New Tax on Indoor Tanning Goes into Effect--I found this odd....

[saveliberty]

Is there any exemption for medical usage of a tanning salon?

Nope, but there is a tax penalty for asking about one. Pay up.

 

[MaggieMae]

This is such a true statement. I bitch about the tremendous taxes our government has placed on cigarettes, but if I REALLY wanted to do something about it, I would quit smoking. It is my CHOICE to smoke and my CHOICE to pay the taxes, however unfair I consider them to be. Once our government starts taxing sugary soda, fast food and salt, then some of the rest of you will be forced to make similar CHOICES.

Yeah....nothing like your nanny government spanking you when you get out of line, right? I think you would have been a good candidate with the Pavlov Experiment....that is if you were a dog. Keep jumping through the hoops for nanny.

Are right wingers against antidrug laws?? FACT is that the government has been acting like a nanny spanking you when you get out of line for years and years based on choices made that some people thought were less than honorable or moral. So where do you draw the line?? Is it ok for the governemnt to tell people what they can and can't do with their own bodies or do you support government intervention based on misguided moral superiority of some??

IF rightwingers were honest and truly felt this way about it then they would have to be against any and all government interferrence but based on their hypocriitcal history we know that they are not. They ran to the government to have them define marriage so the gays couldn't have their equal and religious rights to be married recognized as any other marriage between two consenting adults.
So NOW that they try to hide behind claims of a nanny state being supported by the left when the right wants the same where their postions are concerned is quite laughable.

That's it in a nutshell. The preaching cons of today don't want government interference, except when it's in their interests, OR when something goes dreadfully wrong (i.e., the oil spill). Then they DEMAND that the government "do something"!!

 

[DiamondDave]

Let's all pause for a few months and wait for the VAT, that will insure everyone everyone gets an equal screwing by the tax fanatics.

How about a Driveway tax, most people have a driveway right, and those that don't will be penalized? Those in apartments and townhouses will pay a stiff parking slot tax, added to their monthly payments.

No death & disposal insurance? Meaning the proper disposal of our broken down remains will be at the cost of the taxpayer, no way, fine those who have no 'human disposal insurance'.

I have a very long list, but that's it for now, since I am sure someone in office somewhere will try passing some of these into law. They are grabbing at straws, anything and everything is fair game for a tax, fee, toll, permit or license requirement.

I am sure most in here could add to this list without any problems, I think the politicians pay people, most likely from an insane asylum, to come up with some of this crazy 'chit', oooops, like me, maybe I am .............., if so, they made me go cuckoo.

Such hysteria. Unbelievable. This is a tax on a product KNOWN to cause skin cancer. Your analogies are absurd.

Tax the sun next? Or breathing? Those are known to cause cancer too



More expanding tendrils... nanny state grows

 

[WillowTree]

It's a racist tax against being white. Punish the white wright?

 

[Dr.House]

<long-winded inane droning snipped>

I've spent as much time as I care to pointing out your idiocy...

You have confused the words "irony" and "hypocrisy" for two days now...

Somewhere, in the dark basement of an old victorian perhaps, your Cheetos-stained fingers will put down the can of Red Bull and type out the words, "Ha! I win!"...

I will not take that away that from you...

Carry on, fuckstain...

 

[MaggieMae]

But.. we just need to spend a little more money! The left's answer is like this:

A family of four with two kids in private school, a $200,000 mortgage, two car notes, $40,000 in credit card debt and a combined income of $60,000 and $0 savings.... you go buy a summer home in Destin!

What could go wrong?

The complete irony of your "example" is that the private sector is to blame for (a) leading people to believe they could afford anything, and (b) giving them loans to do it, whether it was by credit card or zero-down mortgages based on no qualifications for those mortgages.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0470402199/ref=dp_proddesc_0/180-0617175-3028316?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books]Amazon.com: Confessions of a Subprime Lender: An Insider's Tale of Greed, Fraud, and Ignorance (9780470402191): Richard Bitner: Books[/ame]

Former subprime lender Richard Bitner once worked in an industry that started out helping disadvantaged customers but collapsed due to greed, lack of financial control and willful ignorance. In Confessions of a Subprime Lender: An Insider's Tale of Greed, Fraud, and Ignorance, he reveals the truth about how the subprime lending business spiraled out of control, pushed home prices to unsustainable levels, and turned unqualified applicants into qualified borrowers through creative financing. Learn about the ways the mortgage industry can be fixed with his twenty suggestions for critical change.

 

[VaYank5150]

Democrat-Progessive party equals, JUSTICE FOR ALL

Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, July 7, 2010, 5:48 AM
It’s Time to Tax Whitey–

Dems impose a 10% surcharge on the use of ultraviolet indoor tanning beds. White folks feel burned.

The Washington Post reported:
washingtonpost.com

The sun hasn’t exactly set on Solar Planet, but anxiety over the fate of the Arlington tanning salon has been running high ever since a “tan tax” took effect Thursday.

One of the less publicized measures in the new health-care law, the tax imposes a 10 percent surcharge on the use of ultraviolet indoor tanning beds.

Supporters — including the Obama administration, congressional Democrats and dermatologists — have argued that the tax will raise an estimated $2.7 billion toward the cost of expanding health coverage to the uninsured, while discouraging a practice that increases the risk of skin cancer by as much as threefold in frequent users, according to scientific research.

read it all here.
Gateway Pundit

When it comes to the things we are going to be taxed on, "you ain't seen nothin` yet!" For "the greater good", you know, for the government to tell us what is healthy and unhealthy for us. Like we don't know and can't make our own decisions how to live or die.

As soon as the Government cuts MediCare and MediCaid, and no one depends on the Government for health insurance, then everyone should be allowed to be as irresponsible with their lilves as they want!

 

[MaggieMae]

Yo doc. Illegal drug prohibition isn't about individual choice and lifestyle. Drug abuse affects others. Please show the stats that tanning affects driving, employment and proper parenting and then you might have a valid argument. Sheeez.

Drug ABUSE, as with the ABUSE of any drug, including alcohol or nicotine (both legal to use), can affect those around you. However, I am not talking about the ABUSE and the laws are not specific to ABUSE. Please try to stay on topic.

If you choose to use drugs in your own home by yourself or with other consenting adults then your use does not affect others. In that respect it is all about individual choice and lifestyle but thanks for the spin. If you are against one then you should be against all but thanks for trying to excuse rightwing hypocrisy so ineptly

Please let me know when you have a valid counter to what was actually said instead of inane ramblings that don't apply as they leave out facts pertinent to the debate. Sheeez.

You know what would be the quintessential hypocrisy: If and when drugs like marijuana and cocaine were legalized which would lower the cost, but also would thereby be taxable, the "constitutionalists" would probably scream about the tax, not that their poison of choice cost them less money.

 

[drsmith1072]

I never asked you a question, smitty.

Sure you didn't. LOL you just made a statement as you tried to define how I don't need a car in my world and agreed with me. LOL

In your world a car is not a need, smitty.

If this wasn't supposed to be a question then what was it??

Are you agreeing with me and telling me that a car is not a need in my world?? LOL What was the intent of that response in question form despite the fact that it lacks the proper puncuation?

Your spin is beyond hilarious.

You stated a car was not a need and transportation wasn't a need. I figured you sat on your fat ass all day....so I thought "In your world a car is not a need, smitty"...unlike the real world.

Then you come back and say you can walk, bike, cab, or bus it, Which are all transportation. LOL So which is it, you don't need a car or transportation....or you need transportation? Einstein would have been confused with your thought process on this one. LOL

Look who's spinning on this one...you remind of a top in motion. LOL

So in other words you are trying to define me based on your own biased and misguided opinions when you have nothing of substance to support your claim. LOL Although that's funny coming from a poster who seems to spend every waking hour on this message board to try and criticize someone claiming that they sit on their ass all day. LOL
Furthermore, my spcification came after your statement concerning a "CAR" so a "CAR" is what i was referring to but thanks for exposing your dishonesty as you fail to follow the timeline of events in the discussion and take my comments out of context.

oh and in case you missed it or avoided it out of sheer dishonesty here is my FULL and COMPLETE statement in which I am SPECIFICALLY talking about a CAR.

Nope it's not. If I want I can walk, bike, catch a cab or take a bus I don't NEED a car. It is a luxury not a need.

So to answer YOUR question as to who is spinning I believe, based on the fact that you took my comments out of context in a desperate attempt to substantiate your baseless attack, that it is YOU who is spinning. LOL

BTW, I stand behind my belief that a car is not a need and have clearly stated what I believe are needs for survival and yet I don't think you have done the same. Why is that??

 

[Meister]

Again, this is my choice. Do you drive a car? Do you have ANY idea how many individual taxes are lumped on cars and their maintenance? Are all drivers nannies too, in your little mind?

Oh brother.....you simple minded twit. Transportation is a need, would you agree? Now smoking, tanning, buying bottled water are not needed but a choice of an individual....should he/she be punished unduly for a lifestyle?
By the way, I'm not against taxes....just excessive taxes, which you seem to have no boundaries for. Like I said....dog, Pavlov Experiment.

Talk about simple minded, a car is not a need and neither is transportation.

"should he/she be punished unduly for a lifestyle?" Does this apply to everyone and their "lifestyles" or do your standards have a selective application??

Smitty...I pulled up your exact post....you twit.....these are your words, not mine. LOL Read and try and comprehend what you posted. You can spin all day LOL....but these are YOUR words....at least have the integrity to own up to them. Oooops, my bad, integrity and smitty have never crossed paths. Anyways....just STFU on your spinning.

PS....that was post 103

 

[drsmith1072]

I read through a dozen posts totally irrelevant to the subject. I don't know if this has been covered yet but tanning salons equipment produces loads ultraviolet which has been shown to cause skin cancer. I questioned the 10% tax when I read part of the bill. Why tanning salons and not tobacco companies and for that matter why not fast food joints. I guess they had a stronger lobby. If you don't have the right lobbyist and sufficient funds, your're screwed.

yeah unfortunately i took the bait and start returning what the trolls were dishing out and went off topic to point out their hypocrisy and their avoidance of the content of my posts. I should have just ignored them since they have nothing valid to offer and can only troll.

Yes UV rays do damage DNA and can lead to skin cancer and maybe that is why they are concerned. my primary argument to counter the rightwingers here is that based on their history they support the governments interferrence and behavorial modification when it suits them but are trying to make a huge deal out of this because a democrat is in charge.

Furthermore, One interesting aspect of the whole process is that UV exposure can damage DNA but without exposure to visible light the cells cannot completely reverse the damage through the use of photolyases. Overexposure to natural light can cause the damage but you need light to repare the damage. I always thought of that as an interesting predicament/catch 22.

 

[saveliberty]

Yo doc. Illegal drug prohibition isn't about individual choice and lifestyle. Drug abuse affects others. Please show the stats that tanning affects driving, employment and proper parenting and then you might have a valid argument. Sheeez.

Drug ABUSE, as with the ABUSE of any drug, including alcohol or nicotine (both legal to use), can affect those around you. However, I am not talking about the ABUSE and the laws are not specific to ABUSE. Please try to stay on topic.

If you choose to use drugs in your own home by yourself or with other consenting adults then your use does not affect others. In that respect it is all about individual choice and lifestyle but thanks for the spin. If you are against one then you should be against all but thanks for trying to excuse rightwing hypocrisy so ineptly

Please let me know when you have a valid counter to what was actually said instead of inane ramblings that don't apply as they leave out facts pertinent to the debate. Sheeez.

You know what would be the quintessential hypocrisy: If and when drugs like marijuana and cocaine were legalized which would lower the cost, but also would thereby be taxable, the "constitutionalists" would probably scream about the tax, not that their poison of choice cost them less money.

News flash Maggie, the problem with drugs is NOT the cost. Also, Constitutionalists are not running around trying to legalize drugs. You are.

 

[Dr.House]

Oh brother.....you simple minded twit. Transportation is a need, would you agree? Now smoking, tanning, buying bottled water are not needed but a choice of an individual....should he/she be punished unduly for a lifestyle?
By the way, I'm not against taxes....just excessive taxes, which you seem to have no boundaries for. Like I said....dog, Pavlov Experiment.

Talk about simple minded, a car is not a need and neither is transportation.

"should he/she be punished unduly for a lifestyle?" Does this apply to everyone and their "lifestyles" or do your standards have a selective application??

Smitty...I pulled up your exact post....you twit.....these are your words, not mine. LOL Read and try and comprehend what you posted. You can spin all day LOL....but these are YOUR words....at least have the integrity to own up to them. Oooops, my bad, integrity and smitty have never crossed paths. Anyways....just STFU on your spinning.

You're wasting your time... Smith is fevorishly trying to imitate "Monkey-See, Monkey-Hear, and Monkey-Speak" at the same time... I imagine he's pretty frustrated, but he'll likely continue his attempts for hours...

 

[MaggieMae]

Actually....it doesn't make any sense at all. It just means you will do what they tell you and not question it at all. I find that quite curious

Do you question the sales tax you pay on everything inedible, from some goofy T-shirt that makes a statement and holds some designer label right up to that new washer and dryer which you might not need but choose to replace your old ones? (And yes, I realize some states don't have a sales tax; I'm just giving you an analogy.)

Did you happen to catch the "KEY words Excessive Tax" in my posts Maggie, or would that quelch the point your trying to make??? Hmmm?

?? Without backtracking, I take your word that you used "excessive." But which tax would that be? I do believe the cumulative taxes on cigarettes are excessive, but I honestly can't think of another one that is an excessive tax on a particular item. Oddly enough, even alcohol doesn't come close to the taxation on smokes and it is just as dangerous.

When the economy is good, myriad state taxes remain the same year after year. I was pleasantly surprised that my driver's license renewal yesterday hadn't gone up from four years ago, nor my car registration in June, although I would have understood fully if they had.

 

[saveliberty]

Maybe DrSmith is just a victim of tanning bed and cell phone brain dysfunction?

 

[Meister]

Maybe DrSmith is just a victim of tanning bed and cell phone brain dysfunction?

I think smitty is the victim of some bad DNA.

 

[MaggieMae]

It doesn't make any difference with them, ScreamingEagle. They could care less because it is much easier to be told what to think than to actually do their own thinking. They can't think out of the box with politics, and ask a tough question, "Why'?

You don't think those are important issues to the well-being of Americans if we're to remain a strong nation? Sometimes, it takes THE BOSS to shake things up a bit by making a strong statement. We're fat and unhealthy; addicted to our own personal lifestyles, and to a large extent becoming less and less educated. It's time we took a good long look around and shout out a collective STOP the madness. Just sit for an hour or so and observe the people coming and going. This site is meant to be humorous, but it also tells an awful truth about US.

Funny Pictures at WalMart Photos

I see you don't have the ability to think out of the box either, Maggie. Looks like the government needs to govern your own thoughts and decisions. Geeze, I feel sorry for the herd of sheep we have on this board

The problem with the type of lifestyle that we DEMAND is that we are, ironically, beginning to look like sheep. Everyone HAS TO HAVE what the other guy has, whether or not he/she can afford it; when they start looking like Dumbo--they just find other sheep that also look like Dumbo to hang out with, and bitch about a tax on soda.

The government is hardly forcing its thoughts on anyone by pointing out that we're an unhealthy nation of people who, with few exceptions, don't seem to care, until it starts costing them money to fix what their habits have wrought. I see nothing wrong with attempting to make people become more aware of the damage they're doing to themselves.

 

[drsmith1072]

I read through a dozen posts totally irrelevant to the subject. I don't know if this has been covered yet but tanning salons equipment produces loads ultraviolet which has been shown to cause skin cancer. I questioned the 10% tax when I read part of the bill. Why tanning salons and not tobacco companies and for that matter why not fast food joints. I guess they had a stronger lobby. If you don't have the right lobbyist and sufficient funds, your're screwed.

Yeah why not add a tax to everything because we all know in someones eyes everything is bad for you. Tobacco has been crushed over the last 20 years as well as fast food joints but hey lets destroy some more industry!!! Yep thats the answer!! Instead of being a democracy and letting people make choices for themselves we will just tax the hell out of them and force them to conform to someone elses ideals. When the hell did it become the governments responsibility to tell people how to live?

Hey why not, after that is what many republicans believed that for years and some still do as they run to the government to have them intervene in people's choices such as using the federal government to define marriage in order to prevent gays marrying and taking away their rights as well their ability to choose for themselves.

When the hell did it become the governments responsibility to tell people how to live?

The government has been used to do so for many years based on which party or group was in charge at the time. Where have you been?

 

[Meister]

You don't think those are important issues to the well-being of Americans if we're to remain a strong nation? Sometimes, it takes THE BOSS to shake things up a bit by making a strong statement. We're fat and unhealthy; addicted to our own personal lifestyles, and to a large extent becoming less and less educated. It's time we took a good long look around and shout out a collective STOP the madness. Just sit for an hour or so and observe the people coming and going. This site is meant to be humorous, but it also tells an awful truth about US.

Funny Pictures at WalMart Photos

I see you don't have the ability to think out of the box either, Maggie. Looks like the government needs to govern your own thoughts and decisions. Geeze, I feel sorry for the herd of sheep we have on this board

The problem with the type of lifestyle that we DEMAND is that we are, ironically, beginning to look like sheep. Everyone HAS TO HAVE what the other guy has, whether or not he/she can afford it; when they start looking like Dumbo--they just find other sheep that also look like Dumbo to hang out with, and bitch about a tax on soda.

The government is hardly forcing its thoughts on anyone by pointing out that we're an unhealthy nation of people who, with few exceptions, don't seem to care, until it starts costing them money to fix what their habits have wrought. I see nothing wrong with attempting to make people become more aware of the damage they're doing to themselves.

I see nothing wrong with people attempting to make other people become aware of the damage.
I see everything wrong when our government is doing it.

 

[MaggieMae]

Our government keep chipping away, just a little 10%, and a little 10% there. If they do it incrementally, people won't notice themselves bending over and getting th shaft.

Most "sin" taxes, fees and licensing are the result of state actions, not the federal government.

Again you are being disengenuous with my posts, Maggie. I also stated that all the governments are getting their pound of flesh. In the end we are being taxed and taxed and taxed...excessively, and that is good with you too, I get it....and I do understand why. But, you are oblivious to the reason, apparently.

Oh dear, I do hope you haven't bought into the "New World Order" promulgated by Obama like so many hysterical fringers have. It's becoming harder and harder to find rational thinking conservatives anymore. That said, a thread discussing the pros and cons of taxation in general is always a good debate. But if you're suggesting that a tax on tanning salons is somehow another "excessive" tax as part of some hidden agenda, I'd say you've been thoroughly brainwashed and ensconced within that "box."