Not only will they audit you, they will make up an income for you if they don't like your numbers. E.g., If a drug dealer is caught with 1 kilo of cocaine with a street value of $XXXXX, the IRS will assume he sells 1 kilo a day, times six days a week times 52 weeks a year and so has an yearly income of 312 x $XXXXX. And, courts have upheld this. For your ho/pimp just make up some numbers (say $200/trick, 5 tricks a night, x 312 for the ho and then times the number of ho's for the pimp. Seems fair to me. Okay, you'd have to adjust for the ho/pimp split and give a deduction for business expenses (use your imagination). Oh and tax debt is not dischargeable in bk.
The reality is that it's harmful to - among other people - the sex workers who have been trafficked or are under the thumb of a pimp; it's also harmful to sex workers who haven't been trafficked or exploited but are unable to be tax-paying, legitimate citizens. It's harmful to the johns who face a criminal record for their activities, and it's harmful to everyone when there are outbreaks of STDs, or when other illegal and more damaging activity piggy-backs on prostitution. "Puritan" isn't the right word, but what's the best way to describe someone who clings to irrational laws that cause harm and suffering rather than face up to reality and try to minimize the harm of an activity that is going to take place whether or not it's legal?
I believe in legal prostitution for all the reasons that have been mentioned, But I think we have to acknowledge that legalization will not eliminate the risk that comes with the job. There will always be Johns who will attack the women they are with. There should still be some sort of protection for sex workers. I'm not saying we need pimps, because they are exploitative dicks from what I understand, but does every girl (or guy for that matter) need some sort of understanding with another person in exchange for money? Not a pimp who will exploit and sell sex workers as property, but a business partner relationship.
I think legalization is a no-brainer. On one end, you have the super-hot, desirable "escort" who will benefit from the business-savvy types who will step in and make a safe, affordable, enjoyable, discreet, professional transaction that will drive customers to want to keep coming back. (Pun is almost unavoidable). Competition will undoubtedly lead to safer interactions and self-regulation in order to offer a safer experience, no need for government interference. On the other end you have the crack-ho who is looking to score her next fix so will let some fat fuck shove his flaccid dick in her toothless mouth for $10. I don't see legalization helping that scenario much, other than eliminating the stigma if/when she has to call the cops for help. It's not like you're going to walk into the Bunny Ranch and ask for the Crack-Ho Special. People will always be victims of the sex trade... whether it be underage hookers, sex-slave trafficking, etc. But I don't think it'll be caused by legalization, and it won't be increased as a result of legalization. The vast majority of sex workers will benefit from legalization, so I think that's the way to go.
For whatever reason, I've become pretty friendly with a few sex workers, and it's more or less like any other freelance work: your hourly is fantastic compared to most people, but it's incredibly annoying to find and maintain clients, they always want something more than you've expressly said you provide and they often back out which means you've blocked out time that now you can't spend working on other projects. Your yearly rate is usually pretty decent, but burnout/resume gap is a real thing. Plus, they simultaneously desire your services and don't respect the effort that goes into providing them. In any event, I'm pro-legalization, though I understand the trafficking argument. I just don't think that criminalizing prostitution has helped trafficking but at all, and I've never heard of a country where it's worked.
I'm glad you brought this to my attention. Otherwise, it never would have occurred to me that when prostitutes submit a future job application, explaining what they've been doing for the last 5 years may be difficult. I'll bet these particular friends you've made are glad to have you bringing awareness for this previously unrecognized issue. I'm writing my congressman now.
I think you misread my tone -- I just meant that for any long-term freelancer, being out of a particular field makes it harder to jump back in. I guess if you want to tell your congressman that works too, but if he's anything like my congressman, he's forgotten more about escorts than you or I will ever know.
I would imagine they could find something though, there's some people out there with some pretty niche fetishes. Those holes in the market will need filling.
The problems associated with illegal prostitution seem to be more deleterious than the problems with legal prostitution, especially if there's a regulatory system in place to help manage brothels and the like. I've only done a little bit of work for a group working against slavery and human trafficking, and they were mostly focused on sweatshops and debt slavery rather than explicitly sex trafficking, but similar mechanisms of control of the workers can be seen in both those systems. The workers are told that they can't go to the cops, and the bosses find ways to solidify their power and control, often through violence or treats against the worker or the worker's family. California has fairly recently made some changes, concerning amnesty for trafficking victims, and it appears to be having some positive impact. Workers being able to go to the police without essentially being punished by the cops for reporting abuse has made them more willing to actually go to the police. Seems like it'd be hard to reliably tax prostitutes on a person-by-person basis beyond relying on the honor system, but taxing brothels, escort agencies, etc. should still provide sufficient funds for testing, condoms, and anti-trafficking/abuse programs. Seemed to work out pretty well for the US military on Oahu during WWII, seems to be working out decently in Nevada now.
Wouldn't the tax problem sort itself out? If you don't report income you don't build credit. Sure not everyone is going to report their income, but its not like everyone does that now in cash based work. Those who don't report and make large amounts of money will either have to sit on the money or deal with it when the IRS comes asking about big purchases.
I'm fine with legalizing prostitution, but I don't think it would eliminate any of the problems associated with it. They type of prostitutes it would benefit aren't really the one that are problematic for society, and they don't often get busted for it. The drug addicts and runaways would still operate outside of the legal system and there would still be a lot of problems with violence, pimps etc. I'm fine with the "let's be less stick-up our ass prudes about everything argument" but you have to be realistic about the benefits of legalizing it. The only one I really see would be the tax revenue.
Yes, but the real sticking point people seem to be missing here is even if the IRS doesn't get 50% of those taxes they are still making a shit load of money. It's not exactly a propsition they would go broke on. Legally required testing is going to reduce STDs. Having it out in the open is going to reduce violence. Allowing professional establishments is going to reduce incentives to mistreat employees and raise standards. Customers are less likely to get hustled. Wages will likely be more fair. Whores can take days off without a beating. Well, it goes on. It's not a cure all, but yeah it would make improvements.
So basically what people are saying is that unless the IRS can tax 100% of all prostitution revenue, prostitution should stay illegal because there's no benefit to taxing only 75% or 50% of prostitution revenue.
I'm going to use Pussy Galore as an example because her "ask an escort" thread was pretty informative. Girls that are working under that model already have all those issues covered. It's the drug addict, runaway, pimp having prostitute that those issues really affect, and I don't see them operating within a legal prostitution system. I used to live in Reno, NV and there were legal brothels within a 30 minute drive. That didn't really stop the streetwalkers from operating, and if they're operating outside of the system that is set up than they don't get any of those benefits you mention.
The easy response to this is that an hour's round trip might have had something to do with giving the streetwalkers an edge on the market. And I think you're writing off the safety of call girls a bit too easily - anyone who's paid to have sex is banned from giving blood. There are also places where professional establishments are forbidden (until recently, in Canada, though the Supreme Court overturned some of those laws) even if being an escort is a gray zone of the law. And I think for those women it would be a net benefit for society if they weren't a gray area of the law but had rights and legal protection like the rest of us do at our jobs. Creating a legal enclave of prostitution carries benefits in that enclave for people who get there. If the brothels won't let the girls work high, then the streetwalkers who are hooked on drugs can't work there in the first place; never mind that they may have been trafficked into their current location, may be stuck there by a pimp, may not have a car to get there, etc. Fundamentally for these women, prostitution is a symptom and not the problem itself, and they would be doing something else for a quick cash fix if they had the option. Your argument is basically saying that since some people are well-off anyways and others are not well-off, there's no benefit to trying. Imagine that instead of having to drive a half an hour out to a brothel, Reno had a red light model where women paid rent on a window front and clients could walk the street, pick a girl of their choosing, have their standard 15 minutes for 50 Euros, knowing that the women are tested regularly, always use condoms, and without worrying about any kind of criminal record. The only people who would choose a streetwalker over that are those unwilling to pay the price of the regulated prostitutes, who want to not use condoms, or who get off on the illegality/seediness of the whole thing. You wouldn't eliminate the market for streetwalkers but you'd put a major dent in it. How many tourists go to Amsterdam to pick up a streetwalker? I think alcohol is a good comparison to make here - if America adopted Dutch drinking laws tomorrow, people would go nuts drinking dirt cheap beer in public because it was suddenly allowed. Over a very long period of time, you might see a drop in binge drinking compared to what we have today, but it would take a decade and we would probably never have the same attitude towards alcohol as they do on the continent. But changing certain aspects of the law would bring benefits, and more of those benefits would be realized over the long term.
Like I said, I'm for legalizing it, I just don't think there will be this huge improvement of state of life for most prostitutes. If it ever was legalized I would like to see a large chunk of the tax dollars go to rehab and therapy services. I think that would more helpful in getting girls out of bad situations.