I don’t feel like getting in a debate with a bunch of clowns about politics, but it’s clear that artificial tanning is pretty fucking stupid anyway. The issue is something that Americans just tend to turn a blinde eye to, along with the absurd caffeine addictions people have.
look at the big picture, basically everything you do can be related to your health, a study here, a study there, a increased risk of this or that. This is why the bill is such a problem. If they can start taxing things that they deem “unsafe”, they can start taxing a lot of things you do. As far as i know the IRS will be running the show for the new HC policies.
Think about it. why did they for sure know that tanning should be taxed? How many positive studies does it take? What are the guidelines to making that decision? How many studies will it take before they deem something tax(control)able. What is next? Why would they only stop at one tax? Im sure there will be plenty more to come, and there may soon be a tax applied to something that you do.
Im not here to talk about Bush or Obama, I’m pointing out this bullshit thats being forced upon us.
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
In Economics there is something called a “corrective tax.” It is applied to internalize negative externalities. In this case, fake tanning results in negative externalities from skin cancer/skin disease related issues. This corrective tax will reduce the equilibrium quantity to the socially optimal level of fake tanning consumption, which in my opinion should be zero.
As far as meat is concerned, get the fuck off my beef, Uncle Sam. [/quote]
Healthcare costs are only an externality if they are artificially made one, there is no need for you to care if I get skin cancer.
It is the same old shit, first it is more or less socialised and then “we are all in this together” which is why it needs to be (even more) heavily regulated.
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
look at the big picture, basically everything you do can be related to your health, a study here, a study there, a increased risk of this or that. This is why the bill is such a problem. If they can start taxing things that they deem “unsafe”, they can start taxing a lot of things you do. As far as i know the IRS will be running the show for the new HC policies.
Think about it. why did they for sure know that tanning should be taxed? How many positive studies does it take? What are the guidelines to making that decision? How many studies will it take before they deem something tax(control)able. What is next? Why would they only stop at one tax? Im sure there will be plenty more to come, and there may soon be a tax applied to something that you do.
Im not here to talk about Bush or Obama, I’m pointing out this bullshit thats being forced upon us.[/quote]
I also love how they wont stop subsidizing corn but they definitely will tax salt, sugar or tanning.
What’s the problem? It’s brilliant. Tax sodas and junk food too. That’s the closest we’ll get to taxing dumb, uninformed retards in general.
I love people how people are crying about mandates to buy health insurance… as if it somehow interferes with their “liberty”, whatever the fuck that means. Why don’t you bitch about having to buy car insurance too?
[quote]The_maestro wrote:
I love people how people are crying about mandates to buy health insurance… as if it somehow interferes with their “liberty”, whatever the fuck that means. Why don’t you bitch about having to buy car insurance too?
[/quote]
Because if I drive a car I put someone else at risk and the insurance makes sure that I can pay if something should happen to them that was my fault.
That is not the same as mandatory health insurance, because that is about the risks I am willing to take for myself.
You know, that elusive “liberty” to do with my body whatever I damn well please and to live with the consequences, be they good or bad.
Its totally unfair they banned asbestos, a much better and cheaper insulation that the shit we use now. All this over-regulation is driving up the price of new houses!
come on guys, plenty of people don’t buy insurance but really, even before the bill, they have some degree of “insurance” already
if some unlikely accident or disease occurred that was life and death, the ambulance will come whether you pay it or not and the doctors wont wait for your credit card to go through to perform a life saving surgery. You had insurance to a certain before now you may as well chip in to pay for it so the people who actually do pay their insurance don’t have to cover everything.
[quote]a soggy waffle wrote:
come on guys, plenty of people don’t buy insurance but really, even before the bill, they have some degree of “insurance” already
if some unlikely accident or disease occurred that was life and death, the ambulance will come whether you pay it or not and the doctors wont wait for your credit card to go through to perform a life saving surgery. You had insurance to a certain before now you may as well chip in to pay for it so the people who actually do pay their insurance don’t have to cover everything.[/quote]
As I said, first it is “we are all in this together”, then they start to regulate your behavior.
Because it is only “fair”.
[quote]SSC wrote:
I don’t feel like getting in a debate with a bunch of clowns about politics, but it’s clear that artificial tanning is pretty fucking stupid anyway. The issue is something that Americans just tend to turn a blinde eye to, along with the absurd caffeine addictions people have.[/quote]
Agreed.
Tanning artificially just to look good is a big thing here too, since we hardly ever see the sun. But honestly, who the fuck cares how white I am because I choose not to tan?
So let me get this straight, we tax tanning and cigarettes because they are bad. The worse the activity, the higher the tax. Ok got it. Why do we jack up income taxes on high earners? Shouldn’t it be flat for everyone? Am I missing something here? Is the United States trying to dissuade us from making more money? I don’t get it.
Haha, instead of making people pay for their own bad choices - we simply make the productive pay for them and try to recoup a bit by “taxing” bad choices as a penalty. This is backwards.
Want to end obesity in the US? Make health insurance like car insurance: decouple health insurance from employment completely. A general physician gives you a checkup once a year and if you take care of yourself, your rates go down. And instead of paying for healthcare for everyone, change medicade to a national catastrophic fund for genetic problems that are no fault of your own (i.e. not eating too many twinkies). If you are in bad shape because you are stupid and make bad choices, you pay more. Can’t afford it? Guess you better get in shape, or die. Sticking your fingers in a fan is bad, so it not taking care of what you eat. And if you abuse the ER, the hospital and doctors get all your shit. Your house, your dog, your car, and your gold rims.
The only reason health insurance is part of employment is because of, in a large way, wage freezes (a completely idiotic anti free market concept) after WW2. Companies couldn’t offer more wages to get people to jump ship and work for them, so they began to offer health insurance packages. Does your employer offer car insurance? Not unless you work for Geico or somebody. So why the fuck are companies getting hammered now to provide insurance?
Disclaimer: I have no party affiliation, I’m listed as such in Florida, did not vote for G.W. Bush either time, against the War in Iraq, think we should be high altitude carpet bombing Afghanistan and Pakistan and not putting troops there, and think the National Debt is the worst problem America faces by 1 million percent.
[quote]steadfastred wrote:
So let me get this straight, we tax tanning and cigarettes because they are bad. The worse the activity, the higher the tax. Ok got it. Why do we jack up income taxes on high earners? Shouldn’t it be flat for everyone? Am I missing something here? Is the United States trying to dissuade us from making more money? I don’t get it.
Haha, instead of making people pay for their own bad choices - we simply make the productive pay for them and try to recoup a bit by “taxing” bad choices as a penalty. This is backwards.
Want to end obesity in the US? Make health insurance like car insurance: decouple health insurance from employment completely. A general physician gives you a checkup once a year and if you take care of yourself, your rates go down. And instead of paying for healthcare for everyone, change medicade to a national catastrophic fund for genetic problems that are no fault of your own (i.e. not eating too many twinkies). If you are in bad shape because you are stupid and make bad choices, you pay more. Can’t afford it? Guess you better get in shape, or die. Sticking your fingers in a fan is bad, so it not taking care of what you eat. And if you abuse the ER, the hospital and doctors get all your shit. Your house, your dog, your car, and your gold rims.
The only reason health insurance is part of employment is because of, in a large way, wage freezes (a completely idiotic anti free market concept) after WW2. Companies couldn’t offer more wages to get people to jump ship and work for them, so they began to offer health insurance packages. Does your employer offer car insurance? Not unless you work for Geico or somebody. So why the fuck are companies getting hammered now to provide insurance?
Disclaimer: I have no party affiliation, I’m listed as such in Florida, did not vote for G.W. Bush either time, against the War in Iraq, think we should be high altitude carpet bombing Afghanistan and Pakistan and not putting troops there, and think the National Debt is the worst problem America faces by 1 million percent.[/quote]
that “general physician” is going to give guys like us a problem. i’m 14% bf yet i’m obese.
my rates are going to go up because i choose to be a lean 175 instead of a skinny-fat 140.
[quote]WormwoodTheory wrote:
that “general physician” is going to give guys like us a problem. i’m 14% bf yet i’m obese.
my rates are going to go up because i choose to be a lean 175 instead of a skinny-fat 140.[/quote]
Only if they use the antiquated BMI method. Many articles I’ve read about BMI over the years notes that it doesn’t work for muscular people, and I’m sure many doctors today are smart enough to know this simple logic.
I’d rather take my chances with a neutral doctor, and not a bureaucrat or the government or lackey for an insurance company.
Shouldn’t the tanning tax be considered racist?
Regarding those people getting skin cancer from the tanning beds, don’t they rub bronzers and similar items all over themselves too?
I remember reading about more sunscreen=more skin cancer before.
I don’t know the validity of those comments but rubbing chemicals on yourself seems pretty stupid to me.
Originally, a tax was meant to be placed on plastic surgery procedures that were elective. The industry said don’t tax us, lay a tax on the tanning industry because it causes cancer.
The US government took the bait and amended the bill. It was all in an effort to tell the media who informs the public that something is being done to look after the debt. The revenue that they say will be generated is just insane. The tanning industry is not that big and will never generate those kind of $$.
Yet, people can still get botox, and other more ridiculous surgeries and are not taxed, but may well require future health care to remedy their stupidity.
There are tanning systems with levels of UV radiation that are not unhealthy. Most northern folk require some sun (or UV exposure) in the spring, fall and winter to generate adequate levels of Vit D.
Studies reveal that even in Florida, Arizona and Texas, the majority of the population is low in Vit D.
Because every one is told to avoid the sun at all costs or lather themselves in toxic lotions that prevent the suns goodness (Reasonable exposure times do exist).
Lack of sun has now got a medical determination “seasonal affective disorder” (SAD), tanning for brief periods can remedy this, but it’s better from some point of view to just give them drugs.
I also remember an article posted here many years ago. It discussed beneficial exposure and the increase in testosterone levels when exposure was to the chest, back or genitals.
While it is true that some have gotten cancer from tanning, many of those are dim wits that do not heed well known exposure limits and choose to cook daily.
Humans need sun exposure or Vit D. Too much sun exposure is as toxic as too much Vit D exposure.
Pick your poison. I seek the sun but am careful of over exposure in the summer, supplement with D in the off season, and occasionally expose my nads in a tanning booth for Vit D and to produce as much testosterone as possible.
I’m not even American and I have been seeing many stories on this bill and resulting stupidity tax.
Kinda suprised more of you haven’t.
Effectively what the government is doing is taxing natural vitamine D and testosterone production. That sucks!
[quote]CITI913 wrote:
Congrats on the 4 new posts added to Citi’s post count. You really helped everyone on this site save a lot of time to google “tanning” and then read the links.
Dont post a link just to post it and if you are going to link video, pick your favorite one and at least include an original comment.
I would be shocked if anyone actually watched a single one of your post-count-climbing worthless videos.
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
who is deciding on them? All it takes is one government funded study to prove that red meat increases the risk of cancer and suddenly we’ll have to fork out 18% to Mr.Government everytime we feel like having a Sirloin for dinnner. Then what’ll happen is demand will go down and it will be limited in availability.
[/quote]
I doubt this will ever happen. American’s love their beef too much and the industry itself is far to powerful to let something like that happen to it. If you fuck with beef you’re fucking with corn as well which would not sit well with Monsanto. Not that I don’t agree with your general premise that these taxes are unnecessary and stupid.