Is the new "Tanning Tax" racist?

[Vtaper]

Its not yall, I looked it up:

The Federal government CAN impose a tax on a product or service who's customer base is of one ethnicity so long as its White.

All kidding aside, I know this was not racially motivated legislation but can any of you imagine the backlash if a tax was placed on something that only Blacks use? The ACLU would have already filed the papers and Sharpton and Jackson would be on every news station.

Full article: Health care bill imposes 10% tax on tanning salon customers - Mar. 24, 2010


Oh yeah, please do not respond to tell me about the Black guy you knew who tanned a couple of times before a competition, we all know that 99.99% of the people who tan on a regular bases are white.

 

[Derek4Real]

Very true and its BS if you ask me

 

[MrRobRage]

not true, almost all my female Hispanic friends tan

 

[mixedup]

Yes i know hispanic, white and asians who all use tanning so it's not exclusively a what product.

 

[Zero V]

not exclusively, but it is mostly white.

Honestly though...I only see "sluts" and "douch-men", or just idiots as people who go tanning at the beds...so it makes sense lol. But Too much tax already, too much control.

Then again...The sun is still there, right? Lord forbid you actually have to be outside to get your guido or slut tan goin....

 

[pool_shark]

Not all blacks have dark skin either, some who are not dark also like to tan.


Lame try at trying to make it racial, I guess you never bothered to get to know anyone who is non-white.

 

[rambo679]

If this effects the next season of Jersey Shore I'm going to run for office.

 

[Harry Manback]

Ok...let's put a tax on cocoa butter. Deal?

 

[dusty]

this part of legislation was probly not racially motivated, but imagine the hell if there was a National Association for the Advancement of Caucasian People?

(Btw i am not racist in any way, i have many multi-racial friends)

 

[Vtaper]

not true, almost all my female Hispanic friends tan

Yes i know hispanic, white and asians who all use tanning so it's not exclusively a what product.

And my favorite:

Not all blacks have dark skin either, some who are not dark also like to tan. Lame try at trying to make it racial, I guess you never bothered to get to know anyone who is non-white.

OMFG you guys! Way to go with your ability to sniff out the sarcasm in my postat:

Im now taking a deep breath and reminding myself that im on "teh interwebz" and regardless of the statements in my post such as, "I know this legislation is not racially motivated" and the 99 percent thing, and about Blacks tanning before competitions thing, I have to remember that some of you will see the title, skim what I wrote, take from it whatever distorted view you want and then basically respond to the title.

First, my post was to point out that when the goverment tries to regulate something, if that something can be attributed to one ethnicity primarily using it, it would be called racist even though there was NO racially motivated agenda behind it. Example? How about welfare reform? All the Libs, Sharpton, Jackson and every other loser that wouldnt have a job unless they can keep people angry called it racist..........EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE MORE WHITE PEOPLE ON WELFARE THAN BLACKS.(yes, I know the percentage is lower but the total numbers are higher)

And second, the hypocrisy of the above mentioned civil rights activists and related organizations who should be screaming that these taxes are racist because according to their metrics they certainly are.

So once again, I know tanning bed taxes ARE NOT RACIST, I do not believe in conspiracy theories. I also know that SOME Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and my ex-wife who is Iranian use tanning beds but I would argue that across the country, 99% of regular tanning customers are white. But maybe im wrong? Maybe its 95%, maybe its 90%............maybe its 80%.

So here's a question: If Black people made up 80% of the customer base of a certain product or service, and the federal government led by a white president decided to impose a special tax on that product or service, do you think the ACLU, NAACP or the media would call it racist?
a) yes
b) no

And to Mr. Pool Shark: Does assuming you know things about people you've never met make you look:
a) more credible
b) less credible
c) no change

 

[SamuraiSid]

I can honestly say I dont remember the last time I heard about racism in the media up here in Canada..

That being sayed my opinion may be slightly skewered as I have never had to deal with a racial issue. But I dont think that imposing a tax on tanning is racist, or has anything to do with racism. If anything, raising the question "Is this rasict?" is racist.

 

[monstermash]

not to defend the bill..but tanning beds increase risk of skin cancer 75-80 %..imo..if they need more tax money: tax the smokers more, have an obesity tax, and make welfare leaches take drug tests to remain on the cheese.

I agree on all points here. I still don't understand why cigs aren't like 20$ a pack. They should also tax the crap out of fast food, making it cheaper to serve healthy items.

And my favorite:



OMFG you guys! Way to go with your ability to sniff out the sarcasm in my postat:

Im now taking a deep breath and reminding myself that im on "teh interwebz" and regardless of the statements in my post such as, "I know this legislation is not racially motivated" and the 99 percent thing, and about Blacks tanning before competitions thing, I have to remember that some of you will see the title, skim what I wrote, take from it whatever distorted view you want and then basically respond to the title.

First, my post was to point out that when the goverment tries to regulate something, if that something can be attributed to one ethnicity primarily using it, it would be called racist even though there was NO racially motivated agenda behind it. Example? How about welfare reform? All the Libs, Sharpton, Jackson and every other loser that wouldnt have a job unless they can keep people angry called it racist..........EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE MORE WHITE PEOPLE ON WELFARE THAN BLACKS.(yes, I know the percentage is lower but the total numbers are higher)

And second, the hypocrisy of the above mentioned civil rights activists and related organizations who should be screaming that these taxes are racist because according to their metrics they certainly are.

So once again, I know tanning bed taxes ARE NOT RACIST, I do not believe in conspiracy theories. I also know that SOME Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and my ex-wife who is Iranian use tanning beds but I would argue that across the country, 99% of regular tanning customers are white. But maybe im wrong? Maybe its 95%, maybe its 90%............maybe its 80%.

So here's a question: If Black people made up 80% of the customer base of a certain product or service, and the federal government led by a white president decided to impose a special tax on that product or service, do you think the ACLU, NAACP or the media would call it racist?
a) yes
b) no

And to Mr. Pool Shark: Does assuming you know things about people you've never met make you look:
a) more credible
b) less credible
c) no change

I feel you on this one. People are retarded and that tax is complete bull (no I do not go tanning myself). Oh and for the record I'm half hispanic.

 

[DAdams91982]

not to defend the bill..but tanning beds increase risk of skin cancer 75-80 %..imo..if they need more tax money: tax the smokers more, have an obesity tax, and make welfare leaches take drug tests to remain on the cheese.

Wow... that is quite the egregious tax plan there.

 

[monstermash]

I can honestly say I dont remember the last time I heard about racism in the media up here in Canada..

That being sayed my opinion may be slightly skewered as I have never had to deal with a racial issue. But I dont think that imposing a tax on tanning is racist, or has anything to do with racism. If anything, raising the question "Is this rasict?" is racist.

I just think they're are better things to tax BEFORE taxing this.

ie- fast food, tobacco, alchohol, soda, candy, etc...

^^ these things are what's killing americans and who can blame them for getting addicted to these things when they're so well advertised and cheaply priced.

 

[DAdams91982]

I just think they're are better things to tax BEFORE taxing this.

ie- fast food, tobacco, alchohol, soda, candy, etc...

^^ these things are what's killing americans and who can blame them for getting addicted to these things when they're so well advertised and cheaply priced.

That is quite the attack on the ability for American Choice.

I see everyone attacking obesity and different foods as the primary attack on our health care costs, and that is just a red herring propagated by the left.

Considering our health care is predominantly inflated by the aging baby boomers, do we now tax "Old"?

 

[EasyEJL]

Wow... that is quite the egregious tax plan there.

Not in the least. If the federal government is going to give tax credits for health insurance plans, then it should take in that money from things that contribute negatively to health to pay for it, not just take it from people who "already have enough money"

 

[monstermash]

Wow... that is quite the egregious tax plan there.

ok well maybe the obesity tax wouldn't be doable but the drug tests for welfare should have been there from the start.

 

[EasyEJL]

Considering our health care is predominantly inflated by the aging baby boomers, do we now tax "Old"?

No because eveyone gets old, not everyone gets morbidly obese. Getting obese is something you can avoid, getting old is something you can't other than by dying young.

this hog

is trying to reach 1000lbs just to break the worlds record.

 

[DAdams91982]

Not in the least. If the federal government is going to give tax credits for health insurance plans, then it should take in that money from things that contribute negatively to health to pay for it, not just take it from people who "already have enough money"

So redistribution of wealth? The tax credits are not some magical being that has no impact on our budgetary constraints.

Like I said.. do we tax old now?

 

[DAdams91982]

ok well maybe the obesity tax wouldn't be doable but the drug tests for welfare should have been there from the start.

I have been in support of this for a good decade now. Anyone that placates the system should have consequences.

 

[DAdams91982]

No because eveyone gets old, not everyone gets morbidly obese. Getting obese is something you can avoid, getting old is something you can't other than by dying young.

this hog



is trying to reach 1000lbs just to break the worlds record.

Why not though, My grandfather is in late stages of alzeheimers... i am sure it is some type of life style choice he made that led him to it, so why not tax him for his choices?

 

[EasyEJL]

Why not though, My grandfather is in late stages of alzeheimers... i am sure it is some type of life style choice he made that led him to it, so why not tax him for his choices?

If we have evidence that there is a lifestyle choice that led to alzheimers then taxing the source of that lifestyle (lets for laughs say it was pepto bismol use) makes sense. Not taxing the individual, but taxing the choices. If something is going to lead to future government paid for health care, then taxing it to pay for that health care makes sense.

I only think any of this is reasonable because the douchebag democrats passed that miserable sucky health care bill and as it stands gutting medicare and wealth redistribution are totally unreasonable ways to finance it.

 

[monstermash]

No because eveyone gets old, not everyone gets morbidly obese. Getting obese is something you can avoid, getting old is something you can't other than by dying young.

this hog

is trying to reach 1000lbs just to break the worlds record.

What's really funny about this pic is she's drinking DIET crush!! :toofunny:

 

[DAdams91982]

If we have evidence that there is a lifestyle choice that led to alzheimers then taxing the source of that lifestyle (lets for laughs say it was pepto bismol use) makes sense. Not taxing the individual, but taxing the choices. If something is going to lead to future government paid for health care, then taxing it to pay for that health care makes sense.

I only think any of this is reasonable because the douchebag democrats passed that miserable sucky health care bill and as it stands gutting medicare and wealth redistribution are totally unreasonable ways to finance it.

I can see your point, that since health care was passed, this is required. I am still against any progressive egregious tax regardless of the health care bill. But as you can imagine my take is still severely against the health care act.

The problem with these taxes people are coming up with, is how extremely progressive in nature they will become. Lets look at the history of financial projections shall we?

In 1965, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance program of Medicare – the federal health care program for the elderly and disabled – would cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual cost that year was $67 billion.
.
In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee said the entire Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion.
.
In 1987, Congress projected that Medicaid – the joint federal-state health care program for the poor – would make special relief payments to hospitals of less than $1 billion in 1992. Actual cost: $17 billion.
.
The 1993 cost of Medicare’s home care benefit was projected in 1988 to be $4 billion, but ended up at $10 billion.
.
As hideous as the actual 1990’s numbers turned out to be, note that the 2009 Medicare budget was a crushing $425 billion, and total unfunded liabilities for the program currently stand at an indisputably ruinous $75 TRILLION.

A few pennies on soda will not make up the difference if history tells any kind of story.

Now how about this industry with regard to Alzheimers. Some companies are actually selling L-Dopa in their products. Now if that person does develop alzheimers in the future, and the cheap l-dopa doesn't work for them, the health care cost will go even higher because of advanced care that person will require... shall we tax supplements even higher now? How about the hormonal lines out there that we know are hazardous... or better yet, all these stimulant products out there that cause heart palpitations. If we tax everything that has a possibility to be bad for someone, might as well enact the fair tax act, because that is going to be what it takes.

 

[DAdams91982]

What's really funny about this pic is she's drinking DIET crush!! :toofunny:

Haha... nice catch.. wouldn't want all that bad sugar... all that insulin desensitization might lead to diabetes!

 

[wontstop985]

Why not though, My grandfather is in late stages of alzeheimers... i am sure it is some type of life style choice he made that led him to it, so why not tax him for his choices?

Of course we should tax old people! We should also go the other way as well. Tax newborns! Everybody is going to cost the healthcare system money, so might as well be fair and tax them all right from the get-go.

Then we can tax cigarettes more (even though they've tripled in price in the last 15 years.

Then, we'll tax Crisco. I mean, tax the hell out of that sh*t. It's UN-F*CKING-HEALTHY.

Every fifth of liquor will have a $20 tax added. Add $5 tax to each beer.

Tax soda and fruit juice.

Tax diet soda too--just in case those artificial sweeteners cause cancer!

Tax going outside (THE SUN GIVES YOU CANCER).

Tax those dirty romance novels without question.

Tax the Harry Potter books--and movies.

Tax thongs and any sort of generally slutty clothing (this will reduce STD's).


I'm sure I'm missing a few things, somebody help me out here!

 

[badbart]

What ever happened to personal responsibility? This is what happens when the government tries to subsidies poor choices, we all pay for the poor choices.

 

[DAdams91982]

Of course we should tax old people! We should also go the other way as well. Tax newborns! Everybody is going to cost the healthcare system money, so might as well be fair and tax them all right from the get-go.

Then we can tax cigarettes more (even though they've tripled in price in the last 15 years.

Then, we'll tax Crisco. I mean, tax the hell out of that sh*t. It's UN-F*CKING-HEALTHY.

Every fifth of liquor will have a $20 tax added. Add $5 tax to each beer.

Tax soda and fruit juice.

Tax diet soda too--just in case those artificial sweeteners cause cancer!

Tax going outside (THE SUN GIVES YOU CANCER).

Tax those dirty romance novels without question.

Tax the Harry Potter books--and movies.

Tax thongs and any sort of generally slutty clothing (this will reduce STD's).


I'm sure I'm missing a few things, somebody help me out here!

I think you forgot breathing, the EPA just announced recently that carbon dioxide is hazardous to your health, so cap your CD emissions by stop breathing.... wait, stopping breathing is hazardous to your health as well, so how about we taxes those who do breath, and those that hold their breath!

 

[wontstop985]

If we have evidence that there is a lifestyle choice that led to alzheimers then taxing the source of that lifestyle (lets for laughs say it was pepto bismol use) makes sense. Not taxing the individual, but taxing the choices. If something is going to lead to future government paid for health care, then taxing it to pay for that health care makes sense.

I only think any of this is reasonable because the douchebag democrats passed that miserable sucky health care bill and as it stands gutting medicare and wealth redistribution are totally unreasonable ways to finance it.

Actually, wealth redistribution is a totally reasonable way to finance it. If you haven't noticed, Federal taxes ARE wealth redistribution. I'm fairly certain that almost every sovereign state in the entire world uses this technique. It has been common practice for hundreds (if not thousands) of years.

For the record, I do not support the health care bill and believe that the Federal government should be made smaller (less spending, less taxes), not larger.

 

[AnthonyIOSOS]

I am starting to think think we made the wrong choice with Obama. I am not trying to start an argument, but everytime I open up the paper or go online I read something crazy.

Because the Botax was expected to generate $5.8 billion, more than double the amount the tanning tax is projected to raise, many tanning industry professionals are furious about the switch, arguing that while the tanning tax targets middle-class, women-owned businesses, the Botax would mainly impact wealthier Americans who would be more able to handle higher prices.

And the rich get richer as the poor get poorer.

And how are they going to act like there is no risk in implants. Give me a break.

 

[wontstop985]

I think you forgot breathing, the EPA just announced recently that carbon dioxide is hazardous to your health, so cap your CD emissions by stop breathing.... wait, stopping breathing is hazardous to your health as well, so how about we taxes those who do breath, and those that hold their breath!

Maybe the government could distribute O2 tanks for daily use. If you use more than your daily allotment of O2, YOU PAY BIG TAXES MOTHERF*CKER! Also, heavily tax the sale of the tanks. And the breathing tubes.

 

[wontstop985]

I am starting to think think we made the wrong choice with Obama. I am not trying to start an argument, but everytime I open up the paper or go online I read something crazy.



And the rich get richer as the poor get poorer.

And how are they going to act like there is no risk in implants. Give me a break.

There should be a tax on being poor. And a tax on homelessness.

 

[DAdams91982]

There should be a tax on being poor. And a tax on homelessness.

It is a hazard to your health.

 

[AnthonyIOSOS]

There should be a tax on being poor. And a tax on homelessness.

The way things are looking, poor might be a household making under 100k. We are all going to get taxed.

 

[Harry Manback]

Some words of wisdom for the weary, from the mind of CT native Seth Mcfarlane:

Angela: I have nothing to live for.
Peter: Sure you do. Someday a white man's gonna be elected President again.

 

[EasyEJL]

Some words of wisdom for the weary, from the mind of CT native Seth Mcfarlane:

Angela: I have nothing to live for.
Peter: Sure you do. Someday a white man's gonna to be elected President again.

pppphhhhhtttt still white or black has nothing to do with it. if Bill Cosby ran for election in 2012 I'd be campaigning for him. Common sense vs nonsense.

 

[DAdams91982]

whereas obesity can be reversed, entirely prevented, and has no genetic predispostion.

Revise your information. the INSIG2 gene has been identified as the leading proponent for obesity. So now how do we weed out the genetically halted?

 

[Vtaper]

I can honestly say I dont remember the last time I heard about racism in the media up here in Canada..

That being sayed my opinion may be slightly skewered as I have never had to deal with a racial issue. But I dont think that imposing a tax on tanning is racist, or has anything to do with racism. If anything, raising the question "Is this rasict?" is racist.

Sir, you are not helping Canada's stock. You just responded to a respone of mine who's subject was that people were reading my post wrong...............and then you read THAT wrong!!!! Is this a ****ing joke? Is April fools day March 29th in Canada?

For the last gotdamn time, MY POST WAS TONGUE-IN-CHEEK

"If anything, raising the question Is this racist is racist" Oh lord help us. Jean Chrétien must be spinnin' in his grave. Oh wait, he aint dead.

So please s-l-o-w-l-y re-read my other 2 posts in this thread and try not to hurt yourself using the roller ball and back button.

Oh Snap, I just had another brilliant idea! Lets do a full page tangent on me ribbing you for the Canada thing. (I happen to love Canada and was in Ontario last week:friday: <---- Molson Ice or Labbatt? Me likey either way)

 

[EasyEJL]

and if bill cosby ran for president alot of black people would be upset because he calls them out on their own ignorance and puts the blame on them making them responsible for themselves and be accountable rather than blaming everyone else....the whiteman.

hence part of why i'd campaign for him. He would be a real personal responsibility candidate.

 

[bluehealer]

Gents, this is only the beginning, this tanning tax is but a grain of sand in the ocean.

 

[Harry Manback]

No taxation without representation?

 

[DAdams91982]

so if you have the INSIG2 gene, then no matter how hard you work out or diet, you will be obese, and never achieve an ideal body weight that is less than 40 lbs overweight???

No, if the INSIG2 gene is expressed in stage 2 instead of the normal stage 6 then the person is extremely predisposed to obesity, almost impossible to overcome, but key word is almost. I was just pointing out that there are genetic traits that do contribute, as you stated otherwise. It doesn't negate the hard work that people should put in regardless, but egregious taxing is a complete abuse of power.

 

[DAdams91982]

point taken..i know that there are genetic factors that are phsycological as well that contribute too...but obesity is not indefinite....but take away taxing the obese..do you agree that obese individuals should have to pay more for health insurance? or is that unfair too?

That I do agree with. If a person is obese or more, they should definitely pay more for health insurance, just like a high risk driver would pay more for auto insurance or carry an SR-22. The problem I was saying is that punishing the good is marxist in nature.

 

[SamuraiSid]

I just think they're are better things to tax BEFORE taxing this.

ie- fast food, tobacco, alchohol, soda, candy, etc...

^^ these things are what's killing americans and who can blame them for getting addicted to these things when they're so well advertised and cheaply priced.

why do you belive that fast food, tobacco, alcohol, soda, candy, etc should be taxed first? Im not trying to sound like a ****, so if its coming off that way I apologize.

 

[SamuraiSid]

Sir, you are not helping Canada's stock. You just responded to a respone of mine who's subject was that people were reading my post wrong...............and then you read THAT wrong!!!! Is this a ****ing joke? Is April fools day March 29th in Canada?

For the last gotdamn time, MY POST WAS TONGUE-IN-CHEEK

"If anything, raising the question Is this racist is racist" Oh lord help us. Jean Chrétien must be spinnin' in his grave. Oh wait, he aint dead.

So please s-l-o-w-l-y re-read my other 2 posts in this thread and try not to hurt yourself using the roller ball and back button.

Oh Snap, I just had another brilliant idea! Lets do a full page tangent on me ribbing you for the Canada thing. (I happen to love Canada and was in Ontario last week:friday: <---- Molson Ice or Labbatt? Me likey either way)

I quote from www.wisegeeks.com: "When something is described as “tongue in cheek,” it means that it should not be taken seriously. Tongue in cheek humor is often wry, subtle, and sometimes difficult to catch, in contrast with more blatant forms of humor. In England in particular, tongue in cheek jokes, fiction, and films have been elevated to an art form, as this type of dry wit is especially valued in British culture."

That being said, when using aforementioned humour tactics, dont be surprised if a bunch of repliers dont get the joke:tongue2:

So while I misresresented what you were getting at, I still have a question for you that needs answering.

I know this was not racially motivated legislation but can any of you imagine the backlash if a tax was placed on something that only Blacks use?

Im just wondering how you came to this assumption.

 

[Young Gotti]

isn't this tax sexist?...guys don't tan

 

[Vtaper]

Im just wondering how you came to this assumption.

When you mentioned being from Canada,you said you dont hear much about racism on the news?

In the U.S. there are many groups and individuals who use race not to start debates but to end them.

For example, A Black professor loses his keys, has to break into his own home. A neighbor doesnt recognize him and calls the police. A white cop shows up and the professor is rude, uncooperative and wont show I.D. it escalates and the man gets arrested. Whats all over the news? IT WAS RACISM!!! Obama says "I dont know the details but the police acted stupidly", he later has the cop and the professor at the white house to do some healing.......all over some arrogant prick who wouldnt cooperate with police WHO WERE THERE TO PROTECT HIS HOUSE.

But when a Black cop tazers the sh!t out of a White guy at a John Kerry event, the same losers who cry racism just to sell a book or get ratings are all silent. If they defended the White guy with the same passion I would repect them. I wouldnt agree(because I dont think race was an issue in either case), but I would respect them.

There has become a destructive double-standard in regards to race here and sadly, its mostly politicly motivated to further The Democratic Party and their candidates. Example?

Bush doesnt respond to hurricane Katrina fast enough for Kanye West and the rest of the race baiters so they call him racist. The Bush Admin. was blamed for the forecloser crisis for racial reasons. But when Harry Reid(A Dem Senator and leader) says Obama's a good candidate because he "Is light-skinned and has no Negroe dialect" nobody said sh!t. Then when some Republicans pointed out that it was out of line and racist, Black Congress people said Republicans were just trying to use it to take attention away from the health care debate to protect their guy.

BTW, I cant remeber who said it, Jackson or Sharpton, but one of them said "If you dont support health care reform your racist". The Left cowardly uses language like that to entirley shut down debates and they usually win.

Do some research on Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the ACLU and you'll get a great perspective on this issue.

 

[TheLastRonin]

I can honestly say I dont remember the last time I heard about racism in the media up here in Canada..

That being sayed my opinion may be slightly skewered as I have never had to deal with a racial issue. But I dont think that imposing a tax on tanning is racist, or has anything to do with racism. If anything, raising the question "Is this rasict?" is racist.

Not sure where you live in Canada but racism is up here. Its not as prevalent a media subject but it is here. Natives and Asians in particular are always in the news for something racially motivated. Natives are discriminated against quite a bit on a street level as well.
3 little skin headed white guys tried to beat up one big black guy calling him various names on VI not too long ago.
People were pushing Asians into the water when they were fishing in Ontario because they didn't think they should be able to and didn't believe them to have licences calling them racial names.
I don't know how many times I have been called white boy by other cultures here especially natives.
I believe a Jewish synagogue was burned down in Montreal not too long ago.
Its not as bad as the US from experience but we have our issues.
In high school for me though It was never as bad as what my wife went through in California getting called gook and many other names and being harassed many times by black people,white people and other Asians.

Frankly there are bullys in every race and when there is power to be had they hold on for dear life and try to destroy any opposition to their power, while acting to reinforce that the power is still theirs and trying to gain more if they can. If people want to use the race card at every opportunity to brow beat people into their line of thinking, in this liberal society that we are in, it will most likely keep working.

If anything, raising the question "Is this rasict?" is racist.

This is stupid btw. I utterly hate this PC BS line of thinking. It is not racist (even if it was a real question and not a tongue in cheek one). It actually does seem to target some races as opposed to to others. I have many dark skinned friends and not one of them tans. I do however have a large percentage of light skinned friends who do tan yearly. It seems a very viable question if the country is aiming for racial equality. Laws should be nondiscriminatory. If the law affected some minority by the majority other than white, there would be some form of racism mentioned, I can guarantee that.

 

[Vtaper]

isn't this tax sexist?...guys don't tan

Good point, apparantly 2/3 of tanning salon owners and 85% of tanning customers are women. And women, regardless of color are a "protected class". I should have named this thread "Is the tanning tax sexist" And could have backed it up with articles like this that have already jumped on that bandwagon!!!

These articles say that it is sexist and it "Unfairly penalizes that demographic(women)"



http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/policy/articles/tanning_salons_do_a_slow_burn_over_a_tax_to_pay_for_health_care_reform.html

So lets re-phrase my question: If the government taxed a product or service who's customer base is 85% men would it be called sexist? LOL!

And on a special side note to SamuriaSid, Is asking "Is this sexist", sexist? Double LOL!(you know I love ya)

Oooohhh the humanity!

 

[Bionic]