Originally posted at Camp4U

Comments (2) | Trackback
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Points of view from Farr and away

COMMENTS

I attempted to post these questions to one of your earlier entries but I don't think it worked. In any event, I read your bill (HB0770, right?). These questions come to mind, would you mind answering them?

What are the administrative costs (public) to identify adult materials by performer and distributor and what are the related accounting and manpower costs to enforce the tax?

What are the administrative costs (public and private) to identify whole foods by grower, manuf., distributor and related accounting costs to retailers? That's how much the cost of whole foods will increase to the consumer, to whom the costs are passed on, when you decrease the tax.

How is it constitutional to levy a tax on speech (adult material performances ) based on content when other similarly protected speech is not taxed. Isn't it an infringement if the government places a financial burden (tax) on one speech based on its content and not another?

Why did you exempt R and NC17 movies when more people are exposed to that medium of adult material than any other? (I don't have that quantified but it would have to be close to tops)
S Carpenter | 04.05.07 - 4:57 pm | #

it is HB1000 as amended. The costs to implement are factored in to the $50 million profit and have been taken out already. The loss of revenue to the porn industry is expected to be about 3% on one of the fastest growing industries in the world. The food types are spelled out in the bill and are quite specific. The cost to adjust food costs by the retailer is negligible and should not effect cost of food to any noticeable degree and surely not in excess of the savings to the consumer. It is legal and constitutional to tax speech, advertising, movie tickets(the passion of the Christ probably brought in tons and was taxed)sporting events, what ever and at any rate the state decides(many of these things are taxed at different rates now)just so long as it does not get to the point that it stops such speech (this is a layman interpretation of the law as told to me by the legal staff). The three percent drop in sales does not come close to that mark. I did not add R and NC17 movies because I did not want to tax that market.
The Rep | Homepage | 04.05.07 - 6:07 pm | #

Yes there are taxes on speech but not based exclusively on its content. That difference is the basis of the First Am. challenge. Infringement does not equal stop, it means infringe.

May I ask what "legal staff" advised you on this bill?

Thanks
S Carpenter | 04.05.07 - 10:15 pm | #

Well a tax is not considered an infringement unless it goes to the point that it substantially hurts the business..... as defined by the legal staff that drafted the bill. Are you a lawyer?
The Rep | Homepage | 04.05.07 - 11:07 pm | #

.