The Grassley Plan

by Cliopatria

Fresh off its important work seeking to prevent the non-existent wave of flag-burning, Congress is tackling a new and important issue: taxing pimps. This idea is the brainchild of Charles Grassley, who has parlayed an upset victory in 1980 over John Culver into what appears to be a lifetime seat in the Senate.

Michelle Cottle ridicules the Grassley plan in the latest New Republic. Grassley's proposal would require pimps to be file W-2 forms for every prostitute they control. How, exactly, the IRS would enforce this provision is not entirely clear.

"According to Grassley," Cottle notes,"the move is 'a no-brainer.' Maybe--but probably not in the way the chairman means." Indeed.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Paul Noonan - 7/4/2006

I believe the "protection" against self-incrimination in the marijuana tax law is that the tax is paid by purchasing tax stamps which one is then supposed to affix to the container that holds one's marijuana. Since you can go to a government office and purchase the tax stamps with cash without giving your name or any other identifying information it is said you do not have to incriminate yourself to pay the tax.

Oscar Chamberlain - 7/3/2006

The law I referred to above alledgedly had some sort of provision for paying taxes without incriminating onesself. I always found that claim rather dubious, but it is possible theoretically.

Robert KC Johnson - 7/3/2006

Indeed . . .

Robert KC Johnson - 7/3/2006

Precisely.

Scott McLemee - 7/3/2006

Never has the catchphrase "It's hard out here for a pimp" seemed so poignant or so true.

Dennis R. Nolan - 7/3/2006

I wonder if this is really so silly. It's hardly unusual to use tax charges to get at criminals whose underlying misdeeds are hard to prove. Wasn't Al Capone finally convicted of tax evasion? Perhaps Grassley's object is to provide another weapon --- and perhaps to collect a few additional dollars in the process. The ultimate question is empirical: will it work?

Jonathan Dresner - 7/3/2006

I'm confused.

a: illegal gains are already taxable, yes? That should apply to both the prostitute's income and the profits of the pimp.

b: Many prostitutes, middle class ones anyway, already seem to operate under "normal" business -- escort services -- that indeed pay taxes and file paperwork just like any other legal business. In other words, this is one in a long line of proposals to criminalize "street" practices (and you can read whatever race or class issues you want) which implicitly exempts middle/upper class criminality.

c: Unless the Constitution is in worse shape than I thought (and the Moussaoui conviction speaks to this) the freedom from self-incrimination remains one of the cornerstones of American justice.

Oscar Chamberlain - 7/3/2006

Chris,

You may be right about preferring regulation over prohibition, but this is in the spirit of a law, already on the books, that requires marijuana (and perhaps other drug salesmen) to pay taxes. It is not a window into a regulated world; it is simply another legal hammer to use in the pursuit of prohibition.

chris l pettit - 7/3/2006

regulate prostitution...

what a horrific idea...it might actually...gasp...work!

Nah...we should continue passing rules that pass as "law" that are nothing more than the imposition of ideology by "moral entrepreneurs" and "the majority" that never actually accomplish anything other than making the situation worse. We still haven't learned from prohibition and abandoned the drug war...we still haven't learned to keep our "external preferences" to ourselves (to use the Dworkinian phrasing).

At least requiring pimps to register, pay taxes, etc, would allow the government some openings to be able to actually address human trafficking and the abuse of women within the sex industry instead of turning a blind eye to the situation and pretending that the current system is anything other than a total failure.

This is the difference between the "rule of man" and the "rule of law"...and the drug war and criminalization of prostitution have nothing to do with law whatsoever...

You might want to remove the "no brainer" pkank from your own eye before trying (and failing) to apply it to someone else...

CP