Tanning salon tax is racist!!!!!!

[Thunder]

http://theweek.com/article/index/201438/Is_the_tan_tax_racist

only white Europeans go to tanning salons....right?

oh..wait...maybe light skinned Asians do too...but still...this law is racist!!!

[Meadmaker]

I never thought of it that way, but I suppose it's true.

I just thought the tax was stupid.

[pgwenthold]

I never thought of it that way, but I suppose it's true.

I just thought the tax was stupid.

As opposed to lying under high-intensity UV lamps in order to make your skin browner?

[Drysdale]

Hmm, interesting take.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I wonder how the revenue will compare to the cost to society of treating melanomas caused by tanning beds?

ETA: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (part of the WHO) has categorized tanning beds as a Group 1 carcinogen ("carcinogenic to humans"). The American Cancer Society "recommends people avoid tanning beds altogether". Research shows use of tanning beds increases the risk of melanoma by 75% (when use starts before age 30). Linky (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Tanning_Beds_Pose_Definite_Cancer_Risk_Ag ency_Says.asp).

[cornsail]

I wonder if Beck thinks anti-abortion laws are sexist.

[Undesired Walrus]

It makes perfect sense why Boehner opposed the bill now.

[Redtail]

http://theweek.com/article/index/201438/Is_the_tan_tax_racist

only white Europeans go to tanning salons....right?

oh..wait...maybe light skinned Asians do too...but still...this law is racist!!!



And light skinned blacks, Hispanics, etc... Pretty much anyone with fair skin. If I'm worried i might be too light for a role I tan too, but then I see no reason to stick with old tech out of tradition. I find that that new process (The Sun IIRC) gives you a nice golden brown look instead of orange and without the grill marks. Plus you can just find you're self a little patch of sun and do your workout in it! try that in a tanning booth.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm about as pale skinned as a person could be, but since I never patronize tanning salons, I guess I'm not the victim of this "racism".

Sounds more like a tax on dangerous and foolish vanity.

[Meadmaker]

I wonder how the revenue will compare to the cost to society of treating melanomas caused by tanning beds?

ETA: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (part of the WHO) has categorized tanning beds as a Group 1 carcinogen ("carcinogenic to humans"). The American Cancer Society "recommends people avoid tanning beds altogether". Research shows use of tanning beds increases the risk of melanoma by 75% (when use starts before age 30). Linky (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Tanning_Beds_Pose_Definite_Cancer_Risk_Ag ency_Says.asp).

The reason I say that this is a stupid tax is that if tanning beds really are dangerous, then they should be banned. If not, what does a tax accomplish? It's micromanagement.

For what it's worth, there's no way you could ever convince me that a tanning bed is a good idea, and I would weep no tears over their elimination from our society, but since for some reason we aren't doing that, I just can't see it being a good idea to increase the paperwork for them.

[ProbeX]

http://theweek.com/article/index/201438/Is_the_tan_tax_racist

only white Europeans go to tanning salons....right?

oh..wait...maybe light skinned Asians do too...but still...this law is racist!!!



Actually a lot of Asians try to stay out of the sun. They're one of the main manufacturers and customers of skin-lightening cream. And then there's that crazy eyelid surgery. They're also trending toward nose jobs to narrow them and raise their bridges.

[thaiboxerken]

The reason I say that this is a stupid tax is that if tanning beds really are dangerous, then they should be banned. If not, what does a tax accomplish? It's micromanagement.


What do you think of cigarette taxes?

[Meadmaker]

What do you think of cigarette taxes?

Pretty much the same thing.

It's slightly different, because cigarette use is so incredibly widespread, and cigarettes are genuinely addictive, which makes them difficult to wipe out completely. In principle, I feel the same way, though. If they are really awful then ban them. If they aren't so bad, leave them alone.

Above all, what I would hate to see is the government seeking out and attempting to find all sorts of unhealthy things and using those things as revenue sources. It just seems like it would result in a mountain of paperwork and inconvenience.

[thaiboxerken]

I don't think I agree. Bans tend to create black markets. Take, for example, the current war on drugs as well as the prohibition of alcohol a few decades ago. A tax is a good way to get revenue as well as a decent way to start deterring such behaviors. Since the increasing taxes on cigarettes, usage has decreased significantly.

[Meadmaker]

I don't think I agree. Bans tend to create black markets.

True. That's one thing that makes cigarettes different than tanning booths. People will smuggle cigarettes if they are illegal, and that creates all sorts of problems.

That's why I said "in principle". In practice, each sort of officially undesirable behavior has to be dealt with on a case by case basis. How many people do it? How much are they willing to break the law to keep doing it? How easily concealed is it, so that operation of unlicensed tanning booths is a possibility?

The big thing, as I noted earlier, is that I would hate to see government officials trying to launch all sorts of taxes and regulations on the grounds that unhealthy things increase public liabilities. The same justification for a tanning salon tax might end up with a hang gliding tax (risky behavior leads to additional insurance cost), or a butter tax (vegetable based spreads are healthier), or a failure to exercise tax or....goodness knows what else.

[Puppycow]

I wonder how the revenue will compare to the cost to society of treating melanomas caused by tanning beds?

ETA: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (part of the WHO) has categorized tanning beds as a Group 1 carcinogen ("carcinogenic to humans"). The American Cancer Society "recommends people avoid tanning beds altogether". Research shows use of tanning beds increases the risk of melanoma by 75% (when use starts before age 30). Linky (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Tanning_Beds_Pose_Definite_Cancer_Risk_Ag ency_Says.asp).

The reason I say that this is a stupid tax is that if tanning beds really are dangerous, then they should be banned. If not, what does a tax accomplish? It's micromanagement.

For what it's worth, there's no way you could ever convince me that a tanning bed is a good idea, and I would weep no tears over their elimination from our society, but since for some reason we aren't doing that, I just can't see it being a good idea to increase the paperwork for them.

I think the question to ask is whether it is any more or less dangerous than tanning by the sun. If it is less dangerous then no-way should it be banned unless you first prohibit sunbathing. That seems very unlikely.

What does the tax accomplish? Well, duh. At least it raises money. The country has a deficit so you have to tax something.

[Meadmaker]

I think the question to ask is whether it is any more or less dangerous than tanning by the sun. If it is less dangerous then no-way should it be banned unless you first prohibit sunbathing. That seems very unlikely.

What does the tax accomplish? Well, duh. At least it raises money. The country has a deficit so you have to tax something.

Maybe sunbathing?

[JoeTheJuggler]

The reason I say that this is a stupid tax is that if tanning beds really are dangerous, then they should be banned. If not, what does a tax accomplish? It's micromanagement.

I'm not sure I follow the logic that says taxing tanning salons is micromanagement but banning them is not. (ETA: Unless I misunderstand the term "micromanagement", I don't see how either of them fits that. I thought it was about managers controlling every little detail of how underlings do the tasks that were theoretically delegated to them.)

The tax accomplishes an increase in revenue and possibly a minor deterrent to that practice. As has been pointed out cigarette taxes are a similar thing. So are taxes on liquor and taxes on casinos.

I don't see how taxing (or banning) sunbathing is even practically feasible (or how you would even define "sunbathing" that doesn't include a bunch of unintended activities), much less something desirable.

I think the big question is the one I asked right from the start: will the revenue raised be more than the cost of the extra melanomas? I think that's a legitimate justification for the tax, rather than just an arbitrary tax to increase revenues.

[Meadmaker]

I think the big question is the one I asked right from the start: will the revenue raised be more than the cost of the extra melanomas? I think that's a legitimate justification for the tax, rather than just an arbitrary tax to increase revenues.

I think that's where the danger lies, and what the right wing most fears about government involvement in health care. Shall we apply that reasoning to all potentially unhealthy activity? Since public money is being spent on health care, is government intervention into our lives justified on the grounds of protecting taxpayer dollars? Is there a skiing tax in our future? It would be simple enough to add an additional fee to lift tickets. Will the revenue raised from it be more than the cost of the broken limbs and other skiing injuries?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think that's where the danger lies, and what the right wing most fears about government involvement in health care. Shall we apply that reasoning to all potentially unhealthy activity?
Why not? If someone makes a profit off an activity that causes an increase in healthcare costs for the nation as a whole, why not attempt to make that industry pay a tax to help defray that added cost?

Since public money is being spent on health care, is government intervention into our lives justified on the grounds of protecting taxpayer dollars? Is there a skiing tax in our future? It would be simple enough to add an additional fee to lift tickets. Will the revenue raised from it be more than the cost of the broken limbs and other skiing injuries?
I doubt very much that there is evidence that skiing adds to our healthcare costs. Tanning beds are classed as carcinogens. It's not even a close comparison, I don't think.

[Peephole]

The reason I say that this is a stupid tax is that if tanning beds really are dangerous, then they should be banned. If not, what does a tax accomplish? It's micromanagement.
A tax is a nice way to discourage certain kinds of behaviour and take in some revenue to compensate costs to society, meanwhile people are still left free to do what they want.

Additionally: **** you, John Boehner.

[quadraginta]

I don't think I agree. Bans tend to create black markets. Take, for example, the current war on drugs as well as the prohibition of alcohol a few decades ago. A tax is a good way to get revenue as well as a decent way to start deterring such behaviors. Since the increasing taxes on cigarettes, usage has decreased significantly.


I concur with your point, but the images conjured of back alley tanning booths and tanning speak-easys are priceless.

Will we see an SNL skit soon?

[JoeTheJuggler]

A tax is a nice way to discourage certain kinds of behaviour and take in some revenue to compensate costs to society, meanwhile people are still left free to do what they want.

Yeah. It seems reasonable to me, though I doubt the tax will significantly reduce the use of tanning salons. (Just basing that on the history of cigarette taxes, liquor taxes, gambling taxes, entertainment & ticket taxes, etc.)

[Chris Hegarty]

It seems like more of a stupidity tax, really; tanning is one of the dumbest things. I am sad, however, that the tax on Botox didn't go through. We would have been out of the financial hole then.

[Meadmaker]

I doubt very much that there is evidence that skiing adds to our healthcare costs. Tanning beds are classed as carcinogens. It's not even a close comparison, I don't think.

Seriously? I would take heavy bets that skiing adds a whole lot more to health care costs than tanning booths. Not only do you have a wide varierty of shattered femurs and ACL tears, you get the occasional closed head injury and paralyzing broken back among teenagers, so you can get 50+ years of health care costs out of a single afternoon. I was seeing a sports medicine specialist briefly some years back, and his lobby was filled with pictures of skiers and ski magazines, and that was in Michigan.

I'm pretty darned confident that skiing adds a whole heck of a lot more to our health care costs than tanning booths do.

[Grizzly Bear]

I don't think I agree. Bans tend to create black markets. Take, for example, the current war on drugs as well as the prohibition of alcohol a few decades ago. A tax is a good way to get revenue as well as a decent way to start deterring such behaviors. Since the increasing taxes on cigarettes, usage has decreased significantly.

Taxes sometimes have the same effect unfortunately. Especially if they're financially discouraging to people who use those things most frequently, the cigarette taxes are among them. The best way to curb a lot of it would be to look for alternative ways to achieve the results, but market wise I have no idea nor enough experience to know how reliable that would be

[Darth Rotor]

And light skinned blacks, Hispanics, etc... Pretty much anyone with fair skin. If I'm worried i might be too light for a role I tan too, but then I see no reason to stick with old tech out of tradition. I find that that new process (The Sun IIRC) gives you a nice golden brown look instead of orange and without the grill marks. Plus you can just find you're self a little patch of sun and do your workout in it! try that in a tanning booth.

A post full of win! I wonder if parky grokked what you just wrote.

Bet the under.

DR

[Redtail]

A post full of win! I wonder if parky grokked what you just wrote.

Bet the under.

DR

I'm LMAO now because "grok/grokked" always cracks me up, and after 6+ years of threatening students "with a swift & terrible F" if they ever turn in a paper with "your" when they meant "you're", I typed "you're self" instead of "yourself".... Stupid karma...

[Safe-Keeper]

I suppose you think the taxes on sanitary napkins are sexist, too?

[leftysergeant]

I see no reason why I should have to pay a local sales tax on books when vain yuppies don't have to pay a tax on treatments to make them look like they just got back from the Bahamas.

On top of that, tanning beds are increasing the strain on the electric grid, consuming oil with no social bebefit and increasing global warmin
And no, Old Orange Skin is not whining because there is a tax opn something he uses. His tan obviously comes out of a spray can. Melanin will just not produce that absurd color under any circumstances in actualk human skin. This leaves us with the possibility that Boner is not totally human. (I am comfortable with that expalnation.)

He just whines because any new tax just reduces the chance that he will be able to overthrow the government by starving it to death.

[Beerina]

He just whines because any new tax just reduces the chance that he will be able to overthrow the government by starving it to death.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Roma]

Racist ?
What about us geographically disadvantaged up here in Winnipeg,
it's absolutely medically necessary for us to go to a tanning salon before we
go on our Spring vacations. The glare alone from our snowy white bodies will blind
the natives in the tropical zones we are visiting, and the yellow glowing thing up in the sky will burn us to a bright red crispiness if we go there without a preventative skin browning.

Okay, maybe not medically necessary :p

[stevea]

So many problems with social engineering using taxation.

Someone suggested taxing butter to encourage margarine use. First there has been encouragement of magarine use for decades, and yet just recently the evils of trans-fats been widely advertised and oxidized unsaturated fats can be carcinogenic. The state of medical understanding of diet is far from perfect and when politicians get involved the lack of rational evaluation and critical thinking decrease considerable. I believe that food, medical and related products that include components or procedures suspected to be dangerous should be clearly labelled as part of free-market transparency. If someone chooses to drink turpentine of eat trans-fats or use tanning beds - that's their business. It's a volitional health risk that they have chosen to take. BTW there health is a case in favor of tanning for vitaminD production, tho' I don't subscribe.

Several suggest that there should be a tax to offset the social costs of health care. There is an economic case that things like tobacco and tanning cause death on average at a late age when the person's productive years are over, and that the cost of treatment isn't higher than other terminal illnesses. Actually in the recent healthcare debate the CBO proposed figures that many of the preventative and chronic condition treatments were at best revenue neutral and not cost savings. If I choose to go to the gym regularly, increasing the chances of a long retirement lifespan, should I have to pay an extra tax to offset the longer retirement ? If I have a family history of dying from massive heart attach by retirement age - should I get a tax break ? Correctly evaluating the social costs and corresponding taxes is possible by disinterested economists, but it seems impossible to make the detailed argument among the general populace, much less so in the heated air of a legislature.


Not only do bans create black markets, but high taxation creates tax evasion strategies ...
http://www.ryomagazine.com/guide/gdtobacco.htm
and these can eventually negate any tax gain via enforcement costs.

The unlimited power to tax is the power to destroy, and we've seen many cases before tanning beds where the legislature has proposed or used taxation for social engineering. Everything from poll taxes, tobacco taxes, proposed high taxes on bullets, fast food, sugar import taxes. More recently we have the other side of the coin - tax credits of actual credits to reward certain behaviors - cash-for-clunkers and cash-for-homebuyers and of course a long history of mortgage deductability.

Strangely ppl seem to ignore that these taxation-dictates or altrenatively credits from our legislature are often a attempt to satisfy some not-well-supported scientific claim or else some misguided economic or moralistic plans. PLlns tht awould be entirely unacceptable if cleary disclosed.

I'm fully inclined to believe that tobacco and tanning-beds are a net-negative for me personally. I am reluctant to extrapolate my informed feelings on the matter into an obligation on the next person. That's a sort of arrogance I don't posses.

[portlandatheist]

Seriously? I would take heavy bets that skiing adds a whole lot more to health care costs than tanning booths. Not only do you have a wide varierty of shattered femurs and ACL tears, you get the occasional closed head injury and paralyzing broken back among teenagers, so you can get 50+ years of health care costs out of a single afternoon. I was seeing a sports medicine specialist briefly some years back, and his lobby was filled with pictures of skiers and ski magazines, and that was in Michigan.

I'm pretty darned confident that skiing adds a whole heck of a lot more to our health care costs than tanning booths do.

I agree Meadmaker. Wish I had some stats to pull up but I'm sure that skiers cost us more overall than tanners. I would draw a distinction however between actives that are simply bad for your health(tanning, alcohol, smoking) vs. activities that are risky to your health like sky diving, private pilots, mountaineering, skiing, scuba diving, and so on. I was a very active paraglider pilot for many years and many private health insurance plans explicitly exclude hang gliding, paragliding, and sky diving. I don't know why I think those types of risks should be treated so differently, I just do. Perhaps its because something like smoking or tanning is ALWAYS bad for your health whereas the other activities are harmless(and indeed, healthy) unless something goes wrong and you get injured or die.

[stevea]

I see no reason why I should have to pay a local sales tax on books when vain yuppies don't have to pay a tax on treatments to make them look like they just got back from the Bahamas.

So you are claiming that tanning parlors aren't already paying all the same taxes as other service businesses, like barber shops and beauty salons ? Prove it or admit you are off into the weeds again. I strongly suspect they are paying the same taxes, and so the issue is "why should tanning be singled out for an extraordinary additional tax ?", not "why aren't tanning parlors paying taxes ?". Your strawmanning of the taxes, benefits and patrons is a logical fallacy too.


On top of that, tanning beds are increasing the strain on the electric grid, consuming oil with no social bebefit and increasing global warmin

The amount of power used in tanning parlors is trivial, and is paid for, including all social costs - just the same as any other service that uses electricity. Why single out tanning when broadcasting, movies theater projectors, (ipads ipods xboxen, ...) and deep fat fryers could be argued to have no social benefit (to some) and use a lot more electricity collectively. Your selective ire tells a story.

In the US oil is used to produce about 1% of electricity. In your state, Washington, it's under 0.015% of electricity from petroleum.

Then there is the obvious bias in stating that business you don't prefer aren't paying the social costs for their use of resources, while other more blatent uses of resources also with no objective social beneft are ignored in your claims.

==
So many errors in so few words. Let me propose a measure of misinformation density

1 leftysergeant = 2 errors per sentence.

The drivel above is reading 1.25 lefytsargeants - really well done.

===============
I agree Meadmaker. Wish I had some stats to pull up but I'm sure that skiers cost us more overall than tanners. I would draw a distinction however between actives that are simply bad for your health(tanning, alcohol, smoking) vs. activities that are risky to your health like sky diving, private pilots, mountaineering, skiing, scuba diving, and so on. I was a very active paraglider pilot for many years and many private health insurance plans explicitly exclude hang gliding, paragliding, and sky diving. I don't know why I think those types of risks should be treated so differently, I just do. Perhaps its because something like smoking or tanning is ALWAYS bad for your health whereas the other activities are harmless(and indeed, healthy) unless something goes wrong and you get injured or die.


Good point. I'm not so averse to alcohol use, since used in moderation it may have health benefits, tho' overall at current usage trends certainly not.

I think the distinction that needs to be made is whether the activity is volitional and necessary for some conventional level of human activity.
So certainly skiiers and paragliders are taking a volitional risk not related to any necessary activity.
People born with birth defects, or who contract typeI diabetes, lupus or nearsightedness are afflicted without any volitional activity.
Driving a car or taking a plane or train is a volitional risk, but also currently often necessary for a conventional life.

The point should be obvious - no rational person want's to be in the same insurance pool as Evel Knievel (tho' we are now!). OTOH it's a nasty business to use the intrusive power of government to prevent skiing of having a glass of wine. Life isn't really worth much without such freedoms.

Altho' I'd personally close the door on any arguments over the status of tobacco and tanning as having any benefits, I fear that BigBrother will have a longer list of more dubious nature. If it was up to the Feds we'd have all been eating loads of carbs, fructose and transfat for the past decades.

[Meadmaker]

I don't know why I think those types of risks should be treated so differently, I just do.

In terms of my attitude toward them, I certainly think of those different types of risk differently. I have a great deal of respect for someone who climbs Mount Everest, and a small degree of contempt for someone who climbs into a tanning booth, despite the fact that the former is far, far, more likely to kill the person doing it.

However, I would dread the prospect that the government would try to quantify that risk, categorize it, and then come up with some sort of added tax for each activity that it deemed socially undesirable.

[Darth Rotor]

I agree Meadmaker. Wish I had some stats to pull up but I'm sure that skiers cost us more overall than tanners. I would draw a distinction however between actives that are simply bad for your health(tanning, alcohol, smoking) vs. activities that are risky to your health like sky diving, private pilots, mountaineering, skiing, scuba diving, and so on. I was a very active paraglider pilot for many years and many private health insurance plans explicitly exclude hang gliding, paragliding, and sky diving. I don't know why I think those types of risks should be treated so differently, I just do. Perhaps its because something like smoking or tanning is ALWAYS bad for your health whereas the other activities are harmless(and indeed, healthy) unless something goes wrong and you get injured or die.
On skiing: While Sonny Bono got more press, one of my high school buddies lost his sister in a ski accident - collision. Dead. However, the odds of such a freak accident are low, which puts skiing and sky diving in to different actuarial risk categories.

DR

[Dorian Gray]

I don't think I agree. Bans tend to create black markets. Take, for example, the current war on drugs as well as the prohibition of alcohol a few decades ago. A tax is a good way to get revenue as well as a decent way to start deterring such behaviors. Since the increasing taxes on cigarettes, usage has decreased significantly.
More racism! Why aren't there any white markets? :rolleyes: