In case you didn’t get a chance to read the Manager’s Amendment to the Senate bill yourself, all the way to the end, the way that your senators surely will, here’s one item of possible interest:
(b) EXCISE TAX ON INDOOR TANNING SERVICES.—
Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end
the following new chapter:
CHAPTER 49—COSMETIC SERVICES
‘‘Sec. 5000B. Imposition of tax on indoor tanning services.
‘‘SEC. 5000B. IMPOSITION OF TAX ON INDOOR TANNING
SERVICES.“
(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.
(b) INDOOR TANNING SERVICE.—For purposes of
this section—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘indoor tanning
service’ means a service employing any electronic
product designed to incorporate 1 or more ultraviolet
vidual by ultraviolet radiation, with wavelengths in
air between 200 and 400 nanometers, to induce skin
tanning.
(2) EXCLUSION OF PHOTOTHERAPY SERV-
ICES.—Such term does not include any phototherapy
service performed by a licensed medical professional.
(c) PAYMENT OF TAX.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The tax imposed by this
section shall be paid by the individual on whom the
service is performed.
(2) COLLECTION.—Every person receiving a
payment for services on which a tax is imposed
under subsection (a) shall collect the amount of the
tax from the individual on whom the service is per-
formed and remit such tax quarterly to the Sec-
retary at such time and in such manner as provided
by the Secretary.
(3) SECONDARY LIABILITY.—Where any tax
imposed by subsection (a) is not paid at the time
payments for indoor tanning services are made, then
to the extent that such tax is not collected, such tax
shall be paid by the person who performs the service.
The River Temoc, In Winter says:
This is so serious it’s surely worthy of a Roland Emmerich movie.
December 19, 2009, 11:22 pmLTEC says:
Let’s say that I approve of the very rough outline of this bill, but I am outraged at all the pork and obfuscation and insanity that it contains. Should I wait for a better bill (assuming my vote matters)? Or must I accept the fact that any health care bill that ever comes will be just as bad, and then decide if the trade-off is worth it?
December 19, 2009, 11:26 pmMelanoma says:
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.
December 19, 2009, 11:27 pmneurodoc says:
Sounds imminently (sic) reasonable to me, since: i) in general it’s medically inadvisable; ii) it’s mostly about vanity; iii) this may help reduce the imprudent and unconscionable debt that our elected representatives have run up over the past decade; and, most importantly, iv) neither I, nor anyone close to me indulges in this.
But I’m sure this is nothing more than a cyber hoax meant to make those who drafted this legislation look stupid. And I can do nothing about it in any event, except shake my head, and not in up and down in a way so as to signify approval.
Where will they look next to raise additional revenues? If those difficult definitional questions and pesky Constitutional issues could be overcome, then maybe a tax on pornography?
[Don't know whether any dermatologists were consulted to be sure that (b)(2) won't prove any problem for them and medically warranted phototherapy, e.g., treatment of psoriasis with photosensitizers and UV light. If they are present and oversee the UV part, then (b)(2) might do it for them, unless the custom is to charge a separate facility fee, as is the case with some diagnostic and/or treatment services.]
December 19, 2009, 11:28 pmGlenn Bowen says:
The Marxist in the White House will get his wish.
December 19, 2009, 11:36 pmJohnF says:
And we were worried about death panels…
December 19, 2009, 11:42 pmElCid says:
This is clearly a bill of attainder aimed at John “Prince of Orange” Boehner. Unconstitutional!
December 19, 2009, 11:47 pmMark N. says:
I didn’t realize that 10% sales taxes on tanning services were a key demand leading up to the proletarian revolution…
December 19, 2009, 11:47 pmElCid says:
In all seriousness, though, if you need to tax something, it might as well be an activity that causes cancer. Yglesias had a good quote back about the benefits of sin taxes vis a vis, say, payroll taxes:
Here’s the link:
December 19, 2009, 11:52 pmhttp://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/12/soda_taxes.php
Kazinski says:
How about x-rated tanning solons, since they are mostly just a front for other commercial activity, they should be exempt, right? After all you aren’t really paying for “wavelengths in air between 200 and 400 nanometers”.
Here is a review for one local business called Xotic Tan:
But maybe there is a 10% tax on their “other services” buried someplace else in the bill.
December 19, 2009, 11:53 pmjccamp says:
“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?
December 19, 2009, 11:56 pmneurodoc says:
Do you know for a fact that Boehner’s perpetual tan comes from resort to indoor tanning salons as opposed to Addison’s disease or natural sun exposure in the course of his duties as House Minority Leader?
December 20, 2009, 12:04 amMike McDougal says:
So what?
December 20, 2009, 12:22 amSteve says:
I am kind of surprised no one has yet picked up on the racial background of the typical tanning salon customer.
December 20, 2009, 12:33 amCornellian says:
People would be surprised to find out that all kinds of bills dealing with a wide range of subjects are littered with these sorts of unrelated tax code amendments. Given enough money, I could probably purchase a tax break for a narrowly defined class that happens to include only me. If I purchase it from a Republican, he’ll say he’s working for lower taxes and if I purchase it from a Democrat, he’ll say it’s an economic stimulus plan.
Google the recent Salon article “Dear Nobodies” for a concise, non-partisan explanation of how Congress really works.
December 20, 2009, 12:39 amCornellian says:
Driving by this place I saw two scantily clad yet resoundingly unattractive women, one of whom was sweeping non-human trash off the sidewalk.
I guess space aliens litter too. Who knew?
December 20, 2009, 12:40 amtheobromophile says:
Far be it for me to question neurodoc about medicine, but I have heard that tanning during the winter can be an inexpensive and effective way to combat seasonal affective disorder. Phototherapy, which is excluded from the tax, is highly effective but can cause some interesting mental disorders.
(Again, neurodoc is more than welcome to correct this.)
So, yes, it may be mostly about vanity and mostly bad, but since there are possible upsides to this and as there can be a legitimate reason to use the services in moderation, why tax it?
Medicine aside, since when do the feds tax things like breast implants and tanning?
Law aside, since when does anyone with an ounce of common sense think that the sexy young things (whom men like to ogle) come by it naturally? The (mostly male) Senate may be more disappointed than it would expect if they taxes were to reduce consumption of “vanity” services.
December 20, 2009, 12:46 amJ. Aldridge says:
Isn’t an excise tax a tax on the manufacture and not services?
December 20, 2009, 12:47 amJP Martin says:
Good. Many tanning salons are small businesses. The fewer small businesses the better. In Obama-land.
December 20, 2009, 12:52 amJohn Burgess says:
The vain need not despair. There’s still the spray tan which does not seem to be covered by the bill.
Doctors and insurance companies, in lieu of sending patients to tanning salons will now be able, with a straight face, to prescribe time in the sun in the Caribbean. The bill just shifts who gets the goodies and who loses them.
December 20, 2009, 1:14 amElCid says:
Hmm, turns out WaPo ran a (not very serious) article back in 2006 on Boehner’s tan:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/11/AR2006021101536.html
Seems like “natural exposure” was the majority opinion; although “carrot juice” is my favorite explanation. Although the fact that it’s offered by a guy named “The Juiceman” renders it a bit suspect.
December 20, 2009, 1:39 amGlenn Bowen says:
Anything else you’d care to admit to?
December 20, 2009, 1:40 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » The Tanning Salon Excise Tax -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Justin Mancinelli, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: The Tanning Salon Excise Tax: In case you didn’t get a chance to read the Manager’s Amendment to the Senate bil.. http://bit.ly/604EjD [...]
December 20, 2009, 4:07 amneurodoc says:
It’s not skin tanning that helps those with seasonal affective disorder, a biologic susceptibility to serious depression when exposed to less daylight for extended periods, as during winters. It’s sitting for an hour or more each day in front of a light box that produces light of about the same wavelengths as that of natural sunlight, a very different matter from lying under one of those tanning machines with one’s eyes covered. I think those drafting the legislation took care of this application with (b)(1)’s “to induce skin tanning,” if there would have been an issue otherwise. (It may take care of the therapeutic dermatologic ones too, if they would otherwise be encompassed.)
As for your concern lest breast implants be overlooked as something to tax, it may not be warranted. I understood that the legislation would include a 10% on “cosmetic surgery,” however that was to be defined. I don’t know whether or not such a tax is there in the bill the Senate will vote on, but it seems to have been a serious intention of some to levy a tax on those too. (Now, congratulate me on eschewing any attempts at puerile humor when it would be so easy.)
Finally, you are not maintaining, are you, that none of those sexy young things are naturally endowed, that instead they have all had help to achieve the effect they have on men? (Well, I couldn’t neglect the prurient considerations altogether.)
December 20, 2009, 7:16 amneurodoc says:
That dermatologist was correct, one must consume huge quantities of carrot juice to produce a “jaundiced” appearance. (Hypercarotenemia doesn’t discolor the eyeballs, whereas true jaundice imparts a yellow-orangish tinge to them.) And huge quantitites of Vitamin A whether from carrot juice, polar bear livers (Arctic explorers), or other sources, can cause dangerous brain swelling (pseudotumor cerebrii). Interesting to learn that people with green eyes hold their skin tans longerer.
December 20, 2009, 7:27 amlgm says:
You guys are better spoken than Michelle Malkin or Red State. But the differences may be less than they appear. Here in the debate over health care reform there is plenty of preposterous behavior on both sides, most of which just floats by. Death panels. Trillion dollar budget holes. Automatic filibuster of every vote. Sudden love of Medicare.
But to read this blog, the only bad guys are Democrats. To quote Bob Dylan, you “Pick up on their bread crumb sins.” Of course, with hyperventilation.
December 20, 2009, 8:36 amMalvolio says:
Yup, there are Equal Protection issues, Commerce Clause issues, the general regressive impact of any excise tax. Congress sucks. “Term limits aren’t enough, we need jail.” (P.J. O’Rourke)
What is with people and the “this blog isn’t talking about what I want it to talk about” complaints? You want to talk about “death panels”, start your own blog!
December 20, 2009, 9:41 amKenneth Anderson says:
Hmm … I thought my OP was about reading, or not reading, bills at the last moment, and the lively debate a few weeks ago about whether it made any sense to read a highly complicated bill all the way through or not. I thought tanning was just an amusing example of that debate, on which I have mixed views – I didn’t realize that tanning would turn out to be the issue for commenters here.
December 20, 2009, 10:34 amarbitraryaardvark says:
This is an example of what I hate about legislation. There’s a tax on indoor tanning.
December 20, 2009, 10:58 amOK, I’ll move my tanning phototherapy salon outside. But wait, if it’s outside it’s still taxed; the statutory definition of inside tanning includes outside tanning.
What the heck is an ultraviolet vidual? The only definition I can find for vidual is “a widow.” Now I need a licensed medical professional for my phototherapy salon. An RN? Somebody do the math to see whether it’s cheaper to hire a nurse or pay the tax.
Chris Travers says:
This is extremely stupid. Though not written into the Constitution, there has traditionally been a federalist “contract” of custom between the States and the Federal Government whereby sales tax is left to the states.
Too bad the 17th Amendment exists. Otherwise this would stand absolutely no chance of passing the Senate.
December 20, 2009, 11:04 amMike McDougal says:
Good point. The health care bill is RACIST!
December 20, 2009, 11:04 amJust Asking says:
Has anyone stopped to think just who uses tanning booths? Do Hispanics? Blacks? Sounds like the perfect tax to me; suburban white kids.
December 20, 2009, 11:15 amTNeloms says:
Regarding the “Read the Bill” issue, I don’t think most critics of the movement were suggesting that Congressmen shouldn’t *know* about things like this in the bill, just that they didn’t need to read the actual text.
Is there any reason the following summary wouldn’t be enough for a staffer to provide a Senator?
“There’s a 10% tax on tanning services, but phototherapy by a licensed physician is excepted.”
Maybe the staffer could also do research into any possible issues (like the commenters above have wondered, regarding medically necessary procedures that might count) and report on them if they exist. One point that critics of “Read the Bill” were making was that reading the actual text wasn’t necessary if you read a reasonable summary.
December 20, 2009, 11:21 amPA says:
But to read this blog, the only bad guys are Democrats.
That’s only because they own this monstrosity lock stock and barrel.
December 20, 2009, 11:24 amAriel says:
This reminded me of a great post on why to oppose national health care. If we have national health care, it becomes everyone’s business what everyone else is doing. We all have to impose our values on each other, to make sure we’re eating right, tanning right (or not), etc.
December 20, 2009, 11:25 amChris Travers says:
lgm:
The whole issue of death panel comments, for example, has already been discussed to death on this forum. The coverage here, being a set of blogs of people with liberatarian political views, is not going to be even handed, but it simply a GOP mouthpiece.
December 20, 2009, 11:28 amronbo says:
I laughed when I first saw the tax on cosmetic surgery because it was such an obvious case of distributive justice. But what is one to make of replacing it with a tax on tanning services?
I truly fail to understand why Democrats in the Senate would want to reward doctors and their wealthy patients at the expense of small businesses and their working- or middle-class customers. I realize that the medical lobby is stronger than the small business lobby, but who keeps tanning salons in business if not the Democrats’ base? Just a guess, but I doubt that, say, unionized workers and their families visit plastic surgeons more than tanning salons. This is class warfare through the looking glass.
December 20, 2009, 11:50 amShane says:
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.
December 20, 2009, 12:20 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Really? Perhaps I should be arguing with young Matt rather than you, but how do soda taxes “boost quality of life”?
December 20, 2009, 12:41 pmBob from Ohio says:
The tax, like all the taxes in the bill, starts right away too, I believe.
But no benefits until 2014.
Two election cycles with burdens and no benefits. Looks like a plan to me.
December 20, 2009, 12:53 pmShane says:
Bob, you’re kinda right.
Some stuff takes effect immediately though, and they don’t all cost money. Just from the most recent Senate amendment, the bill would immediately ban denying coverage to children based on preexisting conditions, and immediately include a health insurance tax credit for small businesses. There’s a whole host of insurance regulations that take effect immediately as well. For those of us who support health care reform this is already a big deal, before the “big stuff” takes effect in 2013 and 2014.
December 20, 2009, 1:07 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
It’s not, really. The issue is how absurd government’s desperate search for money has become.
December 20, 2009, 2:34 pmtheobromophile says:
I was referring to the proposed tax on cosmetic surgery.
As for my later comment about women: it’s all a matter of line-drawing, really. I know very, very few women who would look the way they do without make-up, skin care products, hair care products, and exercise – at the very least. From there, you only add on other things – contacts, prescription dermatological medication, hair removal, hair dye, tanning (via tanning bed or the beach), facials, or cosmetic surgery.
Yeah, it angers me that these crusty old men are taxing certain things that are used almost exclusively by women and are used by women because men want women to look that good. Something tells me that these guys don’t want their “anti-vanity” thing taken to its logical conclusion.
Okay, I’m also a capitalist: I dislike the idea of taxing things because they aren’t “necessary” and we all need to help out the common good. Not that tanning is really where I want to make my stand on this, but the idea that it’s okay to wag our fingers at people who have the audacity to buy more than they need is appalling.
December 20, 2009, 3:03 pmLib says:
I see an uptick in the number of businesses that rent tanning beds and a place to plug them in and a place to use them — all in 10 minute segments. No services provided of course.
Hmm… Anyone know if exposure to 199 nanometer and 201 nanometer light can result in a tan? Could be another opportunity for investment – I’m sure some plant in China could crank out a lot of these quickly if they work.
December 20, 2009, 3:06 pmNessuno says:
Well, if that is a motivation of Congress–and judging from the snide retributionist mentality that both liberals and commentor “Just Asking” share it wouldn’t surprise me– Caucasians could have a pretty solid equal protection claim.
“Just Asking” might think white kids deserve to pay more taxes because of their skin tone, but non-racists tend to reject pigmentation as a basis for government policy.
December 20, 2009, 3:07 pmtheobromophile says:
Agree with PersonfromPorlock and will add: although I don’t tan (which is paying off immensely – almost 30 and get asked if I’m in college), it angers me that the federal government is getting this involved in things which aren’t their business. Traditionally, the feds have taxed income and things like gasoline (presumably, to pay for interstate roads) and the states have taxed goods, services, property, and income. The feds are now trying to reach into the pots that the states take from, too. Results should be predictable.
To the extent to which services are being taxed by the feds: our reactions would be the same if Congress were to propose a tax on legal services.
December 20, 2009, 3:09 pmMark N. says:
For general sales taxes that’s the understanding, but this would hardly be the first item-specific sales tax (“excise tax”) the federal government levied. We already have federal sales taxes on gasoline, alcohol, cigarettes, certain heavy vehicles, certain fishing and archery equipment, telecommunications services, luxury cars, firearms, and more.
They aren’t particularly new, either: the telephone one was imposed in 1898.
December 20, 2009, 4:26 pmMark Field says:
The Whiskey Tax was imposed in 1791.
December 20, 2009, 5:04 pmChris Travers says:
The current alcohol gallonage taxes, though, are paid, not at the point of sale, but at the point of production. Similarly gasoline taxes are hot necessarily visible to the end user.
This leads to ugly possibilities when an excise tax IS paid at the point of sale along with state sales tax which remind me of some issues one has with tax accounting in Canada…..
I.e. if there was a surtax of $1.50 per hour a commercial tanning bed was to be used that must be included in the price that would be one thing. When it is a 10% retail sales tax, that is something quite different.
December 20, 2009, 7:18 pmDan says:
Another simple complication for the collection of the tax: How do you deal with the “heath club membership includes free tanning”? It seems to me that the club owners can simply apportion any amount at their discretion to cover the tanning fees and pay the tax only on this amount.
Then comes the wave of the current strip mall tanning parlors starting their own wellness clubs, that provide, oh lets say diet advice, discounts on vitamins, an exercise plan, and oh, yes, incidentally, free tanning. Again it becomes a question of apportionment, even if the customer does not use the other services, the fact that they’re still available makes apportionment a tricky question.
Then finally it’s “tanning free with purchase of our skin care products”.
So I’m finding it to be eminently possible that the bureaucracy necessary to define and collect the tax will likely consume a significant portion of any revenue collected, since I can in a matter of three minutes of not very concerted thinking come up with three ways to game the system, a la the California power grid fiasco that led to the blackouts in San Francisco a few years back.
December 20, 2009, 8:23 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
[T]heobromophile brings up an interesting point, the 10% tax on cosmetic surgery. IIRC, ‘sex change’ operations are formally described as ‘genital cosmetic surgery’. Will the Democrats brave the wrath of the GLBT community and the wider PC world for the sake of what little money sex-change operations will bring in? Can they even do that, given the ‘protected’ status of transsexuals? And if they can’t, what sort of equal protection claim do the rest of us have?
December 20, 2009, 9:01 pmImTheShaggyOne says:
I was going to make the exact same point. My gym would count as one of the tanning service providers in the language of the bill, yet I pay for a membership with “free tanning” so there should not be any extra taxes levied on me…correct?
December 20, 2009, 9:20 pmlarry says:
Dan, if we take what the state revenue departments have often done regarding collection of sales taxes (the sales tax is an excise tax), it’s even more frightening. They have generally said the vendor who bills a certain amount for a bundle of items, without separately stating and billing the customer for each item, must collect tax from the customer on the entire amount billed. And if the vendor fails to collect tax on the entire amount, he is then liable for it under audit.
December 21, 2009, 11:20 amnosunnolife says:
With this rotten economy and suffocating health care costs, many tanning salons, on the precipice, are hanging on by a thread of hope that things will turn around. Now this! —- A small business “Pearl Harbor” initiated by our own government! — Sen. Harry Reid sacrifices Mom and Pop to the AMA gods at the altar of corruption — the United States Capitol!
December 21, 2009, 8:24 pmThe House must stand up to the Senate and eliminate this insult to the working class and small businesses or it’s going to be a PR nightmare for the Administration — who needs to get out in front of this as well — ASAP!
neurodoc says:
First, I don’t know if the tax on “cosmetic surgery” made it into the final draft or not. Did it? And if it, how was “cosmetic surgery” defined? I doubt very much that great care wouldn’t be taken to exclude any number of procedures, e.g., breast reconstruction surgery after a mastectomy; surgery to remove scars; and other surgeries to improve the appearance of individual’s born malformations, those who have suffered traumatic injuries, etc. Excluding sex change surgery would be no more “political” than surgery for those other conditions.
December 21, 2009, 11:21 pmCurt says:
Just a Little Common Sense thought.
By getting rid of the Botox Tax and replacing it with a tax on tanning would reduce the revenue by 1/2 is a real joke.
Consider this:
A 5% Tax on a $1,000 Cosmetic Service is a total revenue of $50
A 10% Tax on a Month of Tanning $25.00 is a total revenue of $2.50
Don’t know where you went to school but the difference in $50 in revenue and $2.50 is not anywhere close to a 50% difference.
December 22, 2009, 9:05 amrobert kalinoski says:
Ask a doctor what phototherapy is? Insurance pays for tanning because it is the only thing that helps certain skin conditions. Most dermatoligist have a phototherapy lamp or bed (tanning lamp or bed) but under this bill they are exempt from the tax and they charge a whole lot more than a tanning salon. They also say that this industry is unregulated, but it is in certain states. The medical industry has the money to pay for lobbyist the tanning industry doesn’t,so the 5% botax was dropped and the 10% tan tax was added.
December 22, 2009, 11:33 amEconomyBeat.org - user-generated content about the economy » Blog Archive » Tanners see red over health bill says:
[...] The tanning tax. [...]
December 24, 2009, 9:29 amDYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » The Tanning Salon Excise Tax says:
[...] Read it. [...]
January 4, 2010, 9:53 pmKC says:
Doesn’t this tax seem a little racist. Let’s think about the people who tan at the salons. I believe it’s primarily the white people. I thought this bill was designed to help the small business people. How is it going to help them, if they will be having to close their businesses because of the cost this tax is going to impose upon the small tanning salons. This is just another one of Obama’s stupid ideas.
March 24, 2010, 2:48 pmPositive Liberty » Tanning Bed Tax… Now with Unintended Consequences says:
[...] for free at the gym. It’s just part of the whole deal.” I think she may be right. I’ve read the provision, and I don’t see how she’d end up [...]
March 25, 2010, 10:36 amproudand white says:
ok this bill is totally racist. any bill that targets customers that are particularly white shows racism!!! 95% percent of the people who use this service are white!! I use the beds for my vitamin d because of how i work— If this was a bill that would target the black community it would of been squashed immediatly– im tired of this racism shit being one sided!!!!
March 28, 2010, 3:46 pmAtonement says:
There is merit to taxing any personal activity that statistically increases an individual’s health care costs, at least if the public may foot that health care bill.
There is also merit in considering that tanning was chosen to avoid taxing minorities who are politically assumed to be poor and underprivileged. That is to say it is not unreasonable to say this bill was aimed at rich white people.
Which side dominated the thinking of politicians?
Irrelevant. Arguing against the well deserved punishment of the white race is racist by asserting the the white race does not deserve punishment via playing the racial superiority song.
The Supreme Court has already ruled in several past cases that racism does not legally exist when actions are against the dominate race or against whites as restitution for past inequities (for those looking forward to imminent Hispanic overtake of that role). One of the most famous cases was a NY art gallery display which advocated violence against white males.
While not yet codified by Supremem Court precedent, common knowledge of Political Correctness and several lower federal court have made it clear that mentioning unfairness in association acts slanted against whites is a racist attitude.
March 30, 2010, 10:24 amAtonement says:
There is merit to taxing any personal activity that statistically increases an individual’s health care costs, at least if the public may foot that health care bill.
There is also merit in considering that tanning was chosen to avoid taxing minorities who are politically assumed to be poor and underprivileged. That is to say it is not unreasonable to say this bill was aimed at rich white people.
Which side dominated the thinking of politicians?
Irrelevant. Arguing against the well deserved punishment of the white race is racist by asserting the the white race does not deserve punishment via playing the racial superiority song.
The Supreme Court has already ruled in several past cases that racism does not legally exist when actions are against the dominate race or against whites as restitution for past inequities (for those looking forward to imminent Hispanic overtake of that role). One of the most famous cases was a NY art gallery display which advocated violence against white males.
While not yet codified by Supremem Court precedent, common knowledge of Political Correctness and several lower federal court have made it clear that mentioning unfairness in association acts slanted against whites is a racist attitude.
March 30, 2010, 10:24 amJackie Sullivan says:
Let’s see a tax – based upon race? How would this fly if it were a tax on “hair relaxing treatments” that African Americans use (and sometimes results in burns-requiring medical attention)? Either way VERY UN-AMERICAN!
April 5, 2010, 9:46 amCalculated Crunch News Times » Blog Archive » Tanning Bed Tax… Now with Unintended Consequences says:
[...] for free at the gym. It’s just part of the whole deal.” I think she may be right. I’ve read the provision, and I don’t see how she’d end up [...]
April 6, 2010, 2:37 pmdavid welch says:
overt racism,,, this was a very poor judgment. i call it , the white lady tax. i can’t imagine the fall out that would take place if this were a tax only dark skinned people had to pay.
April 8, 2010, 12:45 pmJames Ryan says:
While the intention here may be good, this tax only affects whites. And not just women. I think we may need to re-examine…or have the Obama’s been using a tanning bed all this time?
I agree with Mr Welch.
April 21, 2010, 1:48 pmBob Sanders says:
This is certainly a RACE BASED TAX. Only whites use these facilities.
Obama shows his racial bias again!
When do the civil rights cases start on this one?
April 24, 2010, 10:17 pm