GOP: Grand Old Porn
This proposed California bill that would levy an 8% state tax on adult goods and services is getting a lot of people bent out of shape - surprisingly, including Republicans. I don't like the proposal either (and I don't even live in the Golden State), and I think it's bad all-around. But there's two points in particular I'd like to cover.
About 6-7 paragraphs into the article (if you read it), they mention a "public nudity" component to AB 1551. I don't get the significance of this clause (though the unprotected sex part I do get). Why punish - excuse me, "tax" - this aspect of adult film production, in particular? While the government is at it why not include, "sex acts that are shot on Mondays on the right side of the bed during a rainy day"?
It seems that they're picking on the porn industry again, as the article says, considering how unnecessarily specific (read frivolous) the laws provisions would be, and considering the fact that the government would be taxing one form of free speech to the exclusion of others.
Secondly, I love how the government is consistent in all walks of life when it comes to taxation: basically, its motto is, if you're going to tax something, tax all aspects of it, going in and coming out and all manner in between.
So to pick up on the article's example, say some lonely businessman on the road rents a skin flick in his private hotel room. In that scenario, all parties involved in that transaction would be taxed: from the businessman, to the hotel that piped in the movie, to the original producers of the adult movie (as the article says, whether they're based in California or not - as long as they do business in the state).
And speaking of Republicans and hotel-room porn (what a segue, if I do say so myself!), I ran into this article concerning Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney . Apparently, he's being vilified for maintaining ties to the Marriot group, who provide pay-per-view adult movie services in their chain of establishments.
Speaking to the contents of the article, how do certain conservative action groups know he never tried to stop the corporation's provision of these X-rated productions? For all they know, he might've privately pulled other company execs aside on a constant basis and told them, based on his religion and his position in politics, that he wasn't comfortable with this particular company policy. But, the other members of the board, who apparently aren't so religiously or politically inclined, were at ease with the policy.
After all, nobody denies that offering porn for a price makes good economic sense. The board is constructed that way in the first place: that no one single person's personal beliefs would get in the way of the business of making money.
So at the end of the day, the majority ruled. I mean, not that I'm a shill for politicians at all (much less one for the GOP) but what's the guy supposed to do? He's just one guy on the company's board.
I know, you're saying, "He could disassociate himself from Marriot Corp altogether." And yes he could. If it did happen the way I espoused above and he did previously take his concerns to management, one can only say that he would have dumped a less lucrative or lower profile company than the Marriot. (I use this dating analogy to compare the situation to a woman who gives her boyfriend more chances to screw up if he's rich and famous :)).
Still, I could have forgiven the guy for his decision to stay with the Marriot board - condoning the porn and all - if he hadn't gone and recently preached to that graduating class about the ills of smut. Now he just sounds like a hypocrite. Maybe he should have just laid low on this issue.
Just a thought...
About 6-7 paragraphs into the article (if you read it), they mention a "public nudity" component to AB 1551. I don't get the significance of this clause (though the unprotected sex part I do get). Why punish - excuse me, "tax" - this aspect of adult film production, in particular? While the government is at it why not include, "sex acts that are shot on Mondays on the right side of the bed during a rainy day"?
It seems that they're picking on the porn industry again, as the article says, considering how unnecessarily specific (read frivolous) the laws provisions would be, and considering the fact that the government would be taxing one form of free speech to the exclusion of others.
Secondly, I love how the government is consistent in all walks of life when it comes to taxation: basically, its motto is, if you're going to tax something, tax all aspects of it, going in and coming out and all manner in between.
So to pick up on the article's example, say some lonely businessman on the road rents a skin flick in his private hotel room. In that scenario, all parties involved in that transaction would be taxed: from the businessman, to the hotel that piped in the movie, to the original producers of the adult movie (as the article says, whether they're based in California or not - as long as they do business in the state).
And speaking of Republicans and hotel-room porn (what a segue, if I do say so myself!), I ran into this article concerning Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney . Apparently, he's being vilified for maintaining ties to the Marriot group, who provide pay-per-view adult movie services in their chain of establishments.
Speaking to the contents of the article, how do certain conservative action groups know he never tried to stop the corporation's provision of these X-rated productions? For all they know, he might've privately pulled other company execs aside on a constant basis and told them, based on his religion and his position in politics, that he wasn't comfortable with this particular company policy. But, the other members of the board, who apparently aren't so religiously or politically inclined, were at ease with the policy.
After all, nobody denies that offering porn for a price makes good economic sense. The board is constructed that way in the first place: that no one single person's personal beliefs would get in the way of the business of making money.
So at the end of the day, the majority ruled. I mean, not that I'm a shill for politicians at all (much less one for the GOP) but what's the guy supposed to do? He's just one guy on the company's board.
I know, you're saying, "He could disassociate himself from Marriot Corp altogether." And yes he could. If it did happen the way I espoused above and he did previously take his concerns to management, one can only say that he would have dumped a less lucrative or lower profile company than the Marriot. (I use this dating analogy to compare the situation to a woman who gives her boyfriend more chances to screw up if he's rich and famous :)).
Still, I could have forgiven the guy for his decision to stay with the Marriot board - condoning the porn and all - if he hadn't gone and recently preached to that graduating class about the ills of smut. Now he just sounds like a hypocrite. Maybe he should have just laid low on this issue.
Just a thought...
posted by Don_One at 1:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home