It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama's Tanning Tax is Racist

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+42 more 
posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:48 PM
I don't know if anybody has thought about this or not but, This new 10% tanning tax is predominantly imposed on Caucasians only. I am not going to say that no other race uses tanning salons but I will say that more than likely 90-95% of tanning customers are white. Blacks and Hispanics for example don't have much of a reason to use tanning services.

So what this amounts to is a tax that puts a "disparate impact" on Caucasians and the Supreme Court already ruled that this counts as discrimination (Briggs vs. Duke Power Co.)

Anyways, food for thought

[edit on 25-3-2010 by BlackJackal]

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:54 PM
reply to post by BlackJackal

I mentioned this yesterday, and nobody even picked up on it. Doesn't really surprise me, but man if they tried taxing say hair relaxer watch out.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by adifferentbreed]

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:59 PM
reply to post by BlackJackal

Lol. Yes, I thought about it as soon as I read it was to be taxed

Was going to comment jokingly that the tanning-tax (10% ?) would be racist because it would presumably be levied primarily on those with less pigmentation in their skin

But then I thought about it some more

A week or so ago, I stumbled into a forum for hair products, and several of the posters had written things such as: ' What would a white woman be wanting wigs for ? Whites know nothing about wigs. They don't have our hair problems ' etc.

So, had I posted even jokingly that the tanning-tax would discriminate against caucasians --- and if it were revealed there would also be a tax on hair-products (including wigs and hairpieces) --- then it could successfully be argued that a 'hairpiece tax' could also be construed as 'racist', insofar as it might primarily target African Americans, or those suffering alopecia, or even simply the 'hair challenged'

So I left it alone

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Dock9]

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:59 PM
What boggles my mind is that out of all of the industries out there to tax, they choose tanning salons.

I'm sure we could think of many major industries that are 10 times worse on our health.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:09 PM
reply to post by BlackJackal

Nope I think it was more about taxing a area that does harm to health and has little impact on people. Black people tan to they can burn just like white people. This is way to far of a stretch but I admire your thinking outside of the box. I could be wrong and you could be right I but I usually like to follow the path of least resistance when to comes to the truth.

And don't get me wrong I think the tax is wrong along with the whole bill it is unconstitutional and I believe could tear this country apart at the seems.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:10 PM
Some people also say the crack/coc aine laws are racist too, since a majority of crack dealers belong to certain demographic.

So taxing the tanning beds, which does affect a particular group, is considered racist? Do what they always say, don't do it!

+16 more 
posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:11 PM
The choice to tax tanning bed use is because of the increased health risks they cause. Skin cancer is no joke and it's treatment is very expensive, and there are 1 million new diagnoses of skin cancer in the US each year. One American dies from melanoma every 61 minutes.

Melanoma is the most common form of cancer for young adults 25-29 years old and the second most common form of cancer for adolescents and young adults 15-29 years old. Melanoma is increasing faster in females 15-29 years old than males in the same age group. In females 15-29 years old, the torso is the most common location for developing melanoma, which might be due to high-risk tanning behaviors.
More females than Males use tanning beds.

The vast majority of mutations found in melanoma are caused by ultraviolet radiation. Melanoma accounts for about three percent of skin cancer cases, but it causes more than 75 percent of skin cancer deaths. Melanoma is the fifth most common cancer for males and sixth most common for females.

Here is the Kicker and why the Tax on tannig salons is a great idea:

Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is a proven human carcinogen, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Frequent tanners using new high-pressure sunlamps may receive as much as 12 times the annual UVA dose compared to the dose they receive from sun exposure.
Nearly 30 million people tan indoors in the U.S. every year12; 2.3 million of them are teens.
On an average day, more than one million Americans use tanning salons.
Seventy one percent of tanning salon patrons are girls and women aged 16-29.
First exposure to tanning beds in youth increases melanoma risk by 75 percent.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:11 PM
Some people think it's racist to pay NBA players so much since 85% of them are black.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:19 PM
reply to post by jam321

I agreed with you up until you talked about other industries that are worse. Yeah, there are other things that are worse, but tanning can be pretty bad if it is done too much. I mean, when are so (fake) tan you start looking like an orange, that can't be healthy.

I still don't get why there is a freaking tax on tanning. I mean, come on, do you really need the government to tax you so you don't do something too much? Shouldn't you be smart enough to know the limits of what your body can safely handle?

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:23 PM
reply to post by BlackJackal

I am really starting to think that The president is *not too bright*. Like we don't get *snip* enough in taxes to pay for his people to have things that we gotta work for??? They get everything handed to them we paid for his schoold too so that he could become the prsident and *snip* america up!!!!

Mod Edit: Censor circumvention. Please read this link

[edit on 3/26/2010 by seagull]

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:23 PM
reply to post by riddle6

But then, if you're fair skinned, shouldn't you be smart enough to know you weren't meant to be tanned ?

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:27 PM
Maybe time outdoors in the sun will be taxed next. A 'sun usage tax'.

Seriously, no wonder the rest of the world laughs at us. Lunatics are in charge.

+6 more 
posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:28 PM
Obama's tanning tax is racist ...

Aye aye aye ... sometimes this place ...

So yeah, the new proposed tax on the rich is racist too cause those folk are mostly white too ... so unfair!

Back to the causality drawing board me thinks.

Btw, I got some straws over here if you need them ... no need to be grasping like this.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:29 PM
To those people that think the tax on tanning is good because they are watching out for your health, and they want you to get less cancer, stop being so damn naive.

If they really cared about your health, then 100 MILLION people wouldn't be hooked on anti-depressant drugs like Ritalin and Prozac.

Oh but you haven't heard?

They are now saying Ritalin is good for you because it boosts learning.

Don't forget McDonalds was saying that Olympians eat chicken nuggets?

Such Bullsh..!

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:31 PM
reply to post by Terapin

I understand completely that the reason stated by the government is that this is a tax on an activity that is detrimental on health. However, this doesn't change the fact that this tax puts a disparate impact on one race, which is unconstitutional.

It is true, that people can choose not to tan, but that doesn't change the fact that the ones who do will be white. A comparison would be a tax on sickle cell anemia treatments or something along those lines.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:34 PM
very racist i wonder did he add additional taxes for cosmetic surgery for instance boob jobs. probably not but i think he increased the taxes on all the medical instrumentation to put them in or take them out. makes no sense.. none of it why could you have not tried to fix the system that we already had.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:36 PM
reply to post by Dock9

Well, by that way of thinking, then I'm guessing we should tax everything that modifies a person's physical appearance - makeup, hair dye, hell, even razors. Cause if you think about it, make up can be dangerous to your face if you leave it on too long, hair dye can damage your scalp, and a razor could kill you if used the wrong way.

And for the record, my skin is so pale I almost glow in the dark, so I obviously don't tan. But I think a tanning tax is beyond stupid.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:37 PM
reply to post by BlackJackal

However, this doesn't change the fact that this tax puts a disparate impact on one race, which is unconstitutional.

But its just one race thats using it. I bet the tax would get extended to the minorities as soon as blacks and latinos decide that want to sit in an ultra-violet oven for 30 mins a day. I seriously doubt its because Obama hates us crackers.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:54 PM
OH no! Obama's new tax on soda is prejudiced against fat people! JERK!

OH no! Obama's new tax on cigarettes is prejudiced against people with lung cancer! JERK!

Did ya ever bother to think that maybe these new taxes aren't prejudiced, but rather an act of deterrence? I.E. smoking is bad for you, soda is bad for you, tanning is bad for you, et c.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:21 PM
You know, I would love to agree with the OP on the tanning tax being racist because only whites use tanning salons, but I just can't.

It's not racist because white people make the CHOICE to use a tanning salon. Tanning is ALL about vanity and indulgence. There is absolutely no medical reason to use a tanning bed, so it's a luxury.

If you don't like the tax, let's elect new leaders!

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in