Tax on tanning is racist

[CJB]

 

[Jiro]

my post #7 - it's a pix of a character from SIMPSONS show sitting on chair, talking. A caption "I can't believe that is so racist!!!"

PFH's post #14 - it's an animated pix of scene from movie called 300. A Spartan yelled (with text) - "GO BACK TO AFRICAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" prior to kicking a black person into a pit hole.

 

[CJB]

my post #7 - it's a pix of a character from SIMPSONS show sitting on chair, talking. A caption "I can't believe that is so racist!!!"

PFH's post #14 - it's an animated pix of scene from movie called 300. A Spartan yelled (with text) - "GO BACK TO AFRICAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" prior to kicking a black person into a pit hole.

Jiro!

 

[kokonut]

Makes perfect sense to me. Tanning salons are a big contributor to skin cancer. Good way to recoup expenses for treating uninsured tanners. I have no problem with it at all.

Doesn't make any sense there. Recoup expenses for treating uninsured tanners? How about taxing businesses along beaches because when combined it creates an attraction bringing millions of beach goers every year. Or what about the million of people who go to outdoor public swimming pools who pay to get in and have some fun while soaking up the sun, increasing the chance of skin cancer? How about taxing public swimming pools instead? Or maybe at ski resorts where high altitude skiing increase exposure to UV radiation and skin cancer? Maybe a tax on ski resorts, too? Taxing tanning salons is nothing more than an excuse to tax without any legitimacy behind it.

Secondly, show me where it says in the bill that money collected from tanning salons will go to a separate pool to help cover skin cancer treatments.

 

[kokonut]

Shhh! don't confuse them with logic!

Like the logic when people who disagree or criticize Obama are called as racist, too? Plays both ways though silly.

 

[CJB]

Doesn't make any sense there. Recoup expenses for treating uninsured tanners? How about taxing businesses along beaches because when combined it creates an attraction bringing millions of beach goers every year. Or what about the million of people who go to outdoor public swimming pools who pay to get in and have some fun while soaking up the sun, increasing the chance of skin cancer? How about taxing public swimming pools instead? Or maybe at ski resorts where high altitude skiing increase exposure to UV radiation and skin cancer? Maybe a tax on ski resorts, too? Taxing tanning salons is nothing more than an excuse to tax without any legitimacy behind it.

Secondly, show me where it says in the bill that money collected from tanning salons will go to a separate pool to help cover skin cancer treatments.

There's just a slight difference between natural harmful sunrays and man-made reproduced ones, though. You gotta admit at least that much.

 

[TWA]

How is this any different than taxing the hell out of cigarettes or alcohol or any other public health hazard? Do you have a problem with that? C'mon, speak up. Don't be shy.

Tanning salons are not healthy. Clearly they fit the definition of a sin tax, and sin taxes are, in most people's opinion, fully justified and necessary. It's not the small businesses being taxed; it's the people who get tans.

 

[kokonut]

There's just a slight difference between natural harmful sunrays and man-made reproduced ones, though. You gotta admit at least that much.

No. They're the same. It's the same UV rays that increase the risk for skin cancer. With more exposure over time increase that risk whether under the sun or a sunlamp.

The Skin Cancer Foundation - Tanning

 

[TWA]

Like the logic when people who disagree or criticize Obama are called as racist, too? Plays both ways though silly.

Way to pull out a whacked hypothetical there, bub, but it has absolutely no relevance to this discussion, I'm afraid. And for the record, a fair amount of the criticism aimed at Obama IS racially motivated.

But I'm sure you're one of those people who went around in the days following the election proclaiming, "Racism is no longer an issue in this country because we have a black president."

:roll:

 

[kokonut]

How is this any different than taxing the hell out of cigarettes or alcohol or any other public health hazard? Do you have a problem with that? C'mon, speak up. Don't be shy.

Tanning salons are not healthy. Clearly they fit the definition of a sin tax, and sin taxes are, in most people's opinion, fully justified and necessary. It's not the small businesses being taxed; it's the people who get tans.

Show me where in the bill the language that collecting taxes from tanning salons will be used toward treatment of those with UV-related skin cancer.

If you're going to tax salons on the premise that they are the main source or cause of UV-related skin cancer then you got another thing coming. Otherwise, tax all the establishments along popular beaches that are responsible in helping bring in sun-loving tourists their day at the beach. Otherwise, what this tax is nothing but a disengenious excuse to tax.

 

[kokonut]

Way to pull out a whacked hypothetical there, bub, but it has absolutely no relevance to this discussion, I'm afraid. And for the record, a fair amount of the criticism aimed at Obama IS racially motivated.

But I'm sure you're one of those people who went around in the days following the election proclaiming, "Racism is no longer an issue in this country because we have a black president."

:roll:

No. It's when people who dare to criticize or disagree with Obama are they charged as being a racist through the simple act of disagreement. That's where I'm getting at.

Racism do exist, unfortunately. But the idiocy lies in when people are called racists for the simple act of defying, disagreeing, or criticizing Obama.

 

[TWA]

Show me where in the bill the language that collecting taxes from tanning salons will be used toward treatment of those with UV-related skin cancer.

If you're going to tax salons on the premise that they are the main source or cause of UV-related skin cancer then you got another thing coming. Otherwise, tax all the establishments along popular beaches that are responsible in helping bring in sun-loving tourists their day at the beach. Otherwise, what this tax is nothing but a disengenious excuse to tax.

First of all, I haven't read the bill, and neither have you, have you big shot? It might very well be in there, so don't bet the farm just yet. Second, even if there is no stipulation for how that tax money is spent, don't worry; eventually it will find its way back to the hospital that charges for the skin cancer treatment of uninsured patients. It's called the general fund.

Second, YOU tell me where I said tanning salons "are the main source or cause of UV-related skin cancer." I said they were a BIG contributing factor. I did not say they were the main factor or the only factor.

Your analogy of any business on the beach or facilities that create greater exposure to the sun for customers is bunk. The sun is ever-present and unavoidable. and those business are not pedaling direct causes of skin cancer. Tanning salons are. There are not taxes on establishments that allow smoking, just on the cigarettes themselves. Same deal here. The source is being taxed, nothing more.

 

[TWA]

No. It's when people who dare to criticize or disagree with Obama are they charged as being a racist through the simple act of disagreement. That's where I'm getting at.

Racism do exist, unfortunately. But the idiocy lies in when people are called racists for the simple act of defying, disagreeing, or criticizing Obama.

Not sure where your resentment is coming from. Only a few nuts like "Reverends" Al and Jessie step up and play the race card at every minute. Your bitterness here reveals more about yourself than anything.

 

[CJB]

No. They're the same. It's the same UV rays that increase the risk for skin cancer. With more exposure over time increase that risk whether under the sun or a sunlamp.

The Skin Cancer Foundation - Tanning

I know the UV rays are the same. I'm talking about ethically though. There's a difference between letting people go outside and making booths for people to tan in. The sole purpose for a tanning booth is to tan. Beaches aren't only for tanning. They're also to just enjoy the outdoors, go swimming in the ocean, spend time with family...whatever else people do at the beach.

 

[CJB]

any business on the beach or facilities that create greater exposure to the sun for customers is bunk. The sun is ever-present and unavoidable. and those business are not pedaling direct causes of skin cancer. Tanning salons are. There are not taxes on establishments that allow smoking, just on the cigarettes themselves. Same deal here. The source is being taxed, nothing more.

 

[kokonut]

First of all, I haven't read the bill, and neither have you, have you big shot? It might very well be in there, so don't bet the farm just yet. Second, even if there is no stipulation for how that tax money is spent, don't worry; eventually it will find its way back to the hospital that charges for the skin cancer treatment of uninsured patients. It's called the general fund.

Second, YOU tell me where I said tanning salons "are the main source or cause of UV-related skin cancer." I said they were a BIG contributing factor. I did not say they were the main factor or the only factor.

Your analogy of any business on the beach or facilities that create greater exposure to the sun for customers is bunk. The sun is ever-present and unavoidable. and those business are not pedaling direct causes of skin cancer. Tanning salons are. There are not taxes on establishments that allow smoking, just on the cigarettes themselves. Same deal here. The source is being taxed, nothing more.

General fund, certainly. Especially for non-melanoma skin cancer types.

I said "IF you're going to tax salons on the premise that they are ..." I didn't say that you said tanning salons are a major contributor of skin cancer.

It certainly can be a contributor when they help bring in sunworshippers to the beach. That's undeniable. Just one of the many things that get people outdoors. More people get skin cancer for being outdoors than in tanning salons. Tanning salons are not pedaling skin cancer. It's the number of times and length of exposure in tanning beds that increase the risk for skin cancer which is the issue. It's just an excuse to find more ways to tax people and establishments.

 

[kokonut]

Not sure where your resentment is coming from. Only a few nuts like "Reverends" Al and Jessie step up and play the race card at every minute. Your bitterness here reveals more about yourself than anything.

Oh, it was all over the news on the charges of racism or racist attitudes early on in Obama's presidency, and even to today. Carter epitomizes that very "reasoned thinking" that criticisms against Obama equated with racist attitudes.
Carter again cites racism as factor in Obama's treatment - CNN.com

Now, let's do away with personal commenting here. I don't do that. It's what I've noticed on the double standards and hypocrisy. Nothing to do with resentment or bitterness but an observation of when people try to take advantage of the race card business.

 

[DGirl101]

How is this any different than taxing the hell out of cigarettes or alcohol or any other public health hazard? Do you have a problem with that? C'mon, speak up. Don't be shy.

Tanning salons are not healthy. Clearly they fit the definition of a sin tax, and sin taxes are, in most people's opinion, fully justified and necessary. It's not the small businesses being taxed; it's the people who get tans.

they might as well start taxing people on the beach then.......take away the tanning and guess what?


You will find them on the beach.....some half naked...

Excuse me while I step out of the way of all the stampeding Ading men.....

 

[Texan Guy]

Racist! Post reported!

 

[kokonut]

I know the UV rays are the same. I'm talking about ethically though. There's a difference between letting people go outside and making booths for people to tan in. The sole purpose for a tanning booth is to tan. Beaches aren't only for tanning. They're also to just enjoy the outdoors, go swimming in the ocean, spend time with family...whatever else people do at the beach.

Yet, the results are the same when one gets skin cancer. The only difference is that vastly more people are under the sun at popular beaches than those in tanning beds. Yet an excuse is made to tax salons. Just like Hillary said a year ago or so, tax anything that moves. Much to the dismay of middle and low income earners.