal except for hardcore drugs such as cocaine, heroine, etc.). > > On Oct 16, 11:05 am, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > How Your Beer Bought John McCain's $500 Loafers > > Uncovering the government subsidies behind Cindy McCain's family > > fortune > > Radley Balko | October 15, 2008 > > > Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has made no bones about his disgust for > > greed. In the primaries, he contrasted his own record of public > > service with the private sector career of opponent Mitt Romney, whom > > McCain derided as a "profit manager." More recently, as the world’s > > capital markets fell into a full-blown crisis, McCain has struck a > > populist chord, lambasting the "unbridled greed" that he says drives > > Wall Street. > > > Though ostensibly more free market than his opponent Sen. Barack Obama > > (D-Ill.), McCain (he of the eight houses, 13 cars, and $500 loafers) > > has never been shy about laying into what he feels are the excesses of > > capitalism, including the way lobbyists can bribe lawmakers to jigger > > the system to their liking. The problem for McCain is that the fortune > > he married into came by way of alcohol wholesaling, an industry that > > isn’t remotely free market, is awash in excess, and that wouldn’t > > exist were it not for rigorous system-jiggering from high-powered > > lobbyists. > > > When McCain married his second wife Cindy Lou Hensley in 1980, he > > became one half of a very wealthy household. By some estimates, Cindy > > McCain’s stake in her family’s Hensley & Co. beer distributorship puts > > her net worth around $100 million. The Hensley company gave McCain an > > executive position shortly after he married the heiress, helped > > catapult him into public office, has thrown heaps of money at his > > campaigns over the years, and in addition to providing him with a > > charmed life, has played a significant role in putting him an election > > away from the White House. > > > Over the course of his career, media outlets covering McCain have > > delved pretty extensively into the history of Cindy McCain’s father > > and his company, as well as the ethical issues McCain will have to > > face if he’s elected and his wife still serves as the company’s > > president (McCain generally recuses himself from federal legislation > > pertaining to alcohol regulation—he won’t have that option as > > president). But thus far, there’s been little examination of the beer > > wholesaling industry as a whole. To be blunt, the entire industry is a > > farce. It’s an artificial, anachronistic, government-created entity > > that’s anti-competitive and full of lobbyists and special interests. > > It raises the cost of each bottle of beer you drink, though “Joe Six > > Pack,” as McCain’s running mate might put it, receives no value for > > the added cost. > > > Alcohol wholesalers (in this context, wholesalers and distributors > > essentially have the same meaning) thrive thanks to what’s known as > > the "three-tier system" of alcohol distribution, a series of laws that > > date back to just after the end of prohibition in 1933. The 21st > > Amendment gives states the power to regulate the sale of alcohol > > within their borders. Some states decided to assume control of all > > alcohol sales (they’re known today as control states). Most of those > > that didn’t adopted laws mandating a state-based middleman between > > alcohol producers (brewers, distillers, wineries) and retailers > > (restaurants, grocery stores, liquor stores). There are some > > exceptions, but generally in three-tier states no one is allowed to > > buy directly from a producer. Everything must go through a > > distributor. And while it’s possible to envision a role for a beer or > > wine distributor in a freer market for alcohol, it’s clear that the > > industry wouldn’t be nearly as lucrative or prominent as it is today > > were it not for these protectionist laws. > > > In the book Strange Brew: Alcohol and Government Monopoly, California > > State Northridge Professor Glen Whitman explains the origins of the > > antiquated system. It was put in place largely to appease temperance > > activists, who still held sway in some parts of the country. Angsty > > prohibitionists feared what they called "tied houses," bars that were > > owned by liquor producers. Before prohibition, tied houses, they said, > > had lured blue-collar workers in with free salted pork sandwiches on > > their lunch breaks. The salty meal would make the laborers thirsty, at > > which point they’d purchase alcohol from the bar—leading, the > > temperance activists said, to decreased production, drunkardness, and > > all-around moral decay. (According to Whitman, this is also the origin > > of the phrase, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”) A state- > > mandated middleman, the thinking went, would prevent these devious > > marketing practices. > > > The wholesaling industry has thrived ever since. For decades > > wholesalers have quietly added 18-25 percent to every bottle of beer, > > glass of wine, and shot of liquor you pour down your gullet. And > > there's been little resistance to them, for a few reasons. First, > > wholesalers don’t interact with consumers. They take their markup > > between producer and retailer, out of the sight of the people whose > > money they’re ultimately taking. Second, they’re rather powerful. > > Alcohol wholesaling is a lucrative, concentrated industry that reaps > > enormous benefits from policies whose costs are spread out across the > > general public. Which brings up the third reason distribution laws > > aren’t frequently challenged because they haven’t had many obvious > > opponents. Until recently, the only people hurt by the three-tiered > > system were consumers, and again, the cost per consumer was too > > negligible, hidden, and entrenched for anyone to notice. > > > That’s changing. Bulk retailers like Costco and Wal-Mart have waged > > lawsuits against some of these laws, with mixed success. The > > popularity of microbrews, niche wineries, and the ability of both to > > reach consumers over the Internet has also put a dent in the > > distributors’ empire; wholesalers are among the leading advocates for > > banning alcohol sales over the web. > > > But it gets worse. Many states have placed further restrictions within > > this already artificial market. Some states, for example, give > > wholesalers exclusive rights to distribute alcohol in a particular > > region, effectively creating government-enforced monopolies. Other > > states (including Arizona) have enacted “franchise termination laws,” > > which make it more difficult for retailers and/or producers to switch > > distributors once they’ve started doing business with one. Producers > > and/or retailers get locked in. If they feel their existing > > distributor is taking too much of a markup, isn’t offering a wide > > enough variety, or is otherwise performing poorly, there's little they > > can do. The effect is to squeeze out the upstarts and the competitors. > > According to Whitman, the number of alcohol wholesalers nationwide has > > shrunk by 90 percent since the 1950s. > > > The Hensley company provides a good example of how these laws can hurt > > consumers. Hensley is the fourth largest beer distributor in the > > country, one of the largest privately-held companies in Arizona, and > > holds a 60 percent market share in the parts of Arizona it serves. It > > also distributes Anheuser-Busch products exclusively. Beer-producing > > giant Busch began an incentive campaign in the late 1990s aimed at > > getting distributors to drop the products produced by its competitors. > > In those parts of the country where a given distributor has a huge, > > government-abetted market share, such arrangements put the squeeze on > > the variety of options available to consumers (Anheuser-Bush’s > > national market share rose five percent during the campaign, to 50 > > percent nationally). > > > Alcohol wholesalers put out several arguments to justify their > > existence. None of them are very convincing. > > > First, they say that wholesaling provides a convenient bottleneck for > > the government to collect taxes on alcohol. Given that state > > governments manage to collect sales tax at the retail level on just > > about everything else, that isn't terribly persuasive. > > > Three-tier advodacy groups like the National Beer Wholesalers > > Association also improbably argue that without their members' careful > > scrutiny and warehousing, we’d be seeing outbreaks of death and > > disease caused by tainted alcohol—as if the existence of wholesalers > > and their markup is all that’s preventing alcohol producers from > > poisoning their customers. Again, not all that persuasive. > > > For its next argument, NBWA then employs Frederic Bastiat’s Broken > > Window Fallacy, boasting that the government-created industry adds > > 91,000 jobs and effects an impossible $15 billion impact on the U.S. > > economy. If those figures are accurate, why not require all consumer > > products to pass through three tiers? In fact, why not add a fourth or > > fifth tier, too? We could wipe out unemployment! The argument, of > > course, is preposterous. Without laws mandating their existence, > > whatever it is that beer distributors claim they generate for the > > economy wouldn't disappear. That money would merely go to consumers in > > the form of cheaper beer, wine, and liquor. > > > The most dubious argument from wholesalers is that because of the > > potential for abuse, > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
