Race/Gender Tax?
 

So, I read an editorial this weekend of someone who contends that the new tanning bed tax is, at its essence, a race/gender tax - a tax levied directly on a particular race/gender. Apparently, almost 99% of their customers are from a single race. Furthermore, the industry sales statistics show that it effectively targets a particular gender, with 98% of the clientele being of one gender.

The question for discussion is whether a tax of this nature is unfair or even in violation of the law?

So, here's my opinion: I honestly don't know if it is against the law. I don't think the tax was written with the intent to target a race/gender, but a side effect of the legislation is that it does target race/gender. I can't think of another example of an excise tax which effectively targets/race gender - but I'd bet they exist. Can anyone think of others?

I do know that it is a usage tax, and one can avoid the tax by simply not participating in the activity. It's essentially the cigarette tax. But every race/gender combination smokes, unlike here. My inclination is to shrug since I don't use the service (I'm not in the demographic either), but what if I did use it? I suppose I would want this assertion to be...what's the best word...vetted, perhaps? So, pasty girls unit!

Hm, interesting premise.

But...
Tanning bed industry scorched by new tax in health bill - Chico Enterprise Record

I can't see how it can be viewed as a tax intentionally singling out Caucasian women almost exclusively, when the tax is tied into health care and you have damning stats describing the health hazard of using the device.

It's not that they're taxing yoga, toy dog breeds, designer bottled water, expensive sandwiches, detox programs, and sea salt, etc., all at the same time... you know, like a group tax singling out the things Caucasian women like. :rolleyes:

It's a sin tax just like that on booze and cigarettes. Here, we know you want to do it; here, we know you're going to do it despite it being bad for you; here, we're going to tax you more for it.

I was hoping to avoid where the tax is specifically being applied and focus on the other. I watched my father-in-law have his nose cut off and get reconstructed with his ear and forehead. The process took over a year and was absolutely disgusting. Talk about scared straight. I am a "50 SPF every hour" sort of person. There's no doubt that tanning boothes are purely vanity items, with no other benefit.

I'm also trying to avoid stereotyping by trying to create some other comparison, like "What if they put a tax on <insert stereotypically purchased item here>?" I don't know, what if they put a 10% tax on Canadian flags? :D

Well, I'm okay with taxing the hell outta white people.

:lol:

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.

This would be a great nonsense thread: "How to tax X social group..."

There are several doctors in my area that do just that, but for everyone.

I like the idea of a bottled water tax, most of it is municipal water anyway.

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.:thumbsup:

Well, the FDA or somebody would probably pull it off the market, is what would happen. Which might be what should happen with tanning salons. Hiking their tax is a "the genie is out of the bottle" solution--they can't just prohibit tanning (can you imagine the market in illicit tanning beds that would spring up??), but they can cause some trickle-down price increases to discourage people from tanning.

I'll say, when I read about the tax on tanning salons, it did strike me as somewhat... specific. I guess in principle it's no different from taxing cigarettes special at retail, and presumably somebody could produce a study indicating a high health care cost associated with the tanning industry....

I dunno. I'm not sure I'm for this particular tax. To make the argument that it's sexist/racist, though, is just dumb.

Now would be a good time to invest in bronzer manufacturers. Sales in Jersey alone are going to SKY ROCKET!

Interesting that you would suggest that outlawing it would cause a black market. Don't you think the same potential exists in over-taxing (subjective) it? The salons go out of business, they sell their beds on craig's list. Individuals buy the beds on the surplus market and sell usage to clientele under the table. The point being is that government is rarely successful at regulating human behavior.

Just to be clear, no one is suggesting that the tax was created ~to~ target a race/gender - only that the tax ~does~ target a race/gender...and I've seen you in T.E. back in the day - you could use a little bronzer on that ass of yours. Just sayin'...

If I were an attorney I would be able to present a compelling argument that the tax has a disparate impact and is discriminatory on its face - the challenge would be making the connection to a violation of a Constitutionally protected right, similar to arguments made to over turn Jim Crow era pole taxes. If there was a tax targeting a commonly known minority group the way this tax impacts white females it would be easier for people to see the argument and make the connection with something like the Equal Protection Clause or The Civil Rights Act. Imagine a unique tax on female hair products specifically used only by black women.

Indoor tanning is a constitutional right or a civil right subject to equal protection in the same manner as public accommodation laws or employment discrimination laws?

I dont think so.

You lack creativity in your thinking.

Equal protection is certainly broader than public accommodations and employment discrimination.

And I am not saying the connection can be made in this case, I don't have the knowledge of case law to say that, but I do know the tax has a disparate impact and is discriminatory of its face - the legality question is beyond my knowledge at this point.

No, I would suggest that I did a "reasonable" test as opposed to a frivolous lawsuit.

Well, hair relaxers commonly used by black women have already been mentioned here. I'm sure if you taxed them if they were harmful, then it would be a similar situation.

It all comes down to intent. The intent is to offset or otherwise reduce the cost of the harm that comes out of using tanning beds. It's not a "tax to penalize or otherwise control the behaviour of white chicks."

...or the always well tanned Republican Minority Leader John Boehner from Ohio (the land of perpetual sunshine)

http://rivercitymud.files.wordpress....wi-0907-lg.jpg

My brother uses tanning beds. Just because one salon's clientele is 98% female doesn't mean that is the nat'l average. I would guess the split to be much higher than that overall.

I agree with the tax. If tanning beds can't be banned.
By sheer coincidence, I read just recently about the inflated occurrence of melanoma among people who use tanning beds. They are serious numbers.

Ummmm, you mean orange chicks.


BG - you are an amazingly wise and fair soul BTW! :thumbsup:

Are alcohol taxes in Utah an anti-mormon tax since the majority of people who drink in Utah are not mormon?

I'm thinking discrimination for other reasons. I can understand the reasoning behind the tax on tanning, however isn't tanning the only unhealthy activity to specifically be taxed in this bill? As mentioned before alcohol and tobacco are taxed already but not specifically due to their impact on the nation's health care cost. Should they be? I see no reason, why not. If tanning is, why not beer and cigarettes? To take it a step further, what about obesity? Certainly smoking and obesity have far greater health care implications than tanning. So why is this practice being discriminated against, and not others.

Will there be taxes levied on people tanning at beaches, at swimming pools or in their back yards?

Some hair relaxers contain chemicals that are extremely harmful if not used correctly.

http://images-cdn01.associatedconten.../300_17539.jpg

Ten Reasons Not to Buy Lye or "No Lye" Relaxers for Children - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

Are you suggesting that the government is looking out for the safety of white women and ignore the safety of black women?

It is a rhetorical question.

Disparate impact does not require an intent to discriminate.

I tend to think so.

---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:43 PM ----------

Touche!
I don't think that the white lawmakers are very attuned to the dangers of hair relaxers. And if they were, they would likely attempt to attack them as well.

Well if you want to slippery-slope it, sure. In the real world, though, there's a big difference between a sin tax and prohibition. It's like the difference between a throttle and a toggle switch.

A modern-day conservative will tell you that any tax is too much and a 0.01% increase will cause the end-times. An economist will tell you different. Consumer behavior follows very predictable responses to price increases. There's LOTS of science behind pricing.

For instance, you'll notice there's no cigarette black market, at least not on any appreciable scale. I've heard of trafficking operations moving cartons from low-tax to high-tax states, but it's not like that's widespread, and the profit margin is in the pennies. There aren't smoke-easys in back rooms where people are craftily evading the tobacco sin tax, you know? And yet smoking is way way down. Education has a lot to do with that, but for me, it was the ever-growing cost of my drug that had me quit (10 years ago this month, thank you thank you!).

All that said, I really don't want to go on record as "for" this particular tax issue. Seems like there are better places to target a tax bump than this. I say that with nothing else particularly in mind--it just seems a little targeted and arbitrary. I understand the justification for it I guess, it just seems like an awfully specific thing to point a tax at.

You've never seen my ass in TE!

The bill that was enacted last year that raised the federal cigarette/tobacco tax from 39 cents/pack to $1/pack earmarks the funds directly to expand SCHIP to cover an additional 3-4 million kids of working class families.

It is a regressive tax that impacts low income smokers far more than high income smokers...and it is one of the few regressive taxes I support because it provides health care to kids of those low-moderate income smokers.

i dont really see a problem with a tax on people who intentionally put a strain on the public health system.

If you're going to reduce the governments bottom line by sucking up precious health care resources, they're going to claw it back from somwhere.

There are many things that are extremely harmful if not used correctly. A tanning bed is one of those things that is harmful even when used correctly.

That's the way I see it. They are just getting their skin cancer treatment payment up front.

Women look good pale. It's the guys that can justify improved opposite gender relations in their 20's & 30's against having skin cancer in their 50's or 60's.

It's going to be easiest if I number these:

1) There most definitely is a black market in cigarettes. I just completed a literature review on cigarette taxes and black markets for a well-known consulting firm, and I can assure you that they exist. Because it is an inherently difficult thing to track, there isn't a consensus on how large it is. Reasonable estimates vary from 4% to 20% of cigarettes consumed within the United States. So it is possible that sin taxes can result in a black market for a good.

2) However, this doesn't mean the tax is bad, nor that it will necessarily result in a black market. Anyone who believes that this tanning bed tax will result in a black market is on something. First of all, like almost all luxury products, the demand elasticity for tanning beds is far from inelastic (and very, very different from addictive goods like alcohol and cigarettes). People will either substitute (spray tan, natural tan), simply pay a little more, or (best of all, given the health implications) quit altogether. Secondly, black markets typically develop for items that are easy to smuggle (cigarettes) or have massive demand despite being "visible" (prostitution). Even if you prohibited all tanning beds, as long as you enforced the law I doubt a black market it tanning salons would appear. Third, most of the time people who create taxes aren't complete idiots. They have likely figured out (or rather, public health economists have figured out and convinced them) that the tax will probably reduce demand, raise revenue, and prevent some cancer. All to the good.

3. I'm not a lawyer, but I highly doubt that this could be construed as a racially biased tax. And there are many taxed activities which break down sharply on gender lines.

4. As someone mentioned, I highly doubt tanning salons as a whole are 98% women and 99% white, or whatever. That's just the experience of one single salon.

Added:

5. Craven: Obesity cannot be taxed. Obesity is a health condition. Tanning on a beach is a private, non-economic activity. Only goods and services can be taxed. Alcohol and tobacco are goods. Tanning salons offer services. And yes, alcohol and tobacco most certainly are taxed in part because of public health concerns (see Ontario's failed attempts at taxing cigarettes in the early 90s). Even if they weren't, there's no reason they couldn't be - there is nothing in the constitution to prevent taxation of goods or services for public health reasons. Even now, cities such as New York have instituted a soda tax expressly for the purpose of reducing consumption for health reasons.

What if the people in question (broadening the issue from just people who use tanning booths) are not putting a strain on the system and can pay for the health care services they need? Where does this philosophy end? We already have people wanting to tax salt, sugar, fats...is the goal to turn everyone into tofu eating automatons? Why take all the fun out of life, just because there is a risk? I would rather live a full life full of gusto and passion than a long life in a world where others control what I do.

---------- Post added at 03:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 PM ----------

I think you are, pardon the pun, beginning to split hairs. The chemicals in some hair products are used because they change the structure of hair, in order to do that there is a destructive property in play and an extreme high risk of misuse (sorry I am not a scientist so try to accept my attempts here). The same is true with tanning. Exposure to ultra violet radiation occurs in situations outside of tanning beds and there is no tax and no out cry. Also, there are many cosmetic procedures that require a destructive process before the perceived benefit comes. All these can end in a cost greater than the benefit when done incorrectly. If the nanny state is going to address this, why do it in a targeted manner? This tanning tax, was simply someone's pet issue and they happened to have the power to get it put into legislation - in my view this is the wrong way to govern.

Okay, so here is a study from the American Association of Pediatrics. It shows (if I am reading this correctly) that only 10% of the boys and girls surveyed (ages 12 to 18) reported using a tanning bed. Of those who reported using it, girls were 6 times more likely to report using it (14.4 vs. 2.4) than boys. Only one study, and the sample is rather small and it required the subjects to report usage. Perhaps boys are less likely to report usage?

Exactly. This is just another nanny state tax to 'protect' somebody from themselves, where some Congressman had the clout to get it agreed to.

It also raises taxes on those making < $200K/$250K per year

Those of you decrying the "nanny state" should realize that if it were truly the case, then the beds would be banned along with a host of other potentially harmful health & beauty products. (Besides, where were some of you "nanny staters" when Buy American was sold to you?) No, this is a tax to offset the real cost of cancer that arises out of regular use of tanning beds. It's documented. Any dermatologist worth his or her weight in salt will tell you that a suntan is a sign of skin damage, and that this damage has a "memory" (i.e. it never goes away).

I don't know enough about hair products to know whether some of the potentially harsher ones require a professional to administer them, but it is, indeed, a separate issue.

People who pay for such luxuries as tanning aren't about to be dissuaded by this tax. It's like many people with the price of gasoline. It might stay relatively high, but that doesn't dissuade many from rolling around in SUVs and V6es.

If government wasn't involved in healthcare, it wouldn't need to raise taxes to cover its costs for treating people. (No need to respond.)

I'm not certain that is true. When the fuel prices went through the roof a couple of years ago, that was a major contributor to the problems at GM and Ford. Most of their product lines were SUVs and trucks. The market for those product lines collapsed. So, people did react to the price of fuel and it was reflected in their purchasing choices. Since then, we've seen new products rushed to market from Ford and GM which have better mileage and prompted the "cash for clunkers" crap.

So, the tax is 10% on these beds. How much does it cost to go to one? How much are we talkin' here? Anyone?

I don't think it's universally true, no. But despite gasoline prices remaining generally high, I still see many SUVs and V6es on the road. I don't think the market "collapsed," even in the U.S., though I'm sure it took a huge hit. They're still cranking them out. I see many new models everywhere on the road here in Canada.

I think that most of those who stopped buying them weren't likely among the affluent.

What I'm getting at is that when certain things become more expensive, core customers tend to take it rather than walk away. I think this will be the case with the tanning crowd.

Why should the government ban it when they can publicly state it's bad for you then tax you for using it? They already do that with alcohol, tobacco, gambling, etc and there has been discussion about doing the same for marijuana, soda, pizza, prostitution, etc.

I've also never bought into the 'buy American' mantra either. I'll give consideration to American products only where the quality is at least as good as whats made elsewhere.

How 'bout if I respond with a non-sequitur question that this statement brings up for me....

Every other civilized country in the world has some form of single payer health care. In some cases, health care is entirely a government function. America is literally alone in having health care be a completely private-enterprise proposition.

Here's my question (and it really is a question, I really don't know the answer): ARE there libertarians in those countries? Are they protesting about the socialization of their countries' health care industries? Or is this whole "keep your government hands off me" thing an American phenomenon?

Love you man, but I'm not going to debate the socialized medicine thing for the millionth time.

As for other libertarians in other countries? I don't know. It isn't like AA where there's a clubhouse and a secret handshake. It's a set of principles and values. I'm certain there are people with the same principles and values in other countries who properly distinguish the role of government vs. society in people's lives.

Well, this would be less "nanny state" and more "tax and spend," the main difference being the claim that it's going to use the money it generates to pay for the costs that arise out of the consumption of what's being taxed.

For the record, I don't view sin taxes as indicative of a nanny state; I view them more as taxes to offset costs that arise out of the use of the taxed products. Call it "socialized" if you will, but I wouldn't call it "nanny state." The public is still free to consume these things, often in excess.

Okay, a slightly related tangent - do you believe a person has a ~right~ to take their own life?