TandAx

A league of self-appointed morality do-gooders calling itself the "Citizens for Strengthening Community Values" is getting press in Kansas wanting to impose a sin tax on sex shops.

Since the group can't seem to convince people that porn should be outright taxed because it's Bad, they claim that porn shops cause societal problems such as crime, blight and decreased property values.

It's hard to find research on this subject by non-biased group that indicates otherwise, but it's not necessary to refute slanted research to show how this won't work, and how sin taxes in general are a fraud.

The argument goes something like this: Since we already use sin taxes to recoup the societal costs for things like smoking and drinking, why not porn as well?

I'll ignore the textbook example of "slippery slope" since the advocates have as well.

Cigarette and alcohol taxes are easy to impose because the costs are very easy to track. The money from taxes can easily be directed into efforts to prevent drunk driving or alcohol abuse, medical treatment for smokers, or programs to help parents keep their kids from smoking and drinking. Lung cancer, liver cirrhosis and drug-related crimes are easy to track as well.

So how do you direct funds from a porn tax to fix the problems of "crime, blight and decreased property values?" How do you determine that a particular crime was caused by the local porn shop? Do you rebate local property owners for their loss of property value with the taxes?

If you are the state legislature, and you continue to repeat historical mistakes, you keep the money and don't try to fix the problems at all.

What's even worse, once a government agency starts to rely on funding from sin taxes, it has a vested interest in perpetuating the source of income and will be reluctant to take any action that might jeopordize it. The local government becomes a silent partner in the sin business.

If that isn't particularly convincing, consider this.

The demand for pornography is highly price inelastic (anti-porn sources like Baylor University say so verbatim(pdf)). That is, the demand goes unchanged as price increases. The ultimate form of price inelasticity is addiction to a product, where the consumer will acquire the product at any price. Taken to extremes, sin taxes will completely implode and result in grey or black market for an item.

Is the boondoggle of the sin tax a little clearer now? Few people are against sin taxes because they only affect undesirable behavior, so the legislature doesn't have a problem passing the tax. The behavior is pervasive enough that the tax generates observable revenue. The legislature comes to rely on the revenue. The tax has little or no affect on consumption so the product demand stays flat or increases. As it increases, more revenue is generated, etc.

Add to this the fundamental problem that obscenity laws are largely based off of "community standard" definitions, way back from the 1950's, when porn was viewed mostly in theaters and retail outlets. Today, the overwhelming majority of adult material is viewed at home. Community standards of pornography are no longer relevant.

When the religious right colludes with the legislature to pass a tax under false pretenses, it's called "deterring sin". If a private company did this, it would be called "Enron".