Obama shows his racial bias again!

When do the civil rights cases start on this one?

I agree with Mr Welch.

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.

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.

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.

PersonFromPorlock: [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?

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.

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.

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.

Dan: 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.

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?

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.

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.

They aren’t particularly new, either: the telephone one was imposed in 1898.

The Whiskey Tax was imposed in 1791.

Chris Travers: 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.

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.

Kenneth Anderson: I didn’t realize that tanning would turn out to be the issue for commenters here.

It’s not, really. The issue is how absurd government’s desperate search for money has become.

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.

Just Asking: Has anyone stopped to think just who uses tanning booths? Do Hispanics? Blacks? Sounds like the perfect tax to me; suburban white kids.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

Kenneth Anderson: I didn’t realize that tanning would turn out to be the issue for commenters here.

It’s not, really. The issue is how absurd government’s desperate search for money has become.

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.

Two election cycles with burdens and no benefits. Looks like a plan to me.

ElCid: 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:

Taxing the work people do can have a net beneficial impact on the economy if the tax revenue is spent on something adequately useful. But all else being equal, it does create a drag on the economy. Taxing cigarettes and soda and so forth, by contrast, mostly pushes people toward better healthy outcomes and therefore does something to boost quality of life and economic growth.

Here’s the link:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/12/soda_taxes.php

Really? Perhaps I should be arguing with young Matt rather than you, but how do soda taxes “boost quality of life”?

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.

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.