Bellbrook graduation 2012
Fairfield Senior 2012 graduation
Kroger Aquatic Center opens
Compiled by "Smart Mouth" columnist Amelia Robinson, Seen and Overheard is fueled by juicy tidbits, oddball tales and strange sightings.
Home > Blogs > Seen and Overheard > Archives > 2010 > July > 01 > Entry
Is federal tanning tax fair?
Achieving that golden glow just got 10 percent more expensive.
The controversial 10 percent tax on recipients of tanning services takes effect today, Thursday, July 1.
Federal officials say the initiative is expected to raise $2.7 billion in ten years to help pay for the $940 billion health care overhaul.
Tanning salon owners have another opinion.
The Indoor Tanning Association says it will “unfairly hit working women and college students who comprise the majority of indoor tanning consumers.”
Officials say tanning salon use has been linked to the deadliest form of skin cancer.
“People should avoid tanning bed, period end of sentence,” said Peter Osborne, a spokesman for the American Cancer Society of Northwest and Southwest Ohio.
What do you think? Is the tax on tanning fair or foul?
Seen & Overheard runs daily in the Dayton Daily News. Twitter with me at DDNSmartmouth. Have an item for Seen and Overheard? Click here.
Permalink | Comments (6) | Post your comment |
Comments
By J
July 1, 2010 8:35 AM | Link to this
It’s no different than taxing cigarettes and alcohol.
By Max
July 1, 2010 8:57 AM | Link to this
J: Yes, and we could take this one step further and consider a VAT for some consumer goods and services; food being exempt of course. Of course I suggest this in lieu of increased income taxes at state and federal levels.
By Joanie
July 1, 2010 9:17 AM | Link to this
I hope this raises revenues and discourages people from this ridiculous practice.
By Racist
July 1, 2010 9:39 AM | Link to this
I think this is just another example of Obama giving it to the man. I mean how many african americans tan. Seems kinda racist
By NCF
July 1, 2010 9:47 AM | Link to this
J is spot on. This is exactly the same as taxing tobacco & alcohol. These are what used to be known as “sin tax”, but now they are classified as “sumptuary tax”. The idea is less about collecting revenue than it is an effort to curb behavior that is considered “unacceptable”. Right, Joanie? Max, an implementation of the Fair Tax would generate appropriate revenue for the government, but a VAT would continue our tax burden because it would be a double tax. I do not smoke, drink, or tan, but I still find this Nanny State mentality deplorable. Do you really want the federal government to be the bully enforcer for the ACS? Is that what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they penned the phrase “pursuit of happiness”?
By Amy
July 5, 2010 4:05 PM | Link to this
It’s a heinous tax aimed almost exclusively against white people. And for all of you who think this 10% extra extortion on tanning is great, just wait. Obama’s Cap and Tax and supposedly free health care is coming for your wallets soon.