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: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 11:53 PM
reply to post by Yoelzz

How is it discriminatory?

Seriously, how on earth is this discriminatory? People who use tanning beds put themselves at risk. Just like smokers. Do YOU want to pay for their cancer treatment? I know I don't I don't think it's fair for ME to pay for someone else's self abuse caused cancer. I think people that do this to themselves need to pay for their own treatment. That is most easily done with a tax on the behavior itself.

If you don't use a tanning bed, you won't get taxed. (and rightly so)

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 11:59 PM
This thread made me lol. A tax on tanning? Is it because of the health effects or something? Such silliness dear president, silliness I say!!

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 04:58 AM
reply to post by lpowell0627

i'm not saying it's right, i'm just saying it's not racist.

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:42 AM
I have a hard time thinking the tanning tax is racist. Government has been telling us for years certain things are bad for us and we shouldn't do it. I should not have to pay for someone else's poor judgement. It should be up to the individual. If you want to fry in a microwave...fine...but don't come to me when you can't afford the treatments to cure your cancer. If you are willing to accept the risk, then you should have to pay the additional monies to correct the side effects.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by MBPie]

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 12:21 PM
reply to post by BlackJackal

You won't find me standing up for Obama, but it's just not accurate to say the tax is racist.

This is like saying gasoline tax is biased, affecting those who drive more than those who don't. Or the tobacco tax disproportionately affects smokers more than non-smokers.

If whites had to tan to survive, you'd have a point, but they don't. Look, whether it's going to make a person darker or not is irrelevant. If a black person wants to go lay in a tanning bed, he's going to pay the same tax the white person does.

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 08:04 AM
In order for any Bill to be turned into a Law, it is required to win the voting approval of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate. Only after getting their approval does the President get to sign (or veto) the Bill into Law.

The Racial Statistics for the US House and US Senate are as follows:

Racial Composition of the 110th Congress

U.S. House
White: 332
Black: 42
Jewish: 30
Hispanic: 25
Asian: 5
Native American: 1

U.S. Senate
White: 81
Black: 1
Jewish: 14
Hispanic: 2
Asian: 2

As you see, the Congress is overwhelmingly White with 413 of 535 members of Congress being White (77%). Therefore, you cannot claim this is racist as it was obviously voted for by a white majority Congress.

racial discrimination - discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race

Now, taking the definition of racial discrimination and applying it to this situation is simply incorrect. Firstly, the definition requires that the white majority congress would have to be acting in a discriminatory or abusive way against another racial group. As it is a white majority congress taxing something which everyone keeps claiming is used predominately by whites (statistics please?), this cannot apply. A racial group cannot act in a racially discriminatory way against itself.

Please think about the implications of what you are saying in context.


<< 4  5  6   >>

log in