4 ms·

"This whole business will be completely ruined. The whole point about being a stripper is you go in, get fast cash, no one knows how you’re getting it, it’s not

"This whole business will be completely ruined. The whole point about being a stripper is you go in, get fast cash, no one knows how you’re getting it, it’s not documented and it’s not taken from you." Sorry not sorry that you have to actually start paying taxes on your income like the rest of us. Some of these quotes are really helping to make the case for the law.

SomeOldThrow 7y ago
I think the businesses are ruined—they probably legitimately don’t make enough money to pay a living wage and the necessary benefits with their current business model. I don’t see this as a problem in the long term for the strippers—unauditable cash will still rule. And frankly, let’s start with taxing other places, this really doesn’t strike me as a place of conspicuous tax avoidance compared to, say, the board room.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  I think tax evasion was the phrase you were looking for. Just about everybody participates in tax avoidance.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- gizmo686 7y ago
  By "current bussiness model", do you mean current prices? I do not see anything in the bussiness model that precludes raising prices. The issue seems to be that current prices are based on the assumption of tax evasion. I have nothing against sex work, but it does not strike me as an industry worthy of tax breaks.
  - SomeOldThrow 7y ago
    > I do not see anything in the bussiness model that precludes raising prices. I was defining the business model by success with current regulations. I refuse to speculate about market effects beyond the possibility of any change aside from the regulatory change. > I have nothing against sex work, but it does not strike me as an industry worthy of tax breaks. Yea I never voted to fund defense contracts either. Yet, those fucks are getting paid. Not much to do about it but vote and revolt.
rolltiide 7y ago
But that doesn’t explain why their comp is fixed at the minimum wage of $15/hr This article is a year old.
- jandrese 7y ago
  Because strip club owners are mostly assholes? They're going to take as much as they think they can get away with, which is probably a lot.
  - ShteiLoups 7y ago
    And if they can't get away with it, I suppose they'll have to raise wages to attract entertainers. Oh look, a free market!
    - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
      Nah, once that happens we get news pieces on 'labor shortages'. I'm a capitalist. But I recognize that the difference between theory and reality is that in theory there is no difference. The reality is the strippers have as much leverage as the other side doesn't (that's the hole concept of leverage). Club owners have the leverage of the cost of setting up a great club, and local regulations. This then translates to: the more strip clubs in a city, the more they will have to compete. That is, if they aren't colluding * Which is a lot easier when the people controlling that side of the supply equation are likely less than a dozen sophisticated guys in a city (who tend to all know each other). While the supply of labor is likely in the 1000s or 10,000s (and mostly not-so-sophisticated and can't all know each other) https://fortune.com/2015/09/03/koh-anti-poach-order/ https://fortune.com/2015/09/03/koh-anti-poach-order/
      - jandrese 7y ago
        Nearly all of the clubs were owned by the same guy.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
ultrarunner 7y ago
> Sorry not sorry that you have to actually start paying taxes on your income like the rest of us I am. Paying taxes on income (that is then taxed again when spent) is a terrible disincentive. Some states agree with me; I would rather see the standard move toward a model free of income taxation than toward universal taxation. Doubly so when the tone of your comment seems to point to the motivation being largely spite.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  > Paying taxes on income (that is then taxed again when spent) is a terrible disincentive. While I can understand opposing income based taxation, I don't understand why opponents of income based taxation would support specific industries evading existing income based taxation laws rather than working to change the taxation laws for everyone.
  - ultrarunner 7y ago
    We are coming to the same point from different angles. For a lot of people it's easier to adhere to eye-for-an-eye than to stop and advocate for an end to violence, as it were. I was only taking issue with what seems to be cheering a step backwards ("I would be richer without income tax too"). Technically, given the way you put it, I suppose I would advocate for more and more specific industries not being subject to income taxation until no industries were paying it. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming have realized this situation by one means or another. But I agree that, in general, consistent tax laws for everyone is a preferred outcome.
    - shkkmo 7y ago
      I am not particularly opposed to income based taxation. While I think asset based taxes are usually better than income based taxes, income based taxes are better than sales taxes or state run lotteries. I personally think that how we handle unemployment and food stamps do more to disincentivize work than our income taxation. Taxation is complex and tricky to do well. Unfortunately it is treated as a wedge issue and this prevents productive discussion and effective policy making.
mindslight 7y ago
... because funding more war is something to be celebrated? Just because you're personally caught under a boot doesn't mean you should cheer when the net ensnares someone else. That's called the crab bucket mentality.

SomeOldThrow 7y ago

I think the businesses are ruined—they probably legitimately don’t make enough money to pay a living wage and the necessary benefits with their current business model. I don’t see this as a problem in the long term for the strippers—unauditable cash will still rule. And frankly, let’s start with taxing other places, this really doesn’t strike me as a place of conspicuous tax avoidance compared to, say, the board room.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
I think tax evasion was the phrase you were looking for. Just about everybody participates in tax avoidance.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
gizmo686 7y ago
By "current bussiness model", do you mean current prices? I do not see anything in the bussiness model that precludes raising prices. The issue seems to be that current prices are based on the assumption of tax evasion. I have nothing against sex work, but it does not strike me as an industry worthy of tax breaks.
- SomeOldThrow 7y ago
  > I do not see anything in the bussiness model that precludes raising prices. I was defining the business model by success with current regulations. I refuse to speculate about market effects beyond the possibility of any change aside from the regulatory change. > I have nothing against sex work, but it does not strike me as an industry worthy of tax breaks. Yea I never voted to fund defense contracts either. Yet, those fucks are getting paid. Not much to do about it but vote and revolt.

rolltiide 7y ago

But that doesn’t explain why their comp is fixed at the minimum wage of $15/hr This article is a year old.

jandrese 7y ago
Because strip club owners are mostly assholes? They're going to take as much as they think they can get away with, which is probably a lot.
- ShteiLoups 7y ago
  And if they can't get away with it, I suppose they'll have to raise wages to attract entertainers. Oh look, a free market!
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
    Nah, once that happens we get news pieces on 'labor shortages'. I'm a capitalist. But I recognize that the difference between theory and reality is that in theory there is no difference. The reality is the strippers have as much leverage as the other side doesn't (that's the hole concept of leverage). Club owners have the leverage of the cost of setting up a great club, and local regulations. This then translates to: the more strip clubs in a city, the more they will have to compete. That is, if they aren't colluding * Which is a lot easier when the people controlling that side of the supply equation are likely less than a dozen sophisticated guys in a city (who tend to all know each other). While the supply of labor is likely in the 1000s or 10,000s (and mostly not-so-sophisticated and can't all know each other) https://fortune.com/2015/09/03/koh-anti-poach-order/ https://fortune.com/2015/09/03/koh-anti-poach-order/
    - jandrese 7y ago
      Nearly all of the clubs were owned by the same guy.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

ultrarunner 7y ago

> Sorry not sorry that you have to actually start paying taxes on your income like the rest of us I am. Paying taxes on income (that is then taxed again when spent) is a terrible disincentive. Some states agree with me; I would rather see the standard move toward a model free of income taxation than toward universal taxation. Doubly so when the tone of your comment seems to point to the motivation being largely spite.

shkkmo 7y ago
> Paying taxes on income (that is then taxed again when spent) is a terrible disincentive. While I can understand opposing income based taxation, I don't understand why opponents of income based taxation would support specific industries evading existing income based taxation laws rather than working to change the taxation laws for everyone.
- ultrarunner 7y ago
  We are coming to the same point from different angles. For a lot of people it's easier to adhere to eye-for-an-eye than to stop and advocate for an end to violence, as it were. I was only taking issue with what seems to be cheering a step backwards ("I would be richer without income tax too"). Technically, given the way you put it, I suppose I would advocate for more and more specific industries not being subject to income taxation until no industries were paying it. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming have realized this situation by one means or another. But I agree that, in general, consistent tax laws for everyone is a preferred outcome.
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    I am not particularly opposed to income based taxation. While I think asset based taxes are usually better than income based taxes, income based taxes are better than sales taxes or state run lotteries. I personally think that how we handle unemployment and food stamps do more to disincentivize work than our income taxation. Taxation is complex and tricky to do well. Unfortunately it is treated as a wedge issue and this prevents productive discussion and effective policy making.

mindslight 7y ago

... because funding more war is something to be celebrated? Just because you're personally caught under a boot doesn't mean you should cheer when the net ensnares someone else. That's called the crab bucket mentality.