A Modest Proposal for Property Tax Relief

February 11, 2005

When the Pennsylvania Lottery was enacted, it was touted as a means of property tax relief. It evolved into a program which crows that its benefits entirely aid older Pennsylvanians. My eyes would mist over at this charity—I am an older Pennsylvania—but for the fact that the state is using gambling at bad odds for the gamblers to help us old guys. Of every dollar spent on a ticket, 55.1 cents go to prizes, 34.5 go to benefits and the rest go to commissions and administration. No question, the people who buy these lottery tickets are, in general, the least able to afford the luxury of a bad bet.

Now along comes the state with a plan for helping property relief along by another form of gambling, slot machines. I can't tell you what the odds of winning at the new state licensed gambling parlors will be, but it is better than even money that your odds of winning will be long indeed. And guess who will lose their money in the gambling parlors: the same poor people who are being screwed by the lottery. The state has clearly taken W.C. Fields' advice: Never give a sucker an even break.

Add to this the fact that the amount of property tax relief resulting from the slot parlors is presently unknown and may, in fact, be non existent. Even if there is some money going to property tax relief, the amount is certain to be relatively small. In fact, I betcha that as a class the senior citizens who get their property taxes lowered as a result of gambling will turn out to lose more money gambling than they saved by the relief.

When I was growing up, lotteries and slot machines were frowned upon as immoral. The New York mayor went around dumping slot machines in the river. Private lotteries were prosecuted. Then someone figured out that if you can't beat illegal gambling, you might as well preempt the field for a good purposes—once again, helping the aged and property tax relief. It may be wrong to gamble, it may create terrible social problems, bankruptcies, broken marriages, and the like, but if it's for a good cause, why not? Why not indeed.

But wait. A better way to support the aged and property tax relief might be to open state licensed bordellos. The state could tax each trick turned at say $10 a pop. The money would come pouring in. Moreover, the state could easily charge a big franchise fee. Monitoring health and cleanliness would make prostitution at a lot safer and healthier than it is now and hookers would no longer annoy upright citizens on the streets. Money would be saved in police and court costs, not to mention the cost of housing offenders in jail. Pimps, those abominable fellows, would be driven out of business. As a side effect, drug traffic might be considerably reduced because pimps would have no interest in hooking their harems. Finally, the employment possibilities for both sexes are much greater than either the lottery or the slots. Lots of real people need to be employed, not merely a few to sell tickets or collect from machines. Income tax receipts would go up.

Prostitution, like gambling, has often been thought of as a victimless crime. It is indulged in by willing participants eager to spend or make a buck. Sure it is hard to swallow on moral grounds, but so is gambling. Yet it has one great advantage over gambling. Paying prostitutes is not a tax on the poor. Quite the reverse, poor people generally speaking cannot afford them. With a little careful management—the same kind of management devoted to promoting the lottery and the new slot parlors—the state could ensure that the price is high enough so that the poor don't participate and the profits are maximized. On some nights, for example, there could be special orgies to attract business from those already sated by the regular product. Just as the lottery allows purchasing tickets on line, the state might allow phone sex paid for by credit cards. The price, of course, would have to be somewhat lower than the real thing.

The state, being as paternalistic as it is, will have to make a show at running “responsible” house of prostitution, just as it runs a “responsible” lottery. The lottery web site warns against excessive gambling and urges those who have a gambling “problem” to seek help, even supplying a number where help may be obtained. So it would be with prostitution. In each house there would be a sign urging patrons not to “excessively” rely on prostitutes for their sexual needs and supply the names of friendly psychiatrists who might help them deal with it if they do.

It must not be thought this proposal is sexist. Just as the state craftily searches out new sources of gambling revenue, the state will find that there is a hidden demand for male prostitutes. They may, indeed, serve a genuine social purpose. An unsatisfied wife will be able to take her self to one of the licensed institutions and sneak in just as her husband does. Marriages will be saved. Children will not be raised in broken homes. Parents can publicly rail against immorality. And for propriety's sake, separate male and female institutions will be established so that spouse don't run in to each other. And, in keeping with the prevailing public morality, the state could draw the line on running gay bordellos.

So much revenue is likely to be generated by this proposal that, in addition to property tax relief, the state may actually be able to increase state funding of schools. Boards will spend their time concerned with educational problems rather fending off maddened taxpayers. It may seem bizarre to have the welfare of our children depend on the success of prostitution. But is it any less bizarre to have their welfare depend on gambling revenues?

Hey, this is just a suggestion. Somehow it is doubtful that our our legislature will get behind it. Although why not? The legislature is already prostituting itself to the gambling interests.