Writer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 02:21 AM
Original message |
Holy crap - there IS a tanning salon tax! |
|
:rofl: I thought it was just a running joke on DU. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-22-health-you_N.htmSo, Boehner, how much is the Tanning Mafia paying you?
|
xultar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 02:26 AM
Response to Original message |
1. But does it include oompa loompa spray on? That's Boner's fav! |
Jennicut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
Lochloosa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
16. No. It only includes use of the tanning bed. Products are exempt. |
nutsnberries
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 02:34 AM
Response to Original message |
2. no wonder boner spat out his disapproval yesterday, huh? |
pnwmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 02:52 AM
Response to Original message |
3. Good idea, since they're basically cancer centers. n/t |
iamthebandfanman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 04:35 AM
Response to Original message |
|
i feel bad for people who are addicted to the practice...
what is the statistic again ? i always forget... something like you increase ur chance of skin cancer by 300% the second you walk out into sun light after tanning lights?
|
boppers
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 05:11 AM
Response to Original message |
5. Get cancer intentionally, get taxed. |
MercutioATC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
9. Planning on taxing people who lie in the sun? |
|
Edited on Tue Mar-23-10 08:52 AM by MercutioATC
Maybe hire a bunch of "sunblock police" to make sure everybody's wearing their SPF 40?
Pitiful nanny-stateism.
|
BeyondGeography
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
10. WHO: Tanning Beds Cause Cancer |
MercutioATC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
11. Yep, so does sunlight. |
|
So I ask again, if it's a good idea to tax tanning beds, isn't it also a good idea to tax people who lie in the sun or go outside without sunblock?
|
calico1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
12. Tanning bed/salon tax, NOT sun tax! n/t |
MercutioATC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
|
My grandfather owned a dairy farm. He never went to a tanning salon, but developed skin cancer from being in the sun.
Why is going to a tanning salon any more "worthy" of being taxed than people who just expose themselves to sunlight without using sunblock?
|
BeyondGeography
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #14 |
17. Because it's an easy way to incentivize people away from risky behavior and save health care costs |
MercutioATC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #17 |
19. It's a tax targeted at a specific industry, not targeted at a specific "risky behavior". |
|
For your contention to hold water, there would have to be an incentive for people to stop sunbathing or going outside without sunblock.
|
BeyondGeography
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #19 |
21. Stop talking about the fucking beach already |
|
Tanning.salons. Not.the.beach.
|
MercutioATC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #21 |
23. What don't you understand? |
|
A tanning bed is no more "risky" than the beach. That's the point.
|
marshall
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-26-10 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
31. It also targets a specific population |
|
Those who are in need or want of sunshine and a little pigmentation.
|
Dappleganger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #14 |
20. My mother developed skin cancer on her nose from picking cotton when she was a kid... |
|
they're not taxing people for being in the sun, just taxing something (a tanning bed) which has been proven to cause cancer. Increased incidents of cancer raise health care rates for everyone.
|
jberryhill
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-02-10 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
38. The difference between an act of omission and one of commission |
|
Come on, you are smart enough to know the underlying moral distinction between omission and commission.
|
KingFlorez
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
18. Tanning salons are more powerful than the sun |
|
So the cancer risk is higher. That's not hard to comprehend.
Pitiful neo-con whining.
|
MercutioATC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #18 |
22. Actually, you're making some pretty broad assumptions. |
|
Cancer risk from UVA is based primarily on two things, early skin damage from sunburns and cumulative exposure.
Occasional use of a tanning bed is no more inherently risky than regularly sunbathing or being in the sun without sunblock.
Pitiful nanny-state apologist whining.
|
KingFlorez
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #22 |
25. A tanning bed still emits more power than the sun |
|
And a lot of tanning salon patrons don't go occasionally, they frequent the places on a regular basis, so that represents a high risk group. I'm not making any broad assumptions, just stating facts, something that your type has a constant problem with.
|
MercutioATC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #25 |
|
...but a day at the beach without sunblock does more damage than 10 minutes in a tanning bed.
You're advocating increased behavior control through expanded taxation/regulation. I realize there are plenty of people who are completely o.k. with that, but I believe it's a slippery slope (the proposed ban on using salt in food preparation in New York, for example).
Things like "security" and "health" are not controlled by toggle switches, they're set on rheostats. We decide how much freedom we want versus how much control needs to be exercised for the social good. This tax, to me, turns the knob too far toward "control"...as do things like motorcycle helmet laws and various provisions of the Patriot Act.
When we go to such silly lengths to control behavior, we lose another small piece of our freedom.
|
BeyondGeography
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #26 |
27. How about taxing cigarettes? Is that nanny-statism and a loss of freedom? |
|
Someone's on a slippery slope all right.
|
boppers
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-24-10 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #26 |
28. I'm against helmet laws, FWIW, as long as they're an organ donor. |
|
I think organ donors should be encouraged to wear, or not wear, helmets. People who want to live longer might make different decisions.
Maybe that works well for tanning bed users, and smokers (etc.), too.
Of course, helmet-less riders tend to have younger, more useful organs, than smokers, but the principle is the same.
|
CBGLuthier
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-02-10 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #25 |
37. Emits more power than the sun? No, not quite |
|
More concentrated UV, sure. More power than the sun. Nothing on earth has ever produced more power than the sun.
|
Whisp
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-01-10 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
34. so then occassionally pay 10% tax for your tanning bed... |
|
if you don't believe the reports
whats the big fricken deal there Agent Orange?
|
vaberella
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
24. Nah...they can go to beach for free then to tan. They don't need to go to a salon place. |
|
I guess it could be argued that Boehner is supporting small business salons---that is of course until we find out he's paying $650 for a full body oompa loompah tan.
|
lazerlarry
(1 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-01-10 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
boppers?? Get cancer - get taxed?? You are so un-informed...as is the general public. And the big pharmaceutical companies what to keep it that way. Afterall they are protecting their "35 billion dollar a year" sunscreen industry. The fact is, there is no real scientific evidence that indoor tanning causes skin cancer. However, there are volumes of real sicentific research (not funded by big pharma) that proves the benifits of tanning. When skin is exposed to uv light it naturally produces vast amounts of vitamin D, which the human body needs to maintain health. No food or supplement can adequately match this production. Big pharma, along with the Acacamy of Dermatologist they control, have help create a vitamin D deficiency epidemic in this country. Vitamin D deficiency has been directly linked to over 100 different diseases - including four types of cancer. Indoor tanning would actually decrease the health care cost in this country - not increase it. But big pharma dosen't want the people to know that. You have basically been lied to over the past 20 years about the dangers of uv exposure. A body needs controlled amounts of uv exposure to maintain health. Listen...don't take my word for it, do your own research. (that is, research not funded by Big Pharma or the Acadamy they control). www.tanningtruth.com is a good starting place. www.vitaminddoc.com is another. Tan smart - don't burn.
|
vaberella
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 06:01 AM
Response to Original message |
6. Ahh...that's why Boenher was so upset. Well if that doesn't beat all. n/t |
freeplessinseattle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 06:11 AM
Response to Original message |
7. Moses and the Tan Commandments |
|
ok, now I understand why he feels we are disgracing Moses.
|
lame54
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 09:08 AM
Response to Original message |
13. He'll just have to bathe in Sunny D |
Mass
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-23-10 09:16 AM
Response to Original message |
15. Now we know why Boehner was so incensed. |
sui generis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-25-10 02:09 PM
Response to Original message |
29. put that in the column of I'm embarrassed to be a liberal because |
|
who the fuck dreams this shit up? The more important legislation would be that any tax on a sin premised on alleviating the long term effects of the sin must be accounted for dollar for dollar in the war to alleviate the long term effects of that sin.
Tobacco taxes should go ONLY to prevention and indigent lung cancer care. Sun Tan taxes should go only to labeling sunbeds and indigent skin cancer care.
But it doesn't - and that makes us more than dishonest. Again, embarrassing.
|
humbled_opinion
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-26-10 05:25 PM
Response to Original message |
30. OMG you will never believe what people at my work said |
|
The white female that always has perfectly tanned skin all year round said this tax is Racist and that she is going to get a lawyer and sue the federal government because African Americans don't use tanning salons.... LOL .... She went further to say that if this is getting taxed it would only be fair to have a tax on black womens weaves.... I kid you not....
|
awoke_in_2003
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-01-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #30 |
|
do you live in Texas, too?
|
greencharlie
(827 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-01-10 04:11 PM
Response to Original message |
33. I have no problem with it... |
|
those things are so damn unhealthy.
|
polichick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-01-10 05:37 PM
Response to Original message |
36. Think someone wanted to stick it to Boner? :) |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 10:55 PM
Response to Original message |