Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
[OiP] - Since President Obama has signed the $940 billion dollar healthcare reform bill into law, the heavy fire from critics from all angles of the political spectrum continue.
Although the plan is not perfect, it was passed 219-212 which was more than enough for the legislation to be passed.
Some of the after effects of the fine print in the healthcare reform bill would be the proposition of a 10% tax increase on indoor tanning services. This would go into effect after July 1st, 2010 for all indoor tanning businesses.
Some say that the tanning tax would be a blow to their industry that is already stressed out in these economic troubles. Especially the taxes imposed on the smaller, local tanning clubs.
A local Hollywood Tans did not appreciate our questions when asked about the 10% tanning tax, and hung-up after the question was asked. Perhaps they thought we were anti-tanning dermatologists calling to harass them?
Needless to say, the indoor tanning business seems to resent the tax proposal, which they say would trigger job cuts and store closings in their industry.
The science is still indeterminate, however dermatologists that have been publicly speaking out against indoor tanning dangers for years is nothing new.
According to TanningTruth, an estimated 30-million North Americans turn to indoor tanning salons as opposed to outdoor tanning from the natural sun rays.
The supposed benefits from the indoor tanning science is based on one syllogism, namely: Moderate tanning, for individuals who can develop a tan, is the smartest way to maximize the potential benefits of sun exposure while minimizing the potential risks associated with either too much or too little sunlight.
The 10 percent tax plan would grab $2.7 billion over 10 years according to Congressional estimates.
The $2.7 billion collected would come from the 18,000 to 20,000 places with tanning beds, according to John Overstreet, executive director of the Indoor Tanning Association.
The tax comes at a time when sources say nearly three-quarters of Americans suffer from vitamin D deficiency due to lack of sunlight exposure.
“Vitamin D deficiency has become a recognized epidemic in North America and overzealous sun protection practices likely have contributed to this,” writes TanningTruth in defense of tanning.
The FDA does not buy into the alleged moderate tanning benefits that the indoor tanning business touts about, and suggests the polar opposite– that “a growing body of literature” links intentional exposure to UV light with cancer.
“The FDA wants consumers to know that UV radiation in tanning devices poses serious health risks,” it says on the FDA’s site. “A recent report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, concludes that tanning devices are more dangerous than previously thought.”
“Exposure to UV radiation, whether from the sun or indoor tanning beds, can cause: Skin cancer, Skin burns, Premature skin aging, Eye damage (both short- and long-term).”
The FDA goes on to say that sunlamps are hazardous products and “produce an estimated 3,000 hospital emergency room cases a year.”
Regardless of which side you may take, there is no conclusive evidence that demonstrates the dangers of UV exposure.
Expect the charges at your local tanning salon to rise up for the businesses to compensate for their taxed losses.
What do you think about the 10% tax increase on indoor tanning services?
2 Comments
UV exposure has damaging effects on the eyes and skin. The real question is, what real benefit is a tanning tax. Are we going to tax time at the beach? Are we all going to need to wear a UV meter for an annual UV tax? Should we tax outdoor venues for concerts? Base ball games in the summer? Sunlight does have some beneficial effects. Singling out a single industry will not reduce the damage from UV, and actually may increase it if people turn towards home tanning devices. In addition a stealth tax on medical device manufacturers is the worst type of tax possible. Most medical devices are used by people with disabilities and medical problems. The cost of wheelchairs will ultimately increase for the people who can least afford them. Even your contact lenses may be subject to a tax. People with eye conditions land diseases that require contact lenses to be able to see may find a substantial price increase.
I don’t use tanning beds, use sunscreen outdoors and limit my UV exposure every way possible, but I still see this as about effective as prohibition if it is meant to change behavior.
The government will also mandate that employers provide health insurance for their employees. This mandate would include small businesses with revenues below $250,000 per year. If the employer does not provide health insurance, the business will have to pay a tax of $750 for each full-time employee. For the employer who requires a waiting period of 30-to-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee and $600 per employee if the business takes longer than 60 days to comply. This is found in Section 1513 of the bill for “shared responsibility for employers.”
So now as the IRS will be the government sector that imposes FINES if you don’t sign up for health care, how does it feel to have FORCED government rule?
I like how Obama campaigned on the promise of transparency and no back room deals. What did we get? A lot of backroom deals and at the last minute things rushed into the Bill without bringing them before the public.
So? hows all this hope and change now? The only change I see from Obama is he’s trying to run the U.S. under the same mandates of country’s like Cuba.
Gawd people were idiots to vote for Obama.