It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 6
47
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay Electronica
Whats the point of going to a tanning bed ? Are you not satisfied with your natural skin color ?

Im guessing this is white peoples equivalent to skin bleaching.


No, it's a "status" symbol. Generally, if one has a tan it's assumed they have a bit of money to lie around on the beach. A lot of it is faddish and inspired by the lollipop head starlets in hollywood. I consider it the sign of a lemming of low intelligence who looks like a California raisin.




posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by searching4truth
reply to post by NJE03
 


It is not exclusive upon whites, it is exclusive to anyone who wants to knowing use a product and service that causes cancer.


I hear that using a cell phone too much can also cause cancer. Ready for THAT tax?


I know Mexican and Arab girls that use or have used tanning facilities, ie before school dances or special events.


Again, NO industry is 100% ANY race nowadays. Not one. However, and it is well researched, the vast majority of tanning salon users are white. Pure and simple. There are more white men that use tanning salons than there are black or hispanic women. I linked to this study back on page 2.

It is really getting scary to think what this generation is allowing our government to tax us on and restrict us to. Terribly, terribly sad and scary.

By allowing these "sin" taxes to continue, you are allowing an endless amount of taxes to be put into affect.

Fight this on principle. These taxes do not benefit ANYONE but the government.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by 5 oClock
 


I agree with personal responsibility. It would be moronic to say otherwise. However, not everyone who has ever been thrown in prison deserves to be there. There are people who are completely innocent of their supposed "crimes." And, contrary to the beliefs of many, there is still systematic racism that exists which causes unfair practices when it comes to incarceration of which Blacks have suffered far more than whites. If you have no color to your skin, chances are that you have not experienced this side of reality, therefore it simply does not exist in your construct. However, to deny it, especially with this particular country's history, is to purposefully remain ignorant. There is a difference between manning up and growing up for something that you did, as opposed to accepting responsibility and going to prison for something that you did not do.

Personally, if something like that were to happen to me, I would be rather upset and disillusioned if someone told me to MAN UP and accept responsibility for something that I did not play a part in. And unfortunately, there are many people serving prison time for nothing more than the color of their skin. I find that to be grossly different than claiming racism because you have to pay a tax on tanning.

That's my point.

Much love to all...



[edit on 26-3-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by 5 oClock
 


i'm sorry - you lost me at 'ridiculous post' because i laughed at how hysterical your ironic statement was.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
ATS...really?

You allow this kind of smut?



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by misterhype
reply to post by BlackJackal
 


it's really just capitalizing on people that are too stupid to take advantage of a free source of tanning: THE SUN!


That's kinda what I was thinking when I heard about the tax! I can see where you might have some problems if you live in North Dakota or Wisconsin during the winter, but I will never forget when I lived in California (Southern CA - not up in the far north where it is misty and rainy often) where it seemed there was a tanning salon in every strip mall! For one of the sunniest places in the US, that really struck me as absurd. Kinda like having a ton of stores selling ice to Eskimos in the far north!

But IMO that's a stupid way to try to increase revenue. Cigarette smoking rates have declined greatly due in part to awareness of danger and tax or not, tanning will likely decline. Worse yet, people who are heavy-duty tanners will go back to lying in the sun or they will do what my cousin and his wife did - just buy their own tanning bed and set it up in the basement.

As for anything racist, that never crossed my mind. I would imagine that there are some light-skinned black and hispanic people who may use tanning beds. And there are plenty of white people who would never go near one - the sorts of people (many red-heads and some blondes) who burn to a crisp just thinking about being in the sun w/o protection.

[edit on 26-3-2010 by Schrecken Licht]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Hey, guess what? NO ONE IS MAKING YOU PAY THIS TAX! If you want a freaking tan, get off your lazy bum and go outside. It's totally free.


"Oh but that wouldn't be right because it makes sense!"




posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dock9
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 ?



Being fair skinned or dark skinned(white person) has very little to do with the frequency of skin cancer.

I am light skinned and I burn very easily but someone who is naturally more tan than me is still susceptible to skin cancer because its the UV rays that do the damage.

So while the more tan person does not burn when exposed to UV rays, they are still doing damage.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by wisefoolishness
 


Ya beat me too it.

There's this wonderful thing that people who are against this tax can do. They can go out and lay in the sun.

Amazingly enough, it's free.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


If you really think about it, it's the sun that's racist!

Burnin' teh white folk indiscriminately like that ...

There, now we know.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


yes, it's true, you don't have to pay this tax if you don't want to, by simply not using a tanning salon. However, this and other sin taxes set a dangerous precedent. a precedent where anything that doesn't conform with what the government deems "good for you" is taxed(sometimes heavily, like alcohol for instance). the government doesn't have the right to tax you just because you enjoy something that isn't going to help you to live to 150 years of age. allowing sin tax , where does it end? are we gonna let it progress to where we can only eat some vegetables lean beef and bread, whilst everything else is so heavily taxed "for our own good" to where a candy bar is a luxury for a once a week thing?


if people want to get fat, smoke, drink, fornicate all fricken day, well by the gods that's their right! so long as it hurts no one else who are you , or the government to tell people they must pay taxes, that seem to get higher and higher every few years(cigs and alcohol), just to live their lives peacefully how they so choose?


and just so we're clear here i understand inevitably someone is going to say " i don't want mah tax dollahs goin to pay for that fat guys's triple bipass!!" well to that i say, with this new healthcare bill, that's exactly how it's going to be for the foreseeable future, there's no use using that as an excuse to tell other people how they can or should live their lives.

as an aside i pointed out earlier that one of the reasons our forefathers fought for independence was because they were being taxed for everything they did. and here again we're being taxed, slowly at first, for everything we do.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 


Isn't it funny how people can simultaneously bitch about being forced to buy insurance from an insurance company AND bitch about having to pay for someone else's triple bypass?

I get your point. "[snip] everyone else! I want what I want and I want it now!"

"WHAT?!? YOU NEED HELP? [snip] YOU! I look out for numero uno and that's it! I don't care if your going to DIE, you should DIE instead of me being slightly inconvenienced to help YOU!"



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


i'm not sure i entirely understand your post, other than my belief that the government shouldn't be allowed to force anyone to buy anything from a private company, i really dont care one way or another about the healthcare bill besides it's economic impact. we've always paid for uninsured people through our taxes.

people in this country should be allowed to do pretty much whatever they wish, so long as they don't hurt anyone and understand they'll have to live with the consequences( as our mothers have been telling us for eons, that we lie in the beds we make). this is supposed to be the land of the free, not the land of the free so long as you follow what we tell you or be taxed into oblivion.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 


i guess it just makes me sad and a little angry that there are people who believe it's alright for the government to penalize people for living their lives and not breaking any laws.

i didn't think that when i became an adult, with a family of my own now, that i'd be babied by the government. told "hey that's bad for you! here's your punishment!" just about everything taken in large doses causes an early death, it's my life, i only get one, i should be able to enjoy it without a backhand from the government for something that's not illegal.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 



people in this country should be allowed to do pretty much whatever they wish, so long as they don't hurt anyone and understand they'll have to live with the consequences( as our mothers have been telling us for eons, that we lie in the beds we make). this is supposed to be the land of the free, not the land of the free so long as you follow what we tell you or be taxed into oblivion.


Ok, I am going to try and put this in a way that you might be able to agree with.

Should you be forced to pay for skin cancer treatment for someone who religiously used a Tanning Bed and developed malignant melanoma? Or, should people who take that risk themselves have to pay for it?


Tanning Beds May Increase Skin Cancer Risk



People 35 or younger who used the beds regularly had a melanoma risk eight-fold higher than people who never used tanning beds. Even occasional use among that age group almost tripled the chances of developing melanoma.

"This is more information in support of the conclusion that tanning lights cause skin cancer," says Martin A. Weinstock, MD, professor of dermatology at Brown University and chair of the American Cancer Society's (ACS) skin cancer advisory board.

The Swedish researchers studied the tanning bed use of 571 people who had developed malignant melanoma and compared it to the use of 913 healthy people (controls) who did not have melanoma.


So we shouldn't tax people who put themselves at risk to offset the costs of people who put themselves at risk, but you shouldn't have to pay for the consequences of that risk either. What is the solution? Maybe they just die from the cancer unless they can pay for it out of their own pocket?

I don't know many people that can fork over the cost of cancer treatment out of their own pocket.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Racist? Why don't you first admit that you actually HAVE a problem with a Black President instead of finding the tiniest, most far-fetched ways to accuse him of being racist?

Anyways, even though taxes are terrible tools of control that I don't agree with, this one is for the good reasons.

Artificial tanning is a totally trashy suburban consumerist habit, that is totally unnecessary, harmful for the health, and energy-consuming as well. Oh yeah... it's attacking whitetrash people from the upper middle-class in their freedoms of consuming useless "aesthetic" services.

Tons of researches have directly linked skin cancer to artificial tanning. Do that for about 10 years of your life and you gonna look like you're 50 years old when you arrive in your thirties.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by Jay Electronica
Whats the point of going to a tanning bed ? Are you not satisfied with your natural skin color ?

Im guessing this is white peoples equivalent to skin bleaching.


No, it's a "status" symbol. Generally, if one has a tan it's assumed they have a bit of money to lie around on the beach. A lot of it is faddish and inspired by the lollipop head starlets in hollywood. I consider it the sign of a lemming of low intelligence who looks like a California raisin.


Times have changed. In the 80's it was a status symbol. But trends are changing back to the time when polite society views deep tans on caucasians as something for the "lower classes". A lot of the change in attitude is do to increased awareness of the negative health effects. You need sunlight to be healthy, but white people especially, should not be getting deep tans because it dramatically increases your risk of deadly skin cancers, plus you'll look like a prune when you get old. I read that in a magazine at least.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Ha! I have my own tanning bed!!!

I should add I don't use it. It came with the house.



[edit on 27-3-2010 by Bachrk]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Moderate tanning would actually be good for your health, although there is little reason to do it other than in winter and bad weather because the sun is free. But then again, the Sun doesn't care about your work schedule.

Recent research suggests anti-cancer benefits attributed to vitamin D may in fact be due to moderate UV exposure. In other words, this may have been a classic example of why you shouldn't assume correlation is causation.

UV both causes and kills cancer...hard for some to wrap their mind around, but true. If you never go outside, you are not getting enough UV exposure. Optimal exposure is not really known. Currently people tend to say 20-30 minutes a day around noon at least a few times a week if not every day is sufficient.

Also, I wouldn't want to imply that vitamin D isn't good for you in general. Ukraine's recent epidemic of 'strange illnesses' seems to have significantly(if not entirely) been a consequence of general malnutrition and specifically vitamin D deficiency.

Punitive so called "sin taxes" are wrong wrong wrong. It turns the Tax Man into a High Priest of what is and is not a "sin." And then, people endorse general exploitation of 'sinners.'

And of course, the existence of "responsible sinners" are not acknowledged. People who make moderate use of tanning, cheeseburgers, coca cola etc, are not exempted from these taxes.

Nor are 'the pure and righteous' exempt from the bad consequences of punitive taxation. Whatever businesses you depend on suffer as money is irrationally siphoned from the consumer economy into the demonstrably more wasteful government sector.

And why should we take the government seriously on their effort to shape behavior? They are fine with a soda tax, tanning tax, etc, but meanwhile they have just passed a bill where healthy people are asked to subsidize all of the people who make bad decisions. The truth is the 'healthy choices' tax is enormous compared to these tiny components of the 'unhealthy choices' tax.

So whether or not they pay a few nickels here and there for their bad choices is basically meaningless. If you are healthy and responsible, you are going to get SOAKED by the tax man far far more than so called "sinners."

A high school science teacher I knew liked to pick on the students who took Latin. She'd ask them why they were taking Latin. She was ready for the most common answer: 'to improve my vocabulary.' 'Well why not just study vocabulary then?'

That's exactly why sin taxes are stupid. Why should we tax something by proxy? If you want to tax body fat, measure and tax body fat. And why would we do that when the truth is, we subsidize body fat in many other ways that are far more significant than a "sin tax" here and there?

The ugly truth is, "sin taxes" became a racial hockey puck. Policy makers KNOW that tanning is a tax on white people. They needed some 'white people' sin taxes because most of the "sin taxes" were going to have a 'disparate impact' on black people. Guess what, black people are fatter and eat more fast food. So never mind why, any fatty tax = disparate impact.

None of those taxes can stand up to that sort of legal challenge, and they wouldn't even have gotten passed if they hadn't figured out some taxes that clearly applied mostly to 'whitey' because that's what it took to neutralize the race card enough to get them passed.

Why did they need to pass these taxes then?

Because they are part of the smoke and mirrors of the new health care numbers. They needed the projected tax revenue from these taxes to pretend the Bill to Wreck Health Care and Rip You Off could work. 'Why look everybody, it will save us all this money, we have to do this, we HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!'

Guess what, this isn't the only part of that 'saving us money' thing that is BS and has been right from the start.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
i just don't get from what base did they make this kind of tax.. especially when its discriminating people.. why don't they consider people freedom before making a tax law..

scragged.com...



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join