Today the tax on being White and Female goes into effect

(I realize this is a provocative title, but we have to be honest with each other. This is exactly what this tax is.)

Today’s the day that the new 10% increased tax on tanning salons go into effect. The new tax is expected to generate $2.7 billion to fund the Obama Health Care scheme.

Many Conservative lawmakers have questioned the wisdom of Obama by raising taxes on small business owners, and purposefully placing a new tax aimed directly at a certain race.

Many have said that this new tax, aimed almost exclusively at Whites, is blatantly bigoted.

Click here for the rest of the article.

I’m not sure that anyone is being taxed for being white and female. Its well known that tanning booths promote skin cancer, and that the practice of tanning is unhealthy.

This seems to be a tax on a business selling an unhealthy product, much like a tax on cigarettes or alcohol. It helps recoup, in some small way, the cost of caring for the diseases which the business is promoting among its customers. That the customers, as a group, share in the cost of the eventual medical treatment that many will require doesn’t seem unreasonable.

Hmmm Tanning salons seem to normally be small businesses.

Many offer sunless tanning, a cosmetic tint applied to the skin to make it look tan. Does that get taxed as well?

Let’s be honest – it’s a tax on vanity. No sympathy from me for anyone who would cook her/himself in the name of looking good.

Besides, if we’re going to tax booze & cigs over “health concerns” (more like revenue streams, but that’s a different story) why shouldn’t tanners be taxed for what their future medical costs?
We seem to have come to that point, where everybody gets to tell everybody else what not to do b/c it will theoretically raise everyone’s costs. :confused: :mad:

Today’s the day that the new 10% increased tax on tanning salons go into effect. The new tax is expected to generate $2.7 billion to fund the Obama Health Care scheme.

Many Conservative lawmakers have questioned the wisdom of Obama by raising taxes on small business owners, and purposefully placing a new tax aimed directly at a certain race.

Many have said that this new tax, aimed almost exclusively at Whites, is blatantly bigoted.

Click here for the rest of the article.

Well, lots of “whites” are actually brown – pre-tanned you might say.
I do wonder what the President’s Irish Chicago pals will think when wifey comes home complaining.

This tax has nothing to do with bigotry, but is meant to discourage people from going to tanning salons which significantly increases one’s chances of getting cancer. High taxes are associated with cigarettes and liquor as well. I have no problem with it. In fact, the taxes for tanning beds and cigarettes should be much higher IMOHO. And the taxes SHOULD go to a healthcare plan.

It’s beyond me why people don’t see tanning salons for exactly what they are: blatant abuse of the body leading to real physical harm, with the owners not giving a hoot about the consequences to the public that their services provide. But then again, if one doesn’t have enough respect for their own body to poison it such, then why would anyone else? :shrug:

Mary Gail, I believe the tanning bed tax is only for the tanning bed. I don’t think the spray tans are taxed but I can’t say for sure. It wouldn’t matter to me if it did because IMOHO tanning salons should close and be done with it… I’d have to look at the ingredients on the spray paint to have an opinion on it either way.

People complain about how we all have video games, computer games and children being fixated on these things. What about doing the old fashioned thing? Like putting on some sunscreen and going outside to play sports or swim, or heck do what we did when we were teenagers: get the girls together and tan on the rooftop of the tallest building in the neighborhood. Then of course, there’s horsebackriding, pulling weeds, working on a community garden, heaven forbid having a lawn-mowing service so one can splurge on tanning salons :slight_smile:

Usually they are carrot extracts. When you get a fake tan, you look a bit orange if it isn’t applied properly. Same concept when babies consume too many yellow and orange veggies. They get a harmless orange glow.

I remember hearing about using baby oil and aluminum foil as well. :eek: That wouldn’t be very healthy either.

I had friends who had a tanning salon. It was part of a franchise, and they regulated the exposure to minimum amounts over longer periods of time…in a way to mimic natural sun exposure.

Not all salons have those beds you lie on for hours at a time (is it for hours…I don’t know)

Also, how do we determine where the skin cancers started…in a tanning booth or on a rooftop in the seventies and eighties…

This article might help:

I’m all for the tax as well. I fully support any tax on any substance or business that contributes to the health risk of the general public.

Unfortunantly, many are purposfully overlooking the obvious.

This tax has everything to do with bigotry. It is aimed directly at Whites and females.

If someone wants to be vain, that’s their biz. Like the article asked, why no tax on Day Spas or Barber Shops or Nail Salons? Absolutely none of those are a necissity, right? If the govt is going to specifically target one or more “sins”, then get them all.

Here’s the bottom line, gang – we have here a service that is owned and operated mainly by women. The patronage is overwhelmingly female. Gender wise, it’s almost exclusively White. But no one sees a problem here?

Can anyone fathom the outrage if there were a 10% tax slapped on US dollars being wired via Western Union to Mexico? Or how about a 10% increase specifically on menthol cigaretts? By the way, the second example is not a sterotype… it’s according to the NYT)

I have a funny feeling that La Raza and the NAACP would blow a gasket if either of those were put into place.

Along with the vast majority of liberal Whites.

Oh, and if anyone’s interested, there is also a new Oba-Tax on veteran amputees. And I guess that tax isn’t specifically aimed at 19-yr-old Marines who are double amputees.

thread title is wrong
this is just another stupidity tax
anybody stupid enough to use or venal enough to run a cancer production center is being taxed

Then increase the tax SPECIFICALLY on menthol smokes. Oh… wait. According to the NY Times, 75% of smokers who are Black, smoke menthols. The NAACP and liberal Whites would be screaming “bigotry!” from the rooftops.

Hey, if people want to go to tanning salons, that’s their call. The same goes for smoking menthols (or any other cigarette), or eating meat, or purposfully buying a home near the San Adreas Fault. EVERYTHING from one degree or another is BAD for you! EVERYTHING will kill you.

Personally, I don’t smoke or drink or frequent tanning beds. But if I choose to, it’s my money. I’m a big boy, and I certainly don’t need the government to protect me from me.

This isn’t about skin cander or lung cancer. Let’s be honest, OK? This tax is aimed directly at one race, and one race only. And if that makes me a bad person for pointing that out, then so be it.

It’s just fundamentallly wrong to target one race and one race only. That’s exactly what this tax does. But I can’t force people to recognize the obvious.


And the NAACP and liberal whites would be ridiculous to do so. Just because the far left is absurd and blatantly ideological, that’s no excuse for sane Americans to be just as ridiculous.

In other words, I agree with your comparison, Caveman. But “hey, what I’m saying is no less reasonable than what the far left says!” is no defense.

Says you. Others in this thread have offered perfectly reasonable explanations of exactly how this tax makes perfect sense.

Typical thought process of an ideologue. Right-wing ideology is no more logical than left-wing ideology.

You know, drastically jumping to conclusions in order to link something unrelated to race relations in a combative way is the sort of “logic” I’d expect from Marxists and others like them who espouse class warfare.

But as I said, ideologues think alike, even when they seem to be polar opposites.

That kind of logic only works in your “lair” …


I hope you stretched your legs before taking a leap like this.

First off this article, with its lack of real verifiable facts and its use of the phrase “many Conservative lawmakers” or “many have said” without actually citing any of the supposed people makes me fear for the future of journalism.

Second Mr. Whiteman is just parroting something Glenn Beck’s fill-in said about 3 months ago.

Third trying to save people from melanoma and carcinomas or at least offset some of the medical costs the “I just love getting some color!” crowd is gonna rack up in the coming years is not racism, it good sense.

And fourth, in most cases this add’s up to about an extra $1.50 to $2.00, hardly highway robbery. Get over yourself…

So - really it’s not a tax on white women, but rather, on brown women who get that way artificially. :stuck_out_tongue:

British Columbia is doing the same thing. given that we have socialized medicine, those who eventually develop skin cancer or other skin conditions because of tanning would put a strain on medical resources. so the tax is to cover that strain. and since they can’t obviously tax the sun and going to the beach. but this is Canada, i’m pretty sure they already have plans for that

you surely must be aware that cigarettes are already heavily taxed, in part to offset the social cost of the illnesses they generated, it is called a sin tax and is often used, among other things, to fund sports stadiums. Again, a stupidity tax, owed only by people stupid enough to smoke.

I wonder exactly when being tanned became fashionable?

For centuries, being tanned, or any evidence that one spent time out of doors was a sign of being lower class (e.g.“redneck”), hence ladies wore white gloves and big hats to protect themselves from the Sun.

The change came in some time after WW2 – maybe a tan became a symbol you had enough $$$ to vacation at the beach rather than pale skin being a sign you had an indoor rather than outside job?

But isn’t is silly to pay money to change the color God made you (with some possible long-term health risk) just because you think it looks good?

Well, at least I’m sure that everyone that visits tanning salons makes more than $250K a year. After all, Obama promised he wouldn’t raise taxes on folks making under that, so everyone visiting these places must be rich.

You get an added bonus at a tanning salon – skin cancer!! So, you have to pay extra.

This is a good thing. They should also make fake tans cheaper so that people are less encouraged to stay in the sun for too long as well.

There will soon be an orange ethnic group :thumbsup:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit