Another Health Care Bill gem... 10% tax on tanning

wizardwatson

wizardwatson

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
8,077
The fun never ends.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/23/health.reform.consumer.impact/?hpt=T1

What will we find out next.

From the article:

Tanning tax

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.

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."

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.
Click to expand...

World Health Organization. Never would have guessed that. :rolleyes:
 
This has been known, it wasn't hidden, but certainly wasn't covered much by MSM
 
wizardwatson said:
Come to think of it this is probably racist against light skinned people. LOL
Click to expand...

"Light skinned people" is not a race, though :)

* * *

I have thought about this, and something came to mind. If going to a tanning bed becomes more expensive, then won't spray-on tanners and bronzer lotions become even more popular than they already are? They were already being pushed as "cancer-free" ways to get that "healthy glow." All of those things are made with a witch's brew of chemicals. Could this actually have been blessed by the companies that make and distribute those chemicals?

Incidentally, I would dispute that glow being "healthy"...

"UNHEALTHY" PALE:
anne-hathaway.jpg


"HEALTHY" GLOW:
anne-hathaway-orange.jpg
 
MelissaWV said:
"Light skinned people" is not a race, though :)

* * *

I have thought about this, and something came to mind. If going to a tanning bed becomes more expensive, then won't spray-on tanners and bronzer lotions become even more popular than they already are? They were already being pushed as "cancer-free" ways to get that "healthy glow." All of those things are made with a witch's brew of chemicals. Could this actually have been blessed by the companies that make and distribute those chemicals?

Incidentally, I would dispute that glow being "healthy"...

"UNHEALTHY" PALE:
anne-hathaway.jpg


"HEALTHY" GLOW:
anne-hathaway-orange.jpg
Click to expand...

Did someone force her out in public looking like that, or did she not walk by a mirror on the way out the door? Yikes!
 
LOL. That was already mentioned on Fox. Racist since it discriminates against people trying to turn their skin darker.

Cripes! Where will it all end. Hint: Socialism supreme. Castro is so thrilled about this. :D
 
spudea said:
another evil conspiracy discovered. SUNBLOCK!!! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

There has been a lot of talk about how the increase use in sunblock has descreased our health. Vitamin D from the sun is one of the most critical elements in supporting your immune system. Conspiracy? maybe not. Unintended consequences? perhaps so.
 
I'm not going to pay the tax. So I will spend more time in natural sun which is better all around.

Although I think maybe what the salon owners should do is offer free tanning when you buy a $30 bottle of lotion to avoid the tax.
 
I've never been inclined to go tanning, particularly using a machine. I've never understood why people think that darkening one's skin is supposed to be more attractive. I guess my complexion is unhealthy and unattractive for being an Anglo-American.

That being said, there is no reason to tax it.
 
What about those who are prescribed tanning to combat vitamin D deficiency in low sun environments? This is a common prescription in Fairbanks, AK particularly for darkskinned people to combat winter depression.
 
tanning beds are horrible for you!!! there are 2 diff tyoes of UV....UVA and UVB....UVA is what penetrates the skin (deep) causing skin cancer...tanning beds only emmit UVA....UVB is better for you...does not penetrate your skin as deep and provides you with a nice dose of vit D
 
I know a girl who's second job was the tanning bed. She looks like an orange marker. The ironic thing is that all that focus on "beauty" will turn her into this:

badtan.jpg


Plus, you're giving yourself cancer.
 
I just upchucked....it's like leather...

If you want a healthier looking skin tone, use the sun because idk, it's free?!?



+1 for the Anne Hathaway picture (light-skinned) :D
 
Last edited:
lol

MelissaWV said:
"Light skinned people" is not a race, though :)

* * *

I have thought about this, and something came to mind. If going to a tanning bed becomes more expensive, then won't spray-on tanners and bronzer lotions become even more popular than they already are? They were already being pushed as "cancer-free" ways to get that "healthy glow." All of those things are made with a witch's brew of chemicals. Could this actually have been blessed by the companies that make and distribute those chemicals?

Incidentally, I would dispute that glow being "healthy"...

"UNHEALTHY" PALE:
anne-hathaway.jpg


"HEALTHY" GLOW:
anne-hathaway-orange.jpg
Click to expand...

Not that it matters, but I have a strong preference for pale skin on women. Brains and sense of humor are far more important than skin, but as between pale and tan, pale wins by a landslide. But people should be able to do with their skin what they like - tan it, tattoo it, whatever.

Ironically, the tanning tax gives Obama's enemy Arizona a tourism boost! We got your suntan and some beautiful scenery to go with it!!! Come on over! (Sorry, no beach.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top