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

[VaYank5150]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/weekinreview/18rampell.html

Yep. So once again we have to ask whether or not the goal is to reduce skin cancer, or pay for the healthcare bill. They cannot have it both ways. Sheez.

Why can't they? By reducing the risk of skin cancer, you ultimatley reduce the cost of health insurance and healthcare for said skin cancer. Federally funded healthcare would not cost as much, requiring less of an influx of revenue from policy holders and tax payers. Agreed?

No, I don't really agree with your point, VaYank.

We all die eventually. That means that whether or not someone dies of Skin Cancer or another form of Cancer or something else entirely different, there will be health related costs associated with their dying so one way or another, the costs are going to be paid.

Now, maybe if you could show that the cost of dying from Skin Cancer is much more expensive than dying from Lung Cancer, Heart Disease or Emphysema or many other diseases that could be the case. The cost of Health Care will not fall all that much due to this tax.

Unless, of course, you think the President has discovered the "Fountain of Youth" and we will never die.

Immie

Good....can we work together on removing ALL of the taxes on my cigarettes that are SUPPOSED to deter people from smoking and also help pay to treat those dying of lung cancer, heat disease and emphysema?

 

[Meister]

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

Nice spin loser but the previous comment you misquoted and took out of context



when here is my actual quote in which i referred to walking, biking and etc. which was in reference to 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.

which was in response to your post

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

in which you referred to a CAR specifically

I was in fact referring to a CAR in the context of my full and complete statement based on your own post which was in reference to a CAR and you continue to take things out of order and out of context in a desperate attempt to substantiate your baseless attacks.
I was not talking about a mode of transportation in that post, YOU focused on a CAR so I focused on a CAR and then you tried to spin and take things out of context to attack me and apply my statements about a CAR to all modes of transportation.

That is pretty much a detailed summary of your trolling.

So yet again it is YOU who are spinning.

P.S. I see that you have still failed to define a NEED. So i ask again why is that?

incredible, simply incredible

You stated a car is not a need and neither is transportation, Then you stated you 'can walk, bike, catch a cab or a bus'. which are all transportation....and I'm spinning? LOL Have a good day, smitty....your empty arguements have crossed the line into rediculous. LOL

 

[Immanuel]

Why can't they? By reducing the risk of skin cancer, you ultimatley reduce the cost of health insurance and healthcare for said skin cancer. Federally funded healthcare would not cost as much, requiring less of an influx of revenue from policy holders and tax payers. Agreed?

No, I don't really agree with your point, VaYank.

We all die eventually. That means that whether or not someone dies of Skin Cancer or another form of Cancer or something else entirely different, there will be health related costs associated with their dying so one way or another, the costs are going to be paid.

Now, maybe if you could show that the cost of dying from Skin Cancer is much more expensive than dying from Lung Cancer, Heart Disease or Emphysema or many other diseases that could be the case. The cost of Health Care will not fall all that much due to this tax.

Unless, of course, you think the President has discovered the "Fountain of Youth" and we will never die.

Immie

Good....can we work together on removing ALL of the taxes on my cigarettes that are SUPPOSED to deter people from smoking and also help pay to treat those dying of lung cancer, heat disease and emphysema?

I'm willing to work with you on that.

I think The Fair Tax is a great starting point. Now, that we have that settled, we need to convince the rest of the country of that.

Immie

 

[Meister]

Why can't they? By reducing the risk of skin cancer, you ultimatley reduce the cost of health insurance and healthcare for said skin cancer. Federally funded healthcare would not cost as much, requiring less of an influx of revenue from policy holders and tax payers. Agreed?

No, I don't really agree with your point, VaYank.

We all die eventually. That means that whether or not someone dies of Skin Cancer or another form of Cancer or something else entirely different, there will be health related costs associated with their dying so one way or another, the costs are going to be paid.

Now, maybe if you could show that the cost of dying from Skin Cancer is much more expensive than dying from Lung Cancer, Heart Disease or Emphysema or many other diseases that could be the case. The cost of Health Care will not fall all that much due to this tax.

Unless, of course, you think the President has discovered the "Fountain of Youth" and we will never die.

Immie

Good....can we work together on removing ALL of the taxes on my cigarettes that are SUPPOSED to deter people from smoking and also help pay to treat those dying of lung cancer, heat disease and emphysema?

Has anyone done any research on just how much of those taxes from smokes gone to actual medical research, and treatment? Just curious......

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

I don't think they can tax cigarettes any more than they already do. The taxES on cigarettes are now quadruple what the product actually costs. As far as fast food taxes, I am hopeful they will be coming VERY soon. Along with taxes on sugary sodas.

Yes, they can tax your smokes more than they do, and you will pay them just like you always do. The funny part about it is that you won't question it, because it's from the government.

There's a helluva lot about "the government" that I hate, not the least of which is the myriad operating rules of the IRS. I think "the government" has become a bloated behemoth created over the years by BOTH PARTIES, representing ALL POLITICAL IDEALS. Every president who comes to office manages to create these little sub-agencies that promote his campaign agenda (and Obama is no exception, but he's certainly not the rule either). Bush (yes, boys and girls, we've gone all this time without mentioning Booooooooooooosh), created agencies to promote marriage (tax writeoffs), to promote abstinence, funding for church-affiliated drug counseling while level-funding independent rehabilitation. The list is endless, and I could go back through all presidents for the past 40 years, but that's not my point. You need to stop lumping everyone into neat little packages, such as if you have a D as part of your political philosophy that somehow translates into being sheeple for anything government does. And it's simply not true.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

So where were you when reagan promoted his and his wife's say no to drugs campaign which is basically what you are complaining about NOW?

As said before, the government has been used to engage in this type of interferrence and involvment in the past and yet when it benefitted or fit into what the right supported they had NO problems with it. So why the concern NOW?

 

[MaggieMae]

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

The sun doesn't make a product. Breathing is a biological function. Best you can do?

 

[Meister]

I don't think they can tax cigarettes any more than they already do. The taxES on cigarettes are now quadruple what the product actually costs. As far as fast food taxes, I am hopeful they will be coming VERY soon. Along with taxes on sugary sodas.

Yes, they can tax your smokes more than they do, and you will pay them just like you always do. The funny part about it is that you won't question it, because it's from the government.

There's a helluva lot about "the government" that I hate, not the least of which is the myriad operating rules of the IRS. I think "the government" has become a bloated behemoth created over the years by BOTH PARTIES, representing ALL POLITICAL IDEALS. Every president who comes to office manages to create these little sub-agencies that promote his campaign agenda (and Obama is no exception, but he's certainly not the rule either). Bush (yes, boys and girls, we've gone all this time without mentioning Booooooooooooosh), created agencies to promote marriage (tax writeoffs), to promote abstinence, funding for church-affiliated drug counseling while level-funding independent rehabilitation. The list is endless, and I could go back through all presidents for the past 40 years, but that's not my point. You need to stop lumping everyone into neat little packages, such as if you have a D as part of your political philosophy that somehow translates into being sheeple for anything government does. And it's simply not true.

None of my posts have mentioned an "R" or a "D", Maggie....I have been saying "government" all along, and "politicians" all along. Anyone from any party needs to be asking questions and they are not, if they don't and are being led around....they are the sheep.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

So where were you when reagan promoted his and his wife's say no to drugs campaign which is basically what you are complaining about NOW?

As said before, the government has been used to engage in this type of interferrence and involvment in the past and yet when it benefitted or fit into what the right supported they had NO problems with it. So why the concern NOW?

That would fit if the government put out health announcements about the dangers of high exposure to UVA and UVB... but that is NOT what is being done here... it is expanding the tentacles of taxation, power, and increased government intrusion into the lives of people who are not doing illegal acts.... if they really wanted to 'help' they would make tanning beds illegal... but we ALL know this is not about helping people or anything else of the sort... this is big nanny government at it's best

 

[drsmith1072]

Economists doubt that sin taxes greatly affect the behavior of most Americans, especially when the amounts tacked on are quite small (as they usually are). Demand for things like cigarettes and soda is relatively inelastic. That means modest increases in price don’t greatly influence most people’s behavior. In other words, a penny-per-ounce soda tax, which has been proposed in New York, is unlikely to deter people from supersizing their Sprites.

Old habits, especially bad ones, die hard.

This underscores why the real value of sin taxes is their ability to generate cash. After all, taxes that truly succeeded in changing behavior would be self-defeating. If a cigarette tax forced all puffers to quit, there would be severe withdrawal symptoms not only for smokers — but for states that relied on the tax for revenue.

“On some level, politicians want these taxes to affect behavior,” said Kim Rueben, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute who studies state and local taxes. “But they’re kind of in trouble if it works too well. If it’s actually effective in changing behavior, governments lose that revenue source and have to figure out what else they can start taxing.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/weekinreview/18rampell.html

Yep. So once again we have to ask whether or not the goal is to reduce skin cancer, or pay for the healthcare bill. They cannot have it both ways. Sheez.

Actually yes it can be had both ways. IF it reduces the amount of exposure a person recieves and thereby reduces the risk of cancer at the same time the taxes can be used to "pay for the healthcare bill" then both are possible at the same time.

Not that I agree with your arguments but YES both are possible at the same time.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Oh really? The whole idea behind legalizing drugs is to stop the criminal activity which would happen if those drugs were readily available, and cheaper, in a free market. The last bill I recall that was introduced to legalize marijuana was a joint proposal by Congressmen Barney Frank and Ron Paul.

 

[drsmith1072]

I'm avoiding nothing... I made a comment about generalizations... If you want to remain an idiot, I really can't stop you...

Your words are there for all to see...

WOW more avoidance, imagine that. Fact is that you made a comment about generalizations that showed you to be a hypocrite as you avoided responding to the content of the post. How about you try responding to the content instead of hiding behind you hypocritial rants about generalizations?? Or that level of honesty too much to ask of you??

Dr. Smith and Dr. House. Please call in Nurse Betty to arbitrate. Patients are dying of boredom as you try to one-up each other.

You are correct and I apologize for allowing myself to be taken off topic by a troll whose only intent was to attack me personally. I should have realized he wasn't here for a serious debate the first time he chose to attack me as he ignored the content of my posts. I will try to remember that in the future.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

Oh really? The whole idea behind legalizing drugs is to stop the criminal activity which would happen if those drugs were readily available, and cheaper, in a free market. The last bill I recall that was introduced to legalize marijuana was a joint proposal by Congressmen Barney Frank and Ron Paul.

...and the whole purpose of making drugs illegal or controlled substances is to protect people from abuse and adverse consequences. This is really just about you getting a cheaper high isn't it?

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Except they don't. Unhealthy lifestyles become the norm. There's also the embarrassment factor. I wouldn't walk up to some stranger and say "Hey, you could drop a few pounds and your blood pressure would probably drop..." That doesn't even work within my own family. We just pretend not to notice.

 

[Dr.House]

I'm avoiding nothing... I made a comment about generalizations... If you want to remain an idiot, I really can't stop you...

Your words are there for all to see...

WOW more avoidance, imagine that. Fact is that you made a comment about generalizations that showed you to be a hypocrite as you avoided responding to the content of the post. How about you try responding to the content instead of hiding behind you hypocritial rants about generalizations?? Or that level of honesty too much to ask of you??

Dr. Smith and Dr. House. Please call in Nurse Betty to arbitrate. Patients are dying of boredom as you try to one-up each other.

I already gave my final words to him in post 205...

The guy is an overly-sensitive ("attacked"...lol) minor league player in the game of USMB... I kind of feel bad for making him cry, though...

 

[MaggieMae]

The problem is, seniros rely on MediCare. MediCare is goin bankrupt. Irresponsible choices by American citizens who partake of MediCare are cotsing our Government more than they are taking in. So, now the Government has decided to tax those irreposnisble choices in hopes of shoring up MediCare.

So tax the irresponsible seniors for their errors and leave the rest of us out of it.

So when are republicans going to make that part of their mainstream platform and drive those seniors away from their party? Since the right is allegedly against socialized medicine except when they think that they can get some votes out of it, my guess is that will NEVER happen. LOL

Well, I think the Republicans are banking on the senior vote this year because they managed to confuse so many of them over alleged cuts to Medicare. And there is STILL disinformation being put out there about those cuts, which will come from the Medicare Advantage Program, which takes funding from the basic Medicare program and subsidizes private insurers to cover such added health costs as eye exams, hearing aids, dentures, etc., not covered by regular Medicare.

 

[Meister]

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.

Except they don't. Unhealthy lifestyles become the norm. There's also the embarrassment factor. I wouldn't walk up to some stranger and say "Hey, you could drop a few pounds and your blood pressure would probably drop..." That doesn't even work within my own family. We just pretend not to notice.

Maybe instead of saying people i could have used businesses like Weight Watcher, Jenny Craig.....
But just like Dave stated....if it was about our health, the government would just outlaw....right?....but they would rather keep the cash cow.

 

[Meister]

So tax the irresponsible seniors for their errors and leave the rest of us out of it.

So when are republicans going to make that part of their mainstream platform and drive those seniors away from their party? Since the right is allegedly against socialized medicine except when they think that they can get some votes out of it, my guess is that will NEVER happen. LOL

Well, I think the Republicans are banking on the senior vote this year because they managed to confuse so many of them over alleged cuts to Medicare. And there is STILL disinformation being put out there about those cuts, which will come from the Medicare Advantage Program, which takes funding from the basic Medicare program and subsidizes private insurers to cover such added health costs as eye exams, hearing aids, dentures, etc., not covered by regular Medicare.

The republicans had the lions share of the senior vote, I'm thinking they are campaigning for the Independents.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Punishing good hard working Americans is just wrong. The Socialists/Progressives are out of control at this point. Our Founding Fathers would be absolutely appalled at these kind of punitive taxes. That's why we kicked the Brits out for God's sake. I don't want my Government punishing good fellow Americans just because they deem indoor tanning "Bad." Our Government should be serving the people not punishing them. If the Republicans do regain some power,they should immediately repeal stupid punitive taxes like this. The people would be euphoric in their appreciation. To H*LL with the Socialists! Make 2010 count people.

 

[drsmith1072]

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

Nice spin loser but the previous comment you misquoted and took out of context



when here is my actual quote in which i referred to walking, biking and etc. which was in reference to a CAR




which was in response to your post

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

in which you referred to a CAR specifically

I was in fact referring to a CAR in the context of my full and complete statement based on your own post which was in reference to a CAR and you continue to take things out of order and out of context in a desperate attempt to substantiate your baseless attacks.
I was not talking about a mode of transportation in that post, YOU focused on a CAR so I focused on a CAR and then you tried to spin and take things out of context to attack me and apply my statements about a CAR to all modes of transportation.

That is pretty much a detailed summary of your trolling.

So yet again it is YOU who are spinning.

P.S. I see that you have still failed to define a NEED. So i ask again why is that?

incredible, simply incredible

You stated a car is not a need and neither is transportation, Then you stated you 'can walk, bike, catch a cab or a bus'. which are all transportation....and I'm spinning? LOL Have a good day, smitty....your empty arguements have crossed the line into rediculous. LOL

I am not denying what I PREVIOUSLY stated. However YOU tried to take comments that applied SPECIFICALLY to a CAR and apply it to ALL modes of transprotation and the moment you did that you exposed your own dishonesty.
The truly sad FACT is that you did it AGAIN in this very thread as you try to attribute my comments concerning a CAR to all modes of transprotation.

I made a statement, then YOU specified a CAR, So I focused my following comments on a CAR and you are pretending that you YOUR comments never existed and that my follow up to YOUR specific comment about a CAR somehow applies to my first statement when I specifically stated I was referring to a CAR.

I really don't think it can be spelled out in a way that you can understand it.

BTW still waiting on you to define a NEED. What are you afraid of and why do you conitnue to avoid doing so??