You wanna see racist? THIS is racist.

[smockers83]

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

Last time I'll say this. The difference between a premium hike and a tax hike/implementation.

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.

You said you were opposed to a tax that segregates the population. Thought you were talking about race here.

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.

Not entirely, you both are saying tax this and tax that with my logic.

I pointed out the difference at least twice.

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

Again, you failed to understand how I'm connecting the dots. You haven't answered that yet other than with "PRIVATE, beyahh!" Get past the private vs gov and answer the question from a pure price perspective and the way it affects behavior. It's not exactly the government that controls the behavior via the tax, it's the price that tax creates. The price creates the behavior. Manipulate the price, you may be able to manipulate behavior or price people out of the market. Same goes for insurance premiums. Jack em up, and you price people out of the tanning market if they want health insurance they can afford. It's all about the price.

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

I'm not taxing white people because I'm white and I'm not affected by this. In fact, the vast majority aren't.

[srellim234]

I understand the difference between the public sector tax hike and the private sector premium hike. I'm still opposed to a tax hike.

Actually, as I think about it, I probably wouldn't have a problem if people were paying premiums for Medicaid coverage on an ability to pay basis. Higher risk behaviors should pay higher premiums, and those who can afford to pay them should pay. But Medicaid doesn't work that way. That's probably one part of healthcare that SHOULD undergo a major change.

I NEVER said segregate the population. I said, "I do not support any tax that is designed to fragment our population even more and allows the current political parties to solidify their position........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."

As for "tax this and tax that," I'm just providing tangible things that could be every bit as easily taxed as tanning. For long term health reasons. I'm not willing to entrust those in Congress who aren't capable of decent behavior themselves to make the decisions on how the rest of us should live.

[srellim234]

To clarify my position a little more, I do not see this as a racist tax. It is a tax designed to pit whites who don't use tanning salons against whites who do use them every bit as much as it is a tax pitting race against race. It's simply a tax against a small group of people who don't have enough clout to stop it.

[UpStar]

sounds like someone needs to go back to websters and read the definition of what racism really is, plus I haven't heard one white person in my circle complain about it.

[HashiriyaS14]

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.

Any taxation is "taxing free will".

We're already taxing a behavior, we're taxing the generation of profits. Why not stop doing that and tax things that are a DRAIN on GDP rather than a boon to it?

Income taxes DO demotivate the creation of income. People structure a lot of investments very differently than they otherwise should just to avoid tax burden. It's counterproductive. Just because a flat tax is equal-opportunity just means it's demotivating everyone equally. It still sucks.

I don't advocate taxing things to achieve SOCIAL ends, but if something is costing the country money (i.e. deaths from smoking or whatever), then I see no further justification necessary to tax the snot out of cigarettes. The people creating the problem need to be paying for the problem. Those taxes could ONLY go to pay for those costs, but it would create break-even situations in place of GDP draining situations.

This would only make up a few percentages of the tax revenue the nation needs, of course. The balance would come from taxing energy, which is consumed by everyone and thus creates a very level playing field as a basis for taxation.

Taxing consumption (as I've outlined it) allows you more control over how much tax you pay and where that tax money goes. Taxing production leaves more of those decisions up to the government.

[AZhitman]

sounds like someone needs to go back to websters and read the definition of what racism really is, plus I haven't heard one white person in my circle complain about it.

If your prior posts are any indication, your "circle" resides on the left-hand side of the 'intellect' curve... so I'd consider the source.

[WDRacing]

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

Dude...

You're talking about the Gov controlling behavior based on giving them the ability to tax whatever "they" see fit. Who determines what gets taxed? You? Quit posting until you answer this question.

Who decides what gets taxed?

[AZhitman]

...if something is costing the country money (i.e. deaths from smoking or whatever), then I see no further justification necessary to tax the snot out of cigarettes. The people creating the problem need to be paying for the problem.

To quote a bright (but misguided) individual:

Not feasible.

See, the people creating the problem that *I* am concerned with are protected by political correctness and hand-wringing feel-gooders who think you and I should bear the burden for the lazy / inept among us.

"The people creating the problem need to be paying for the problem."

Why aren't they?

Illegal immigrants: Using the ER as a primary source of medical care is, arguably, a thousand times more costly than melanoma treatments. Yet there's this fear of alienating (no pun intended) that population, so let's pick on rich White people who hit the tanning salon on occasion.

The faux disabled: Joe's a welder. Joe falls off a ladder and hurts his back. Joe files for disability, because HIS employer can no longer use him, as he's not able-bodied enough to climb a scaffold. But does that mean Joe is incapable of earning an income? Does it mean he is valueless in society? Can he not do something else? NOPE. A doc says he's disabled, the government is happy to accept that label, and Joe rots on his couch, eating Vicoden and collecting a puny check each month. God forbid he TRY to go back to work at a lesser pay rate - He'll jeopardize his benefits. Lots more of them than there are "tanners".

Alcohol-related injuries: Exceed melanoma cases THOUSANDFOLD. #1 killer of certain age groups in certain areas of the country. Contributes to TONS of health ailments, accidents and such. STRONG correlation to child abuse and domestic violence, which drives up healthcare costs (THOUSAND times more than melanoma). Yet it's only taxed, not prohibited. DUI offenders get absurdly light punishment, inebriated/hung-over people cost companies in productivity / lost manhours, and employers have to bend over backwards to accomodate an offender in certain instances (esp union jobs)... Yet no one's targeting drinkers for THEIR drain on the GDP or their impact on public welfare....

Uninsured drivers: It's suspected that 1/3 of the drivers on the road don't have auto insurance, so *I* have to carry "uninsured motorist" coverage (which costs ME money) to protect myself in the event of an accident. Car accidents are a LOT more prevalent than melanoma cases, by the way... Why can't they have their automobile seized, license revoked, and do some community service (for incurring costs on me and you)? Why? Because they're afraid of alienating this population as well. YET we can assess a "fine" on people who don't buy health insurance? Priorities seem bass-ackwards here.

[srellim234]

You missed the comment that I advocate a flat tax with absolutely no deductions or exemptions People would not be able to structure investments to avoid tax burden because returns on those investments, whenever they happen, would be taxed at the same rate as they become income. No tax-free investments would be allowed.

[HashiriyaS14]

Illegal immigrants: Using the ER as a primary source of medical care is, arguably, a thousand times more costly than melanoma treatments. Yet there's this fear of alienating (no pun intended) that population, so let's pick on rich White people who hit the tanning salon on occasion.

^^Well, I think I addressed this elsewhere and you backed me on it. You can't tax people who aren't on the books, and so you need to either get them on the books or get them out of here. I like the former, others like the latter, but regardless, you've got to sort issue A before addressing issue B.

The faux disabled: Joe's a welder. Joe falls off a ladder and hurts his back. Joe files for disability, because HIS employer can no longer use him, as he's not able-bodied enough to climb a scaffold. But does that mean Joe is incapable of earning an income? Does it mean he is valueless in society? Can he not do something else? NOPE. A doc says he's disabled, the government is happy to accept that label, and Joe rots on his couch, eating Vicoden and collecting a puny check each month. God forbid he TRY to go back to work at a lesser pay rate - He'll jeopardize his benefits. Lots more of them than there are "tanners".

^^This strikes me as more a problem of identifying the behavior than deciding whether or not to place a tax burden on it. The tough part is PROVING that Joe's disability is BS. I'm all ears, as I've got no answer for this one. Assuming you can sort out the administrative end, I'm all for doing whatever it takes to get the guy back to work. Wiping the safety net altogether is tempting, but there are *actual* disabled people out there, and I'm not sure how to differentiate. Interesting issue though, a tough one.

Alcohol-related injuries: Exceed melanoma cases THOUSANDFOLD. #1 killer of certain age groups in certain areas of the country. Contributes to TONS of health ailments, accidents and such. STRONG correlation to child abuse and domestic violence, which drives up healthcare costs (THOUSAND times more than melanoma). Yet it's only taxed, not prohibited. DUI offenders get absurdly light punishment, inebriated/hung-over people cost companies in productivity / lost manhours, and employers have to bend over backwards to accomodate an offender in certain instances (esp union jobs)... Yet no one's targeting drinkers for THEIR drain on the GDP or their impact on public welfare....

^^Alcohol would be at the top of my list. I would tax it stupid. I'd legalize a lot of substances too, and tax the bejeezus out of them. It would take a lot for me to prohibit something, but if you want your coke you'll be paying $10k for an eight ball.

Uninsured drivers: It's suspected that 1/3 of the drivers on the road don't have auto insurance, so *I* have to carry "uninsured motorist" coverage (which costs ME money) to protect myself in the event of an accident. Car accidents are a LOT more prevalent than melanoma cases, by the way... Why can't they have their automobile seized, license revoked, and do some community service (for incurring costs on me and you)? Why? Because they're afraid of alienating this population as well. YET we can assess a "fine" on people who don't buy health insurance? Priorities seem bass-ackwards here.

^^Again, like the disability thing, the problem is enforcement, not legislation. I don't think anyone is saying "oh, hey, let's make life easy on uninsured motorists", but the problem is finding out who/where they are. Obviously this isn't a tax issue, as most people who don't have insurance can't pay for it, but penalties need to be much stricter. It should carry jail time, IMO. You're endangering lives.

[AZhitman]

This strikes me as more a problem of identifying the behavior than deciding whether or not to place a tax burden on it. The tough part is PROVING that Joe's disability is BS. I'm all ears, as I've got no answer for this one. Assuming you can sort out the administrative end, I'm all for doing whatever it takes to get the guy back to work. Wiping the safety net altogether is tempting, but there are *actual* disabled people out there, and I'm not sure how to differentiate. Interesting issue though, a tough one.

Not tough at all. Disabled does not = unemployable.

Take that disability money and invest it in retraining programs. That creates jobs and puts people back in the work force.

I managed a caseload of people who were thought to be "unemployable"... I busted my a$$ to get them off SSDI and into being productive, contributing members of society.

Can't be a welder anymore? Good. You can teach welding at a vocational center.

No one's really unemployable.

Got no arms? No legs? Blind? No problem... You're working the phones to screen applicants at our new vocational center.

Again, like the disability thing, the problem is enforcement, not legislation. I don't think anyone is saying "oh, hey, let's make life easy on uninsured motorists", but the problem is finding out who/where they are. Obviously this isn't a tax issue, as most people who don't have insurance can't pay for it, but penalties need to be much stricter. It should carry jail time, IMO. You're endangering lives.

Agreed. Revising the statutes to provide for harsher consequences would rapidly have a deterrent effect. Public transit use increases, insurance rates fall, traffic is eased, and pollution is reduced.

Screw that crook from Chi-Town - Elect me.

[mattblancarte]

Agreed. Revising the statutes to provide for harsher consequences would rapidly have a deterrent effect. Public transit use increases, insurance rates fall, traffic is eased, and pollution is reduced.

Thank you. I'm far more interested in this approach than I am increasing sales fees and taxes to the point of deterring profitable businesses from operating.

IMHO opinion, if you want to smoke cigs and go along with the consequences, enjoy. It's not the responsibility of the government to stop you from hurting yourself. This doesn't position me against current regulations making false-advertising, advertising to children, etc. illegal. I'm simply saying that we need to step back and allow adults to make their own decisions. Let masochists be masochists to a reasonable, non-violent/destructive degree.

Same goes for the 8 ball of cocaine, alchohol, cannabis, etc. Place a REASONABLE tax on the item sold to cover government oversight of acceptable business practices and violent/destructive consumers, and then allow private organizations to deal with the irresponsible consumers who have personal issues.

If you really want to help masochistic consumers, start a non-profit organization to educate/help/whatever.

[HashiriyaS14]

Very good points on the disability bit.

Screw that crook from Chi-Town - Elect me.

^^Got my vote. At least I wouldn't ever have to worry about anyone trying to take vintage iron off the roads.

And besides, then I'd actually be able to visit you. 1600 Penn is a lot closer to me than Arizona is

[AZhitman]

And besides, then I'd actually be able to visit you. 1600 Penn is a lot closer to me than Arizona is

Ummm, no.

I'll govern from here, thanks.

The weather sucks, the crime rate is too high and you won't catch me living off the taxpayers' dime.

Besides, with the technology we have, travel to and from DC is unnecessary - We can do 90% of the important stuff via teleconference.

Oops - I cut the budget again.

[audtatious]

Not tough at all. Disabled does not = unemployable.

Take that disability money and invest it in retraining programs. That creates jobs and puts people back in the work force.

I managed a caseload of people who were thought to be "unemployable"... I busted my a$$ to get them off SSDI and into being productive, contributing members of society.

Can't be a welder anymore? Good. You can teach welding at a vocational center.

No one's really unemployable.

Got no arms? No legs? Blind? No problem... You're working the phones to screen applicants at our new vocational center.

Agreed. Revising the statutes to provide for harsher consequences would rapidly have a deterrent effect. Public transit use increases, insurance rates fall, traffic is eased, and pollution is reduced.

Screw that crook from Chi-Town - Elect me.

Isn't the whole disability deal similar to welfare? You have people who get in the welfare game and fall into the same trap of not working because they lose the benefits. Granted, they are physically capable of work but when the work pays less than what welfare pays they simply don't do it. Lots of people end up popping out kids and get more and more welfare as it's turned into an unchecked policy with the Gov in that situation as part of the "for the children" mentality. It's "tax the haves and promote the have-nots" that is a major drain on society. LOTS can be done to help resolve that issue but not until our elected "leaders" do something about it.

As far as tanning beds being taxable due to melanoma cause and effect I feel the numbers are "out there", similar to how anyone who has ever smoked has smoking blamed for any cancer they ever get in their life. People who tan are also people who would go outside and tan in the sun which is FAR more dangerous from a skin perspective than the controlled environment of a booth where the bulbs are designed to not be near as bad as direct sunlight. You have an industry that is built from people paying to do in a controlled environment what they can get outside for free. Piss those people off and the industry folds while people are still tanning outside. Now, what about related taxation? Farmers should be taxed the same as tanners for being in sunlight. Landscapers, lifeguards, people who play outside sports, etc. should all pay the same tax as what they are doing out in the sun is probably worse in the end-run than someone hitting the tanning salon to lay under a bulb that puts out limited amounts of harmful rays. So, what is the real message being sent out by our leaders by taxing one section and not the rest? Is the real reason to "protect the sheeple" by discouraging certain actions or is it to think of more and more ways to increase revenues to their socialistic pot without penalizing the portion of society which they have put in the position of Gov titty sucklers?

[AZhitman]

Farmers should be taxed the same as tanners for being in sunlight. Landscapers, lifeguards, people who play outside sports, etc. should all pay the same tax as what they are doing out in the sun is probably worse

Whatcha say, smocky? Can we tax the piss out of lifeguards? Tennis players? The hundreds of thousands of old people in my community (skin cancer capitol of America here) who play golf?

is it to think of more and more ways to increase revenues to their socialistic pot without penalizing the portion of society which they have put in the position of Gov titty sucklers?

There you have it.

It's ALL about control.

[angrypenguin182]

Lots of people end up popping out kids and get more and more welfare as it's turned into an unchecked policy with the Gov in that situation as part of the "for the children" mentality.

Actually while on welfare, if you do pop out another kid, you do not receive more money.

[srellim234]

Agreed. That's been an unfounded claim by conservatives for over a decade now. 25 years ago a case was made for that but with welfare reform in the '90s it no longer a valid assertion.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfaremothers.htm

[smockers83]

Whatcha say, smocky? Can we tax the piss out of lifeguards? Tennis players? The hundreds of thousands of old people in my community (skin cancer capitol of America here) who play golf?

I say the exact same thing I've said before Gregy: Not feasible. There is still no specific transaction taking place.

There you have it.

It's ALL about control.

Well, since they've already created the foundation for the socialist aspect, yes, they need the revenues to fund it. I'm one step ahead of you guys. You guys are still pissing and moaning about the bill, I've moved ahead in terms of this here debate. Since they've created it, I don't want to have to pay for everyone else's s***, that's all I'm saying. You guys think this tax is "all controlling" of people who tan. Bigger picture is that this whole bill creates much more control than a small a** tax. 10% on a $15 session isn't going to change a whole lot of behavior. The question's already been asked and people aren't thinking too much about it.

Oh, and also Greg, you probably forgot to mention things in the website I posted earlier and only quoted what looks to make my argument "irrelevant." Want to go back? Put it into context, don't take bits and pieces to make it work for you like the scum reporters.
Modified by smockers83 at 9:28 PM 4/5/2010

[audtatious]

Agreed. That's been an unfounded claim by conservatives for over a decade now. 25 years ago a case was made for that but with welfare reform in the '90s it no longer a valid assertion.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfaremothers.htm

May not be from a direct perspective but with more kids come more expense on the state for care and other programs for the additional children. An interesting statistic is that since the passage of PRWORA is that the child birth rate of women on welfare is 3x that of women not on welfare (per the August 2008 Census Bureau study "Fertility of American Women: 2006.").

[angrypenguin182]

If i have downtime at school tomorrow i will find the statistic to back my wordsalso contrary to popular belief the average family on welfare has 1-2 children

[audtatious]

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/20....html

Bring it up with him and the US Census report.

[AZhitman]

I say the exact same thing I've said before Gregy: Not feasible. There is still no specific transaction taking place.

Paying for a round of golf? Working a set # of hours as a lifeguard? Court fees? ALL specific transactions.

Yeah, you're not trying hard enough.

Put as much effort into it as you're putting into taxing tanners.

I have faith in you, I know you can do it.

[smockers83]

Paying for a round of golf? Working a set # of hours as a lifeguard? Court fees? ALL specific transactions.

Yeah, you're not trying hard enough.

Put as much effort into it as you're putting into taxing tanners.

I have faith in you, I know you can do it.

Umm, how about tons of variability in weather, the UV index, etc? There's a lot of variability in time as well. A round of golf may cost $50 for 18, but it may take 3.5 to 4.75 hours. You may also be in and out of a cart or you may walk or both. C'mon, you aren't trying hard enough. Do you get tanned/burnt when it's raining while playing golf? To tax something like that Greg, everyone would have to wear devices to record the weather factors and amount of time exposed to those varying factors to develop tax revenue. Now you wanna talk control? That's control.

Tanning salons is a controlled environment. Big difference.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/20....html

Bring it up with him and the US Census report.

I'm not sure what the debate is here (sorry for not reading) but this doesn't surprise me at all. You will find this anywhere in the world (with perhaps the exception of those places with very strict population controls) that you go, that lesser off families tend to have more children than those that are better off. So I wouldn't make the stretch that people on welfare have more children because they're on welfare, if that's the argument being made.

Even more so, you can typically tell where a nation or other geographical region is at in terms of economic maturity and success based on analyzing birth and death rates.
Modified by smockers83 at 9:05 PM 4/6/2010

[srellim234]

As someone who has been a golfer for 49 years, you guys are really weak on your knowledge of the game.

While the game may be played in the rain, it actually is rarely played that way in the overall scheme of things. A round can cost from $5 in the middle of summer in Trona, near the Death Valley desert in California, to $500 for an exclusive public course near the Vegas Strip. Private golf courses do not charge by the round. Rounds range anywhere from 3.0 to 6.5 hours depending on weather and course crowds. The vast majority of golfers are overly exposed to UV rays, and time in a golf cart has very little affect on it.

Public course play, as well as private course play, would be extremely easy to place a health fee on. The only thing is that it would have to be a fixed fee as opposed to a % as taxes are normally charged.

BUT ANOTHER TAX FRAGMENTING THE POPULATION IS WRONG!

However, smockers, if you insist on pushing this tactic, don't forget to levy a tax on Little League fees, sports federation fees paid by school sports teams, even tickets to baseball games. The gross number of melanoma cases from baseball probably greatly outweighs those using tanning booths.

[smockers83]

I've played golf for many years as well. About 20 now. I've even golfed when it's snowing out.

Like I said before, in a perfect system guys, yes. But lets get back to reality. How does one measure how much exposure someone outside has to UV rays? In a tanning booth, this is known. Outside, it's not always constant nor equal. You could charge me a tax/fee on my baseball ticket but what if I hang out inside my club level seats at the bar the whole time? Shouldn't I get a tax refund then?

[audtatious]

I'm not sure what the debate is here (sorry for not reading) but this doesn't surprise me at all. You will find this anywhere in the world (with perhaps the exception of those places with very strict population controls) that you go, that lesser off families tend to have more children than those that are better off. So I wouldn't make the stretch that people on welfare have more children because they're on welfare, if that's the argument being made.

I made a correlation to welfare people popping out more kids as being a direct association to the amount of money they make from the Gov. It was pointed out that that was incorrect based upon laws set in the 90's. I did not deny that but pressed forth that the expense to the taxpayer was still there to raise the children being popped out by the welfare mother. I also posted information showing that since the law passed that welfare mothers have 3x the birth rate as those who are not on welfare. angrypenguin182 stated he/she was going to post info from school stating that the average welfare family only has 1-2 kids. I posted the argument should be taken up with the Professor I linked to who was commenting on the US Census report that states the 3x factor.

Now, the 1-2 kid average may be correct, but, does not change anything from a cost association. If people who are working and paying for welfare out of their taxes are having 3x less children than those who are on welfare then we have a BIG problem that is not being addressed which is the number of those on welfare and who continually need Gov't sponsored support is growing while the pool of those who are working is shrinking. The welfare system is growing and costing more and more each year. The welfare program has not produced the results that those who implemented it expected. With each further step down the path the Gov is implementing more and more ways to support the excessive drain that their own policies are causing on society while those same policies are making things worse. Who is to blame? Those in power want you to think that "rich people" and corporations are to blame. Oil companies, with <6% profit margins, are taking advantage of people. Insurance companies with <6% profit margins are taking advantage of people. Rich people are rich because they either inherit the money or they are stepping on the "little people". It is very obvious that hard work and proper decision making is being penalized more and more these days and this whole tanning tax scenario is a part of it. The Gov knows better what to do with your money than you do.

"So I wouldn't make the stretch that people on welfare have more children because they're on welfare, if that's the argument being made."..........Either the people on welfare are all the "lowest of the low" from a mentality and intelligence factor or the fact that they are on continual welfare is the only conclusions that can be made here, unless you have another reason. Personally, I think people who are on long-term welfare CAN succeed if pressed to do so. I believe the welfare-minded environment is what is causing the issue itself. I also believe that the Gov won't do a damn thing to curb the issue at hand as it's an unpopular move to a large percentage of potential voters. At some point there will be a breaking point and it's not going to be pretty.

I would love to see an interview with that woman from the Obama rally who stated she would not have to worry about her rent and gas anymore. Wonder how that's working out for her now?

[srellim234]

The same manner in which insurance companies play the % game on high risk, why in the heck are you so fixated on the EXACT UV exposure? I'm pretty sure that it's already been determined the #s that develop melanomas in later life who were involved in outside sports earlier. Engaging in those outdoor sports is generally higher risk and under your system will wind up categorized as such and taxed.

The whole thing is wrong since there does not appear to be any intelligent, cohesive plan or structure to what is going on. Someone just got it in their head to pick off another small group and tax them because they could.

And no, ther should be no refund because there should be NO TAX.

[audtatious]

However, smockers, if you insist on pushing this tactic, don't forget to levy a tax on Little League fees, sports federation fees paid by school sports teams, even tickets to baseball games. The gross number of melanoma cases from baseball probably greatly outweighs those using tanning booths.

How about a beach/pool tax? Pop an extra 10% tax on any product that has to do with the beach or pools. Same as with sports, 10% tax on everything from golf balls to hats and sunglasses. Why stop at tanning when there is so much more the Gov can tax "for our better good".

[AZhitman]

Tanning salons is a controlled environment. Big difference.

Wrong-o-matic. Are you (the government representative) going to monitor the intensity of the actual rays emitted? Age of the bulbs? Actual duration of tanning bed use? Type of attire (if any) worn in the booth? Melanin in the skin already (blocks UV rays)? Amount and SPF (if any) of sunblock being used? Whether it was applied correctly?

Wanna keep going? I'm an auditor, I can debunk this silly tax all day. Let's rock.

Would you be AMAZED to know there's NO governmental oversight of the tanning industry? No regulatory body that makes SURE tanners get ALL the UV rays they paid for!!! See, in aquarium lights, certain UV spectra are critical to coral and invertebrate health, and the efficiency of bulbs drops rapidly, proportional to hours of use. In fact, those tanning bed lights could be emitting a whole bunch of nothing, yet your government is taxing them as if they were dangerous!

Maybe the Almighty Oblahma should commission a longitudinal study to track, follow and determine if each tanner actually develops melanoma? After all, is it fair to punish the many for the sins of the few?!

Aren't the Lefties all about fairness? Or is that JUST in an election year?

I mean, I'm 1/4 Middle Eastern and very dark. My melanoma risk is incredibly low. IF I chose to go to a tanning salon, should I pay the same tax as the flourescent-skinned freckly redhead in the next booth?

Why?

And those damn Little League players are walking melanoma factories. Tax the piss out of ALL youth sports, in fact.

Remember when you argued that not ALL tanners were White? OK, well let's assume 2% aren't. We can then assume, also, that 2% of all golf rounds are played in the rain.

BTW, some of the worst sunburns are obtained on cloudy days.

Just accept the fact that it is a STUPID idea posited by stupid people and approved by more stupid people.

Or, I can keep smacking this silly idea around like a bratty stepchild.