What sort of puritanical cabal came up with the stripper tax in the first place? I've only lived in Atlanta for three years and I've never heard that they essentially need to license themselves ("Youth not served," News & Views, April 2). That in and of itself sounds extremely unconstitutional.
I can imagine the conversation that led to that little piece of legislation: "Hey what group of women who earn a living off of tips can we gouge? Ahh ... strippers! Great idea. Write that up!"
OK, the $350 a year probably isn't a lot of money to these women once they get a few weeks under their belt. But it might be for some of them when they are starting out.
Hey, why doesn't the city of Atlanta start taxing any live entertainment performer? Why don't they all carry a license? What's next for this kind of legislation? Make them all wear a big E on their sleeves so we can identify them?
OK, I understand there is a lurid nature to nude performers, but c'mon, this is the year 2008. All this puts a little more reality into my joke that Atlanta is "pretty nice for an overgrown hick town."
So now the city is going to restrict strippers under the age of 21 with this law. So basically the city of Atlanta would not allow someone to earn money the best way they know how, if they are under 21. But at the same time, it would be OK for these people (I suppose there are some young men who strip ... but how the hell would I know?), to join the armed services and defend our country.
Way to go, Atlanta!
– Tony Castelluci, Atlanta