[Patti-here]

I don't really have an opinion, one way or the other.

[rcoreyus]

Yes, because we can't stop it, and I'd rather it were regulated and the sex workers received the money rather than their pimps. Also, I think people should be free to do what they want with their bodies, including prostitution and pornography.

That said, I think it is reasonable to licence it, and require that the workers receive some training in the risks (physical and mental) of this sort of work.

[Patti-here]

Should they have to pay tax on what they make ?

What about STD testing?

[Lancashire Lad]

Should they have to pay tax on what they make ?

What about STD testing?

To right they should pay tax, once a month they should be tested for std and aids also with an age limit at 21.

[Patti-here]

I agree,, hey as long as they pay tax and don't spread STDs,, I guess it's fine if they want to rent their bodies out.

[Stillness]

I don't have an opinion on the legality either. I think it's bad and wish people wouldn't do it, though.

I also think that concluding that something should be legal because people are going to do it anyway is flawed reasoning.

[Baboy]

Legal or not, not much will change. The business will still thrive.

There would seem to be no good reason for sex trade earnings to enjoy tax-free status, but nigh impossible to tax it. After all, who in their right mind is going to voluntarily report to the government being a sex trade worker and their earnings? I suspect it's a cash business. Not many accepting checks or credit cards and not many customers wanting to pay by such means. Most hookers' income statements probably do not show an allowance for doubtful accounts.

Reporting prostitution earnings could make for some interesting tax returns. An imaginative CPA could no doubt come up with many write-offs to lessen the tax burden. The obvious deductions would be overhead related to the premises where the business is carried out, including all or a portion of mortgage interest, property tax, insurance, utilities, etc. Then there would be "office supplies", such as condoms, lubricants, etc. Some deduction for clothing could perhaps be allowed. Advertising expense would be a deduction.

How about the prostitutes body? Plainly it is a business asset, used to generate income. Perhaps tax authorities should allow a maximum capital value of, say, $1 million. Then, one would have to select a depreciation method. One possibility would be straight-line over, say, 20 years, providing an annual deduction of $50,000. Some difficult questions might arise, such as whether the cost of a boob job is a capital expense subject to depreciation, or a business expense that may be deducted in the year incurred.

So, with a bit of creative accounting, a prostitution business could be shown to run at a loss, with the loss forming a deduction against other income.

[Patti-here]

Well I don't know, in some states it is legal, take Nevada for example, how do they get around all those things ?

[Lancashire Lad]

Well I don't know, in some states it is legal, take Nevada for example, how do they get around all those things ?

Mmmm......They pay for it

[kira]

Maybe instead of having street corner hookers picking up cash only there could be a building where payment is taken and then they pay it back out to the prostitutes the same way you pay anyone else and deal with taxes. It's not really a new idea. It's been done in history, is usually how it works in fiction novels, and I believe still done that way in some asian countries. Although in those cases the prostitutes usually live on the premises and make little to no pay but their basic needs are taken care of instead.