Holy crap - there IS a tanning salon tax!

[Writer]

:rofl: I thought it was just a running joke on DU.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-22-health-you_N.htm

So, Boehner, how much is the Tanning Mafia paying you?

[xultar]

1. But does it include oompa loompa spray on? That's Boner's fav!

[Jennicut]

8. Oompa Boner Loompa

[Lochloosa]

16. No. It only includes use of the tanning bed. Products are exempt.

[nutsnberries]

2. no wonder boner spat out his disapproval yesterday, huh?

:(

[pnwmom]

3. Good idea, since they're basically cancer centers. n/t

[iamthebandfanman]

4. thank god.

i feel bad for people who are addicted to the practice...


what is the statistic again ? i always forget... something like you increase ur chance of skin cancer by 300% the second you walk out into sun light after tanning lights?

[boppers]

5. Get cancer intentionally, get taxed.

It's not complex.

[MercutioATC]

9. Planning on taxing people who lie in the sun?

Maybe hire a bunch of "sunblock police" to make sure everybody's wearing their SPF 40?


Pitiful nanny-stateism.

[BeyondGeography]

10. WHO: Tanning Beds Cause Cancer

http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/news/20090728/who-tanning-beds-cause-cancer

Good enough for ya? Or is taxing cigarettes a bad idea, too?

[MercutioATC]

11. Yep, so does sunlight.

So I ask again, if it's a good idea to tax tanning beds, isn't it also a good idea to tax people who lie in the sun or go outside without sunblock?

[calico1]

12. Tanning bed/salon tax, NOT sun tax! n/t

[MercutioATC]

14. But why?

My grandfather owned a dairy farm. He never went to a tanning salon, but developed skin cancer from being in the sun.

Why is going to a tanning salon any more "worthy" of being taxed than people who just expose themselves to sunlight without using sunblock?

[BeyondGeography]

17. Because it's an easy way to incentivize people away from risky behavior and save health care costs

:eyes:

[MercutioATC]

19. It's a tax targeted at a specific industry, not targeted at a specific "risky behavior".

For your contention to hold water, there would have to be an incentive for people to stop sunbathing or going outside without sunblock.

[BeyondGeography]

21. Stop talking about the fucking beach already

Tanning.salons. Not.the.beach.

[MercutioATC]

23. What don't you understand?

A tanning bed is no more "risky" than the beach. That's the point.

[marshall]

31. It also targets a specific population

Those who are in need or want of sunshine and a little pigmentation.

[Dappleganger]

20. My mother developed skin cancer on her nose from picking cotton when she was a kid...

they're not taxing people for being in the sun, just taxing something (a tanning bed) which has been proven to cause cancer. Increased incidents of cancer raise health care rates for everyone.

[jberryhill]

38. The difference between an act of omission and one of commission

Come on, you are smart enough to know the underlying moral distinction between omission and commission.

[KingFlorez]

18. Tanning salons are more powerful than the sun

So the cancer risk is higher. That's not hard to comprehend.

Pitiful neo-con whining.

[MercutioATC]

22. Actually, you're making some pretty broad assumptions.

Cancer risk from UVA is based primarily on two things, early skin damage from sunburns and cumulative exposure.

Occasional use of a tanning bed is no more inherently risky than regularly sunbathing or being in the sun without sunblock.


Pitiful nanny-state apologist whining.

[KingFlorez]

25. A tanning bed still emits more power than the sun

And a lot of tanning salon patrons don't go occasionally, they frequent the places on a regular basis, so that represents a high risk group. I'm not making any broad assumptions, just stating facts, something that your type has a constant problem with.

[MercutioATC]

26. Yes, it does...

...but a day at the beach without sunblock does more damage than 10 minutes in a tanning bed.

You're advocating increased behavior control through expanded taxation/regulation. I realize there are plenty of people who are completely o.k. with that, but I believe it's a slippery slope (the proposed ban on using salt in food preparation in New York, for example).


Things like "security" and "health" are not controlled by toggle switches, they're set on rheostats. We decide how much freedom we want versus how much control needs to be exercised for the social good. This tax, to me, turns the knob too far toward "control"...as do things like motorcycle helmet laws and various provisions of the Patriot Act.

When we go to such silly lengths to control behavior, we lose another small piece of our freedom.

[BeyondGeography]

27. How about taxing cigarettes? Is that nanny-statism and a loss of freedom?

Someone's on a slippery slope all right.

[boppers]

28. I'm against helmet laws, FWIW, as long as they're an organ donor.

I think organ donors should be encouraged to wear, or not wear, helmets. People who want to live longer might make different decisions.

Maybe that works well for tanning bed users, and smokers (etc.), too.

Of course, helmet-less riders tend to have younger, more useful organs, than smokers, but the principle is the same.

[CBGLuthier]

37. Emits more power than the sun? No, not quite

More concentrated UV, sure. More power than the sun. Nothing on earth has ever produced more power than the sun.

[Whisp]

34. so then occassionally pay 10% tax for your tanning bed...

if you don't believe the reports

whats the big fricken deal there Agent Orange?

[vaberella]

24. Nah...they can go to beach for free then to tan. They don't need to go to a salon place.

I guess it could be argued that Boehner is supporting small business salons---that is of course until we find out he's paying $650 for a full body oompa loompah tan.

[lazerlarry]

32. Tanning Tax

boppers?? Get cancer - get taxed?? You are so un-informed...as is the general public. And the big pharmaceutical companies what to keep it that way. Afterall they are protecting their "35 billion dollar a year" sunscreen industry. The fact is, there is no real scientific evidence that indoor tanning causes skin cancer. However, there are volumes of real sicentific research (not funded by big pharma) that proves the benifits of tanning. When skin is exposed to uv light it naturally produces vast amounts of vitamin D, which the human body needs to maintain health. No food or supplement can adequately match this production. Big pharma, along with the Acacamy of Dermatologist they control, have help create a vitamin D deficiency epidemic in this country. Vitamin D deficiency has been directly linked to over 100 different diseases - including four types of cancer. Indoor tanning would actually decrease the health care cost in this country - not increase it. But big pharma dosen't want the people to know that. You have basically been lied to over the past 20 years about the dangers of uv exposure. A body needs controlled amounts of uv exposure to maintain health. Listen...don't take my word for it, do your own research. (that is, research not funded by Big Pharma or the Acadamy they control). www.tanningtruth.com is a good starting place. www.vitaminddoc.com is another. Tan smart - don't burn.

[vaberella]

6. Ahh...that's why Boenher was so upset. Well if that doesn't beat all. n/t

[freeplessinseattle]

7. Moses and the Tan Commandments

ok, now I understand why he feels we are disgracing Moses.

[lame54]

13. He'll just have to bathe in Sunny D

[Mass]

15. Now we know why Boehner was so incensed.

[sui generis]

29. put that in the column of I'm embarrassed to be a liberal because

who the fuck dreams this shit up? The more important legislation would be that any tax on a sin premised on alleviating the long term effects of the sin must be accounted for dollar for dollar in the war to alleviate the long term effects of that sin.

Tobacco taxes should go ONLY to prevention and indigent lung cancer care. Sun Tan taxes should go only to labeling sunbeds and indigent skin cancer care.

But it doesn't - and that makes us more than dishonest. Again, embarrassing.

[humbled_opinion]

30. OMG you will never believe what people at my work said

The white female that always has perfectly tanned skin all year round said this tax is Racist and that she is going to get a lawyer and sue the federal government because African Americans don't use tanning salons.... LOL .... She went further to say that if this is getting taxed it would only be fair to have a tax on black womens weaves.... I kid you not....

[awoke_in_2003]

35. unreal...

do you live in Texas, too?

[greencharlie]

33. I have no problem with it...

those things are so damn unhealthy.

[polichick]

36. Think someone wanted to stick it to Boner? :)