RentBoy Raid...My 2 Cents

[Kevin Slater]

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.

 

I think the way to do it is to give everybody some baseline subsidy, say a refundable $50k tax credit. Then an even consumption tax across the board.

 

Kevin Slater

[Michael Wayne]

one site is working perfectly fine: @ www.men4rentnow.com I must say, for me personally, that I have done far better over the years from men4rent than I did on rentboy. I do not own or speak for the site BUT I can say that in the last two months they have busted their asses trying to make the site more escort and customer friendly. That being said: Rentboy was very good to me and it will be missed. I wholeheartedly concur with Daddys' words about Homeland Security. I hardly feel that my penis or a bottom escorts' butt or rentboys' owners or employees are in any way a threat to anyones' security!!!!!!!! how about we go get ISIS??? How about we pay off our 18 trillion dollar debt??? How about we make congress work?????? How bout we take the bomb from IRAN?????

[adannyboy]

A little on decrim v legalization from http://www.bayswan.org/defining.html

 

Legalization

 

Refering to issues of prostitution, from sociological or activist perspective, the term 'legalization' usually refers to a system of criminal regulation and government control of prostitutes, wherein some prostitutes are given licenses which permit them to work in specific and usually limited ways. Although legalization can also imply a decriminalized, autonomous system of prostitution, in reality, in most 'legalized' systems the police are relegated the job of prostitution control through criminal codes. Laws regulate prostitutes businesses and lives, prescribing health checks and registration of health status (enforced by police and, often corrupt, medical agencies), telling prostitutes where they may or may not reside, prescribing full time employment for their lovers, etc. Prostitute activists use the term 'legalization' to refer to systems of state control, which defines the term by the realities of the current situation, rather than by the broad implications of the term itself.

 

Because of the range of definitions of legalization, it is difficult to use the term in a discussion of reform. When the general public concerned with civil rights, privacy, etc., call for 'legalization,' they may not be aware implications of that term, or of the problems inherent in many legalized systems.

 

Decriminalization

 

Sex workers rights organizations use the term 'decriminalization' to mean the removal of criminal laws against prostitution. 'Decriminalization' is usually used to refer to total decriminalization, that is, the repeal of criminal laws against consensual adult sexual activity, in commercial and non-commercial contexts. Sex worker rights advocates call for decriminalization of all aspects of consensual prostitution. Some documents refer to 'decriminalization of prostitution resulting from individual decision.' Asserting the right to work as a prostitutes, advocates claim their right to freedom of choice of management. They claim that laws against pimping (living off the earnings) are often used against domestic partners and children, and these laws serve to to prevent prostitutes from organizing their businesses and working together for mutual protection. They call for the repeal of current laws that interfere with their rights of freedom of travel and freedom of association. Many sex worker organizations look towards labor laws and anti-discrimination policies to support rights and fair working conditions. Civil rights and human rights advocates from a variety of perspectives call for enforcement of laws against fraud, abuse, violence and coercion to protect sex workers/prostitutes from abuse and exploitation.

[mike carey]

Thanks for that intervention, Danny, it helps a lot. One of the issues with decriminalisation in other contexts is that is is code for removing an activity from the criminal code and making it a misdemeanour. Sex work should not be either a crime or a misdemeanour, it should be a valid employment choice. Regulation is a separate issue. What is it for and why is it there? In the state of Victoria, regulation means that sex workers are required to register and inter alia to have certain health checks if they want to work. Tonight I saw a male sex site that had a field for the escorts to quote their registration number! I'm not claiming any sort of moral high ground here, but in Australia, sex work is basically legal but regulated.

[+ Gar1eth]

Thanks for that intervention, Danny, it helps a lot. One of the issues with decriminalisation in other contexts is that is is code for removing an activity from the criminal code and making it a misdemeanour. Sex work should not be either a crime or a misdemeanour, it should be a valid employment choice. Regulation is a separate issue. What is it for and why is it there? In the state of Victoria, regulation means that sex workers are required to register and inter alia to have certain health checks if they want to work. Tonight I saw a male sex site that had a field for the escorts to quote their registration number! I'm not claiming any sort of moral high ground here, but in Australia, sex work is basically legal but regulated.

 

Mike-is it legal in all states?

 

Gman

[mike carey]

Mike-is it legal in all states?

Yes, but the conditions and rules are different state to state. The NSW rules were the model for NZ, which was one of the countries in the 'History of Prostitution' that Dave (I think) posted a link to.

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

[curiousnomore]

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.

Necessities like groceries and clothing could be exempted from a consumption tax. That would negate any undue burden on low income people/families.

[rguer]

Necessities like groceries and clothing could be exempted from a consumption tax. That would negate any undue burden on low income people/families.

 

Reduce, perhaps, but not negate. Rich people, in general, buy more expensive things than poor people. So I don't pay tax on my $20 3-pack of underwear from Target, and the mogul doesn't pay tax on her $250,000 designer gown.

[geminibear]

Reduce, perhaps, but not negate. Rich people, in general, buy more expensive things than poor people. So I don't pay tax on my $20 3-pack of underwear from Target, and the mogul doesn't pay tax on her $250,000 designer gown.

 

Well I'm glad to know I'm not the only one still buying underwear at Target.

[+ FreshFluff]

Well I'm glad to know I'm not the only one still buying underwear at Target.

 

It's been said that wearing nice underthings gives one a certain glow. The La Perla underthing below will cost you $2304.

 

(That's coming from someone who just walked the 2 feet to the trash chute half naked, in a ratty tank top and shorts that are falling down. And who sticks his head out the door but the cute neighbor who had wanted to meet me. Doh, so much for that guy!)

 

http://d2tpy9l3f6gxj1.cloudfront.net/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/1280x/040ec09b1e35df139433887a97daa66f/U/S/USCFILPD0020238_RS0190_2.jpg

[rvwnsd]

Necessities like groceries and clothing could be exempted from a consumption tax. That would negate any undue burden on low income people/families.

 

Reduce, perhaps, but not negate. Rich people, in general, buy more expensive things than poor people. So I don't pay tax on my $20 3-pack of underwear from Target, and the mogul doesn't pay tax on her $250,000 designer gown.

 

And sooner or later you wind up with a "consumption" tax that is just as convoluted as today's income tax. Perhaps that's why the income tax has remained in force for as long as it has. In fact, if you want to read about convoluted taxes, take a gander at the EU's VAT:

 

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

[rguer]

Well I'm glad to know I'm not the only one still buying underwear at Target.

At least I'm buying the *expensive* Target underwear.

[rguer]

Well I'm glad to know I'm not the only one still buying underwear at Target.

At least I'm buying the *expensive* Target underwear.

[Rudynate]

At least I'm buying the *expensive* Target underwear.

+1

[adannyboy]

Just thought I'd drop these here with this link: http://www.nswp.org/resource/the-criminalisation-clients

 

x

[killianjamesnyc]

Decriminalizing is good but has anyone thought about what that would do to the overall market for working guys? Just like with anything, when it becomes readily available prices go down, more product floods the market and unfortunately I think you'll see a lot of what happened at Rentboy. Fake ads, horror hiring stories and all the other riff raff as the Barrier to entry becomes easier. What is happening now is the barrier to entry is now tougher, I think that protects legitimate great escorts in a lot of ways. It also protects clients as well. They can now gravitate to who they know, trust and who's highly regarded. In theory decriminalizing would be great for women children and for their protection but I do think it has a downside. It's a tough issue to tackle, and unfortunately it's such a niche issue, I'd be surprised if it went anywhere near legislation within the next 5 years or ever. Personally I am torn, because I firmly believe in what it ultimately might do to our world as we know it, and also what great things it could do to those who are most at risk.

 

My second point is this. From a government perspective why would they decriminalize something when crime in this country is a very big business. It employs thousands of people from security guards, prison staff, medical staff, lawyers to judges etc. A lot of federal prisons are contracted by the government, which takes crime into the pockets of the private sector, who is profiting as well. Ever hear of something in Vegas called the "hoe train"? It's when they sweep all the hookers off the street in Vegas, take them in for a few hours and let them go. It sounds pointless, until you find out that it allows them to keep getting funding for operations.

[BabyBoomer]

Decriminalizing is good but has anyone thought about what that would do to the overall market for working guys? Just like with anything, when it becomes readily available prices go down, more product floods the market and unfortunately I think you'll see a lot of what happened at Rentboy. Fake ads, horror hiring stories and all the other riff raff as the Barrier to entry becomes easier. What is happening now is the barrier to entry is now tougher, I think that protects legitimate great escorts in a lot of ways. In theory decriminalizing would be great for women children and for their protection but I do think it has a downside.

 

Interesting.

 

~ Boomer ~

[+ FreshFluff]

Decriminalizing is good but has anyone thought about what that would do to the overall market for working guys? Just like with anything, when it becomes readily available prices go down, more product floods the market and unfortunately I think you'll see a lot of what happened at Rentboy. Fake ads, horror hiring stories and all the other riff raff as the Barrier to entry becomes easier. What is happening now is the barrier to entry is now tougher, I think that protects legitimate great escorts in a lot of ways.

`

That might be true, but only in the short term. Right now, con men escorts (like "burn artists" selling fake cocaine) operate with confidence, knowing that clients can't turn them in to police. That would change if prostitution was legalized. The threat of prosecution would deter many escorts who wish to defraud clients and vice versa.

 

It's a tough issue to tackle, and unfortunately it's such a niche issue, I'd be surprised if it went anywhere near legislation within the next 5 years or ever.

 

Unfortunately, I agree with you.

[corndog]

It's a tough issue to tackle, and unfortunately it's such a niche issue, I'd be surprised if it went anywhere near legislation within the next 5 years or ever.

This is the heart of the matter. We're lightyears away from having public opinion on our side. Gay rights, such as marriage and military service, have only progressed when we took the "sex" out of homosexuality. America has no appetite to openly discuss sex, and our recent successes are the result of changing the focus to "love" and "family." There is no way to discuss decriminalization of prostitution without bringing the focus back to sex, and convincing the public that sex is ok. It is very difficult to imagine any current US politician -- even the most liberal -- advocating for decriminalization.

[adannyboy]

Decriminalizing is good but has anyone thought about what that would do to the overall market for working guys? Just like with anything, when it becomes readily available prices go down, more product floods the market and unfortunately I think you'll see a lot of what happened at Rentboy. Fake ads, horror hiring stories and all the other riff raff as the Barrier to entry becomes easier. What is happening now is the barrier to entry is now tougher, I think that protects legitimate great escorts in a lot of ways. It also protects clients as well. They can now gravitate to who they know, trust and who's highly regarded. In theory decriminalizing would be great for women children and for their protection but I do think it has a downside. It's a tough issue to tackle, and unfortunately it's such a niche issue, I'd be surprised if it went anywhere near legislation within the next 5 years or ever. Personally I am torn, because I firmly believe in what it ultimately might do to our world as we know it, and also what great things it could do to those who are most at risk.

 

My second point is this. From a government perspective why would they decriminalize something when crime in this country is a very big business. It employs thousands of people from security guards, prison staff, medical staff, lawyers to judges etc. A lot of federal prisons are contracted by the government, which takes crime into the pockets of the private sector, who is profiting as well. Ever hear of something in Vegas called the "hoe train"? It's when they sweep all the hookers off the street in Vegas, take them in for a few hours and let them go. It sounds pointless, until you find out that it allows them to keep getting funding for operations.

 

 

Both points are actually arguments for decrim.

[adannyboy]

This is the heart of the matter. We're lightyears away from having public opinion on our side. Gay rights, such as marriage and military service, have only progressed when we took the "sex" out of homosexuality. America has no appetite to openly discuss sex, and our recent successes are the result of changing the focus to "love" and "family." There is no way to discuss decriminalization of prostitution without bringing the focus back to sex, and convincing the public that sex is ok. It is very difficult to imagine any current US politician -- even the most liberal -- advocating for decriminalization.

 

 

It's slowly catching on.

http://kfor.com/2015/09/01/okc-councilman-says-yes-to-legalizing-prostitution/

 

And

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/local/dc-councilman-looking-into-decriminalizing-prostitution/2015/08/14/ed84e25e-426e-11e5-9f53-d1e3ddfd0cda_video.html

[adannyboy]

`

That might be true, but only in the short term. Right now, con men escorts (like "burn artists" selling fake cocaine) operate with confidence, knowing that clients can't turn them in to police. That would change if prostitution was legalized. The threat of prosecution would deter many escorts who wish to defraud clients and vice versa. [/Quote]

 

You can have the same outcome with decrim. People can report wrongdoings against them without incriminating themselves.

Legalization leads to gov't oversight/regulation. "keep gov't out of my bedroom," right? A license system would brand someone for life as a sex worker and mandatory STD testing is invasive and would probably lose any challenge on constitutionality. (I mean, some have tried and failed to mandate vaccines)

 

You can decriminalize and tax. It's possible. It's income. I mean shit, it's criminalized and some pay taxes anyway! Tax evasion is one less weapon they have on you.

[Odinochka]

If we look at this from a financial standpoint, logically decriminalization would make the most sense. This would allow current funding for enforcement of the current laws to be utilized for other programs ( such as outreach programs and code compliance ). Increases in revenue would come from the additional income tax and potentially sales tax.

 

Regarding incarceration, the current state of incarcerating individuals in the United States is a huge strain on the financial budget ( and often exceeds the budget by billions of dollars every year ). The main source of income to fund the incarceration of an individual comes primarily from tax revenues. The private prison industry isn't any cheaper than state / federally run prisons. In several studies it was found that private prisons cost tax payers even more, even with the use of cheap prison labor. On average it costs about $31,000 per year per individual ranging upwards to $60,000 per year per individual.

 

From one study performed by VERA Institute of Justice:

 

 

Stop being intelligent--I can't stand getting turned on by what I can't have....dammit

 

[mike carey]

Stop being intelligent--I can't stand getting turned on by what I can't have....dammit

Nah, keep right on being intelligent, Kurtis! Being turned on by it suits me fine!

[Odinochka]

I've been wondering...is Kurtis mixed race? His facial structure makes me thing his genetic cocktail is a little more exotic than whitey-mcwhite-white....