Indoor tanners see red over health care bill tax
December 24, 2009Jon Brooks Comments OffFor good or for ill, the Senate got ‘er done. With all the hubub over the removed public option, the failed Medicare buy-in gambit, and restrictions on subsidies for insurers who provide abortion coverage, a very important part of the bill has been lost in the shuffle:
The tanning tax.
After the nip-and-tuck lobby complained about a tax on cosmetic procedures that Harry Reid had inserted into the bill (the “Bo-tax”), he took it out and replaced it with a 10% tax on tanning salons.
If the tanning industry wants to kill the tax in the House-Senate conference, they’ll probably need more of a campaign than this Indoor Tanning Association‘s online call-to-action, which has a circa-1997 look-and-feel to it.
Still, reaction on the Web is coming fast and furious. It may feel strange to be talking about tanning on Christmas Eve, but some comments from The Volokh Conspiracy site:
I wonder if taxing sunlight is next. Considering the sun is a more dangerous way to tan than UV beds are, the sunlight tax should be 2x the tanning salon one.
—————————————————————————————————————
And we were worried about death panels…
—————————————————————————————————————
This is clearly a bill of attainder aimed at John “Prince of Orange” Boehner. Unconstitutional!
—————————————————————————————————————
The Marxist in the White House will get his wish.Reply:
I didn’t realize that 10% sales taxes on tanning services were a key demand leading up to the proletarian revolution…
—————————————————————————————————————
“a) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby imposed on any
indoor tanning service a tax equal to 10 percent of the
amount paid for such service (determined without regard
to this section), whether paid by insurance or otherwise.”There are insurance policies that pay for tanning salons? Who knew? Will that be available in the public option?
—————————————————————————————————————
I am kind of surprised no one has yet picked up on the racial background of the typical tanning salon customer.
—————————————————————————————————————
Has anyone stopped to think just who uses tanning booths? Do Hispanics? Blacks? Sounds like the perfect tax to me; suburban white kids.
—————————————————————————————————————
It’s quite obvious this is aimed at Sarah Palin. As long as she’s traveling the country for book tours or speeches, she won’t be able to use the tanning bed at her house.
From Business Musings:
Predictably there’s howls of outrage from the tanning industry lobby. They have caught on a great angle to protest on. Tanning salons are obviously used by only white people. Therefore they are claiming this tax is racist ! And since most of the clientele is women, they are calling it sexist as well !!
A spokesman for Harry Reid, the Senate Majority leader is reputed to have stated that the swap of Bo-tax with the Tan tax was “based on the more compelling health concerns with indoor tanning services”. The tanning industry association has shot back that ultraviolet light has at least some proven health benefits, while Botox has none.
So the lobbying goes on. If this is what is happening on an obscure side show, you can imagine the lobbying that is going on, on the main aspects of the bill. And for that matter every piece of legislation. No wonder Washington is full of lobbysists and pressure groups with a single agenda item – everybody is clamouring for his or her own cause and to hell with the rest of the world and the consequences.
Is this any way to determine economic policy?
From Le-gal In-sur-rection:
The random nature of this tax is what is worrisome. An out-of-favor industry, with no substantial political muscle, is singled out by an avaricious Congress at the last minute in a secret backroom deal.
The significance of the tanning tax is that the government, in its thirst for funds to fund government expansion, will attack the weakest link. Today, the tanning industry is the weakest link, tomorrow who will it be?
Yeah, it’s one of those “first they came for the tanning industry…” moments. Sounds funny, but it’s no joke.
From Economist Mom:
OK, let’s just call it the quest for the perfect “you look maaa-velous” (and obviously have too much discretionary income but not enough lobbying influence) tax.
And I do not normally find myself agreeing with the Wall Street Journal editorial page (I’m always calling for taxes to be increased after all), but when even they find themselves complaining about tax preferences that are based on political lobbying power rather than economic merit, I have to say they’re right.
From View From the Porch.
Taxation beyond the pale
…any numbers they generated from this are pure fiction. They have no idea how many tanning salons there are, how much they charge, what kind of profits they bring in… To say “This National Tanning Tax will generate $X squillion dollars for our health care plan,” has less basis in fact than one of those History Channel specials on the love lives of Nazi alien ghosts. How’d they come up with these numbers?
And with that…Merry Christmas! Back Monday…
