Friday, January 8, 2010

Getting Political for a Minute

I read an interesting article today about a proposed tax hike of 10% on businesses in the indoor tanning service industry and it really dumbfounded me.  I'm no expert when it comes to politics and policies, but wasn't the goal of the Obama administration to support small businesses?  The indoor tanning service industry is about 99% comprised of small businesses!  A tax of 10% is ridiculous. 

They say that the idea is for the tax to support healthcare reform, you know, since indoor and outdoor tanning has been known to cause skin cancer.  Ok, I can kinda see the point there but aren't there industries that contribute more dead weight to healthcare than a tanning bed?  Look at the obesity rate in this country!  Large corporations operating fast food chains are who I would point the tax finger at.  Something tells me obesity and the many, many health issues that occur as a result of a person being obese probably end up controling more healthcare dollars than skin cancer.  But I don't have the facts, its just a hunch.

I just thought the Obama administration was all about promoting American small businesses.  If that is the case, as I'm positive it was during the election race, taxing an industry that is solely made up of small businesses doesn't make sense.  A tax of 10% on this industry is a heavy one and could mean the closure of many of the small businesses that make up the industry.  It's pretty hard to profit off of a tax when businesses fail as a result, isn't it?  And when these businesses fail, what's next?  Unemployment, that's what.

If someone can explain to me how this makes sense, please do.  I'd love to hear it.  Here is the link to the article.  I will admit that I did get a little chuckle out of the right-wingers in the comment section that immediately claimed that this is a tax on white people.

7 comments:

Rick said...

The tax isn't on the business, it's on the people who use it. The people who suffer the skin damage and who have to seek medical treatment down the road. Much like a cigarette tax, it is meant to discourage consumption while, at the same time, have the people who use such risky products contribute more to their medical care.

You can make the argument that the businesses are going to suffer because consumers are not going to want to pay $2 more for a $20 session. I would argue that if money is that tight for that person, maybe they shouldn't be visiting a tanning salon in the first place.

I like the intent of the tax. Tanning has been proven to cause skin cancer. If people want to continue to ignore the warnings and indulge themselves then I have no problem with them paying 10% more to do it and, at the same time, help out with their future medical bills.

.

SteveBM said...

How is it only a tax on the consumers who use the service? The businesses are the ones who are taxed and thus have to charge higher prices to make the same money which is where the consumer is taxed. I see your point about cigarettes but I don't think that's comparing apples to apples. People can get a tan for free by going outside, which is exactly what they will do if the tanning salon becomes too expensive. You can't stop people from being exposed to UV rays.

I think it's a silly tax on a small industry made up of small businesses. Tax Ronald McDonald and Frito Lay. That was the plan on the campaign trail, wasn't it? To tax the large corporations and promote the growth of small businesses? That's what I recall hearing anyways. This doesn't seem to be sticking to that plan.

Rick said...

People can get a tan for free by going outside, which is exactly what they will do if the tanning salon becomes too expensive.

Yeah, well, I would love to see that person step outside in Bozeman, Montana in January to test this theory.

It's not a tax on businesses because they are not paying a tax. They are collecting a tax from their customers. Maybe the LA Times can convince you if I can't.

There's 3 years left. Your Big Mac tax still has a chance. Patience.

You just better hope and pray they don't tax booze.

.

scg said...

I agree with you. Taxing small businesses is not the way to go. I don't use a tanning place myself, but why pick on people who do?

Let's tax politicians. ..

Jobie Steppe said...

Tom Falcon of the Coconut Grove Grape Vine represents an extreme burden, worse than a tax of 100% on profits as he constantly berates folks; calls black youth rats, those who take issue with his highly negative rants are called stupid, writes our local post office is a training facility causing customers to yell at and spit at postal workers, says roaches are in Grove eateries, calls our elected officials communist mafia types, turns motorist against bicyclist and talks of puke and vomit on our streets then invites folks; singles, tourist and families to come to the Grove and experience a wonderful community and then turns around and mentions rape and lack of police protection.

Isn't this worse than a tax?

郭富城 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Blind man, BTW, I noticed you have blogs titled Bitchin Blogs and list the Coconut Grove Grape Vine, translated, is there a message we should be aware of.