Local "Skin Tax" on the Old 101 Building
What is this garbage I read in today's paper?
Apparently there is a rumor going around that the old 101 building could be a possible strip club so the city is now scrambling to do all it can to discourage it.
Frankly, if that's what it takes to make the building profitable (it's gone through HOW many closings now?) then more power to the new owners if they turn it into a successful enterprise.
However, what REALLY rankles is how the city is proposing a so-called "skin tax" on the business, should it become, in fact, a topless bar. The idea behind this tax is that the monies collected will be filtered to sexual assault victim organizations. This infuriates me because it is trying to make a non-existent (or at best, completely unproven) connection between "strip club" and "violence against women". I tried searching Google for any legitimate scientific studies linking the two and the ONLY thing I found was mention of "certain studies" in an article about similar skin taxes in Illinois and Texas. No actual links to the studies themselves.
A tax on cigarettes and tobacco that helps offset the health care costs associated with smoking is logical because there's enough scientific evidence linking the two. A tax on alcohol is also merited for the same reason and supported by research.
A tax on topless dancing to pay for rape counseling is just prejudice.
Apples are good,
Oranges are bad,
Lemons are rude,
Bananas are perverted,
And kumquats are just, plain evil...