Nevada Appeal has the details.
NV Senator Bob Coffin hoped to gain support for the bill (SB 369) but yesterday’s testimony by brothel owners and employees didn’t generate the needed votes from the Taxation Committee (four of seven votes are needed to move the bill forward).
Coffin argued that prostitution is a legal activity that should be subject to tax like any other service and says $2M in much-needed state revenue would be generated by the new tax of $5 per sex act.
A dissenting brothel owner said the tax would cause a further decline in the number of customers due to the economic downturn.
The fiscal and moral arguments against the tax are obvious, and I agree with them.
But – is it wrong of me to ask why the bill proposes a flat, per-act tax rather than a percentage of the total sale like most businesses? Skimming $5 off a $100 service would result in a 5% tax, but $5 out of $1,000 is only one half of 1%.
Surely Senator Coffin can agree it wouldn’t be fair to have Nevada’s low-income, underpriveleged whores paying out a higher percentage of their wages than the high-dollar girls?
Or are they so used to getting screwed that Coffin thinks they won’t mind?
UPDATE: Two readers emailed in on SB 369 name-ology, suggesting we call it the “Flat On Your Back” Tax. Good idea, but Chuck Muth beat them to it.
