Here's One That Slipped By Me

formatting link
"4600,00.html I suppose we just add this one to all the other "sin taxes."

Reply to
Alan
Loading thread data ...

Tanning leads directly to skin damage and to greatly increased odds of developing melanoma. It is entirely reasonable to levy an excise tax on those who engage in this entirely unhealthful activity and to use the proceeds to help offset the direct and indirect costs of said illnesses. It's also reasonable to make tanning more expensive in the hope that it will decrease its use. All of this is no different than the excise tax on cigarettes, which I also support.

Interestingly, there is another parallel with cigarettes... Recent studies have shown that tanning is actually addictive.

Call me a bleeding-heart liberal if you will, but there are some circumstances in which I think it is not only the government's right, but also its responsibility, to use tax policy to promote good social policies, and this is one of them.

Reply to
Jonathan Kamens

I thought the so-called sin taxes were attractive to governments because demand for the items being taxed was seen as highly price inelastic thus providing a more reliable revenue stream.

Reply to
Bill Brown

Jonathan Kamens wrote: ...

Where is there any evidence whatsoever that such revenue(s) are used specifically for such purpose(s)?

Reply to
dpb

As one wag in another discussion group mentioned, this tax seems to discriminate against light-skinned (melanin-deficient) people.

Did anyone see the Chris Brown movie "Good Hair"? (I haven't yet). I read that it documents some of the health hazards of the strong chemicals used to straighten hair of those with tightly curled or coiled hair. What if there was (or, should there be?) an excise tax on sale of these hair-straightening products, based on their unhealthful impact? Such products are primarily marketed to tightly-curled-hair people to improve their cosmetic appearance, much as tanning salons are marketed to light-skinned people for the same purpose.

I bring this up simply (and cynically) to point out the arbitrary nature of some of our tax laws -- like, if you are the in-law of some senator, you might be able to get that little extra clause inserted in the latest legislative draft of some tax law submitted to some committee.

-Mark Bole

Reply to
Mark Bole

Given how the federal government works, this is a somewhat silly question, but I will humor you.

A. In 2005, the American Academy of Dermatology Association and the Society for Investigative Dermatology released a comprehensive study to quantify the toll skin diseases take on the nation's economy and health care system. The estimated total direct cost associated with the treatment of melanoma in

2004 was $291 million.

formatting link
Estimated increase in revenues from tanning excise tax FY2010-FY2019: $2.7 billion

$2.7 billion / 10 years = $271 million per year

Reply to
Jonathan Kamens

Speaking of sin taxes, there's the one on LUST. (See Section 9508).

Reply to
Tom Healy CPA

Shame on you for pouring gasoline on the fire! ;-)

Reply to
D. Stussy

The first version of the health care bill had a 5% tax on elective cosmetic surgery. Probably due to lobbying efforts, the final version of the health care bill (specifically the reconciliation bill) scrapped this tax and created a 10% tax on tanning instead. The tanning industry probably didn't have the resources to fight it. The cosmetic industry is wealthier and better organized.

In addition, it's quite possible that most people who get skin cancer get it from the sun. See a study

formatting link
many health experts say you should only get 20 minutes of sun aday, but many people spend much more than that. Basically, the government just needs ways to pay for the health care bill.

Same, the excise tax on excellent health care plans provided by unions and some big companies was scrapped and replaced by a medicare tax on investment income over 200k or 250k because of lobbying efforts by the unions.

Sometimes that's a dangerous road because who gets to decide what's good?

Reply to
removeps-groups

Next will be sugar and fat. I don't know that anyone would debate that sugar in the quantity that appears in soda is pretty bad for your health. But where do we draw the line? The high carb promoting food pyramid and the introduction of processed cereals was the beginning of our health issues as far as I can tell. I was never in better shape than when I was on Atkins, eating fat/protein in unlimited quantities. Yet that high fat intake is the next thing to get taxed.

Do we really want the government influencing our food/drink intake via taxes? Where does this all end? Joe

Reply to
JoeTaxpayer

Or maybe the cosmetic industry lobbyists managed to convince legislators that a sin tax on cosmetic surgery is stupid.

Some cosmetic surgery is medically necessary. It's unreasonable to levy sin taxes on medically necessary surgeries. Putting a sin tax across the board on cosmetic surgery would therefore be unreasonable, and the other option, asking the IRS to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary cosmetic surgeries, would be a monumentally bad idea.

In contrast, tanning is never medically necessary, unless you're going to argue that there are people in our country who can only get the vitamin D they need by visiting tanning salons.

"Conclusions: In a highly exposed population, frequent indoor tanning increased melanoma risk, regardless of age when indoor tanning began. Elevated risks were observed across devices."

In other words, tanning is very bad for you, and this study made no effort to measure how many people get melanoma from tanning salons vs. sun exposure.

It is a road we went down in this country long, long ago, and there's really no going back.

Reply to
Jonathan Kamens

Surely the difference between tanning salons and food is obvious.

Sugar and fat can be safe, and in some cases even healthy, in moderation. The same cannot be said for tanning salons.

Reply to
Jonathan Kamens

Some artificial tanning may also be medically necessary. I've known people who skin conditions whose doctors have had them undergo ultraviolet treatments for that.

Reply to
Stuart A. Bronstein

Agreed, Jon, but it's already being considered.

formatting link
formatting link
if that wraps badly.Another article someone already tinied - http://tinyurl/sodatax

Reply to
JoeTaxpayer

Note the original bill had a tax on "elective" cosmetic surgery. Under current law, as stated in publication 502, you can only deduct medical costs for cosmetic surgery if they are medically necessary, such as restoring your face or nose after an accident or torture. The rest is not deductible. So we already make the distinction. Insurance and FSA/HSA will likely cover the necessary expenses too, so even if you don't deduct medical expenses you have to make the distinction so insurance knows whether to cover it.

Right. In fact the first part was

Background: Indoor tanning has been only weakly associated with melanoma risk; most reports were unable to adjust for sun exposure, confirm a dose-response, or examine specific tanning devices. A population-based case-control study was conducted to address these limitations.

Casual indoor tanning does cause cancer, but only frequent use likely will. Eating junk food frequently is bad too (remember the movie super size me), but in moderation its OK (though if they get rid of trans fats it will be even better more of the time), too much chocolate, too much cheese, too much red meat, too much water (can cause kidney damage), too much HFCS, etc are all bad.

True, but we don't have to go all out.

Reply to
removeps-groups

...

...

...

Which is, perhaps, a very accurate answer but to a completely different question.

Reply to
dpb

1) Stupid ideas are "considered" by local, state and federal governments all the time. Fortunately, the vast majority of them never go anywhere. 2) In any case, I don't see how this is relevant to the tax on tanning. The fact that stupid idea B is being considered has no logical bearing on the sense or stupidity of idea A.

Perhaps you are making the slippery slope argument, i.e., "Now that tanning is being taxed, which is somewhat reasonable, governments feel empowered to go further down that path and tax fat and sugar, which is much less reasonable."

That might, perhaps, be an interesting discussion to have if it weren't for the fact that the discussion of taxing high-fat and high-sugar foods has been going on for years, certainly for longer than anyone had heard the idea of taxing tanning salons.

Not to mention the fact that it's inevitable that government must find the line between reasonable and unreasonable legislation and social policy, so the whole slippery slope argument is fallacious. Yes, that means that sometimes the line is crossed, but that eventually corrects itself.

Such corrections sometimes happen quite quickly. For example, one might surmise that Massachusetts residents' decision two days ago to repeal the sales tax on alcoholic beverages sent a clear message to the legislature that they crossed the line when they enacted it about a year ago.

Personally, I voted to keep the sales tax, the one vote I cast in the election which didn't go my way. In my opinion, it is ridiculous that over-the-counter medications and facial tissues, for example, would have a sales tax, while alcoholic beverages would not. But apparently the majority of my fellow residents of the Commonwealth, or at least the ones who vote, disagree.

Reply to
Jonathan Kamens

Sure it can. Watch:

Tanning salons can be safe, and in some cases even healthy, in moderation.

There have been plenty of cases where doctors told people to use them (some skin conditions, vitamin D malabsorbtion via diet, etc.)

Seth

Reply to
Seth

Alcohol is already subject to very stiff taxes. Why add more?

Reply to
Pico Rico

Because the demand for alcohol is price inelastic, state of the economy inelastic and personal income inelastic thus assuring a more stable revenue stream for the government imposing the tax.

Reply to
Bill Brown

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.