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.

 

Tanning salons feel burned by 10 percent 'tan tax'

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
www.washingtonpost.com...

One of the less publicized measures in the new health-care law, the tax imposes a 10 percent surcharge on the use of ultraviolet indoor tanning beds.

Supporters -- including the Obama administration, congressional Democrats and dermatologists -- have argued that the tax will raise an estimated $2.7 billion toward the cost of expanding health coverage to the uninsured, while discouraging a practice that increases the risk of skin cancer by as much as threefold in frequent users, according to scientific research.

But outraged tanning salon owners worry that the levy could deal a death blow to an industry already reeling from the recession.


You have to love the fact that the Dems heard the outcry from drug companies over the original 5% tax on cosmetic procedures such as Bo-tox and tummy tucks, accepted the bribes, and then replaced that tax with this small business crippling 10% tax on tanning salons. Follow the money and you will nail down the source of most laws.

What I don't get is why this tax really matters in the first place. The wording of the ammendment:
docs.house.gov...

‘‘Sec. 5000B. Imposition of tax on indoor tanning services.
6 ‘‘SEC. 5000B. IMPOSITION OF TAX ON INDOOR TANNING
7 SERVICES.
8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby imposed on any
9 indoor tanning service a tax equal to 10 percent of the
10 amount paid for such service (determined without regard
11 to this section), whether paid by insurance or otherwise.


The solution here is so amazingly simple and would really be a massive middle finger to the federal government, that I cannot believe it hasn't already been done. If I owned a tanning salon, I'd simply drop the price of the actual tanning process to a mere pittance... say $1.00, and start charging for hourly rental of the room which the tanning bed is located in. You would purely be renting a room which happens to contain a tanning bed... whether the customer decides to tan or not is totally up to them and has no bearing on the cost of the room... wink, wink... Tell the IRS "Here's you $0.10, which is 10% of the cost I charge each cutomer to use the tanning bed." and go about your business. The simple fact is that this would be a scenario in which the federal government would be either forced to abandon enforcement of this discriminatory taxation system, or else defend the lawfullness of it before a court of law in order to collect on the tax.

Actually makes me wish I owned a couple tanning parlors just to make this happen. For waht it's worth, I am planning on sharing this idea with any salon owners I run into.


[edit on 7-7-2010 by burdman30ott6]




posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I don't see this as any different than taxing cigarettes because they cause lung cancer. I don't get the beef.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I don't see this as any different than taxing cigarettes because they cause lung cancer. I don't get the beef.


Haven't you noticed that I'm also opposed to sin taxes?
The consumer tax system employed by the US is one of the most predatory and discriminatory systems we have in this nation. Any substance or service which provides a little bit of distraction or makes life a bit easier/funner, is taxed disproportionately. The originations of it were based in the retarded belief that sin taxes would push the price of booze, tobacco, even sugary drinks now out of the budget range of the common man, thus forcing behavioral changes. I'm a grown adult living in a supposedly "free" nation... who in the hell is the government to attempt to force any behavioral change on me outside of unlawful behavior?

(FWIW, I've never used a tanning bed in my life, either. This tax will in no way affect me... but that doesn't mean I don't find it to be ridiculous and won't enjoy the daylights out of watching people find a way around it. Kinda sad... I now derive many of my jollies from seeing anyone stick it to the government. :lol


[edit on 7-7-2010 by burdman30ott6]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Is the tax going to fund melanoma research or tanning cessation programs?

I know in CT their "tax to fund cessation programs and research and medical care" on cigarettes only went toward those goals the first year. At the next years budget hearing the tax promptly went into the ambiguous "general fund."

CT has been bankrupt for decades despite it's high taxes on everything under the sun. Still is after stealing the cigarette tax money.

Taxing a "bad" thing to fund its care is one thing. Using popular opinions such as "who cares, it's bad for you anyways" to impose a tax just for tax sake is another thing entirely.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I don't go to tanning beds, but I do feel that this tax is dicrimination. The majority of people going to tanning beds are the white people. I just wait for the day that they determine how much air you breathe a day and find a way to tax that. The sun causes skin cancer too, how about putting a tax on the sun? Just another way for them to get more money to blow on useless things. Who really believes that the money is really going towards what they say its going for. Wake up people!!!



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


To be fair, the flip side to this is that just as I don't believe the government has any right or business applying sin taxes, neither do I believe it should be anyone's responsibility aside from the user to pay for medical care over issues which arise following abuse of these "sin" products. If you smoke for 40 years and suddenly develop lung cancer, it's on your own head and your own finances... or at least it should be. The entirety of the problem here is personal responsibility. Idiots want the collective (ie: tax dollars) to fund their medical care when they get sick thanks to their own behavior, and by taking such an attitude, they have opened the door wide to allow the government to say "Yep... well see, if we're gonna pay for your care, then we need to apply special taxes on these products to cover those costs and to try to force others to stop using them entirely." If people would have just held fast to personal responsibility (which once was heralded as a great virtue), we'd have never found ourselves in this mess of unconstitutional regulations.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I don't tan and mean no disrespect but I believe this tanning tax is a little racist and REALLY stupid. The majority of tanners are white. There are a few other races who use tanning beds to even out their skin tone or clear up acne and such but this is a very small percentage. Thus it's been dubbed the white girl tax. lol

A reverse example that I give below would never float so why the tan tax?

If the government tried to put an extra tax on hair weaves it would not have passed. Hair weaves are used primarily in the black population although yes a small percentage of whites use them too.

Don't tell me weaves can't cause health issues. My family has owned tanning and beauty salons in the past and many of the chemicals used for various "beauty" treatments are down right scary. Scary enough that the FDA requires labeling of these chemical treatments.

Anyway, just posted for thought.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


I agree with you on that. The "sin tax" concept is absurd and it's certainly the fault of the smoker or tanner should they develop a condition related to their activities.

Just seems that when these "sin taxes" were being proposed years ago they always came with the promises I described in my earlier post of care and research and help. Even though they never funded such things. I can see how it would be enticing for a moron to buy into a support a program like that.

Fast forward to today and they dont even bother making those promises anymore. It's just an excuse to tax. Pick something with easy majority opposition like smoking or tanning or drinking and let the coffers fill.

After all why would the gov ever want to combat the "sin" or fund cessation programs when every user or "sinner" brings another dollar to the bank?

Every tax is violence anyway. A gun to my head for any reason is not a welcome thing. But that's probably a different thread.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
is this trickle down economy being utilized in form of law and governance?



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I don't see this as any different than taxing cigarettes because they cause lung cancer. I don't get the beef.


I get the beef...

We already pay over 100 types of taxes, we don't need anymore. We especially don't want to pay to support this fascist/tyrannical health care bill.

I don't tan, but if I did I shouldn't have to give the government a penny to do so. The sunscreen they push is more toxic then the UV rays.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Even though i find orange people obnoxious i am with you.
The hater in me says tax those tandoori tools, but the liberal says i'm with you.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I have a HUGE issue with leveling taxes (increasingly more and more) on small businesses while corporations are luxuriating in breaks, shelters, and exemptions.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by xstealth

Originally posted by intrepid

I don't tan, but if I did I shouldn't have to give the government a penny to do so. The sunscreen they push is more toxic then the UV rays.


not sure i agree with the skin cancer theory, but there is a thread going on that if you want to get into it
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Just to clarify something before this thread veers towards something I didn't intend, when I said this was a "discriminatory taxation system" I wasn't refering to discrimination based on race. (In fact, I never associated race with this in my mind at all.) I meant the taxation system discriminates against small businesses, mom & pops if you will, in defference to the large conglomerates and corporations who largely fund the politicians in this country. God forbid that Pfizer or Astra-Zeneca sees a dip in profits because people think twice about getting their botox or their chemical peels thanks to the addition of a tax on those services... but by God there's no issue with taxing Joe & Mary Schlomo right out of business over at their little tanning salon they dumped their entire life savings into down at the Safeway mini-mall.

I find it ridiculous that the Supreme Court of the United States recently deemed that a corporation counts as a person in regards to the law... yet we have tax codes and policies which certainly don't consider corporations to be "persons" seeing as how persons are taxed to hell and back while corporations have infinite loopholes and exemptions clearing them of most of the burden.

And yeah, I "get it..." Corporations supposedly equal jobs which equal benefits to the economy. The problem is historically, entrepreneurship has always equaled success stories and has lead us closer to earned equality. 25 years ago when I was a little kid I used to see little businesses everywhere, in every town I went to. You saw signs like Jack's Hardware, Deming Meats, Barb's Hair Styles, and Mike's Video Stop. Now you're damn hard pressed to find any of them. They've all been replaced with ACE Hardware, the meat market at the supermarket mega conglomerate, Supercuts, and Hollywood Video. Hell, try as I might today, about the only small businesses I can find to support in my town are bait/tackle shops, gun shops, and my mechanic. This is largely because the government helped out the corporations by taxing the little guy out of the market. Notice the exemption in this tax for theraputic and prescribed tanning procedures? That exemption speaks volumes! Once they have successfully taxed the majority of these small tanning slaons out of business, we will see tanning services springing up at many cosmetic/dermatological offices. These offices will make double what the current mom & pops are making because they will charge the insurance/copay/deductable for the dermatologist doctor visit (more likely a quick visit with the MD's medical assistant... charged at the same rate as if the doc himself had checked you out) and then the "patient" will have to pay for the tanning out of pocket as it will be held as an elective procedure.

Mark me on this. I am more than willing to admit I was wrong if, in 10 years, we're not seeing this happening. It is the way this nation operates, thanks to the government consistantly baring their buttocks and sticking the citizens' face between the cheeks at the behest of big business.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I'll have to find a source, but I heard yesterday that CA was going to tax people if they have a big screen TV that's over "X" number of inches.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Let me give you a little info to chew on



Im darker skinned ( Im Piegan Blackfeet) and have worked in the medical field for years.. indoors. I began to get very ill and one of the things that was killing me besides modern life was a severe vitamin D deficiency. This isnt from a quack dr.. vitamin D deficiency is a huge problem and being very recognized by "modern" medicine. In any case, Im given IV supplements but they werent doing the job.. so its suggested I use "heliotherapy" in conjunction with the vita D.. AKA.. go buy a tanning bed with uvb/uva.
Of course, buy a 10K bed that is approved. So I did. and yes, Im 80% better. However, the sun and tanning beds are fine and dandy IF its theirs and IF they monitor you and IF they are the ones regulating it. I could do just as good being outdoors most of the time as my genetics insist upon, but modern life has had other plans for me.
If you have insurance ( which I do) you can receive heliotherapy in office. If you have money ( which I did) you can do it in your own home. If you have neither.. and you NEED it as many horrific diseases can be prompted by vita D deficiency... you will not be able to afford to go to a tanning salon now. Hello government healthcare and regulation. Keep people ill and dependent on the machine.. its pretty easy it seems.

Interesting isnt it??
This isnt a "sin" tax.. its actually pretty calculated. The sun is good for you, natural, and absolutely necessary. Only the nuts who want to keep you sick and in the system will tell you any different. If people would listen to their genetics and their own bodies.. they wouldnt need doctors who work for the machine to think for them. Obviously I needed more exposure.. but I was too stupid and listened to the "experts". If you are very white.. you obviously dont need to get a dark tan to be healthy.. exposure for your skin type is necessary though. Vanity might kill you.. and at least the superficial ghastly-leather skinned-doofuses are easy to spot. LOL! But for darker skinned people ( Im on the darker side of native american) we simply need more. Its all about the melanin.


I have 3 half white kids .. I married a light German guy. One is dark like me and the other 2 are very light. They get normal exposure, no burns, and no vanity tans. Just normal exposure for growing kids who need vitamin D production naturally.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


A sin tax is not necessarily in place to discourage people from using alcohol or tanning beds, but eliminates inefficiencies economists call externalities. "Sinful" products like alcohol, tobacco, and tanning cost society more than the price the consumers of these products. Sin taxes can eliminate inefficiencies by passing on costs to people who can best avoid those costs, namely people who consume "sinful" products.

To give an example, a bunch of drunks go to a bar and get drunk. The money they pay for the alcohol pays for the alcohol they consume and the bar's expenses. The money the drunks pay for the alcohol does not cover the many miscellaneous costs the drunks' alcohol consumption costs society.

Society may have to pay a police officer to arrest one of the drunks when he does something stupid after leaving the bar. Society may have to pay an emergency room doctor to treat one of the drunks or someone they harm. Society may have to pay for for one of the drunks food stamps because the drunk will lose his job when he fails to show up to work on time the next morning.

A sin tax, when administered properly, passes all these miscellaneous costs to those who can avoid them, namely the drunks. A sin tax may not elminate "sin," but it may temper it. People are less likely to go out and rack up costs if those costs are coming out of their own pocket.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join