!["Tan Tax" in newest Senate health bill](http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/hash/17/bd/17bd738fe19cc48e834acd28766aec05.jpg ""Tan Tax" in newest Senate health bill")
Over the weekend, U.S. Senate Democrats removed a proposed 5% tax on all elective cosmetic surgery, replacing it with a last-minute provision that would tax the use of tanning beds. Senate Democrats cite the reasoning for the “Tan Tax” is the increased risk of skin cancer associated with the use of indoor tanning beds.
Under the new proposal, individuals purchasing tanning services would be requires to pay the 10% Tan Tax. Over a 10-year span, this new tax is projected to produce $2.7 billion to help fund health care reform. The previously proposed elective cosmetic surgery tax, affectionately called the “Bo-Tax” was projected to contribute over twice that amount in the same 10-year span.
Allergan, the California-based maker of Botox and other firms that were to be affected by the “Bo-Tax” lobbied together to remove the proposed tax. Representative cosmetic surgeons also lobbied against the tax arguing that the tax was discriminatory, specifically against middle-class women.
In a statement released by John Overstreet, executive director of the Indoor Tanning Association said, "It is not surprising that one primarily cosmetic business is trying to throw another under the bus by transferring a tax from rich doctors and their wealthy customers to struggling small businesses," Overstreet said. "The irony is that ultraviolet light at least has proven health benefits where botox treatments have none."
On their website, the Indoor Tanning Association states that a well-known side effect of exposing the skin to ultraviolent (UV) light is the production of Vitamin D.
Did you enjoy this article? Click the "Subscribe" button above to receive e-mail alerts when Angie posts new articles.
Comments
What's this business about the Bo Tax affecting middle class women. Has anyone priced Botox. I doubt very many middle class women can afford this, no, it's about rich doctors and their patients and the lobby working for them. Another strick against small business.
I think it's hilarious (actually, quite ludicrous) that the government claims to tax items and services that it doesn't want people to use. What?!?! What other reason is there to tax something other than bringing in more of our money? How many different ways can we be taxed? I'm not saying I would endorse the "bo-tax" either, though I seem less inclined to through someone else's industry under the bus to save my own. We are a family owned small business -- the people who tan here are not all rich AND not all for cosmetic purposes. We have many clients sent here by their DERMATOLOGISTS to treat Eczema, psoriasis, vitaligo and other skin conditions helped by UV. These a**holes make me so mad. Anyone smart enough to read between the advertisements can deduce that the positive effects of Vitamin D for breast & prostate health (protection from cancer) that is gained with a pill/supplement, is also available for FREE outside, everyday, in the sun from UV exposure. Can't tax that, though!
Democrats make me so sick. Always meddling into personal affairs and pocket books to pay for legislation that the majority of people don't want anyway.
Government intervention in EVERYONE'S healthcare, airport delay fines, cell phone health warnings, un proven by the masses global warming, tree hugging, anti tobacco, anti alcohol, pro illegal aliens, anti border patrol, taxing my soda, soon to tax me for indoor tanning, and on and on and on.
These people's ONLY priority to regulate EVERYTHING that we do and make us pay for it at the same time.
Republicans are guilty as well. But not near on a level as the Democrat party of the last two decades. These people are making a disaster out of what was once a simple country.
While I've got the media using Tiger Woods to wag the dog I'm gonna pass this bill and I've got the perfect tax, so you white folks can pay for it. Ha-ha Merry Christmas! Do you like yellow snow?
Ask yourselves why liability insurance for a salon with over 10 beds is less than $2,000 per year. The answer is that there is no way to determine where damage to skin from the sun begins and ends. Repeated sunburns are accumulative to skin tissue which is unforgiving. Indoor tanning is meant to build a base tan slowly, conservatively and responsibly so that when exposed to the Sun's rays, skin may be more tolerant. If we are to tax UV exposure, we must find a way to tax the Sun, or perhaps specific individuals who abuse any type of UV exposure, whether it be outdoors or indoors. The indoor tanning industry should not be a taxable scape goat. Look at skin cancer statistics--most individuals never even tanned indoors. Indoor tanning is already suffering with irresponsible media reporting. Someone needs to print the true facts!
Ok, I never did look at this tax that way before. I am really bothered by the fact that this is a tax on something that white people only use. Personally I use tanning to get rid of acne and look healthy and now I will have to pay extra for that. NOT RIGHT!
Putting tax in tanning is a big deal. Because consumers suffering from this task. And taxes are not assured to return it to public through facilities.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!