Tanning enthusiasts will have to shell out more to achieve the golden shade. The health care law imposes a 10 percent tax on the service.
[ who tans? mostly white, middle class, females. remember the pledge 'no taxes on the middle class?' this tax singles out a specific segment of the populace to tax, probably could be challenged in court ]
John Overstreet, the executive director of The Indoor Tanning Association, decried the new tax calling it, "a crummy, crummy way to make tax policy." Lawmakers had considered taxing elective cosmetic procedures, but changed the language to tax indoor tanning services instead. "We've been hit by the recession already," Overstreet said. "A 10 percent tax will be a body blow to the industry."
[ great. small business that targets discretionary income, which is relatively fixed, and less in the current economy. assume that the 10% tax will decrease spending by the same amount. several small businesses will close as a result. more people will be unemployeed. the tax will require either an increase in price or a decrease in profits, either will be bad for the business owner. and there will be new overhead to report this tax to the IRS. figure for those salons that stay open, a part time employee will be let go. is this good policy? how, exactly, does this relate to health care? ]
But UV-emitting tanning devices have been classified as "carcinogenic to humans" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organization.
[ neither of which should be making policy for US citizens. are we headed for that 'one government' ideal ]