Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
You mean like a tax on hair products typically used by black women? Or a tax on Chinese produce?
I can't think of anything similar to this tax on tanning beds. The problem is that you don't need to be a white female to "benefit" from them. I'm sure plenty of men use them. I'm sure plenty of Asians like tanning too. It could be argued that black people living in northern regions should use tanning beds to help them produce adequate levels of vitamin D.
Sorry for not taking this more seriously. I think the implication is itself a bit silly.
Can you think of any other situation like this one? I mean, we can get into gender-biased pricing. But I can't think of discriminating taxation.
|
Oh trust me, I'm not taking it seriously either. Just opening up a somewhat lighter discussion than the others going on.
The print editorial I read was from a manager of a salon who said that 99% of his customers were white and 98% were women. These percentages were based on sales numbers, but the writer didn't specify if the customer wrote these demographics in when signing up or whether the clerks recorded them based on a visual evaluation (admittedly flawed). The numbers were recorded for the purposes of targeting a market in advertising. The point was that it really was that biased for this owner.
Since you brought it up, suppose a particular hair relaxer was known to be carcinogenic and the government added an additional 10% tax on it. This tax would almost exclusively target black women. Do you think there would be outrage? ACLU, Jessie, and Al? Does it really matter who the demographic is?
Perhaps this is a first, where the tax was for the effects of the device but the device happens to be discriminatory by nature. ~shrug~ if it's a non-starter thread, let's just let it crawl down the list so y'all can get back to the pressing matter of who is worse -Obama or Bush.
