July 11, 2005
The stripper tax is back

We've already seen several examples of how this special session on school finance has featured little more than a bunch of warmed-over ideas that failed to pass muster before, but Rick Casey finds one more that hadn't gotten any mention that I'd noticed before.


Buried deep within the bill (Section 47.052, to be exact), is a new $4 tax on admission to establishments euphemistically referred to as "gentlemen's clubs" or, in legislative terms, sexually oriented businesses.

But whatever you call them, they are broad-based businesses, and this is a tax on them.

Actually, the tax is a little broader-based than that. It covers more than admission to ogle uncovered women.

It covers admission to ogle male strippers as well.


Yes, the stripper tax, which first made its appearance in last year's special session, is back on the table. As Casey notes, it's unlikely to be accepted by the Senate, so you can just chalk it up as another example of how utterly unserious the House is about paying for education in Texas. Aren't you glad Rick Perry called this session?

Posted by Charles Kuffner on July 11, 2005 to Budget ballyhoo | TrackBack
Comments

You know, the jokes about the importance of studying human anatomy are just too easy. :-)

Posted by: William Hughes on July 11, 2005 8:20 AM

I guess the addition of the male stripper provision means that Perry lost the argument.

Posted by: MJ on July 11, 2005 9:11 AM

Actually, the tax is a little broader-based than that. It covers more than admission to ogle uncovered women.

It covers admission to ogle male strippers as well.

At least they have the gender-bias angle covered.

Posted by: Tim on July 11, 2005 9:55 AM

Will the "burlesque" show be considered stripping for tax purposes?

Posted by: Laurence Simon on July 11, 2005 10:24 AM