You wanna see racist? THIS is racist.

[AZhitman]

What would you think of a tax, levied by the government, that ONLY affected a certain race of citizens?



I present to you, the "Holy Hell That's So Damn Racist" award winner, 2010.

Or, just call it, "Tax Whitey".

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...90641

[S13_love]

What the F***??

[themadscientist]

And across the country pasty white people screamed noooooooo!

The next month should be fun as people really start to read this thing and find strange things.

[dusred]

I've gotta admit I chuckled a little. I can already hear the excuse from Gibbs "uhh, uh, uhh, this tax is for black people too uhh uh if a black person uhh goes into uhh uh a tanning salon they will be uh taxed too."

But yeah. That's racist.

[AZhitman]

Totally.

I want equal time on CNN. <calls Anderson Cooper>

[jedimind240]

That sucks for people who tan, it does mostly affect white people or light skinned people. But that S*** causes cancer and is as bad as cigarettes according to that story, if people who buy cigarettes get taxed because its bad for you then people who have to tan can pay for it too. They don't have to segregate tanners like they did smokers. Its just like getting a seatbelt ticket, IMO.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

As our country shifts into socialistic medicine...I think you'll see a lot more laws like this. Laws that attempt to reduce the impact of an individual's "bad health choices" for the good of the country by taxing said activities. It's all BS of course.

[AZhitman]

Then let's have some Fatty Taxes!!!!

Taxing someone based on their personal choices is a slippery slope and will lead us to ruin.

What's next? Taxing people with higher-risk jobs? People with too much stress? People who exceed the speed limit? People who have an extra beer at the BBQ? People who don't stop to smell the flowers? People who DON'T exercise?

Starts sounding like Communism, doesn't it?

See, it's a bad, bad idea.

[szh]

Then let's have some Fatty Taxes!!!!

Taxing someone based on their personal choices is a slippery slope and will lead us to ruin.

What's next? Taxing people with higher-risk jobs? People with too much stress? People who exceed the speed limit? People who have an extra beer at the BBQ? People who don't stop to smell the flowers? People who DON'T exercise?

Starts sounding like Communism, doesn't it?

See, it's a bad, bad idea.

Very bad idea for sure! I don't need a tan of course , but taxing people for tanning salons, explicitly for "bad health choices" in a Health Insurance Reform bill, is a ridiculously bad decision.

Social engineering run amok.

Z

[szh]

The next month should be fun as people really start to read this thing and find strange things.

Yes, indeed!

But, I suspect that most people are pretty damn apathetic about taking up causes to get things fixed.

The politicians count on that.

Z

[srellim234]

I agree with that. I think people are so fatigued of listening to all the partisan BS, the gridlock and failure to even consider compromise that they'll put up with an awful lot of this if they perceive that something, ANYTHING, is actually being done.

Many people around here take their shots at California, and much of it is deserved. A lot of California's problems stem from past legislative partisanship we now see graduated to the federal level. It has resulted in a huge increase in the use of the ballot initiative process and California is now run by a mandated patchwork of initiatives.

I suspect some form of this will eventually find its way into federal election processes if the people and parties don't start working together for the good of the country. It will start as a series of proposed constitutional amendment proposals and build from there.

[Chaotic_Warlord]

Then let's have some Fatty Taxes!!!!

To late already being done. Philadelphia is about to be the latest Municipality to enact a Soda Tax, and not just that it will be the highest Soda Tax in the country...

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/...79689

http://www.philly.com/philly/n....html

Mayor Nutter says that a portion of the money brought in will go towards anti-obesity program, why the largest chunk of that money will go towards the $500M city deficit, but we all know that all that money will go towards paying back the debt or into their pockets.

And a chart to put it all into persepctive...



Yeah I wonder why no one wants to live in this city anymore. Tax goes into effect January 2011 along with several other taxes, a newly imposed Trash Pickup Fee (which has been free forever) and a bunch of other crap in his 5 year plan to get this city out of a hole that he and his predecessor Mayor Street but us in.

[AZhitman]

I agree with that. I think people are so fatigued of listening to all the partisan BS, the gridlock and failure to even consider compromise that they'll put up with an awful lot of this if they perceive that something, ANYTHING, is actually being done.

Many people around here take their shots at California, and much of it is deserved. A lot of California's problems stem from past legislative partisanship we now see graduated to the federal level. It has resulted in a huge increase in the use of the ballot initiative process and California is now run by a mandated patchwork of initiatives.

I suspect some form of this will eventually find its way into federal election processes if the people and parties don't start working together for the good of the country. It will start as a series of proposed constitutional amendment proposals and build from there.

...but let's be clear - This is NOT a 'partisan' rant, unless you're the type who just shuts down whenever someone criticizes something that your preferred party has done.

This is a common sense thing.

See, here in AZ, we have some history with these types of issues. We had a very sensible law struck down because, in the eyes of our then-Governor, in her infinite wisdom, claimed that it "unfairly targeted Hispanics" (who, coincidentally, made up much of her voter base).

But there were two problems:

1) It was based on a stereotype and an insult to the Hispanic population.

2) It ignored public safety in favor of political correctness.

[AZhitman]

What's stupid about that is that it's based on overall container size, not the AMOUNT of added sugar.

What a moronic idea.

That crapacchino (sp?) probably has as much sugar as the 2-liter.

Are you sure that wasn't California's idea?

[AZhitman]

By the way, to get back to my original point, for all those supporting this healthcare bill and its attached taxes:

Imagine the uproar we'd see if there were a special tax on skin-lightening products and procedures...

Also, this unfairly targets some who are TRYING to be healthier: Many Alaskans go to tanning booths to ward off Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) -- a well-recognized medical problem in areas with insufficient daylight hours.

Some people use them to get more vitamin D, to treat hives, psoriasis, and eczema...

So, while this is admittedly a nitpicky rant, it just points out the incredible lack of attention to detail displayed by those who threw their support behind this nonsense bill.

[srellim234]

California's would have been to ban sugar entirely. Wouldn't fly here because someone would find an angle to claim it's racially discriminatory because certain ethnicities are more likely to prefer sugared drinks over diet drinks.

Claiming fairness, the $1.35 tax would be added to EVERY 2 liter soda, diet or regular, with $1.52 of every $1.35 being spent by the state gov't.

[Chaotic_Warlord]

Ya'll wanted him in office, and look despite all the warnings, he's been there barely a year and already he's going a long way to break an already broken system and government. I still stand by the fact that he and his cronies are the Anti-Christ and his Minions.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Ahahaha!

Are you not entertained?!

[szh]

Many people around here take their shots at California, and much of it is deserved. A lot of California's problems stem from past legislative partisanship we now see graduated to the federal level.

Yes, indeed!

For those of you who do not know, take a wild guess as to the constituency that the current Speaker of the House Pelosi represents.

Z

[n00b240]

Im gonna have to side with this provision. The rays obtained from tanning are 100% harmful. There is no such thing as "in moderation" for a tanning salon. I completely agree with this tax. Especially since Ive done the tests, and Ive seen the results. Yes our study group even had people from Alaska. So sorry, I dont see anything racist about this tanning tax. This has nothing to do with SAD, at least from what Ive seen in the studies took part in. You want vitamin D, take a pill, Caltrate. They even have pills that are pure active vitamin D.

Hardly racist at all. Black americans, when exposed to the same levels of sunlight as white americans (for lack of better words here) actually have lower levels of vitamin D. So really its Black americans who should be hitting the tanning salons not the white americans. PURE FACT

Whats really moronic is a tax on these sugar drinks. But none of these "diet" "0-calorie" which actually "spend" more calories than the sugar drinks. Yet the lobby pushes for those drinks to become the future. Just look at gum. All gum is sugar free. I dont buy gum anymore for that reason. I dont drink anything with a sugar subsitute. I want my sugar gum and drinks. That sugar free crap is just horrible calorie wise. Not only that the Long Term effects of these sugar substitutes permanently damages your body absportion to the real stuff.

IMO diet drinks should be illegal. Clearly the FDA is not an organization for the people. But an organization for profit. Tylenol anyone? That stuff causes liver failure every day. It boggles my mind why that stuff is still over the counter. Yet people still take it. And they want to tax tanning salons.... s***s only half the battle
Modified by n00b240 at 11:55 PM 3/26/2010

[AZhitman]

Wow.

Q, I like you, brotha - But you actually succeeded in being wrong in almost every single sentence.

The rays obtained from tanning are 100% harmful.

Actually, most melanoma cases are the result of exposure to the sun, not tanning beds. Also, it's well-known that moderate tanning is actually a good defense against the sun's UV rays and actually protects fair-skinned people from melanoma - Doctors even recommend this.

There is no such thing as "in moderation" for a tanning salon.

Sure there is. Some even enforce time limits. That's a dumb statement.

This has nothing to do with SAD

What are you talking about? It WILL affect those people. How can you say it won't?

You want vitamin D, take a pill, Caltrate.

Fail. Some people don't absorb Vitamin D in that manner. You should read more.

Hardly racist at all. Black americans, when exposed to the same levels of sunlight as white americans (for lack of better words here) actually have lower levels of vitamin D. So really its Black americans who should be hitting the tanning salons not the white americans.

Irrelevant and useless info, unrelated to the topic. FACT. Blacks don't use tanning salons. FACT. Whites do. FACT. 10% tax is thereby only paid by whites. FACT. That's a sanction applied inordinately to one race of people, which, by definition, is racist. FACT.

But none of these "diet" "0-calorie" which actually "spend" more calories than the sugar drinks.

Uhhh, what? Translate, please?

Yet the lobby pushes for those drinks to become the future.

Uhhh, what? What "lobby"?

Just look at gum. All gum is sugar free.

Really? Including this big wad of Hubba Bubba I'm chewing right now that's LOADED with sugar?

That sugar free crap is just horrible calorie wise.

WTF are you babbling about? My Diet Coke is zero-calorie.

Not only that the Long Term effects of these sugar substitutes permanently damages your body absportion to the real stuff.

Again, WTF are you talking about?

IMO diet drinks should be illegal.

Are you Al Gore's fat brother?

Clearly the FDA is not an organization for the people. But an organization for profit.

The FDA is an oversight authority and a government agency. They don't "profit".

Tylenol anyone? That stuff causes liver failure every day. It boggles my mind why that stuff is still over the counter. Yet people still take it.

So freaking what?

People still have unprotected sex, drive without a seat belt, eat fast food, don't wash their hands after pooping, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, and don't brush their teeth after meals...

Just because something is bad for you it should be taxed?

And who the hell needs morons like the Senate to decide what's good / bad for you? Not me, that's for sure.

Step away from the Kool-Aid. (It's gonna be taxed too.)

[n00b240]

Since you asked.... I wont need to quote your statements. Just going to explain a bit where I was coming from to reach my statements. Provide links for you to read and what not. Good reads out there

Lights from Tanning Salons emit UVA rays. It is the UVB rays that sun lotion blocks. With no protection from the UVA rays, this will lead to premature aging, skin cancer including melanoma. My source? one of many studies, including one I helped write. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20136909 This is just One study. There are plenty out there. Lots of reading for you to do.

For Tanning and Seasonal Affective Disorder, plenty of studies have been done. And simply is not the recommended form of treatment among Dermatologists and Family Doctors alike. While its true that Doctors will recommend something called a Light Box, Light therapy its called. You can find all about it here http://www.lighttherapyproducts.com/ And as mentioned earlier, since tanning beds emit UVA light, this is harmful to the body. Again, I quote one of many studies. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

And why not, a quick definition of SAD, symptoms and treatment here http://familydoctor.org/online....html

If people cannot absorb vitamin D through the intestinal tract, through pills like Caltrate, bigger problems are at stake. Actually you dont absorb the Vitamin D per say... you absorb Vitamin D2 or D3, which will get converted into something called Calcitriol (1,25-Dihydroxycholecalciferol). Quick reads on that are at wiki http://en.wakopedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D and here http://dietary-supplements.inf...d.asp WTF? I cant quote wiki?

I made the point about darker skinned people I said above black americans for lack of a better word at the time, have lower levels of vitamin D than lighter skinned people. To illustrate the point that you made of people going to obtain their vitamin D. It shouldnt be lighter skinned people going to the tanning salon it should be darker skinned people...per your point....

But I believe tanning is harmful so I wouldnt recommend it to anyone. Hence with more melanin in darker skinned people, it reduces their ability to make the active form of Vitamin D (really D2 or D3). My two latest links above should provide info on that. It may be irrelavant, but I was using it to illustrate a point.

Tanning in many studies, is downright harmful. So Lighter skinned people hit the tanning salons more frequently than darker skinned people. I wouldnt say darker skinned people, blacks dont use tanning salons. In south florida, and Southern California, all types of darker flavors use tanning salons. But having said that, Tanning Salon usage is overwhelmingly "white" Such a Tax wasnt aimed at "white" people, but aimed at the harm that it can do.

To help illustrate such a point. With lack of better words. Black and white. There are some heart disease drugs, that work wonders in white people that simply dont work in black people. Again, Im just citing one study of many http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20101869 Reasons for such a differences are many, cultural, socio economical, diet. So many compounding reasons, and maybe reasons not fully understood. It was found that a different class of heart disease drugs worked better in black people than it did in white people. Such a generalization is a tough call to make in the hospital, which is why you get a full history and diet and what not when you visit the FP. Just in case.

Controversial? Hell yeah it is, racist? No, but definitely can be twisted around. Back in the day there was a good debate on the News Hour about it all, here it is http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb....html Anyway, that was all just to illustrate the point, and it is aside from the tanning topic, I understand. This was just to illustrate the point, that while it may look like the tanning tax is "racist" really its just targeting a way to curb people from using a tanning salon because it is extremely harmful to your skin, much like how cigarettes are taxed. A drug targeted towards black people, is really just a way to help people get better from the condition in which they are afflicted

Wow, and Im about to get started on the sugar debate that I myself opened, throwing this thread off topic. Heh. I'll stop here, so that we can stay on topic of tanning beds and the taxation. I apologize for those of you interested in the sugar debate as it does get political. In a few days, I'll make a thread about the sugar stuff. Especially the tylenol that I brought up. Which I really think should be pulled from the market. I brought up such points because someone mentioned a tax on sugary drinks, and got me off topic. Dont worry, a thead on that issue will be made. Hell I even jabbed at the FDA being for profit LOL, another day for that topic, which is hella political too.

True we dont need everything harmful to us to be taxed. Clowns in Congress shouldnt be bickering over that. But things like cigarrettes, are taxed to high noon, for all types of reasons. The scope is getting to great, and way out of touch for people to try to deal with. While its all a push to get people to be healthy and keep costs down. We risk over regulating things. My favorite cigar is 10 bucks a pop. Nuts.

Funny you mentioned kool-aid, I was drinkin a cup of cherry kool aid while writing that earlier post haha. I also chomp on that hubba bubba for the fact that it has sugar. I was talkin about juicy fruit and all those you see at the checkout line, they are all sugar free. I love that hubba bubba, I wish it lasted longer though, the taste goes fast for me. I keep a bucket in my locker at work.

Modified by n00b240 at 1:09 AM 3/27/2010

Having said all that. A quick promote. Yall should check hitmans BRM exhaust. Hella fine note. Great fitment. Fairly quiet. /end promote
Modified by n00b240 at 2:01 AM 3/27/2010

[AZhitman]

Even without the "promote", great response. +1

Looks like we kinda agree for the most part.

Without caring about what's "bad for us" (which is NOT the role of a government of free people), the fact remains that it's a tax on something that Blacks DON'T use (whether they should or not).

Put the same tax on a product or service used predominantly by Blacks (or Asians or Native Americans) and watch the uproar... That's ALL I'm saying.

All the rest is debatable by doctors and scientists, which means it's NOT the realm of politicians. I think we can agree on that.

its just targeting a way to curb people from using a tanning salon because it is extremely harmful to your skin

See, that's social engineering, and it's meddling in a Free Market Economy. And THAT is my issue with this idiotic administration.

[n00b240]

+1 for good debate. Agreed Lots of good reads in politics in this side of the forum. If only I can fall asleep

[98s14inaz]

By the way, to get back to my original point, for all those supporting this healthcare bill and its attached taxes:

Imagine the uproar we'd see if there were a special tax on skin-lightening products and procedures...

Also, this unfairly targets some who are TRYING to be healthier: Many Alaskans go to tanning booths to ward off Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) -- a well-recognized medical problem in areas with insufficient daylight hours.

Some people use them to get more vitamin D, to treat hives, psoriasis, and eczema...

So, while this is admittedly a nitpicky rant, it just points out the incredible lack of attention to detail displayed by those who threw their support behind this nonsense bill.

The part I find disturbing is that the people we elected (well I didn't vote for them) didn't read any of this 900+ page bill. I wonder how much other petty stuff slipped by...this whole thing is a scam

[bigbadberry3]

Isn't this simply just another "sin tax?" I mean Asians, Hispanics, they hit the beds too. Can't anyone just go outside in the sun and take their shirt off for me

[szh]

The part I find disturbing is that the people we elected (well I didn't vote for them) didn't read any of this 900+ page bill. I wonder how much other petty stuff slipped by

Probably a lot.

All bills tend to have random, usually completely unrelated, stuff that the congressfolk slip in ... makes them pass these laws without specific discussions and voting.

The President also has some under the table over-rides ... these "orders" often modify laws as passed - sometimes to the detriment of the spirit of the law.

Z

[jedimind240]

This sucks for some people. Im not one who minds paying taxes as long as things get done. What i don't understand is why their weren't so many people complaining when we went out of control deregulating the financial sector and allowed them to just put this country in such a bad place. Why didn't we get FDR's worker bill of rights, no one can honestly say that those rights he proposed are at all bad things to have for a productive society.

[AZhitman]

Isn't this simply just another "sin tax?" I mean Asians, Hispanics, they hit the beds too.

No, they don't. Statistically, the numbers are overwhelmingly white.

[n00b240]

No, they don't. Statistically, the numbers are overwhelmingly white.

Correction: The numbers are overwhelmingly ORANGE