03 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonWe've reached page 3 and you still have not made any case as to why tanning salons should be exempt from this tax increase. What is more, you made a much more invidious assertion in your OP. You rejected the rationale for the tax - raises money for the new health programme by taxing a commercial activity that cause health problems - and instead you suggested that the rationale for the tax was one of "race". This is an extraordinary - and somewhat histrionic - claim, that comes without any 'argument' attached. The onus is on you to show that the people setting this new tax were motivated by racial discrimination or prejudice. You have not made a case. Go back to your OP, read it again, and then come back here and make a case.
who else other than whites use a tanning salon?
03 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFIt is a tax targeting one ethnic group covered up by "health reasons". It cant be argued. It does affect only whites. Especially white woman. As owners and users of these salons
We've reached page 3 and you still have not made any case as to why tanning salons should be exempt from this tax increase. What is more, you made a much more invidious assertion in your OP. You rejected the rationale for the tax - raises money for the new health programme by taxing a commercial activity that cause health problems - and instead you suggested tha ot made a case. Go back to your OP, read it again, and then come back here and make a case.
03 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonThe way I see it, the tanning industry is just trying to create a peaceful utopia devoid of racist bias by making us all the same color. Of course, Obama and company won't have any of that. After all, what would become of the NAACP? The thought is just to horiffic to contemplate!! 😲
Starting Thursday, tanning salons nationwide will be stuck paying the federal government 10% more in taxes. And this most likely will be passed on to the customer. The tax is expected to help raise 2.5 billion dollars to go into the new health care program.
The government justifies the extra charge saying the industry is selling a known cancer ris ...[text shortened]... ]In reality is this tax not based on race? Who other than white people use tanning salons?[/b]
03 Jul 10
Originally posted by generalissimoWell I am European and I am a socialist.
[b]I am very PRO any taxation that deters people doing things society does not want.
typical european socialist thinking, to hell with personal freedom, "lets bully people until they become healthy by abandoning their evil smoking and drinking".
btw, since we're going down the puritan road, why not tax the sex industry while you're at it.[/b]
But I dont see how taxing anti-social behaviour, or behaviour which costs society money, can be seen as infringing personal freedom.
And the sex industyr is taxed like any other industry - I believe the girls in the shop windows in Amsterdam give you a VAT receipt if you ask.
03 Jul 10
Seventy percent of the estimated 1 million tanning-salon users nationwide are women between ages 16 and 29, James said. The risk of melanoma increases 75 percent among people who use tanning beds before age 30, according to a report published last year by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The document labeled UV-emitting tanning beds as carcinogenic.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20100701_Tanning-bed_enthusiasts_say_tax_won_t_deter_them.html
I don't see anything wrong with a tax that attempts to move the price of an activity in line with its societal costs.
03 Jul 10
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI have to say that I tend to agree. If the government (ie, the taxpayer) is on the hook to pay for other peoples medical costs, then society should have some "rights" in having a say concerning your behavior. This means that society can meddle it what we eat, smoke, drive, have intimate encounters with etc.
Seventy percent of the estimated 1 million tanning-salon users nationwide are women between ages 16 and 29, James said. The risk of melanoma increases 75 percent among people who use tanning beds before age 30, according to a report published last year by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The document labeled UV-emitting tanning beds as ca rong with a tax that attempts to move the price of an activity in line with its societal costs.
All I can say is, welcome to Big Brother. He loves and cares for you and will guide you on how you should live your life. I think you will find that once you place someone else in charge of various aspects of your life, your freedoms begin to fly out the window.
Its kinda like letting Bible thumpers "guide" you on how to live your life, only, they don't say a word about God so its OK, right?
03 Jul 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonThis is just an assertion on your part. It is "targeting" one "ethnic group"? It sounds bizarre. Surely it's targetting tanning salons. Repeating your assertion is not making a case. What evidence do you have that it is motivated by racial discrimination and that this is being "covered up" as you claim? Do you have any evidence about the "race" of the people imposing this tax or about their racial prejudices?
It is a tax targeting one ethnic group covered up by "health reasons".
03 Jul 10
Originally posted by whodeyA modest tax on an activity that leads to significant societal costs is hardly a good example of "Big Brother".
I have to say that I tend to agree. If the government (ie, the taxpayer) is on the hook to pay for other peoples medical costs, then society should have some "rights" in having a say concerning your behavior. This means that society can meddle it what we eat, smoke, drive, have intimate encounters with etc.
All I can say is, welcome to Big Brother. He l ...[text shortened]... Bible thumpers "guide" you on how to live your life, only, they don't say a word about God.
03 Jul 10
Originally posted by whodeyThats ridiculous nonsense.
I have to say that I tend to agree. If the government (ie, the taxpayer) is on the hook to pay for other peoples medical costs, then society should have some "rights" in having a say concerning your behavior. This means that society can meddle it what we eat, smoke, drive, have intimate encounters with etc.
All I can say is, welcome to Big Brother. He l ...[text shortened]... uide" you on how to live your life, only, they don't say a word about God so its OK, right?
The tax is fair if it reflects the 'true' cost of the activity.
Now if tanning salons were banned you might have a point about freedoms being eroded and 'Big Brother' but that is not what we are discussing.