You wanna see racist? THIS is racist.

[AZhitman]

Even tobacco taxes are ridiculous. If the government as our benevolent overseer was truly concerned about future health and costs due to smoking, it would outlaw cigarettes alltogether, not by outlawing cigarettes but by yanking tobacco company licences and closing them. Instead, while it collects taxes and such on tobacco companies and products, it continues to pay farming subsidies to these giant conglomerates that own the tobacco companies. Why?

Hear that noise? Listen carefully....

It's the sound of someone GETTING IT.

Good point, Mr. Miller. Are you SURE you're from CA?

[AZhitman]

Weren't we arguing that we would have to pay for others' health insurance before this bill was passed and that we would be upset about it? So why isn't that standing true now? To me, you guys aren't making sense because now you're essentially arguing that you want to pay for this s***. The people who get cancer from tanning aren't going to get it when they're 20 or 30, they're going to get it when they're eligible for Medicare.

I know a lot of people who go tanning who won't be covered under their own insurance when they get older...they'll be on Medicare and a supplement plan.

Why are tobacco taxes ridiculous? How else are states going to raise the necessary funds for their Medicare systems when those with problems due to smoking draw off the state budgets? Tax everyone else that doesn't smoke more? How is that fair or democratic? If everyone had to pay higher taxes because of those decisions, to me that's much more liberal than taxing those responsible for drawing off the budget. It's like sharing the cost instead of redistributing the wealth.

We're paying for it anyway! What difference is a piddlyass tax on tanning beds gonna make? Are you not comprehending TEN EFFING TRILLION DOLLARS? And, using the government's math, which is always on the low side, effectively DOUBLING our debt over the next 10 years?

It's NOT about money, for the last time, its about CONTROL.

What was wrong with the prior system?

When you can explain to me what benefit this bill has over what we had the day before it was passed, that effectively benefits me and you, AND you can explain to me how the hell "tanners" got demonized all of a sudden, AND you can respond to all my prior "why not tax X population" comments, THEN I'll try and break it down and explain it to you.

And as you try, leave the touchy-feely crap out... Assume that I only care about my family, my tax burden and my childrens' future.

Why is it so hard for people to comprehend that the VAST majority of American people have a RIGHT to NOT give a damn about those who would benefit from this plan, and that it's NOT the government's role to force them to.

Health insurance is NOT a right. If it was, you'd have been issued a doctor of your very own at birth.

[srellim234]

You missed responding to the question asked again. The federal gov't is taxing cigarettes at the same time it is taking the very same tax money and giving it back to those very same corporations as farming subsidies.

Why? How does giving that money back to tobacco comapanies as farming subsidies help cut tobacco consumption when the companies take the money and use it to continue to advertise and promote their products? Why isn't the gov't just shutting down the tobacco companies? That would put a stop to future rises in costs once the current smokers are dead. Instead, the gov't has a big financial interest in continued tobacco sales and Congress gets big payouts from lobbyists representing the industry.

Because of the old adage, "Divide and conquer!" They're keeping the population pitted against one another.

Once again, a lifestyle that a family has more than two children is a proven to add to the Medicare/Medicaid rolls. It will definitely cost the taxpayers in long-term health costs associated with the increase in population. Are you willing to tax those parents for all things associated with that third child?

[AZhitman]

And we're still waiting to hear why the people supporting a tanning tax don't ALSO support a tax on gay sex, driving over the speed limit, having a stressful job, eating fast food, not owning an air purifier, not getting enough fiber in one's diet, staying up late, not brushing their teeth...

I can't wait for someone to say, "That's ridiculous."

[WDRacing]

I support paying no tax other then state sales tax. Dissolve the Fed Gov entirely and let each state regulate itself as it best see's fit. Then all the stump f***ers can move to CA and they can all GFT together while the people that don't wanna share what they earned can move to prosperous states and keep all others that would infringe on an individuals rights at an arms length. So as better to line up the cross hairs when they approach with "new idea's".

[smockers83]

That's ridiculous.

You guys very well know I'm against this bill, however, I now I have to look at this tax with this bill now law. Don't get the two mixed up. I can debate the bill that is now law all day but I also have to look at reality.

Guys, I get/know of subsidies, don't forget who you're talking to. The government effectively puts a price floor on tobacco products by not allowing as much cheaper tobacco to be imported that could be. However, there are both federal taxes and state taxes on tobacco. If you haven't noticed, I've been focusing on state taxes via state budgets and Medicaid.

I can't explain the benefit this bill will have, Greg. Go read my other topic (Thanks for listening).

You can't tax a stressful job, Greg, because there's no method to do so (same goes for most of your guys' other examples). Let's get real here and look at this logically.

[AZhitman]

You can't tax a stressful job, Greg, because there's no method to do so (same goes for most of your guys' other examples).

Same goes for tanning.

Let's get real here and look at this logically.

No.

F*** NO.

We're supposed to grab our ankles and put up with this? A bill that the majority of citizens opposed? A bill that was ONE-sided?

No. F*** NO.

Logic played no role in its drafting, therefore it is fundamentally flawed. No, I will continue to resist and oppose. They've pushed too far this time and pissed us off.

The silent majority is about to unleash political hell, and incumbents IN BOTH PARTIES will drop like flies.

[srellim234]

The silent majority is about to unleash political hell, and incumbents IN BOTH PARTIES will drop like flies.

I hope so, but this next election will probably go like all the others. Either people will vote for their own bum again while complaining that others didn't vote the other bums out (see: all the suggestions to remove Pelosi from people not even in California), or incumbents will be replaced by fellow professional politicians already beholden to the Republican and Democratic parties.

Things are not going to change much. It will be business as usual. Once again the American people will be the losers.

[smockers83]

You can easily tax tanning because there is a very specific transaction taking place. You can't tax a stressful job because there is no specific transaction and stressful is subjective. One day my job maybe stressful, the next day not as much, and then Friday it's not stressful at all. How do you tax that? This is what I'm talking about by thinking logically and rationally.

Greg, I agree with you after the first f*** no.

I still can't figure out why you guys are against this tax because you're virtually saying, "I want to pay for skin cancer treatments via my tax dollars!" That's what I hear. It's not racist because more races than just white people "tan"...that's a fact. I know of some black women who have gone tanning. I could even argue that it's racist to say blacks don't tan.

[WDRacing]

I disagree with the principle behind taxing what we choose to do with our own personal and private lives. By that I mean above and beyond the existing sales tax in place.

It's also a tax on white people, I'm white. Doesn't effect me personally one bit because I have great health ins already and I don't use gay tanning booths. But I'm not one to sit by while some Liberal Negro and his crew of Liberal thieves make laws that directly effect only white people. Why? Cause I'm sick and motherf'n tired of people throwing the race card at everything that doesn't pertain to white people.

The head Negro has leveled ugly comments at white Police and now we have a tax that only pertains to white people. Yet no one is screaming racism.

What we need is some White Anglo Saxon Protestant leadership. If you're not white I don't want you running my country. I don't even want you to be in the Senate. Is that racist? Nope, I just think whites will see things from my point of view. Bet we'd have less illegal immigration problems. Bet we wouldn't be subsidizing so many poor people. All kinds of things would change for the better...for me. Wanna tax just white people? Keep poking the f***ing tiger...

[srellim234]

I do not support any tax that is designed to fragment our population even more and allows the current politcal parties to solidify their position.

A flat-rate income tax, with no deductions whatsoever, is my choice. If Medicaid costs were to go up, the politicians would have to justify a very visible increased slice of my paycheck they would be taking to pay for it.

If the majority of the people at that point don't want to continue paying for such behavior, public pressure and insurance companies will put those tanning booths out of business. It is not the government's business to do so.

Likewise, those same people who are using the tanning booths are paying for the long term medicaid costs associated with my choice to eat prime rib and french fries. The vast majority of the American population has somethng unhealthy in their lifestyle and pitting people against one another is not going to help the country one bit in the long run.

[AZhitman]

You can easily tax tanning because there is a very specific transaction taking place. You can't tax a stressful job because there is no specific transaction and stressful is subjective. One day my job maybe stressful, the next day not as much, and then Friday it's not stressful at all. How do you tax that? This is what I'm talking about by thinking logically and rationally.

OK, then... leave that particular example out. Quit grasping at the ONE example that didn't make a ton of sense and grasp the overall point that these people are LOOKING for things to tax, rather than looking for ways to make government smaller, more streamlined, and more efficient (NOVEL concept).

I still can't figure out why you guys are against this tax

Because of the slippery slope it takes us down. Because of what it represents. Because it's a moronic solution to a non-problem. Because it's not equitable. I can continue if you'd like.

because you're virtually saying, "I want to pay for skin cancer treatments via my tax dollars!"

My freeom is worth more than that.

I said it before - My tax dollars aren't being funneled away to melanoma treatments. NO, my tax dollars are being pissed away on stupid bureaucracy, feel-good programs, supporting the lazy and unmotivated in our ociety, and frivolous pork projects and you KNOW it.

People who tan, as a rule, have health insurance. They're not the problem and you know it, you're not a dumb person.

It's not racist because more races than just white people "tan"...that's a fact.

Really? You're gonna go down that road and risk getting decimated by statistics? Gonna rely on that one-percent?

I know of some black women who have gone tanning.

Bring one along with you to "Show and Tell". We want to hear from her. Just one.

I could even argue that it's racist to say blacks don't tan.

Ummm, you could, but you'd be wrong.

Blacks don't go to tanning salons, don't snow ski and don't attend NASCAR events... Is that a "racist" statement?

You misconstrue the term "racist". Badly.

[smockers83]

I disagree with the principle behind taxing what we choose to do with our own personal and private lives.

To play devil's advocate in terms of this argument, what's different between the government levying a tax on this compared to the insurance companies charging higher premiums? Seriously, I want someone to explain that one. Convince me.

a tax on gay sex

Again, not feasible.

driving over the speed limit

A fine.

eating fast food

Good question.

not owning an air purifier

Also not feasible. What about a credit for owning one?

not getting enough fiber in one's diet, staying up late, not brushing their teeth...

Also not feasible.

OK, then... leave that particular example out. Quit grasping at the ONE example that didn't make a ton of sense

I know I just picked apart everything else above. But that's what you gave me to go with. Not my fault. If you want to give me good reasons to work with, do it.

and grasp the overall point that these people are LOOKING for things to tax, rather than looking for ways to make government smaller, more streamlined, and more efficient (NOVEL concept).

I agree that they should be looking to shrink government and I would even go so far to say they should apply lean six sigma practices.

Because of the slippery slope it takes us down. Because of what it represents. Because it's a moronic solution to a non-problem. Because it's not equitable. I can continue if you'd like.

The slippery slope? What's the basis or proof of your argument there? We've had liquor taxes, tobacco taxes, gas taxes, etc. Are we going down a slippery slope with those? I've already spoken to tobacco and alcohol speaks to the same. The gasoline taxes are what's used to build and maintain our highway system and those who use it pay for it via those taxes, registration fees, etc. Are you going to argue that as well, because that's the same principle we're talking about right now.

I said it before - My tax dollars aren't being funneled away to melanoma treatments. NO, my tax dollars are being pissed away on stupid bureaucracy, feel-good programs, supporting the lazy and unmotivated in our ociety, and frivolous pork projects and you KNOW it.

So if all of your taxes are going towards bureaucracy, how are we paying for everything else? We should measure how much is used for pork, however, some pork is subjective as well. It would be next to impossible for us to research how much is wasted due to not being lean until you begin the process. Then lets see how much of our taxes are being wasted. The tax we're disputing is worth an estimated $2.7 billion over 10 years and in 2004, melanoma cost society $291 million.

People who tan, as a rule, have health insurance. They're not the problem and you know it, you're not a dumb person.

I know, which is why I'm saying that most of these people will get it and go through treatments when they're on Medicare programs. 60% of those diagnosed, key word is diagnosed, are above the age of 55 (40% are diagnosed over the age of 65, these people go through treatment during their whole Medicare eligibility).

Really? You're gonna go down that road and risk getting decimated by statistics? Gonna rely on that one-percent?

Bring one along with you to "Show and Tell". We want to hear from her. Just one.

Can I go the quick and dirty way? A quick Google search produces this:http://www.tantalk.com/skin-ca....html

Blacks don't go to tanning salons, don't snow ski and don't attend NASCAR events... Is that a "racist" statement?

You misconstrue the term "racist". Badly.

No, not necessarily...in regards to misconstruing the term. Anybody can be discriminated against on a cultural basis. You guys are saying, culturally, blacks don't go tanning. Now, I would agree the predominant users of tanning salons are white, but to say blacks don't is a little off base.
Modified by smockers83 at 7:15 PM 3/31/2010

[srellim234]

I'm sorry but your justification that most people will get treatment after they're on state aid doesn't fly when you consider lifestyle affecting later healthcare regarding other things. Your justification that it's tangible so it can be easily taxed doesn't fly, either.

Prime rib is worse for you than skinless chiken. Tax it?Coney Island hot dogs worse for you than salmon dogs. Tax them?Cauliflower not nearly as cancer-fighting as broccoli. Tax cauliflower?Lettuce not as nutricious as spinach leaves for salads. Tax it?Driving a car not as healthy a lifestyle as riding a bicycle. Put an additional "health tax" on cars?Should we place special taxes on dress cothes but not exercise clothes and shoes because exercise contributes to better long term health?How about taxing people with dial-up computer connections more than people with cable modems because those dial-ups make you sit on your b*tt longer?

Those are all tangibles. They are all examples of how ridiculous your logic can be extended. I would contend that a tanning tax is already overreaching.

That said, that is not the reason I am opposed to this tax. Read my last post and you can clearly see why I am opposed to this tax. It has nothing to do with race, lifestyle or a "slippery slope."

[AZhitman]

To play devil's advocate in terms of this argument, what's different between the government levying a tax on this compared to the insurance companies charging higher premiums? Seriously, I want someone to explain that one. Convince me.

Impossible, apparently... I'm kinda baffled that you're struggling with the simplest of logic.

Insurance companies charge higher premiums because they CAN. There's NO requirement to buy insurance. Private industry in a free market economy can charge what the market will bear. FURTHERMORE, those premiums don't single out one race. Seriously, smocky - this is grade-school logic.

THAT'S what's different.

Again, not feasible.

And it's feasible to FINE those who don't have insurance? Really? These a$$ can't even conduct a census properly. "Not feasible" applied to a lot of this reform bill before it was passed, too.

I agree that they should be looking to shrink government and I would even go so far to say they should apply lean six sigma practices.

Not feasible. I mean, there's gotta be a whole new division to fine those who don't have health insurance... as well as those who don't pay the "tanning tax". Auditors are required to ensure all tanning taxes are collected. Who's going to monitor ACTUAL use of the tanning beds? They gonna install meters on them? What if I own a tanning salon and I report I had 100 customers this year when I really had 1000? Who's going to monitor that?

See, I'm an auditor. You can't count something, collect something, or enforce something by making the oversight authority SMALLER.

You contradict yourself by definition. Sorry smocky.

The slippery slope? What's the basis or proof of your argument there? We've had liquor taxes, tobacco taxes, gas taxes, etc. Are we going down a slippery slope with those?

No, and here's why:

1) INTENT - The intent of those taxes was NOT to offset some imagined (or real) financial health-related impact to society in general, like your Tanning Tax is.

2) APPLICABILITY - Black people and White people buy liquor, tobacco and fuel in relatively representative quantities. There's no discernable disparity across racial groups. Ergo, apples and oranges, baby.

I've already spoken to tobacco and alcohol speaks to the same. The gasoline taxes are what's used to build and maintain our highway system and those who use it pay for it via those taxes, registration fees, etc. Are you going to argue that as well, because that's the same principle we're talking about right now.

I sure am.

I know what those taxes pay for. The office next to me is Tobacco Education and Prevention. I used to manage and oversee the DTEF Fund (Drug Treatment and Education), the AZ version of the "sin tax" on liquor.

NEITHER of these were enacted to offset some imagined drain on the public welfare because someone might get cirrhosis of the liver! Or lung cancer! How can you NOT see that?

Can I go the quick and dirty way? A quick Google search produces this:

Irrelevant. AGAIN.

Seriously, a forum post that says Blacks maybe "should" or "theoretically could" benefit from tanning?

COULD / SHOULD =/= DO. They don't. Period. Fact.

Four Black people in my office were surveyed today after I posted. I asked them if they'd ever go to a tanning salon. Three laughed at me. One looked at me like I was about to get punched. She said, "N**** please" and walked off.

but to say blacks don't is a little off base.

They don't. Get over it.

And "being a little off base" is NOT the same as being "racist".

It's not discriminatory, no one has suffered, and no was has been denied something.

Here: "Black people don't win the Indianapolis 500."

Is that "racist"? No, it's a fact. So far, in history, I don't think it's happened.

Here's another: "Black people don't ski."

OH OH OH I saw a Black person ski once! OK, fine. I head a Black woman used a tanning salon once too. Doesn't make my generalization WRONG, nor is it "racist".

This one was WAY too easy.

[mcheddadi]

Obama is AWESOME! why?because he's BLACK!! and he made it big time!

and that my friends is why the rest of the world suddenly started liking your prez! yay!

[WDRacing]

To play devil's advocate in terms of this argument, what's different between the government levying a tax on this compared to the insurance companies charging higher premiums? Seriously, I want someone to explain that one. Convince me.

Seriously? You can't play devils advocate without coming across as ignorant dude...which I know you aren't. One is driven by free enterprise, remember that thing that makes our country awesome The other is the Gov over stepping what they should be allowed to do.

There were many options the Gov could have opted for aside from a total take over.

Anyway, you're getting away from the god damn point bro. You can't have the Gov implementing a tax that only effects one race. It should NEVER be allowed...ever...at any cost.

I understand and concede your point about tanning being not only a waste of money but a health risk that will only be paid by others. However, it's a friggin freedom dude. You can't just come in and tax free will. When that happens it's like saying everything my entire family for 3 generations has fought for was all for nothing. What we have is a tax that only implies to white people because of a health care reform process that is only paid for by successful and wealthy people. The entire thing makes me wanna throw up.

This isn't the America I fought for. If you want segregation and unrest then this is exactly the path we should be taking.

[HashiriyaS14]

So how about if these taxes OFFSET the taxes you guys already pay?

I'm really big, generally, on taxing consumption rather than production. Tax spending rather than income.

I'd peel away most of the income taxes and instead tax the snot out of tanning, cigarettes, gasoline, plastic surgery, gamb|ing winnings, and any number of other things (I will take suggestions).

I wish I could find a way to tax people for being shxtheads, actually.

I LIKE the idea of motivating or demotivating certain behaviors via taxation. What I don't like is income tax, which demotivates productivity.

It'll be unfair to whoever likes to consume the super-taxed goods, but in the meantime everyone will be working their butts off and the economy will be going nuts with foreign investment since there's no income tax. Fairness is overrated anyway.

[srellim234]

Hash- Income tax does not demotivate productivity if it is a true flat-rate tax. The first dollar you make is taxed at the same rate as the last dollar you make so the motivation is the same no matter what the income. The demotivation comes when the tax gradually increases, taking a bigger chunk the harder you work or more productive you are.

A national sales tax on everything would accomplish the same thing.

Social engeering through taxation is something I am not in favor of. The problems arise when taxes pit one group against another or government "hides" other taxes so people don't easily see them.

I do not trust that our government, under the influence of special interests and lobbies, is capable of acting in a responsible way when it comes to what you are in favor of.

[WDRacing]

I LIKE the idea of motivating or demotivating certain behaviors via taxation.

Feel free to leave the country whenever you want to dude. Seriously...with that mind set you're definitely part of the problem...not the solution. This country is only great because we are free. Taxing free will is the worst thing I've ever heard of.

Now I see why you supported Obama so much.

People should be allowed to do whatever they please within the boundaries of the law. The gov has no place touching free enterprise.

BTW, who gives you the right to judge what others do? If not you then who? Then you're going to tell me that whoever does get to decide will do so with the utmost integrity and impartiality right

[AZhitman]

Thank God I'm not the only one who thinks from a position of pure, unadulterated non-judgemental logic.

Here's a message to Oblahma and his team of trained monkeys:

Leave my goddamn freedoms alone...

[smockers83]

So let me ask this then.

What if I put a black CEO in each of the health insurance companies and they decided, based on the research done, that they are now going to screen for those who go to tanning salons? Based on the research and the known costs of treating skin cancer, they can predict how much more each one of those people are going to cost them in the future due to tanning compared to those that don't. What then? Are you going to call those insurance companies racist? They just upped the premium on those who go tanning. Upping the premium discourages going tanning because it makes health insurance more expensive.

What would you say if I didn't put a black CEO in each health insurance company and made them all white? All Asian? All Indian?

Seriously guys. Explain to me the difference between that and the government (besides the fact that there is a business and a government), which is the insurer in regards to Medicare, putting a tax on tanning? This is the logic I'm proposing/using.

Using Greg's logic that insurance companies charge higher premiums because they can...the government can charge higher taxes, too, because they can, however I'm not saying they should (don't confuse what I'm saying with what I believe, which you guys pretty well know what I believe; if I had it my way, this bill wouldn't exist, and in essence nor would this tax). I'm sorry guys, but to me, as an economist at heart, your logic is illogical and hypocritical.

More to come later to address everything else. But I wanted to get that out there so you can think about it (be a critical thinker).

[WDRacing]

You just don't get it Smock. Which is fine, you're entitled to your own opinion. I more then respect your intelligence when it comes to anything numbers related.

But for us it breaks down real simple. We see it as yet another freedom being slowly stripped away. We see it as the damn beginning to crack and we're watching the sheeple carry on like everything is hunky f***ing dorry.

ANY loss of freedom gets the same emotional response from me. Granted, we're not losing the ability to tan under the lamp. Hell the tax doesn't even add all that much, BUT it's a crack in the damn. Once you start taxing something because it's economical to you've started down a road that ends in Civil War.

Taxation without representation sound familiar?

[smockers83]

And again, I agree with the freedom deal. It's a good point to make.

My point is that given the healthcare bill that is now law and the direction we're headed, we now have to look at this from a different perspective.

[srellim234]

So do we tax every single tangible thing or not? You've totally evaded that question so far.

[smockers83]

No, not totally. I figured if you and Greg were presenting the same argument that I could just respond to one of you.

In a "perfect" system controlled by the government and based on health risk, yes, maybe a tax based on health risk is the right answer.

This is what the insurance companies try to achieve through their screenings and premium rates.

[AZhitman]

When the actuarial tables show that tanners are responsible for an inordinate amount of cancer treatment costs, then absolutely - The people who are likely to tan will somehow bear the increased rates. They'll be predominantly White.

That's a PRIVATE company. They can do as they please in a Free Market economy.

Now, they'll hopefully ALSO look at Sickle-Cell Anemia, an affliction that targets Blacks almost exclusively.

Are their rates higher?

How do they assess health insurance premiums for a kid in S Central LA with gang tattoos? He IS statistically a hundred times more likely than a same-age kid in Topeka to be gunned down... What's his rate look like?

You ignored it earlier, but what's the actuarial table look like for young gay men? Statistically more likely than a straight man to contract HIV.

If you're gonna target one, target them all.

Oh, wait.... We all share the burden in a FREE MARKET ECONOMY without the meddlings of that pinhead President we somehow got stuck with.

[smockers83]

I'm not going to repeat myself anymore when neither of you have yet to answer my questions without emotion and anger. All I asked was to tell me what the difference is and asked to understand the logic I'm proposing. If you don't want to read it and try to understand it, fine. You're entitled to your opinion.

[srellim234]

What question do you want answered? The difference between what and what?

My opposition to this tax buried in this bill is very straightforward and you have chosen to ignore it. I asked you to look at the primary reason I am opposed to this and you have never responded to that post of 7:48 AM 3/31/2010.

I see a lot of picking at AZ's answers, and somehow you got it in your head since we agree that it's a bad tax we must think it's a bad tax for exactly the same reasons. If you read our responses, we've presented different cases.

[AZhitman]

What emotion? What anger? I use logic and logic alone. Statistics don't support your position. Nor does the Constitution or the Equal Rights Amendment.

I pointed out the difference at least twice.

See line #2 of my prior post, in fact.

I'm not responsible for your inability to see past your desire to tax White people.