Next they will tax any food they deem "unhealthy."
1 posted on
07/07/2010 4:42:00 AM PDT by
jerry557
To: jerry557
A "White Folks' Tax".
How so "Obama".
2 posted on
07/07/2010 4:43:34 AM PDT by
Redleg Duke
(RAT Hunting Season started the evening of March 21st, 2010!)
To: jerry557
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.
4 posted on
07/07/2010 4:49:32 AM PDT by
two23
(Everything About Them Is a Lie)
To: jerry557
I heard the other day that it doesn’t tax tanning beds that are in gyms. Even this tax has loopholes carved out.
To: jerry557
they should charge a "towel fee" and give the tanning sessions away for free
.
6 posted on
07/07/2010 4:52:15 AM PDT by
Elle Bee
To: jerry557
Anybody want to bet the number of owners who voted for Hopey Changey?
7 posted on
07/07/2010 5:11:14 AM PDT by
bray
(Did Rush say Complete Failure?)
To: jerry557
![](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v253/chode6/chode2.gif)
sell lotion for $XX.00 and get a free tan... problem solved
8 posted on
07/07/2010 5:16:41 AM PDT by
Chode
(American Hedonist *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
To: jerry557
. . . 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. 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.
9 posted on
07/07/2010 5:19:07 AM PDT by
3catsanadog
(If healthcare reform is passed, 41 years old will be the new 65 YO.)
To: 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.
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.
11 posted on
07/07/2010 5:27:15 AM PDT by
olezip
To: jerry557
It's referred to as the “Cracker Tax” by the Regime.
13 posted on
07/07/2010 5:40:11 AM PDT by
HenpeckedCon
(What pi$$es me off the most is that POS commie will get a State Funeral!)
To: jerry557
This is discriminatory. Imagine the outcry if skin whitening creams had a new 10% tax!
To: jerry557
” ...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...”
Typical dysfunctional government thinking. If the increase in retail pricing to accommodate the tax will discourage people from using the tanning facilities, then the primary effect will not be to raise revenue, it will be to destroy a business or to incentivize the market to develop alternative untaxed services.
15 posted on
07/07/2010 6:11:39 AM PDT by
Mobties
To: jerry557
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. 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).
To: jerry557
I’m sorry, this tax is necessary to give white people the experience of being oppressed.
19 posted on
07/07/2010 10:18:32 AM PDT by
tweakDU
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson