I would not venture into territory unknown such as how many customers get seen, or can be seen per day. But judging by the fact that everybody always seems busy when I want to book, it is probably closer to 3-4 customers per day, if not more.
Maybe an uber-like surge pricing model should be applied. For the less busy times the prices can be more reasonable, and for the more busy times you can ask more because more punters want's a go.
But all things being equal - at R2000 per hour it really becomes a quality over quantity game for me.
On 2024-07-11 10:22:38 therodent said:
Jesus, whoever you are you clearly lack the depth to understand even half of what I have said in my first post, nevermind the lack of understanding how the whoring market operates. What's with all the assumptions?
Let me explain it in simple terms. Inflation and the price of pussy are in no way relevant to each other. The guy that wants to buy some pussy is not going to if inflation of essentials are above his salary increase or is chowing into his quality of living. Naturally luxuries get cut first, like pussy. So there is the demand part I was talking about that renders your argument fucked. Demand goes from being there to practically zero. If this happened to any business' turnover then that business will fold poes quick. See, easy to understand. Now the little demand that is left in the whoring industry is not going to be kind to WG's upping rates just because of inflation and shit. They will completely kill off what little demand there is left.
I really hope you are able to grasp how simple this is but I am of the opinion that you pulled your argument straight out of your ass.
On 2024-07-10 18:00:51 JP82 said: On 2024-07-10 16:15:24 therodent said: Geez, people here can talk a lot of shit. Trying to link inflation to the price of pussy is so far out of the realm of reality it should be considered chalk and cheese.
Prostitution is still illegal in this country and it therefore falls outside the camp of openly recognised and tradeable commodities. It is still a black market industry. If prostitution were legal and properly regulated by the DTI then that would be a different story.
Having said that, the price of pussy is ONLY dictated by simple demand in trade, (not supply and demand) as some would believe, of a non-essential item that ranks rather low on the list of priorities for most consumers. This means that in times of financial stagnation, as is now the case, if the price of pussy rises above inflation or even substantially under inflation, there is no way in hell that demand for pussy will remain high. In fact the opposite applies. Demand for pussy will plummet.
Sin taxes are a good example of this. The price of cigarettes has risen far higher than average annual inflation and less and less people smoke. Electricity is another example albeit this is an essential but the result is still fair game. It is far cheaper to install a solar system and save a huge amount rather than pay eskom for electricity.
So many fellow punting friends I know have decided to either hang up their punting boots or simply punt way less and only visit the sure fire cracker of a WG every now and then. With a demand drop-off of this magnitude, let's call it 50% no business will be able to survive such a financial knock without drastically cutting costs. It is for this reason that I can guarantee that if a WG does not reduce her rates and increase her output, she is on the wrong industry for now. After all, there are other options available other than punting.
This might be the most economically illiterate post I've seen on this site, and that's saying something because there are quite a few contenders. If one of my students had submitted analysis this incoherent, I would have failed them immediately, and probably resigned in shame at what a terrible job I was doing teaching them.
You think that black market goods aren't subject to inflation? Why wouldn't they be? Do you think inflation is something that the government chooses and then applies to prices? Prices are nominal -- and the reflect relative valuations -- If the price of everything rises in nominal terms, of course the price of this service (whether illegal or not) will rise. Not least because the input costs of providing the service have risen -- rent, supplies, electricity, petrol, the "wage" of the sp, but also because the "price" of the opportunity cost (i.e. what the sp could earn elsewhere) will have risen, so of course she will require more, to keep doing it.
Then you've confused an inelastic supply curve with whatever this meaningless "the price of pussy is ONLY dictated by simple demand in trade, (not supply and demand) as some would believe" mess of a sentence. The price may be more elastic with respect to demand than to supply, but that doesn't mean it's only demand that matters. The only situation that in any way coherently maps onto what you've said is if the supply curve is completely inelastic with respect to price (i.e. a vertical supply curve) but that just does not accurately describe this market. Like at all.
Sin taxes -- etc. This part actually makes some sense, (but you're only talking about the elasticity of demand here, so it still doesn't support your claim that supply doesn't matter)
Ok, so repeating something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid. Most of what I said is not the result of making "assumptions"- it's the result of understanding the *actual implications* of what you are saying - clearly better than you do. You claim that price is determined by demand alone -- the *only* (and I do mean only) way that can happen is if there is a perfectly inelastic (i.e. vertical supply curve). That's not an assumption, it's a natural and inescapable consequence of what you're saying -- any other position of the supply curve means that supply will adjust to changes in price (i.e. which would mean we're no longer in a situation where price is determined by demand alone) so by definition that's what you're saying (whether you understand it or (as is clearly the case) not.
Let me try explain like I would to a particularly dim kid just out of high school. Inflation is, by definition, a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money. Prices, since they are purely nominal, also reflect relative valuations. That means that everything that has a price, *must* be affected by inflation, because inflation of the price of one good implies a change in relative price. (Saying that does not, as you seem to think, imply that it's price must adjust at exactly the aggregate inflation rate, just that there is an adjustment. That adjustment could be positive, negative or neutralising but it exists). Asserting otherwise just tells me that you don't understand what information prices actually convey.
For example - lets say you have R1000. You can buy 1 basket of groceries, or you can have 1 punt. After a year that same basket costs R2000, so now your R1000 can buy half a basket of groceries or have one punt. Without the SP having changed a thing, the *relative price* of punting has shifted. The SP *can*, if she chooses adjust to keep relative prices constant, but she doesn't have to -- either way saying the "Inflation and the price of pussy are in no way relevant to each other" is just idiotic. All prices reflect relative valuations -- that's partly why we have money in the first place, so that we can compare the valuations of seemingly disparate goods and services.
"Naturally luxuries get cut first, like pussy. So there is the demand part I was talking about that renders your argument fucked."
- All this tells me is that you don't actually even understand what we are talking about. Pointing to demand doesn't "render my argument fucked", because I'm saying that price for this good is determined by both supply AND demand. (you know, like every other good) i.e. I'm perfectly happy to accept that changes in demand impact price- but that does not imply that supply doesn't also impact price (or vice versa). So pointing to the impact of demand is just silly.
As for where I pulled my argument from -- One of us has two relevant masters degrees (one in development economics and the second in finance) and the other has ... I dunno... a birth certificate I guess, so tell me again who is pulling arguments out his ass?
On 2024-07-11 14:14:19 voete2006 said:
A lot of these providers plead poverty, but if they can see one client a day for 21 days at R1.5k that is R31.5k per month tax free. Hardly a kings ransom, but plenty to live a half decent life and support one or two children. Most people in our country make do with much less than that for entire families.
"Tax free!" he says, as if we don't have to pay venues, hotels, advertising platforms, etc etc etc. Also very telling, thinking us SPs need to be working every day for 31 days, as if we dont get sick/need off days for whatever reason.
On 2024-07-11 14:43:11 Hazel Arabia said:
On 2024-07-11 14:14:19 voete2006 said: A lot of these providers plead poverty, but if they can see one client a day for 21 days at R1.5k that is R31.5k per month tax free. Hardly a kings ransom, but plenty to live a half decent life and support one or two children. Most people in our country make do with much less than that for entire families.
"Tax free!" he says, as if we don't have to pay venues, hotels, advertising platforms, etc etc etc. Also very telling, thinking us SPs need to be working every day for 31 days, as if we dont get sick/need off days for whatever reason.
All freelancers have lots of costs related to their business just as SPs. We don't get paid for sick days or holidays. We have to pay into our own pension pot. And at the end of this we pay tax.
Edited: 2024-07-11 14:57:18
On 2024-07-11 14:43:11 Hazel Arabia said:
On 2024-07-11 14:14:19 voete2006 said: A lot of these providers plead poverty, but if they can see one client a day for 21 days at R1.5k that is R31.5k per month tax free. Hardly a kings ransom, but plenty to live a half decent life and support one or two children. Most people in our country make do with much less than that for entire families.
"Tax free!" he says, as if we don't have to pay venues, hotels, advertising platforms, etc etc etc. Also very telling, thinking us SPs need to be working every day for 31 days, as if we dont get sick/need off days for whatever reason.
Technically he is 100% correct. He didn't say "expense free". Yes you do have expenses, but unlike the owner of a hair salon that also pay expenses like electricity, water, rent, levies, salaries, shampoos, equipment, etc, who then has to pay income and other taxes on top of that, you don't have tax to contend to. Even people in normal jobs have expenses like travelling costs, work attire etc. and some of us pay as much 45% tax. So for every R100 that you make R45 goes to the government, give or take. The lowest income tax rate is 18% which is about a fifth of your money and from there it jumps to more than a quarter (26%). Imagine you have to pay income tax of say 36% on top of your current expenses. So don't underestimate what a benefit it is that you have being able to hide your income from government.
Edited: 2024-07-11 15:02:17
On 2024-07-11 14:51:41 Tacotom said:
On 2024-07-11 14:43:11 Hazel Arabia said: On 2024-07-11 14:14:19 voete2006 said: A lot of these providers plead poverty, but if they can see one client a day for 21 days at R1.5k that is R31.5k per month tax free. Hardly a kings ransom, but plenty to live a half decent life and support one or two children. Most people in our country make do with much less than that for entire families.
"Tax free!" he says, as if we don't have to pay venues, hotels, advertising platforms, etc etc etc. Also very telling, thinking us SPs need to be working every day for 31 days, as if we dont get sick/need off days for whatever reason.
All freelancers have lots of costs related to their business just as SPs. We don't get paid for sick days or holidays. We have to pay into our own pension pot. And at the end of this we pay tax.
I know that in countries that have adopted decriminalization, there are ways for providers to pay tax. But I think I need to clarify my point - SPs, like freelancers, don't walk away with the entire 31k as the comment I replied to, suggests. I could also go into the wear and tear aspect, since it is physical labour and working for 31 days straight can't possibly be good for the body. But my point is that there are MANY factors to consider in this business, which many a punter seem to gloss over
- "two relevant masters degrees (one in development economics and the second in finance)" -
Arguing it out on a sex for sale website to impress random strangers may be the biggest flaw in your intellectual abilities point.
But i do hope you impressed some of the guys on here, because i don't think too many girls got wet with this nasty name calling nerd sword fight.
But anyway, as you were.
On 2024-07-11 14:56:47 RickyTan said:
On 2024-07-11 14:43:11 Hazel Arabia said: On 2024-07-11 14:14:19 voete2006 said: A lot of these providers plead poverty, but if they can see one client a day for 21 days at R1.5k that is R31.5k per month tax free. Hardly a kings ransom, but plenty to live a half decent life and support one or two children. Most people in our country make do with much less than that for entire families.
"Tax free!" he says, as if we don't have to pay venues, hotels, advertising platforms, etc etc etc. Also very telling, thinking us SPs need to be working every day for 31 days, as if we dont get sick/need off days for whatever reason.
Technically he is 100% correct. He didn't say "expense free". Yes you do have expenses, but unlike the owner of a hair salon that also pay expenses like electricity, water, rent, levies, salaries, shampoos, equipment, etc, who then has to pay income and other taxes on top of that, you don't have tax to contend to. Even people in normal jobs have expenses like travelling costs, work attire etc. and some of us pay as much 45% tax. So for every R100 that you make R45 goes to the government, give or take. The lowest income tax rate is 18% which is about a fifth of your money and from there it jumps to more than a quarter (26%). Imagine you have to pay income tax of say 36% on top of your current expenses. So don't underestimate what a benefit it is that you have being able to hide your income from government.
Just a minor correction - 45% is the top *marginal* rate. i.e. you only pay that when your income is above R1.8m (roughly) *AND* you only pay that on the portion of your income that exceeds R1.8m - so if your income is R2m pa, you only pay 45% on the last 200k, before that you pay amounts according to the various brackets (e.g 18% on R1 to R237100, 26% on R237101 to R370500, 31%...etc) so for everyone above the first bracket the effective rate that they actually pay is always lower than their marginal rate
".....also very telling, thinking us SPs need to be working every day for 31 days"
Edited: 2024-07-11 15:29:55
On 2024-07-11 14:56:47 RickyTan said:
On 2024-07-11 14:43:11 Hazel Arabia said: On 2024-07-11 14:14:19 voete2006 said: A lot of these providers plead poverty, but if they can see one client a day for 21 days at R1.5k that is R31.5k per month tax free. Hardly a kings ransom, but plenty to live a half decent life and support one or two children. Most people in our country make do with much less than that for entire families.
"Tax free!" he says, as if we don't have to pay venues, hotels, advertising platforms, etc etc etc. Also very telling, thinking us SPs need to be working every day for 31 days, as if we dont get sick/need off days for whatever reason.
Technically he is 100% correct. He didn't say "expense free". Yes you do have expenses, but unlike the owner of a hair salon that also pay expenses like electricity, water, rent, levies, salaries, shampoos, equipment, etc, who then has to pay income and other taxes on top of that, you don't have tax to contend to. Even people in normal jobs have expenses like travelling costs, work attire etc. and some of us pay as much 45% tax. So for every R100 that you make R45 goes to the government, give or take. The lowest income tax rate is 18% which is about a fifth of your money and from there it jumps to more than a quarter (26%). Imagine you have to pay income tax of say 36% on top of your current expenses. So don't underestimate what a benefit it is that you have being able to hide your income from government.
Touche. I do 100% value the pros of not having to pay tax. I also know that there are downsides. Remember how during the pandemic everyone else lived off UIF and savings? Money earned does not = income, so yes - a provider can "plead poverty" just due to the fact that THE ECONOMY HAS GONE TO SHIT (hint: original topic).. More expenses, coupled with the inability to raise rates to account for them, means that everyone suffers, even businesses with a higher income can be making little to no profit.
Reply
Legend
Hover mouse over icons for description
