A sex tax would even out the marriage penalty.
if the EPA can regulate a naturally occurring substance like carbon, I see no reason why they can’t regulate/tax sex. or not having sex. or even thinking about having sex.
Have this tax only in Nevada, and then, blame Senator Reid for it.
How about we take it even further and put a tax on entertainment that glorifies single motherhood, irresponsible sex, etc? Wait....that would bankrupt Hollywood... A Twofer! ;)
Great article. It reinforces what my tagline has been saying for months.
Well it'll certainly make chartered accountancy a much more interesting job.
How about we just stop the Government paying to clean up after people. I like that idea a whole lot better than instituting another stupid tax that tries to control peoples behavior.
Naw, that would actually make sense.
Here's a perfect illustration of the fraud that goes by the name of 'social conservatism'. There's nothing 'conservative' about it. They just want their grubby little fingers on the levers of power so they can make us all behave the way they want us to, just like the Libs do.
L
>> So maybe we SHOULD consider a tax on non-marital sex
Glad they added the “non-marital” caveat ... otherwise I’d be broke. Bomchickawahwah.
On the other hand ... wouldn’t a sex-tax make the federal government a pimp to every unmarried woman in the country?
SnakeDoc
Guys in the locker room, naturally.
"Shoulda seen this hot blonde I picked up after the game last night. WOW! We were at it like dogs all night long!"
"Yeah, right. Show me the check stub!"
Talk about a tax that goes away when you get married...wait, what?
I think that since girls already have the tools to say no, we should consider putting more effort into helping those that say yes, like more info on birth control for males and females.
If God hadn’t made it so much fun and feel so good, I doubt we’d have this problem. He must have known what He was doing and what the results would be.
I thought that is what people do when to visit a hooker.
Politician: Gentlemen, our MP saw the PM this AM and the PM wants more LSD from the PIB by tomorrow AM or PM at the latest. I told the PM’s PPS that AM was NBG so tomorrow PM it is for the PM nem. con. Give us a fag or I’ll go spare. Now, the fiscal deficit with regard to the monetary balance, the current financial year excluding invisible exports, but adjusted of course for seasonal variations and the incremental statistics of the fiscal and revenue arrangements for the forthcoming annual budgetary period terminating in April.
First Official I think he’s talking about taxation.
Politician Bravo, Madge. Well done. Taxation is indeed the very nub of my gist. Gentlemen, we have to find something new to tax.
Second Official I understood that.
Third Official If I might put my head on the chopping block so you can kick it around a bit, sir...
Politician Yes?
Third Official Well most things we do for pleasure nowadays are taxed, except one.
Politician What do you mean?
Third Official Well, er, smoking’s been taxed, drinking’s been taxed but not ... thingy.
Politician Good Lord, you’re not suggesting we should tax... thingy?
First Official Poo poo’s?
Third Official No.
First Official Thank God for that. Excuse me for a moment. (leaves)
Third Official No, no, no - thingy.
Second Official Number ones?
Third Official No, thingy.
Politician Thingy!
Second Official Ah, thingy. Well it’ll certainly make chartered accountancy a much more interesting job.
http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode15.htm#4
Should We Have a Sex Tax?
If we do, homosexuals will be exempt by the government because it would be considered a hate crime.
I support none of these ideas, but must share:
Tax birth control, with exemptions if you show a marriage license.
Tax children, unless both parents are in the house (5 year exemption when a parent dies). Do this by limiting children as tax exemptions to married filing jointly couples.
>>According to the Heritage Foundation, McManus writes, “13 million single parents with children cost taxpayers $20,000 each, or $260 billion in the year 2004.” The total probably comes to $300 billion today, McManus says.
Instead of a new tax, why don’t we, the taxpayers, just stop paying women for pumping out rugrats by the bushel? Problem solved.
What about homosexual sex? Certainly drives a lot of consumption of medical services and an adadictomy isn’t free either..
The joke here is that after a few years of marriage, married folks wouldn’t be paying much in sex tax anyway.
They would have made a fortune off of the Kennedys.
Sin taxes are a sin. Period.