Today Tanning Beds, Tomorrow Twinkies

I have a lot of issues with the Health Care Reform Bill. Aside from the financial cost, which I honestly do not believe will be budget neutral as promised, there are serious problems with how this Bill raises money and the invasive nature of the taxes being considered. The previously indicated tax on cosmetic surgery was dropped in favor of a tax on tanning beds. I am certain a lobbyist was hiding behind the curtain with the mighty Oz on that one.

The Wall Street Journal indicates that the American Medical Association (AMA) opposed the previously considered five percent increase on Botox, but later announced their support for the Bill after that language was dropped. To compensate for the loss of revenue (in order to attempt to maintain the appearance of budget neutrality), the Senate added a new tax on ten percent tax on tanning beds, which is projected to raise 2.7 billion dollars over ten years. That would indicate that tanning salons generate the same number in actual revenue each year, which seems a bit optimistic to me. It also does not factor in potential reductions in sales triggered by the tax.

My concerns regarding the tanning salon tax are two-fold. The first problem I have is that the tax is an unfair levy on Northern States (I live in the South, in case that matters). My second problem with the legislation is that it is a first major step toward dictating behavior through taxation under the guise of the common good.

Unfair taxation. If we consider the argument for a tanning bed tax within the context of medical care, the only logical conclusion would be that tanning beds are linked to cancer, which proposes a potential issue later in life regarding skin cancer for those who use tanning beds. Using this logic, you would tax behavior that will eventually create a strain on the health care system because of the potential consequences. In response to that, I would suggest that this tax unfairly targets northern states for a tax to offset expenses that will be felt across the health care system. In fact, I would suggest it is tantamount to the special deal Nebraska got, singling out certain states to carry a heavier burden than other states in generating revenue.

Here is the crux of my argument and why it is patently unfair. If a person lives in Florida and simply bakes themselves in the sun they are not subject to the tax. I would concur that tanning beds are just as harmful as suntanning, so I will concede that (although there are mixed studies on this subject). I personally would not recommend either one. However, the natural sun bather still incurs harmful exposure that puts them at a much higher risk for cancer. So what's next. A study that shows that Floridians get cancer at an XX percent rate higher than average Americans, so they are going to be hit with a Natural Sun tax? Then what? If you live in the Carolinas and drink a lot of sweet tea, you are at a higher risk for kidney stones...so we need to tax that, too....

The fundamental problem with targeted taxes is that they are unfair. The other problem is that they act as a deterrent or even a punishment for engaging in particular activities.

Behavior Modification. When did we cede our power to enjoy life to the government? We already pay a plethora of taxes for just about everything. The genie is out of the bottle on cigarettes and alcohol. We pay property tax, income tax, Medicare tax (more for some of us under this Bill) and Sales Tax. My State just jacked up the sales tax this year, placing an even greater burden on residents just to put food on the table. Targeted taxes only further exacerbate the problem, as well as being a bit invasive.

The slippery slope of targeted taxation like the tanning bed tax could lead to many intrusions into our daily lives. We have already heard rumors that Congress has considered taxes on soft drinks and junk food. There has also been talk about taxing fast food establishments. The next logical step for these types of taxes are to go beyond simple behavior and to start taxing your genetics. If you are predisposed to diabetes or cancer are you going to be charged a genetic tax? If you are overweight, are you going to trigger a fat tax? You may laugh at that one, but don't think it didn't come up during talks...everything has likely been on the table for raising revenues here. Are we going to then be given tax credits for being within weight limits or regular exercise? The options are endless. The ramifications are scary.

I do not want the government interfering with my daily life. I don't smoke and rarely drink. However, I don't necessarily agree with those special taxes either. We already pay sales tax on our Twinkies and Pepsi. The money we paid for it was taxed in our payroll tax. In my area, the empty bottle goes into a recycle bin, which is also paid for through a special tax (I have to pay for my own recycling). Where will it end. My money gets taxed at every stop along the way...one more tax on that journey is too much. I am taxed enough. I do not visit tanning booths and will not be directly affected by this tax. But that does not make it right. It simply demonstrates the willingness of Congress to dictate any detail of our habits to generate revenue for an ill-conceived Bill.

My vote is "NO" to the tanning tax. Stay out of my house, stay out of my recreation, stay out of my cupboards. The taxes I pay are enough already!