RentBoy Raid...My 2 Cents

[Jock123]

What it All Boils down to is MONEY. EVERYTHING Revolves around Money. Once Uncle Sam Acknowledges there is Plenty(Especially with the Rise of Hookup Apps Etc the Pass few Years) to be made From Taxing Escorts...they Will Cave In. Being an Escort is Coined as "The Worlds Oldest Profession". As long as there is Blood Running through the Veins of Men(And some Women) there will be a Need. Escorts will Argue the Net makes things SAFER(Obviously) and to Crimanilze the Use is putting them at Risk by going back to the "Old Way"(Before the Internet Etc)

 

 

I thought to Myself Last Night(What a Coincedence this all Happens the same Week of the Ashley Madison Hack...) Could it be some High Level Officials are listed as "Clients" and they Stopped the Hack Beforehand? I mean WHY Rentboy? WHY Not the other Countless Escort Sites...?

 

 

My 2 Cents is Eventually(Just like Gay Marriage) It will be Legal...Again Uncle Sam could Tax it(Which I think is best for Everyone all Around Anyways)...I give it a Few Years.

[seaboy4hire]

Legalize it, yes. Tax income or any income for that matter, NO. Just my 1/2 cents worth.

 

Hugs,

Greg

[+ Gar1eth]

 

 

I thought to Myself Last Night(What a Coincedence this all Happens the same Week of the Ashley Madison Hack...) Could it be some High Level Officials are listed as "Clients" and they Stopped the Hack Beforehand? I mean WHY Rentboy? WHY Not the other Countless Escort Sites...?

 

 

 

Yesterday in The Sword article about Rentboy there was a link to a tweet from a Boston reporter who who hypothesized about this legal action preempting a hack on Rentboy's site. But of course except for the numbers involved it seems less likely for the typical client to have revealing information on Rentboy's servers except through the Rentboy email system. I'm sure the majority of clients who use Rentboy never sign up for it and only view it. Of course I'm sure the government can trace visitors to the site too. But there are going to be a lot of them.

[+ FreshFluff]

I'm sure the majority of clients who use Rentboy never sign up for it and only view it. Of course I'm sure the government can trace visitors to the site too. But there are going to be a lot of them.

 

But viewing escort profiles is perfectly legal.

 

About the Hookies: The indictment made a big fuss about the award names, like "best twink," "best bottom" or whatever. IIRC, the voting is completely open. I'm sure that plenty of people, some of whom had never met an escort in their lives, voted for particular guys just because they were hot or the guy's porn work was appealing. Unless they get access to text records, it's tough to prove that the Hookie winners ever met with a single client.

[+ quoththeraven]

Income from escorting or any other income-producing activity, whether legal or not, is already subject to income tax. Al Capone was only successfully prosecuted for tax evasion.

 

Also, while 1099s and other direct evidence of income makes it easier, it is possible to prove income indirectly. It's a matter of whether the investigative time required is considered worth it.

[+ beethoven]

The government doesn't have to spend more money and manpower to bring this to trial. They've already made their point, scaring the hell out of everyone. Just look at the massage sites. But I still say, doesn't the Department of Homeland Security have better things to do? They should be severely criticized by Congress for wasting resources on something they are not supposed to be involved in at all. But we won't hold our breath, will we?

[+ purplekow]

It seems odd that it is only one site, at least for now. Perhaps this particular raid is garnering attention is a result of the salaciousness of the thoughts that go through people's minds when they hear terms like Rentboy and Hookies. if this were an online doughnut business with the same business practices being investigate, would anyone care?

[rvwnsd]

It seems odd that it is only one site, at least for now. Perhaps this particular raid is garnering attention is a result of the salaciousness of the thoughts that go through people's minds when they hear terms like Rentboy and Hookies. if this were an online doughnut business with the same business practices being investigate, would anyone care?

 

If an online doughnut business was suspected of laundering money the DHS would be involved as would the FBI, as money laundering investigations are handled by those two agencies. In fact, after the USAPATRIOT Act was passed and BSA/AML (Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering) enforcement was all the rage, mom-and-pop fast food restaurants and doughnut shops were under enhanced scrutiny because they are cash-intensive businesses through which it would be easy to launder money. As time wore on, analytics became more sophisticated and transaction volumes were analyzed for reasonableness. "Reasonableness" is assessed by looking at revenues vs cash flow. For example, if an online doughnut shop had annual revenue of $100,000 and monthly bank deposits of $50,000 something is seriously amiss.

[Guest]

Tax income or any income for that matter, NO. Just my 1/2 cents worth.

 

WTF? A little nutty, are you?

[adannyboy]

Remember!

It's decriminalization, not legalization we're working toward.

[seaboy4hire]

WTF? A little nutty, are you?

I've been called worse.

 

Hugs,

Greg

[Guest]

I've been called worse.

 

Even the hermit who lives in the woods benefits some from government expenditures generated from taxes; everyone benefits from national defense and public health, for example. Maybe I'm wrong, and you pay for all your medical care out of pocket. But I suspect that, given the health issues you acknowledge, you probably accept the government subsidies (or perhaps even full coverage) for your health care costs, which I suspect may run well into the five figures annually. I see nothing wrong with prostitution. In fact, I think it's utterly ridiculous to try to prohibit it, rather than to legalize it and regulate it for the public benefit. What is wrong, however, is for those who make a living in this manner not to pay their fair share. What is offensive is hearing someone brag about flouting his obligations while having his hand in the till.

It would be infinitely more intelligent for the government to go after the tax cheats than to go for the prostitution itself. An economy can't run when people can simply take from the government and not pay in. Look what happened in Greece--and they have other European countries chipping in.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/09/how-greek-tax-evasion-sunk-the-global-economy/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_evasion_and_corruption_in_Greece

[mike carey]

I can understand an objection to there being a specific tax on sex work, that shouldn't happen. In regards to income taxes (whoever levies them), sex workers should pay taxes on their earnings. Of course their expenses should be deductable.

[curiousnomore]

1: Pass a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting a federal tax on income.

 

2: Put in place a consumption tax. People pay tax on the money they spend, not the income they report.

[rvwnsd]

I can understand an objection to there being a specific tax on sex work, that shouldn't happen. In regards to income taxes (whoever levies them), sex workers should pay taxes on their earnings. Of course their expenses should be deductable.

 

Businesses pay taxes on net income, which (in its simplest form) is revenue minus expenses. In the US, sole proprietors can (and should) deduct expenses from revenue when they file their tax returns.

 

1: Pass a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting a federal tax on income.

 

A rule about how to levy taxes does not belong in the Constitution, much like a rule requiring a balanced budget does not belong there.

 

2: Put in place a consumption tax. People pay tax on the money they spend, not the income they report.

 

While I do not disagree that a sales tax is one option, that would amount to a tax on escort services, in addition to everything else we spend our money on. It would be interesting to see how well that would work.

[Frequentflier]

1: Pass a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting a federal tax on income.

 

2: Put in place a consumption tax. People pay tax on the money they spend, not the income they report.

 

What would that consumption tax rate be? 5%, 10%? If I make more than say $250,000 per year, what's my view about a consumption tax compared to someone who makes $25,000 per year? Would a consumption tax reduce the demand for products & services (assuming both are taxed) and, if so, what would the impact be on an economy driven largely by consumer demand?

[rvwnsd]

What would that consumption tax rate be? 5%, 10%? If I make more than say $250,000 per year, what's my view about a consumption tax compared to someone who makes $25,000 per year? Would a consumption tax reduce the demand for products & services (assuming both are taxed) and, if so, what would the impact be on an economy driven largely by consumer demand?

 

The value-added tax rate among the EU member states ranges from 17% - 27%, with some items being taxed at a reduced rate or exempt from taxation.

 

In the US, we have a form of consumption tax where state and local governments levy a sales tax.

[curiousnomore]

My definition of a consumption tax: you buy something, you pay x% of the price (tax). No income tax, no sales tax. You pay a tax on what you choose to consume. Buy a new computer, pay at checkout. Tax added at point of sale.

[curiousnomore]

I'm not getting into a debate on Economics. My point is simple: You choose to buy a $200 TV, or a $600 TV. There are fewer ways to avoid a tax on consumption vs a tax on reported income.

[Guest]

I feel a song coming on...

Folks are dumb where I come from

They ain't had any learnin'

Still they're happy as can be

Doin' what comes natur'lly

Doin' what comes natur'lly

 

You don't have to know how to read or write

When you're out with a feller in the pale moonlight

You don't have to look in a book to find

What he thinks of the moon or what is on his mind

That comes natur'lly

That comes natur'lly

 

My uncle don't pay taxes

His address never gives

They can't collect his taxes

Fer they don't know whar he lives

 

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1R1-oRO6RY

[gallahadesquire]

My understanding is that consumer taxes / VAT is very regressive, I.e., it taxes the poor unfairly.

Sorry, but better the progressive income tax, but get rid of all the frelling loopholes, and bring the AMT into the 21st century.

[rvwnsd]

My definition of a consumption tax: you buy something, you pay x% of the price (tax). No income tax, no sales tax. You pay a tax on what you choose to consume. Buy a new computer, pay at checkout. Tax added at point of sale.

 

What you have described is a sales tax.

 

I'm not getting into a debate on Economics. My point is simple: You choose to buy a $200 TV, or a $600 TV. There are fewer ways to avoid a tax on consumption vs a tax on reported income.

 

How would the tax be calculated on a prescription pharmaceutical where part of the cost is paid by an insurance company and part is paid by the consumer? Are you suggesting that businesses would also pay a tax when they purchase raw materials? What if the raw materials are shipped from a foreign country? Or, for that matter, the TV is purchased from a non-US company?

[rvwnsd]

My understanding is that consumer taxes / VAT is very regressive, I.e., it taxes the poor unfairly.

Sorry, but better the progressive income tax, but get rid of all the frelling loopholes, and bring the AMT into the 21st century.

That's an excellent point, gallahad. Here's an example:

 

Mary and Pam buy groceries at the supermarket and they each buy $200 in groceries. At a 25% VAT tax, both Mary and Pam pay $50.00 in taxes. Mary earns $5,000 per month and Pam earns $10,000 per month. Mary pays a 1% of her income, while Pam pays 0.5%, despite the two having spent the same amount.

[+ Gar1eth]

Remember!

It's decriminalization, not legalization we're working toward.

 

Aren't they the same unless decriminalization only refers to penalties. ? But why would you only want to eliminate penalties without making it legal?

 

Gman

[+ sync]

Aren't they the same unless decriminalization only refers to penalties. ? But I why would you only want to eliminate penalties without making it legal?

 

I'm thinking "baby steps." It's going to take some time.