New Tax on Indoor Tanning Goes into Effect--I found this odd....

[MaggieMae]

Because it targets a behaviour, not a people.

<insert sarcasm here>

Really? When was the last time you saw a black person getting a tan in a tanning bed?

What's wrong with getting that tan some other way? I spent way too many summers baking in the sun long before "tanning beds" were invented, and everyone was happy...even black people frolicking on the same beach.

 

[Dr.House]

Talk about simple minded, a car is not a need and neither is transportation.

"should he/she be punished unduly for a lifestyle?" Does this apply to everyone and their "lifestyles" or do your standards have a selective application??

In your world a car is not a need, smitty.
When it comes to applying excessive taxes for a lifestyle....anyone's lifestyle....even yours and VaYank's, I'm against it..

Nope it's not. If I want I can walk, bike, catch a cab or take a bus I don't NEED a car. It is a luxury not a need.
But thanks for playing.

Yeah, tell a country doctor making house calls in Nebraska that a car is a luxury item...

"I'll get there when I can. I have to call a cab."

Tell the volunteer firemen across America that their car is a luxury item.

"Hello, Yellow Cab? I need a ride to the firehouse. When can you get here?"

dumbass...<facepalm>

 

[KissMy]

Because it targets a behaviour, not a people.

<insert sarcasm here>

Really? When was the last time you saw a black person getting a tan in a tanning bed?

Light-skinned African American chicks go to, and WORK AT, the one here in Latham.

Your point is that a commodity can't be taxed because of the trends of who use them? That makes it racist, from the git-go? Seriously, man, it's a pretty weak basis for a claim of racism.

So placing a hefty tax on Jheri Curl products would be a weak basis for a claim of racism?

 

[drsmith1072]

Yo doc. Illegal drug prohibition isn't about individual choice and lifestyle. Drug abuse affects others. Please show the stats that tanning affects driving, employment and proper parenting and then you might have a valid argument. Sheeez.

Drug ABUSE, as with the ABUSE of any drug, including alcohol or nicotine (both legal to use), can affect those around you. However, I am not talking about the ABUSE and the laws are not specific to ABUSE. Please try to stay on topic.

If you choose to use drugs in your own home by yourself or with other consenting adults then your use does not affect others. In that respect it is all about individual choice and lifestyle but thanks for the spin. If you are against one then you should be against all but thanks for trying to excuse rightwing hypocrisy so ineptly

Please let me know when you have a valid counter to what was actually said instead of inane ramblings that don't apply as they leave out facts pertinent to the debate. Sheeez.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I don't want my Government attacking and punishing good hard working Americans. That's not what this nation is about. Why attack and punish indoor tanning businesses and their customers? It just seems so Un-American to me. I can't be the only one who sees this madness. Our Founding Fathers would certainly not approve of these types of punitive taxes on the people. Our Government is supposed to serve us and not hand down these types of punishments. What has happened to our nation? Why are so many so willing to allow our Government to get this out of control? It really is pretty sad and frightening. Leave the tanning businesses alone. They're our fellow Americans for God's sake. They're not our enemies. What a sad travesty.

 

[MaggieMae]

How about we talk about the underlying question everyone really wants to know, and that is why is it white people WANT to look like black people (if they're such a 'minority')??

I wonder what all started this. I can remember my mother always had a good start on a tan around the end of May and stayed tanned all summer long. But her own mother, my grandmother, wouldn't have dreamed of exposing her skin to sunlight that might change it from white to brown. That would have been early 20th Century until she died in 1992, so at some point there must have been a Hollywood influence. A very tanned Lana Turner in white short shorts in "The Postman Always Rings Twice"?? Sexy Elizabeth Taylor in movies like "Elephant Walk" and "Suddenly Last Summer"?? But what about the men? When did it become more sexy to look like Fernando Lamas than Van Johnson?

 

[drsmith1072]

Yo doc. Illegal drug prohibition isn't about individual choice and lifestyle. Drug abuse affects others. Please show the stats that tanning affects driving, employment and proper parenting and then you might have a valid argument. Sheeez.

It affects others when your skin cancer puts an unnecessary burden on the healthcare system.


The Skin Cancer Foundation - Tanning

Americans do many things that create an "unnecessary burden" on the healthcare system...

You want to tax ALL of them?

Why not, after all conservatives supported sin taxes which is basically the same thing when it suited them. NOW that a democrat is in charge you would think they would want to repeal them all based on the politically expedient stance on the issue now. However, when pushed they expose their hypocrisy as they backtrack. How typical.

P.S. not supportive of "taxing them all" but merely playing devil's advocate to point out the hypocrisy of the right.

 

[MaggieMae]

I feel so sorry for John Boehner.....do you think we should take up a collection to pay for his increased tanning bill?

He gets his the old-fashioned way: On the golf course with high rollers.

 

[MaggieMae]

We'll just have to wait and see won't we? I'm sure many of these places are holding on for dear life as it is.

Its a vanity tax. Yes many "rich" people visit tanning beds, and get botox, and buy yachts. But as the "rich" are being demonized and squeezed, so is the tanning bed employee, the botox salesman, and the yacht builder. How are those industries faring these days?

Anyone who goes into business thinking he'll never be taxed for some obscure thing (usually by the state), or assessed a new fee on something, and can't possibly pay same, has no business being in business in the first place.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Punishing good hard working Americans by way of punitive taxation is not the answer. Who do these people think they are? This is not what i want my Government doing. They're supposed to be serving the people not attacking them. Our Founding Fathers would be appalled by these Government attacks on fellow American Citizens. The Socialists/Progressives are simply out of control. Time for some house cleaning. Make 2010 count America!

 

[MaggieMae]

I wouldn't call the tax racist but it will put many of these places out of business, which is what they'd like to see. Soda taxes, salt taxes, fast food taxes etc will be used to "discourage unhealthy" behavior and consequently put even more Americans out of work. But of course the socialists don't give a shit about that whole unemployment issue. The govt can just take care of them.

I am VERY hopeful these taxes will come sooner rather than later. As a smoker, I am quite tired of being taxed to hell and back as a way of paying for everyone else's bad habits.

Off topic, but there's something brewing about reversing the new PACK ACT which doesn't allow cigarettes to be shipped by the USPS. Talk about putting companies out of business, that act has resulted in thousands of smoke shops run by American Indian tribes all over the country having to close their doors. I heard the other day that they have won at least a temporary restraining order, so I guess a class action suit was filed and some federal judge is at least looking at the situation. It might be on the Internet; I haven't looked.

 

[drsmith1072]

You mean like all those law suits against tobacco companies the Democrats pushed, when cigarettes had said they will kill you on them for many years?

LOL

Direct taxation by the Fed is wrong in any form, and clear violation of the constitution that we are forced to live with today. This tax is even worse. Any tax intended to not raise revenue, but instead to try and effect people behavior is unconstitutional and wrong. Like taxes on cigarettes the idea is to deter people from doing it by taxing it.

This is what we get for looking the other way every time the Fed bends the constitution just a little.

The big difference is that it is now known that the tobacco industry added things to the cigarettes to make them more addictive to get people hooked faster. It was their tactics that dragged them under and made them responsible. Don't you think it's time that you stop try so desperately to compare apple's to oranges??

I do find it funny how these types of taxes are unconstitutional to republicans NOW that a democrat is president while sin taxes of the past that were supported by right wing religious nutjobs bent on using the federal government to force their moral values onto others were not. But then this wouldn't be the first time republicans contradicted themselves as they flip flop on the constitutionality of a given topc based on political expediency.
The "advise and consent" for federal judges comes to mind as a good example of a flip flop considering how republicans are now talking about blocking obama's appointee to the SCOTUS when they said such an act was unconstitutional a few years ago.

The taxes have always been unconstitutional. No matter who is in the white house or in control of congress. Our founders never wanted the Fed to be able to levy direct taxes on the people. You people keep trying to pigeon hole everyone. Either you blindly support one party or another? Hardly. I would be happy if every sitting republican and Democrat all lost their elections this year. If I appear to be more anti Democrat today it is because today it is the Dems in power, and they ran basically telling us they were going to put a stop to all the BS going on in DC, and instead there is even more of it. I am acutely critical of Obama, because I think he his agenda is to radically change this country into something I do not want. The republicans suck to be sure, but Obama..... Obama is at war with almost everything I believe in.

I have been a vocal attacker of our 2 party system for years. We have 2 parties, neither of which respect us or are constitution like they should. Who have shared power in an unholy compromise for generations. Nothing will change as long as that is the case.

Like I said, it's hilarious how they have always been unconstitutional and yet the right only recently became critical of them. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that a democrat is president could it?? You answer this above.

I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of the right and you seem to be having an issue with that as you try to pigeon hole me while attacking me for "pigeon holing everyone". How typical. You kind of lose the punch you were going for when you engage in the act you are attacking.

The part that is put in bold type spells it out quite clearly and the fact that you seem to be railing against one because they are in power as you defend and try to excuse the hypocrisy of the other or just ignore it which seems to be in an attempt to help return them to power kind of shows that you are not anti either party. Propping up the republicans whom you defend even as you claim not to support them is quite contradictory.

 

[MaggieMae]

Tendrils extending everywhere... big mommy government wants more and more money, more and more power, and more and more control

We are beyond 'out of hand'

Our government keep chipping away, just a little 10%, and a little 10% there. If they do it incrementally, people won't notice themselves bending over and getting th shaft.

Most "sin" taxes, fees and licensing are the result of state actions, not the federal government.

 

[MaggieMae]

Nobody's got a gun to your heads. If you don't want to pay the tax, don't go to a tanning salon.

And maybe get your fat asses off the couch once in a while and go outside where the tanning is free.

I don't think that is the point of the thread, Clean. I think it has more to do with the "TAX" and a government that is getting deeper into everyones pocket. But if you think it's not carry on.

Well, since I'm sure the number of people who make use of tanning salons is very small compared to, say, the number of people who buy gasoline, and considering the amount of revenue this particular tax is expected to generate, I don't see it as being unreasonable at all. In fact, it was a brilliant idea!

 

[Dr.House]

It affects others when your skin cancer puts an unnecessary burden on the healthcare system.


The Skin Cancer Foundation - Tanning

Americans do many things that create an "unnecessary burden" on the healthcare system...

You want to tax ALL of them?

Why not, after all conservatives supported sin taxes which is basically the same thing when it suited them. NOW that a democrat is in charge you would think they would want to repeal them all based on the politically expedient stance on the issue now. However, when pushed they expose their hypocrisy as they backtrack. How typical.

P.S. not supportive of "taxing them all" but merely playing devil's advocate to point out the hypocrisy of the right.

I find people who speak in generalizations to be rather foolish...

That would be you, in case you were wondering...

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't think that is the point of the thread, Clean. I think it has more to do with the "TAX" and a government that is getting deeper into everyones pocket. But if you think it's not carry on.

Do you visit a tanning bed often, Meister?

Nope....fair skinned and blue eyed. But this isn't the point is it, it goes back to government taxing more, and spending more, and it's not going to stop taxing more and more . The state of Wa. has added a sin tax to bottled water....go figure huh?

Why do you still buy bottled water? It's got to be the biggest ripoff ever. Your tap water is safer.

 

[drsmith1072]

In your world a car is not a need, smitty.
When it comes to applying excessive taxes for a lifestyle....anyone's lifestyle....even yours and VaYank's, I'm against it..

Nope it's not. If I want I can walk, bike, catch a cab or take a bus I don't NEED a car. It is a luxury not a need.
But thanks for playing.

Yeah, tell a country doctor making house calls in Nebraska that a car is a luxury item...

"I'll get there when I can. I have to call a cab."

Tell the volunteer firemen across America that their car is a luxury item.

"Hello, Yellow Cab? I need a ride to the firehouse. When can you get here?"

dumbass...<facepalm>

Yeah you are a dumbass but thanks for playing.

Did you miss the fact that I was being asked about ME and my world and that I responded about how it is a luxury?? or did you just not pay attention in your zealous rush to attack me personally showing how truly ignorant you are??

Even in your specific situations that "NEED" is still a privilege and can be taken away. What will your volunteer firefighter and country doc do then?? Transportation in case of emergency or medical treatment CAN be a need however that is not what was asked now was it?

dumbass...<facepalm>

 

[MaggieMae]

This is a certainty:

The tax will not raise $2.7B. It will deter enough people from using tanning salons to the point where quite a few of them either go out of business, or shorten their service hours and employee levels.

I'm going to start calling you The Projectionist. Always the purveyor of gloom and doom, cup half empty instead of half full. It must suck to be so negative all the time.

 

[MaggieMae]

If the government continues to tax everything IT feels is bad for us, it'll be rich.

The government is the biggest profitier in this country.

Correction: the government is the biggest THUG in this country.

Profits are earned; taxes are seized. There is a huge moral distinction between the two concepts.

Well then I guess you'll just have to blame that fact on the Constitution.

 

[MaggieMae]

If the government continues to tax everything IT feels is bad for us, it'll be rich.

The government is the biggest profitier in this country.

Correction: the government is the biggest THUG in this country.

Profits are earned; taxes are seized. There is a huge moral distinction between the two concepts.

yes you're correct. But I'm trying to use terms that liberals deem evil. Profitering, to liberals, is the worst part of corporations.

Liberals love seizing money.

When the millionnaires own 55% of all the wealth in this country, yet manage to pay less in taxes (and in many cases none at all), there's something seriously wrong with the word "profit" in today's economy.