Of all the abuses buried in the thousands of pages of Obamacare let me offer the tax hike on tanning salons, as the most flagrant. In order to pay for Obamacare the Democrats had to scavenge for money, and in so doing, they astutely targeted the weak.
I don’t have the data on the amount of Americans that visit tanning salons but I suspect the number is rather small. In addition, the clientele of tanning salons…the cast of Jersey Shore, spring breakers, local strippers, etc.; isn’t exactly politically active. Much like a lion that singles out the weakest prey, tanning salons are similarly vulnerable to attack. This is why the tanning salon tax became one of the first (of soon to be many) Obamacare rules to go into effect.
Think of the ridiculous bureaucracy involved in administering such a tax. If I own a gym which happens to have tanning beds, will I have to pay? Similarly, if you own a tanning salon and install some workout equipment, will you have to pay?
More importantly, why should any business in a free society be subjected to an additional tax that other business don’t have to pay? What’s next; a tax on waffle houses, moped manufacturers and trampolines? None of these business/industries would be able to mount a defense because the majority of the population won’t give a shit. Stated differently, the poor and middle classes aren’t exactly up in arms over increasing taxes on the rich.
Whenever Government attacks a “small” group whether it be rich people, tanning salons or waffle houses, all individuals should be considered about the slippery slope it represents. It reminds me of a quote from Martin Niemöller (no intended correlation between tanning salons and the Holocaust, just the concept certain groups shouldn’t be targeted)
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Frank Apisa
old new lefty
Margaret Feike
Larry3000
Tinkerertink69
Kanuk
Salon.com
Comments
you have succinctly identified the most salient argument against micro-regulation. the ever expanding bureaucracy needed to enforce it.
if our interest is raising revenue for the government, then we have existing taxes (individual income tax, corporate income tax, capital gains tax, gasoline tax, etc) in place for this purpose.
creation of an entirely new type of tax - and a full blown government agency, with local enforcement agents to administer it - is not on a cynical admission that government has breached the public's tolerance for higher rates on existing levies, but also works as political "spoils" - since adminsitration of the new bureaucracy can be parcelled out to party loyalists.
f.
Tanning is a business that creates a lot of skin cancer, which leads to health care expense. The business can pass the tax on to it's customers. It is the vanity of the customers that creates the problem here, just as the addiction of smokers causes lung cancer.
People can quit tanning or pay an extra 10%. Big deal. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
People will - and on both sides, but you and I KNOW it will be mostly from the left - try to control more and more and more of what people do and claim that it is "because of the negative impact on their health" and then complain that "they have to pay for that".
It started with smoking in my view. It extended to forced seatbelts even for adults, forced helmet for adult motorcycle riders, it will move to taxes on sweets, junk food, sugar, salt and it could, really, be nearly endless.
Have you read Liberal Fascism?
BTW, if your name is your real one - you were BORN to be a country-western singer - at least given your name!
Smoking, sugar, salt, seatbelts, building a wood-burning fireplace, tanning salons, etc.
and you all go insane is someone just doesn't want to PAY for birth control. Imagine if they wanted to TAX it???
Johnny Fever is a college nickname.
You've nailed the motive exactly. You can't buy political power without economic resources. Buying votes from those who have little else to offer requires funds from producers. And if you can cloak the piracy with some sanctimonious pretense, so much the better.