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?

The justification for these taxes in the first place is that these things were bad, therefore the government should discourage people from using them by taxing them so much that people don't buy as much. That was part of the justification for taxes on cigarettes. The justification for the soda and pizza tax was that obesity is a problem and the government needs to do something about it.

Since the government can't realistically outright ban these things, like they did with cyclamates and DDT, they tax them.

Maybe it's a question of semantics for socialism vs nanny state, but I sure see these taxes as a way for the government to try to protect people from themselves, i.e. nanny state.

Do you believe a person has the right to take their life in a way which causes a net drain on the health and resources of those around them?

Interesting question, but I fail to see the point of it.

How is making tanning 10% more expensive protecting people from it? How is making cigarettes, gambling, and alcohol more expensive protecting people? Have these industries disappeared? Are people no longer addicted to smoking, gambling, and alcohol?

If it were truly a case of "nanny state" politics, tanning beds (in addition to those other products) would have been banned. I have a difficult time accepting it as a strong case for such. I think it's tenuous at best.

Well, I don't know why the "point" determines what your answer is. Is it your belief that a person has a right to end their own life?

Why, are you concerned that euthanasia might become taxed?

I want to know what relevance it has to this topic.

I would bet that you believe that a person has a right to take their own life...an unalienable right. Wouldn't sin taxes infringe on someone's right to kill themselves? Is the government regulating the manner by which people can do it? I know it's a stretch. This is all in good fun, anyway.

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:45 PM ----------

You and I have different belief systems. This question is not relevant in my belief system because the government(me) would not be funding those resources. Therefore, I would not be offended by the person using the tanning bed or the personal costs they would incur from the consequences.

Is the government taxing jumping off a bridge?

I believe in reality because that is where I exist. In reality, people who engage in activities which tend to increase their susceptibility to diseases requiring expensive treatment increase the taxes I pay and the money I spend on healthcare (via private industry). So yes, in their slow painful suicides are a drain on both public and private resources.

I'm trying to be patient because I did start the thread as well as this line of thought - I really don't understand the vitriol. Again, it's all in fun.

The private system chooses every day who to treat and I don't mean at the insurance level....at the doctor level. A doctor will not give a liver transplant to a person who is brain-dead from cancer.

Health insurance costs more right now for smokers. Why can't it cost more for tanning bed users? Would the evil corporation be sticking it to pasty people for a buck?:D

There isn't a smoker in this country who doesn't know what they are doing to themselves - at what point does it convert over to them willfully killing themselves? At what point, in the name of conserving those resources, does the healthcare system simply let them do it? (Assuming, we agree that an individual has a right to take their own life.)

Yes, a stretch....

:lol:

Again, I will say that this isn't stopping anyone from doing anything. It's a tax that helps offset the costs of certain behaviours. While they might package it up as "taxing smoking out of existence" or somesuch, I think such packaging is merely playing politics. I think otherwise that it is good public policy to raise funds from harmful activities to help pay for the negative consequences of such activities.

Ah, but that is the rub. The need to protect someone from hearing offensive speech can not infringe on one's right to make that offensive speech.

Even if you have good intentions or even alternate intentions, it still can't infringe on unalienable rights. Again, right to end one's life? Yes? No? Otherwise, I'm arguing based on an unfair assumption of you.

But I have a problem with your premise. The "I have the right to kill myself slooooowly" argument isn't the same as an argument for the right to commit suicide (as in immediately taking one's life). It's murky. It's like saying we're all committing suicide by living in large cities because we might get lung cancer and heart disease from the pollution.

Again, the smokers, drinkers, gamblers, and tanners aren't barred from doing their thing. They just have to pay more for it because the likelihood that someone among them will require medical/social services related to their activity is rather high and well-documented.

Ignoring all the other banter...

I'm all for sin taxes and taxing shit out of stuff that makes you sick. Tanning beds have a direct link to cancer, tax them and at a high %. I fail to see this as a race or gender issue. It's a vanity/stupidity issue, IMO.

Well, is your life yours to do with as you please or not?

If it is, then why can't the government/private services draw a line on "If you do these few pre-determined, gallactically-stupid things, we aren't going to save your ass when you get sick from them." That avoids the taxation and expense of services outright. Just don't save them. They knew what they were doing. It's sort of like smoking/tanning for 15 years earns you a "D.N.R." tattoo across your forehead. Why are we duty-bound to save these people, regardless of their behavior?

The only murkiness is how long you let someone engage in the behavior before they get their tattoo.

P.S. Since someone will think I am serious, I don't really think the tattoo should go on their forehead. Maybe their cheek, though.

Sure, one alternative is to say "engage in these behaviors and face the consequences all by yourself." That would have to extend to insurance as well (unless a higher premium is somehow ok while a tax is not), so if you engage in any sort of potentially risky behavior (smoking, tanning, etc) you are immediately cut from insurance and have to pay the costs of treatment out of pocket.

However, most people would find a system where people are left to fend for themselves abhorrent, so people vote for these "sin" taxes in order to provide coverage for those things.

Raising the tax on alcohol (liquor/beer/wine) wouldnt be a bad idea. The federal tax has not been increased in 20 years and it could easily raise $50 billion over ten years towards the cost of the health reform.

Well, it depends on your position on how the tax money is used and why. We can view most of these things as a disease, addiction, or a habit formed based on a disease, etc., and so it would make sense to have programs in place to help people kick the habit or find healing. If it's tax dollars purely for treatment of "end game" diseases, then wouldn't it be better to have funds for treatment rather than having families go bankrupt?

I think the best would be to find a balance.

Also, I think it would be difficult to decide whether specific diseases were caused by certain behaviours. A smoker's lung cancer isn't necessarily caused by smoking; there could have been other factors that actually caused it. In many ways, these taxes are merely a way of hedging the bets.

I have never seen anything like the Tea Party in my travels to England, France, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Spain,... People seem to be a lot happier there as well. I wonder if there is a connection.

Their social/fiscal conservatives aren't close to the level of the right in this country. Our right-wing is also much better at spreading fear, hate, doubt, and lies.

You do realize that Libertarians are not right wing, right?

depends on the libertarian. and where you are.
in france, the word libertarian is more associated with revolutionary marxism that advocates a socialism based in direct democracy. which is a political vantagepoint i'm pretty sympathetic to. but that entire tradition is antithetical with the type of libertarian(-ism) that's dominant in the states

where the word libertarian seems to refer mostly to people who confuse ayn rand with a philosopher and who actually believe in the existence of entities like the Heroic Individual and capitalist markets that are somehow rational. that's what makes american libertarians so conservative-sounding. and often statements made by libertarians will match point-for-point with mainstream conservatism except that the libertarians will deny that they are mainstream conservatives while mainstream conservatives will not necessarily.

What are your thoughts, then, on all the right-wingers screaming libertarianese to score political points for Republicans?

Do you really think a significant fraction of these "libertarian" tea partiers vote Democrat? I'd be willing to bet there's at least 90% overlap of self-identified "libertarian" and "conservative" out there with the misspelled signs and the talking points and the pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache.

I tend to think that many libertarians are essentially conservatives with an obsession with individualism.

I'm sure there are some left-leaning libertarians, but I tend not to hear much about them.

You guys have it all figured out, no need to explain.

It wasn't us that did it.

It typically isn't liberal or progressive to long for the wealth of joy that characterized the employment opportunities and safety liabilities of the industrial revolution. So I imagine the left leaning libertarian is a rare breed. That being said, I think that left leaning libertarians are typically called anarchists.

Oh don't do that. I asked, "what are your thoughts", and I meant it.

Why not raise the tax on tofu, brussel sprouts, pine nuts, and $7 dollar lattes? Or, why not have a taxation policy that has a direct correlation to actual costs to society rather than an attitude of - let's just raise the tax on the things I find socially unacceptable? This is the attitude that is described by the concept "nanny state".

What are the "actual costs to society" of those things? Versus other things?


Are you arguing that the "actual cost to society" of consuming too many lattes is similar to that of lung or skin cancer?

Tobacco-related and alcohol-related health issues are a significant drain on the health care system and are among the highest causes of preventable deaths. Obesity is right up there as well.

When tofu and brussel sprouts have such an adverse impact, not just on the individual, but on the cost to society.....tax it!

I propose we build a giant screen that blocks out the sun thereby protecting us white people from the racist sun. For too many years we have been oppressed by this day star. Will you join me in my crusade to eliminate the sun?

Al Gore, is that you?

To Spectators,

Watch as a liberal mind goes bizzaro.

Regards,

Ace

Great point. So, what you are saying is that it is o.k. to tax when there is an adverse impact, right?

Well what would you tax in this situation:

Read more: Study: Breast-feeding would save lives, money - CharlotteObserver.com

Should we tax baby formula to encourage more women to breast feed?

How about we play some connect the dots.

* Let's say we have policy that offers free formula to poor mothers for their babies.
* They choose not to breast feed.
* Infant mortality is adversely affected.
* Liberals read reports about infant mortality being worse in this country compared to other countries.
* Liberals conclude the problem is due to poverty.
* They offer more poor women free formula.
* Then they feel all warm and fuzzy about doing good...until the next report comes out, because they never really address the real issues - a tragety isn't it?

What does a liberal do? I know...make it about Ace and how silly he is, am I right or what?

this--->


is plausible how exactly?
i'm assuming there's something holding it together that goes beyond your projections about "liberals"...and it's reverse which is that people like aceventura monopolize "realistic" approaches to social questions.

I was right!:thumbsup:

no ace you weren't. i'm asking a logic question: under what conditions is your scenario plausible. wanna answer it?

You were the one that posted a link to a study stating that the infant mortality rate in this country for poor women was due to a lack of access to good prenatal care. The scenario is an illustration of the actual posts that followed. How much more real can it get. The solution suggested in the report you cited was completely off base, because I believe there was a political agenda.

And as usual, I am amazed here, do you truly not see the points and the value in the points being made or are you just being argumentative? If people acknowledged the obvious discussion could get much more involved.

Okay, let's tie it all back then:

The purpose of the original tax on tanning is (implicitly) to control behavior which could be harmful to individuals AND (explicitly) to offset healthcare expenses of those who engage in that behavior. I think we all agree.

So, the exact same argument could be made for taxing baby formula: that taxing it should implicitly control the behavior which is harmful and should explicitly offset costs associated with that harmful behavior (doctor visits due to ear infections, asthma, stomach viruses, juvenile diabetes, etc.)

I know not every woman can breastfeed - but there will be healthcare costs associated with their use of formula which must be collected somewhere. Why don't we tax it?

so you see, ace, it is possible to frame the argument you were setting up without the "this is what liberals do...and this is what heroic conservatives do."...problem is that the argument isn't terribly interesting. but that's more a function of the rickety premise i think, the example of the tanning-bed tax. personally, i don't see this is an interesting matter in fact: the practice seems to me goofy and the amounts that would be generated by the tax trivial. plus its a luxury item. you know, you don't NEED to tan yourself so as to resemble skin-wise a carrot.

but the relation of a mother and baby to baby formula is obviously not like the relation of some nimrod to a tanning booth.

so while the same logic **could** i suppose be applied, it's not a good parallel.

simpler, more obvious: cigarettes.
position: i used to smoke. when i rolled them, i didn't care about the tax. when i decided to switch to manufactured cigarettes, i found the tax onerous. like it's alot of money you piss away on these taxes. i quit smoking 11 weeks ago. did the tax prompt me to quit? no.
is the tax an effective way to create disincentives for potentially harmful practices?
i dunno. it wasn't for me. it wasn't for anyone i know who smokes.
what do they do then?
they slap a penance tax on practices that receive a certain social opprobrium, yes?
and they allow for a fiction to be maintained that that social opprobrium is being translated into some policy nudge.
but really, cigarettes are an easy source of revenue. the taxes punish smokers.

you wanna go down that kind of route with baby formula?

rb,

This is for their own good. If they would breastfeed instead of formula, their children would be much healthier and they would save money. We are trying to help them. Why can't you see that?

Agree there are differences, however...for a mother who is capable of breast feeding, using public funds, statistically putting her baby at greater risk and potentially at a greater cost to society...using formula is {blank} (please use your word) so we can discuss further.


On the margins it seem you, here, and others at various times want me to suspend belief of rational thought. At tax rate x%, perhaps there is a small or no impact on demand, perhaps not even on xx%, but for every activity there is a marginal cost increase that will impact demand. Are you suggesting that there is not?

My premise is a simple one. Tax policy should reflect real costs to society. If having a baby imposes a net cost to society rather than a net benefit and those costs are "hidden" and not incurred by those having babies, hence putting a burden on others, I think a tax is legitimate. Period end of story for me. I do not support tax policy for social engineering, only as a means for real societal costs to distributed as fairly as is possible. My view on this would not change regardless of the subject, hence I see my position as an objective one, not emotional, not moral, not punitive, just as an attempt of fairness.

the equivalence is false.
if that's all you've got, your argument falls down.

Of course they are not equal, but also try putting the flow of information presented in the context of what is being posted and what is being responded to.

If you clearly define the "equivalence" you want, I will give you one. But, you are sitting back taking the luxurious position of being non-committal so you can take pot-shots at information presented. It is far to easy to do what you do. First, can you define what you think the intent of tax policy should be?

Enact and enforce social and workplace policies that make breast feeding more acceptable and accessible...and a tax on baby formula might be reasonable as well.

The health care reform takes a small step...:
....but of course, the business community is outraged by this new mandate!
Then, extend the Family and Medical Leave Act so more low income and/or low skilled female workers can benefit and stay at home for the child's first year w/o fear of losing their job.....women who disproportionately are not covered by the FMLA.

And you might have a case for the tax you want....with exclusions for medical necessity.

But any comparison to the adverse effects of smoking/drinking is just assanine.

I'm comparing the positive affects of doing it compared to the status quo of not doing it. The only person who made any comparison to smoking was roachboy. Do you think it is appropriate to call roachboy asinine? I think he shares your position on this issue, although I wouldn't be so bold as to speak for him.

No, in fact it was ace who made the comparison with the comment about liberal minds going "bizzaro".

It is bizarro to raise that comparison.....and your comparison to tanning beds is nearly as bizarre.

Yeah, okay.

Perhaps we are working on two different scales here. I thought we were discussing taxes used to control behavior. You are probably discussing taxes used to offset governmental costs. While I don't really see this massive false equivalence which renders a pretty meaningless discussion unworthy of further meaningless discussion, I do find it interesting that we always land on the exact same spot. The majority gets to dictate the terms of every post.

I don't want to tax baby formula. I do not want to tax cigarettes either. but, I would tax both to the degree use imposes costs upon society.

What do you see as the role of tax policy? Do you think the point is to redistribute wealth? Punish? Encourage/discourage your pet issues of the day? What?

---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------

The problem is that there is no consistency in your approach to tax policy, nor can you clearly define the role you think tax policy should play in our society. I think for some reason you fear openly saying what you really believe on this subject. I wonder why.

Pot calling the kettle black?

I was clear...IMO, it is appropriate and good public policy to tax products (tobacco, alcohol) that contribute to the top causes of preventable death (and to the costs of health care for all Americans).

I would tax junk food, but that might be a bit more difficult to standardize.

Perhaps a visual aid will help.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...s_of_death.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...auses_of_death

As to tanning beds, a luxury from which the contributions to cancer are beyond dispute.

just tax the shit out of High Fructose Corn Syrup (or stop subsidizing it so heavily).

Oh wait, that'll never happen....

Amen, brother. How come conservatives aren't up in arms about this? I mean, they just clearly aren't going to be able to cut entitlements any time soon, so why not look to something that everyone (except the recipients) agrees is useless? If they want to cut government spending, they should target the $20 billion a year in farm subsidies that are totally pointless and are an actual waste of taxpayer dollars. If Fox and Palin and Beck and Boehner and all them started going apeshit about farm subsidies, they'd not only be in the right, but they might actually succeed in reducing government spending. And every liberal who doesn't grow corn or soybeans would be happy to join them!

Yes, yes, I know that this a a bipartisan problem originating with the nature of the Senate, etc., but I can't take these people even a little bit seriously if they try to cut food stamps or unemployment insurance in the name of fiscal responsibility but would never touch farm subsidies.

How about we just tax the liberals who feel so strongly that people's money be redistributed 95% of their income?

That makes just about as much sense as imposing a tax on something because the nanny state says it is bad for you.

As far as high fructose corn syrup, I cannot stand the taste of artificial sweeteners. Diet caffeine free coke is one of the foulest tasting drinks I've seen on the market. One of the artificial sweeteners gives me headaches.

I also have no weight problems or any other health issues related to drinking soda, so don't try imposing another nanny state tax on me.

Farms subsidies? Really? You speak of being taken seriously when your best solution to a $1,400,000,000,000 budget overrun rate is the $20,000,000,000 in farm subsidies. Look at you, only $1,380,000,000,000 left to find! :thumbsup:

It's hard to convey sarcasm, humor, etc. in text so I'm going to be generous and assume that you were being playful rather than sarcastic (honestly, I really don't know).

A) Of course farm subsidies aren't going to end the deficit. But $20 billion isn't chump change, either.

B) I proposed cutting farm subsidies not because they are such a huge amount of money, but because they make no sense, can be cut with bipartisan support, and are genuinely harmful to the global economy. In short, they are the lowest-hanging fruit.

Why be snide? Farms subsidies cost a lot of money, truly suck, have no benefits, and could garner bipartisan support for elimination. This is yet another reason why I have no tolerance for so many (not all) conservatives; rather than do due diligence on a realistic plan to cut the deficit, they prefer to just sit back and bemoan big government.

No, I wasn't being playful or sarcastic. I was being absolutely dead serious.

Tell you what, I'll give you farm subsidies. You let me phase out Social Security ($675,000,000,000 paid out just last year).

Imagine all the people...planning their own retirement like grown-ups.

Let me guess, this falls into your "not realistic" category. Why is that exactly? Perhaps we should start with you giving an itemized list of the sacred cows. That way, we avoid the wrath of your intolerance.

I do find it curious that you have no tolerance for fellow Americans who choose a different role for government in their lives than you. Do all manner of people who have different views than you receive the same intolerance or is it limited to conservatives? I'm not a conservative, in the sense that you mean it, so I just want to check before we continue. I mean, if you have no tolerance for my kind as well, then there really would be no point in continuing a dialog.

Of course, to balance the budget you must phase out the benefits, but keep the contributions. Otherwise that deficit would still be that big.

Yes, you have to fill in the hole that you dug. First, you have to quit digging the hole. We are still digging.

Specifically, I would happily relinquish all rights to the SS funds I have already contributed - as long as I don't have to contribute any more.

Ignoring the craziness of "phasing out" social security, I do believe you barely even glanced at what I wrote. To whit:

My intolerance, as you put it, was expressly directed at people who would cut important safety net programs but NOT farm subsidies. Since you obviously are not one of those people, my intolerance was not directed at you. I find it ironic that you claim I am the one incapable of continuing a dialogue. I would suggest reading what I wrote first.

Except that social security is still a pay as you go system. Relinquishing your future benefits don't change the fact that money must be put in right now to pay for the benefits that are being paid right now. In fact, ss still runs a yearly surplus. If you cut contributions right now, you'd have to cut not only future benefits, but existing benefits right now.

That is what all the talk of privatizing or doing away with ss ignores. To change from the current pay as you go system you'd have to either run massive deficits in the short and medium term, or cut current benefits.

When SS was created, it was designed to help people who simply lived beyond the average life expectancy and had extinguished their personal retirement. Adjusting for today's longevity, SS should not even kick in until you are 85 or so. Doing that, you reduce the amount needed. What's more, the fact that the system continued to reduce the age of benefits and turn it into a true retirement program is why it broke and it went from something like .3% of your income (as a tax) to 7.5% today.

As an example, a 22 year-old today would simply have to contribute 2% of their income for 15 years to pay for those on SS until it phased out. They would get nothing in return other than the knowledge that they don't have to give 7.5% for the rest of their career with no hope of ever seeing that money. A 32 year-old would pay 1% for the next, say, 7 years. Something like that. It doesn't really matter the exact formula - you can't tell me that one does not exist. It can be done and be phased out.

---------- Post added at 09:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 AM ----------

Exactly why is that crazy?

Of course it can be "phased out." Still doesn't change the fact that if you don't cut current benefits you can't cut current contributions.

I say we just tax all the neo-cons that supported the Iraq debacle until the money spent on that is payed off. Think that's approaching 1 trillion quickly. That should help fund Grandma's SS and Medicare for a while longer.