sell lotion for $XX.00 and get a free tan... problem solved
Posted on 07/07/2010 4:41:54 AM PDT by jerry557
The sun hasn't exactly set on Solar Planet, but anxiety over the fate of the Arlington tanning salon has been running high ever since a "tan tax" took effect Thursday.
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.
"In 26 years of business this is the worst I've seen it," said Scott Shortnacy, owner of the Arlington Solar Planet as well as six other branches in the Washington area. "Normally for people who tan, it's a part of their lifestyle. They keep doing it even in a recession. But everybody has been looking for ways to cut back on those areas. ... Our sales are down 20 to 30 percent."
According to the Indoor Tanning Association, an industry trade group, most of the nation's 19,000 tanning salons are small businesses owned and staffed by women. Shortnacy said all but two of his several dozen employees are women. With business so slow, he opted against hiring the 10 to 15 seasonal workers he normally adds during the spring high season.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
How so "Obama".
“A “White Folks’ Tax”. “
I never thought of it like that! I guess that makes it a “racist” tax then!
They are just going to tax everything until we are nothing more than working subjects and slaves for the underclass.
Never in the history of humanity have the educated, affluent and intelligent been used as slaves for the stupid and lazy.
The backfire will be heard around the world in November.
I heard the other day that it doesn’t tax tanning beds that are in gyms. Even this tax has loopholes carved out.
.
Anybody want to bet the number of owners who voted for Hopey Changey?
sell lotion for $XX.00 and get a free tan... problem solved
The "logic" of Democrats never fails to astound and amuse me. This is like other "sin" taxes. They wag their self-righteous, liberal fingers at those of us who partake of these "sins", attach a higher tax to the use of those "sins" so they can get more money in their piggy banks and then express the desire to decrease the number of people who use those sinful products. Then when the people slow down or stop completely these activities, our elected morons panic because the tax revenue is not as much and increase the taxes on the products once again.
If an employer adopted a policy similar to this, it would be found to have disparate impact and they would be sued for racial discrimination.
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.
This is another of Obama's selective "punishments" of the private sector. This one has a racist tinge to it, though. I wonder what is the ratio of white to black users of tanning salons?
Why would the Democrats pick tanning beds to tax? The Democrat Party is the original home for racism, e.g. the late Senator Byrd.
Because it doesn't have an organized lobby group. This was the replacement for the tax on plastic surgery, which was opposed by lobbying groups. The tanning bed industry was caught flat-footed (but not the gym lobby, which successfully won an exemption for tanning services that are included with gym memberships).
This is discriminatory. Imagine the outcry if skin whitening creams had a new 10% tax!
” ...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...”
Wonder who he voted for...
It can't do both. Either it raises money, in which case government would want to encourage MORE tanning to raise MORE Money, or it discourages use, which means it will raise LESS money because fewer people will tan, until finally everybody stops and there's no money at all (and of course all the tanning people are out of work, no taxes of any kind are collected, and we are paying unemployment and welfare).
I thought the exception was that it didn’t tax tanning if tanning was a free part of a membership. The gyms were worried that they would have to either start charging for the tanning, or worse, have to compute how much of a membership fee went to paying for tanning services.
After they did that, I wondered if a tanning salon could sell memberships to “services”, and get around the tanning booth tax.
I’m sorry, this tax is necessary to give white people the experience of being oppressed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.