An Immodest Proposal: Time for a Sex Tax

Whereby:

+ It has been observed that Democrats are generally in favor of taxation and Republicans are generally opposed to unnecessary sexual activity; and whereby:

+ The unintended costs of sexual activity are unacceptably high, particularly in the political arena (c.f. Messrs. Clinton, Foley, Craig, Edwards, and most recently one Mr. Levi Johnston, to name just a fraction of the available examples); and whereby:

+ The pursuit of sex is also extremely costly beyond the political realm, in terms of lost productivity, unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, and ruined marriages (and other committed relationships); and whereby:

+ The federal government is now, as always, in need of more money;

It is hereby proposed that a new “sex tax” shall be levied upon the citizens of these United States.

Let it be clear that the aim of said tax is not to deter sexual activity itself, but rather to capture some of the costs imposed by certain extraneous sexual activity that, especially once made public, tends to divert precious resources from more worthy subjects; to this end:

+ Married couples will receive a substantial credit for sanctioned, in-home sexual activity; and, conversely:

+ The highest rates shall be paid for premarital, extramarital, and otherwise unusual or undesirable sexual activity; and:

+ Sexual activity between members of the same gender; or activity between more than two participants; or in an airplane, on a beach, or in other “nontraditional” settings shall surely be taxed at a higher, though heretofore undetermined, rate. Also to be determined is a scale for noncoital activity.

The Internal Revenue Service shall be granted the full and complete authority to collect said tax. Furthermore:

+ Payment of said tax, while voluntary, is no more voluntary than payments or credits on other tax-related activities such as: charitable contributions, business-related deductions, and cash received for goods and services, and is therefore expected to stimulate a very acceptable rate of compliance; additionally:

+ Taxpayers will create a sexual paper trail that could prove advantageous in countless future scenarios, including but not limited to: employment, courtship, and participation in the political process; and:

+ The typical I.R.S. audit would become considerably more interesting for the auditor, and interesting work is a much-needed incentive to attract and retain qualified I.R.S. employees.

It should be acknowledged that determining an acceptable name for said tax may be politically difficult, much like the “estate tax” and the “death tax” are in fact nomenclaturally diverse versions of the same tax used by opposing parties; candidates to consider include: the Family Creation Tax; the Extracurricular Intercourse and Lesser Sex Act Tax; and the Shtup Tax.

Furthermore:

+ This is not the first time such a tax has been proposed in America; in 1971, a Democratic legislator from Providence, R.I., named Bernard Gladstone proposed such a measure in his state; he called it “the one tax that would probably be overpaid,” but sadly, the measure was promptly rejected as being in “bad taste,” a position with which we summarily disagree; and whereby:

+ A similar tax does have a historical (if fictional) precedence in the writings of one Jonathan Swift, who in his acclaimed work Gulliver’s Travels noted that in a place called Laputa, “The highest tax was upon men who are the greatest favourites of the other sex, and the assessments according to the number and natures of the favors they have received; for which they are allowed to be their own vouchers.” And finally:

+ It is unclear why both Swift and Gladstone proposed that the tax be levied solely upon males but, in light of recent and less-than-recent news events, they were probably 100 percent correct to have done so.

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

 

COMMENTS: 125

View All Comments »
  1. aaron says:

    “Didn’t this newspaper publish something about a wave of satirists giving up and retiring after having scenarios from their work occur in real life?”

    That was satire. Er, um… that is satire?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  2. Ferd says:

    Are donations to nonprofit sperm banks

    deductible?

    Will the the IRS grant (and maybe subsidize) extensions?

    Is getting screwed up on what constitutes satire taxable as sex?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  3. Sarah says:

    I would argue that same-sex sexual activity should be taxed at a significantly lower rate because:

    1) lower cost of results: unintended and teen pregancies cannot result from these sex acts. The main cost from the sex act itself would therefore be tied to STD’s, and as the pool of individuals is far smaller than those engaging in heterosexual sex, the total STD cost is significantly lower regardless of individual risk levels.

    2) Homosexual sex scandals are moneymakers–witness the Clay Aiken/Lance Bass magazine covers! Much more lucrative than any random starlet announcing they had straight sex. Ditto airplane bathroom souvenirs, etc…So material costs as a result of scandals could be significant to the individuals involved but overall beneficial to the economy.

    3) The cost of lost marriages is negligible–usually if a marriage falls apart b/c of extramarital gay sex it’s because it was a rich, political, closeted Republican performing said gay sex acts. In that case, there would be financial/tax benefit to a high-income couple splitting, hiring divorce attorneys, showering gifts in order to atone for illicit sex, claiming fewer dependents on taxes, etc…

    Come to think of it by these markers most illicit/’naughty’ sex would be better for the economy and should only be encouraged :) :)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  4. meeko says:

    if this is even CONSIDERED in the house/senate, I will NOT be held accountable for ANY of my actions against ANYONE (yes, that includes politicians)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. GLK says:

    In the future everyone should wear government issued robot suits. These suits will be worn by every citizen and will actively take over the wearer’s extremity motor functions. Programmed for all of your scheduled day’s activities, the suit will wake you up, get you out of bed and “walk” you through your tasks. After your day’s work the suit will go into passive mode and allow you some freedom of movement but will, of course, track you with its built-in health, GPS, and activity tracker. The passive mode can serve as a reward for meeting various goals and the activity tracker will levy the appropriate taxes on all your goings-on. And it’s servo activated legs it will assist you in a bionic fashion to walk for miles without fatigue. Think of how much safer, more organized, and productive society will become. Laugh now Sheeple, we are already headed for it, and I can hardly wait.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0