Friday, May 23, 2008
Would a Porn Tax Hurt Sales?
The Freakanomics blog asks: Would a Porn Tax Hurt Sales?:
A California state assemblyman has proposed dealing with the state’s huge budget shortfall by taxing pornography, including the production and sale of pornographic videos — by 25%. To an economist this initially sounds like a good idea: An ideal tax is one that doesn’t cause any change in behavior — doesn’t generate any excess burden on the economy. I believe the demand for pornography is quite inelastic, so I don’t expect sales to be reduced much if porn prices rise as producers try and succeed in passing this tax along to consumers.
But demand is only one side of the market: A tax only in California gives producers an incentive to move their operations elsewhere. ... [The] tax might generate a substantial dead-weight loss, as a lot of production shifts to other states that don’t impose the tax.
Update: The New York Times has more in Sex Sells, So Legislator Urges State to Tax It.
https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/05/would-a-porn-ta.html
Comments
Flash - The big difference in your analogy between the RIAA and the home-made porno stars - is that the home made porn stars consent to their 'original' copyright material being exploited for free; it is an intrinsic part of the exhibitionist nature of home made porn. Most record companies, artists, composers, and even professional porn producers don't!
If we had to rely on 'home-made' music productions for the satisfaction of our music consumption (or our 'music appreciation') then the analogy falls down. Amateur porn is, perhaps arguably, a more exciting and eroticised form of porn, whereas amateur music is, or often can be, shit!
Posted by: A Musician | May 24, 2008 4:45:57 AM
Tax the churches!
The buyers and sellers of porn are already paying their fair share.
Meanwhile BILLIONS of dollars every year flow thru our untaxed churches....
If we gave the churches a deal half as good as the oil companies have they could still rake in BILLIONS and maybe we could fund a war or two and god forbid (pun intended) fix our crumbling infrastructure!
Posted by: JAmelio | May 23, 2008 7:25:17 PM
Another fine example of yet another government "employee" trying to earn his way onto the Bloated Toad Ride to World Domination! (Government Rules, Dude.) And if you ain't a member of that club, then you must be one of those bystanders paying nearly 50% percent of your income to keep the ride afloat. The bonus is, you get to pay the riders their very own guaranteed cost-of-living raises and retirement! Gee, maybe we all should work for the government all the time. Nah. Then we'd be a socialist country - and we're only halfway to that lofty goal.
Posted by: PJWrites | May 23, 2008 11:52:21 AM
I live in california, and have been watching pornography for quite a while. I don't think I have ever paid for it. Why would I bother? The stuff in porn shops is pure overpriced crap, while I can get the good stuff online for free.
Posted by: Kristen | May 23, 2008 10:21:04 AM
Who pays for porn anymore?? That is OH SO 1997!!
With YouPorn.com and countless USENET and other sites that provide free porn - not to mention the stuff made and uploaded by amateurs on digital cameras, it is a FAILED policy.
Just like the RIAA, it's hanging onto an obsolete model.
Posted by: Flash | May 23, 2008 10:12:53 AM
Any tax is a negative drain on the economy. Taxes do noting but hurt us all. When are they going to hook a meter to our faces and tax us for air?
Have you ever heard of reducing spending, not increasing it when times are hard?
Posted by: Dr. Stiffy | May 23, 2008 9:17:51 AM
........we in production and distribution in Nevada are so happy with the concept and are actively encouraging it.
Posted by: AlphaUniform | May 23, 2008 8:59:54 AM
Okay I will go along with this tax if there is also photo-op tax on politicians. Every time they get their photo taken or appear in a video they get taxed, in a few weeks the State deficit would be wiped out. Of course some politicians would move out of state to avoid paying the tax, this would be a win-win; We get rid of the ego freaks and they get to go somewhere to get their ego fed.
Posted by: Phil Anderer | May 23, 2008 8:41:34 AM
It won't hurt. People don't pay for it anyway. It's all free online. The mainstream industry is dying because of the lack of paying customers. Even when people do pay, it's for offshore websites (even if they do meet 2257 requirements).
Posted by: Apep | May 23, 2008 8:40:47 AM
1) People *pay* for porn?
2) Taxing "sins": it's politically easy to pass taxes on items/behaviors polite society doesn't like, isn't it?
Posted by: Dave | May 23, 2008 8:03:27 AM
Don't you see any first amendment issues with a selectively applicable media tax?
Posted by: Joe Blow | May 23, 2008 7:38:08 AM
How about a Organic food tax... since we are obviously taxing products that are felt to be undesirable by the folks in charge... tax something that effects these pretentious bastards. How about every dollar that the Cult of Scientology collect gets a 50% tax on it... feed the children... Cults aren't tax exempt are they?
Posted by: anon | May 23, 2008 7:27:17 AM
Any idea what damage this could do to the porn industry? People might quit having sex for money. . .
Posted by: Spanky | May 24, 2008 4:58:38 AM