02 Jul 10
1 edit
Starting Thursday, tanning salons nationwide will be stuck paying the federal government 10% more in taxes. And this most likely will be passed on to the customer. The tax is expected to help raise 2.5 billion dollars to go into the new health care program.
The government justifies the extra charge saying the industry is selling a known cancer risk.
In reality is this tax not based on race? Who other than white people use tanning salons?
02 Jul 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraCan't be compared to smoking. tanning is exclusively a "white thing".
I'm sure certain races smoke more than others. Is that a reason to not tax tobacco because it causes cancer? I would prefer a 200% tax. People will get less cancer, and women will be more attractive. Win-win.
02 Jul 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonWould you similarly refuse to tax feminine products because they are only a girl thing and thus the tax would be biased?
Can't be compared to smoking. tanning is exclusively a "white thing".
Even if the products in question posed a known health risk?
Should we also not tax products that are unique to black people? (certain hair products for example).
02 Jul 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonI think it is right for all commercial activity to be taxed. I don't see why race has to have anything to do with it. Do you suggest that this commercial activity should NOT be taxed because of some 'racial' red herring that you have appended to it?
of course it does
02 Jul 10
Originally posted by FMFThey already were being taxed. Now its 10% more!
I think it is right for all commercial activity to be taxed. I don't see why race has to have anything to do with it. Do you suggest that this commercial activity should NOT be taxed because of some 'racial' red herring that you have appended to it?
If Bush came out and put a 10% increase on ribs,fried chicken and watermelon only, Al Sharpton would be crying foul and saying it was race based. LMAOšµ
02 Jul 10
2 edits
Originally posted by utherpendragonI think it's OK. I think tanning salons, spas, beauty parlours etc. etc. are all in a luxury sector, and a rationale for additional tax on that basis is plausible. Suggesting that it is penalizing white people, as you suggest, is not a persuasive argument. Indeed I find it quite revealing about your mindset.
They already were being taxed. Now its 10% more!
02 Jul 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonWell then, all is well in UtherpendragonWorld because here YOU are crying foul and saying that a tax is race based. You should take this issue up with the Al Sharptons of this world, rather than the motley moderates on this board, if you sincerely think your watermelon analogy holds.
If Bush came out and put a 10% increase on ribs,fried chicken and watermelon only, Al Sharpton would be crying foul and saying it was race based.