Ask Me Help Desk - Tanning tax

Tanning tax

I frequent a tanning spa during the winter months, signed their petition which fell on deaf ears and now I am wondering what the outcome is going to be for her shop?

The tax,basically focuses on middle class women,as they are the ones to most frequent the tanning beds.

With this new tax,the clients will have to pay more for the service, this will either drive down the profit(if the owner tries to keep the tax from driving her prices too high,especially in this recession),or the price will simply become more than the middle class are willing to pay, effectively driving her out of business.

Any thoughts, ideas for her, is there just another small business going down with this tax and more on the unemployment rolls?

Sorry to go off-topic, but I can't shake this image of Pelosi with a Twilight "glow." It's just more political money-grabbing to pay for junkets and union votes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catsmine

Sorry to go off-topic, but I can't shake this image of Pelosi with a Twilight "glow." It's just more political money-grabbing to pay for junkets and union votes.

HAHAHA,, Pelosi needs a little less tan, she doesn't really look healthy does she")

Quote:

Originally Posted by KBC

I frequent a tanning spa during the winter months,,signed their petition which fell on deaf ears and now I am wondering what the outcome is going to be for her shop?

The tax,basically focuses on middle class women,as they are the ones to most frequent the tanning beds.

With this new tax,the clients will have to pay more for the service,,this will either drive down the profit(if the owner tries to keep the tax from driving her prices too high,especially in this recession),or the price will simply become more than the middle class are willing to pay,,effectively driving her out of business.

Any thoughts,,ideas for her,,is there just another small business going down with this tax and more on the unemployment rolls?

In this market diversity is important, we all know tanning can have a down side so this is why there is a tax on it, so there has to be other ways of delivering the product which after all is a tanned skin, so she should look at a chemical solution or new products for skin care. Who knows being forced to diversify could be a great thing for the business. But if the government places a tax on something it isn't for the seller to try and absorb it, that is bad thinking but look for the add on, the extra service or new product, how about hydro therepy, It's amazing than in the west a dark skin is considered beautiful and in the east a light skin is considered beautiful

The more people read what was actually passed the more they are going to find how intrusive this new law is. Tanning salons are low hanging fruit . Most people don't use them and will shrug their shoulders when they find out that these businesses shut down.

A 10% tax is punative... like King George's tea tax.
But if the goal is to help fund this $$$ sucking government takeover then it will backfire. They can't very well collect taxes from 'out of business' enterprises. If the goal is to prevent people from getting an artificial tan because they believe there are negative health consequences then you can expect the nanny-state to take other measures to control people's activities also . Ironically.. the information about the dangers related to tanning with UV is out there and it has already impacted the industry. The tax probably will be the coup de grace .

Madame Mimi Pelosi may be exempt because she may apply tanning spray . Only places using the UVs will be screwed. I haven't checked about other vanity procedures like face lifts . If Pelosi has one more she won't be able to close her eyes .

It's actually discriminatory as I'm sure the vast majority of clients are Caucasian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

It's actually discriminatory as I'm sure the vast majority of clients are Caucasian.

Vast?? ALL!!

If any of us had this business what would you do to insure you didn't go out of business? Any ideas?

Ain't no way to insure it, tanning salons are just another plague on society as tom noted.

I don't have any good advice .Maybe some solice in that they are not alone . Tanning salons are mom and pop operations . Much larger corporations who have larger impacts on society are going to feel the pain and have a bigger impact.

Already heavy equipment makers John Deere and Caterpillar have announced to deaf ears how this law will impact their businesses.
Both companies ;US export success stories ,and major employers, have announced huge increases in operating expenses directly due to the law's impact. $100 million in increased costs for 2011for Caterpillar and $150 million in increased costs for 2010 for John Deere.

Worse still is these increases will continue to rise as these companies expand hiring if this country ever comes out of this economic downturn giving them a huge disincentive to hiring more employees.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KBC

The tax,basically focuses on middle class women,as they are the ones to most frequent the tanning beds.

Any thoughts,,ideas for her,,is there just another small business going down with this tax and more on the unemployment rolls?

Quote:

Originally Posted by KBC

HAHAHA,,,Pelosi needs a little less tan, she doesn't really look healthy does she")

Hello K:

I like to be brown too, but I let the sun do it. The UNSAID stuff here, (and I find that remarkable) is that tanning beds cause cancer. I don't know WHY nobody mentioned it? Maybe because it doesn't fit an agenda.

No, it doesn't bother me at all, that this little neighborhood business is forced to quit.

excon

PS> Pelosi is 70 years old! You better hope you look that good at 70.

Actually I did mention the negative health consequences. Do you wear sunscreen ? The UV exposure happens under the sun too.

But wearing sunscreen is a double edged sword. Too many people are vt. D deficient because the vit D you absorb outdoors is also blocked.

Let's face the facts... living is hazardous to your health.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Let's face the facts ....living is hazardous to your health.

Actually there's only one fatal condition - Birth!

Pelosi

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

PS> Pelosi is 70 years old! You better hope you look that good at 70.

I really don't WANT to live to 70, she can have that to herself(too many bad drugs,, :( )

Tanning beds are akin to placing oneself in a microwave oven. The damage they do to the human body is remarkable. If you have any cancer in your body tanning beds accelerate it or exacerbate it. Anyone fool enough to put their body into a tanning bed gets what they deserve for their vanity. I believe the tanning bed tax will winnow out these bad "health" fads quicker than if they were to die a natural death. As far as mom and pop companies they should have invested their money in a different business as I have no sympathy for them foisting this craze or fad upon the American populace.

As for Pelosi - I'm sure she's had to fork out plenty of money at the makeup artist and hairdresser who makes her up every day. And her plastic surgeon as well. I've never really seen a close up of this woman either. It's always from at least 5 feet away minimum or the photo is blown up (and retouched of course). She's probably a real hag in person if you stood next to her and gaped at her ugly mug.

Quote:

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

Tanning beds are akin to placing oneself in a microwave oven. The damage they do to the human body is remarkable. If you have any cancer in your body tanning beds accelerate it or exacerbate it. Anyone fool enough to put their body into a tanning bed gets what they deserve for their vanity. I believe the tanning bed tax will winnow out these bad "health" fads quicker than if they were to die a natural death. As far as mom and pop companies they should have invested their money in a different business as I have no sympathy for them foisting this craze or fad upon the American populace.

As for Pelosi - I'm sure she's had to fork out plenty of money at the makeup artist and hairdresser who makes her up every day. And her plastic surgeon as well. I've never really seen a close up of this woman either. It's always from at least 5 feet away minimum or the photo is blown up (and retouched of course). She's probably a real hag in person if you stood next to her and gaped at her ugly mug.

So you approve of the nanny state?

Fine, report for genetic psychological examination at 3 o'clock sharp at either the Public Health office or Democratic Party headquarters.

The problem with Pelosi is she's had to fork out taxpayer's money, not hers.

I personally find women with very light skin more attractive than ones with a dark tan, does anyone else agree? Pin-up girls from the 50s didn't have a dark, fake tan and they looked hot. Tanning beds are so dangerous, I don't know why anyone still uses them, at least with the sun, you get vitamin D.

I think what bothers me most about all this is I see it as the first step to a whole new breed of "sin" taxes. It won't be long at this rate that anything deemed "bad" by the goobermint is going to have a new tax attatched. How soon will the fat tax be enacted ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdadof3

How soon will the fat tax be enacted ?

Hello:

I too, am fearful of the nanny state telling me how to eat. But, I'm equally fearful of corporate America telling me how to eat. The obesity epidemic is a direct result of that. Don't you think it needs to be countered, even a little bit?

By the way, do you know how much high fructose corn syrup you eat? That's a brand new food, by the way. It was INVENTED. Do you like INVENTED food? I'm a cook. I NEVER found a recipe that called for that stuff.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:

I too, am fearful of the nanny state telling me how to eat. But, I'm equally fearful of corporate America telling me how to eat. The obesity epidemic is a direct result of that. Don't you think it needs to be countered, even a little bit?

excon

The nanny state tells you what you MUST eat, or go to jail and eat it there. Soylent Green is people.

The corporate state tells you what they will sell you, or you grow your own. I kind of like growing my own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catsmine

The corporate state tells you what they will sell you, or you grow your own. I kinda like growing my own.

Hello again, Cats:

That's the right wing schtick, all right... But, when the corporate state controls the means of production, and they do, you buy what they TELL you to buy. That would be the euphemistic you.

I grow my own too;). But, MOST people in this country shop in the middle isles of their supermarket and eat breakfast at McDonald's. Look, I'm not as pure as I make myself out to be. I LOVE Lipton instant stroganoff noodles, and I'm sure it's packed with all sort of crap.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Cats:

That's the right wing schtick, alright... But, when the corporate state controls the means of production, and they do, you buy what they TELL you to buy. That would be the euphemistic you.

I grow my own too;). But, MOST people in this country shop in the middle isles of their supermarket and eat breakfast at McDonald's. Look, I'm not as pure as I make myself out to be. I LOVE Lipton instant stroganoff noodles, and I'm sure it's packed with all sort of crap.

excon

And I'm sure my Zatarain's Caribbean Rice has more in it than rice and cayenne and pineapple. But with the nanny state, will we have that option?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catsmine

But with the nanny state, will we have that option?

Hello again, Cats:

If they put prohibitive taxes on the bad stuff, you'll still have a choice. It'll just be an expensive choice. Otherwise, the only option WOULD be to grow your own - or buy real food. The nanny state isn't going to outlaw REAL food.

With a little more time and effort, I can produce rice like Zataran, or noodles like Liptons, and even better that DOESN'T have any of that crap. What's wrong with having to learn how to cook again?

Besides, as a dedicated right winger, what do you have to say about the nanny state telling me that I can't consume pot? Where's MY choice? So, you agree with SOME nanny state, as long as YOU get to decide what's banned. I understand.

Look. I don't want to pay more for my Ho Ho's either. But, what about the children? Aren't right wingers supposed to care about the children? When I was in school, we ate REAL food. Now, it's true, that was before most of the crap was INVENTED, but don't you think we ought to get back to feeding our kids right. Government kitchens, like schools, ARE places where the food police ARE needed. I don't know if you know it, but our kids are fed CRAP. I don't think I knew it, but I DO now.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Besides, as a dedicated right winger, what do you have to say about the nanny state telling me that I can't consume pot? Where's MY choice? So, you agree with SOME nanny state, as long as YOU get to decide what's banned. I understand.

Your rhetoric is getting the better of you. I joined NORML in '74.

Yes government kitchens are where the food police are most needed but for different reasons. It is there where the prepackaged garbage is distributed to the children poor and needy.

As we have mentioned before ;people are not even permitted to donate a good home made meal or dessert to the pantries .So we can spare ourselves the talk about the corporate dictates . If they do,it is in league with the nanny-state .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

yes government kitchens are where the food police are most needed but for different reasons. It is there where the prepackaged garbage is distributed to the children poor and needy.

As we have mentioned before ;people are not even permitted to donate a good home made meal or dessert to the pantries .So we can spare ourselves the talk about the corporate dictates .[ If they do, it is in league with the nanny-state .

Hello again, tom:

You bring up another reason why we need a wholesale reform of the way our food is delivered. McDonald's can't give away the food that they don't sell. They have to throw it away.

You didn't say "prepackaged garbage," did you? I swear, you're sounding more liberal every day.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

You bring up another reason why we need a wholesale reform of the way our food is delivered. McDonald's can't give away the food that they don't sell. They have to throw it away.

You didn't say "prepackaged garbage," did you? I swear, you're sounding more liberal every day.

excon

On a side note. I saw a video on YouTube where they were shooting wild hogs in Texas from a helicoptor. What bothered me about it is that nobody was going behind them to pick them up. You could feed a lot of homeless and hungry with those pigs. From what I understand they have become an epidemic in Texas. But why not at least put them to some good if your going to shoot them ?

Same here with deer and Canadian Geese .
Goose L'Orange beats Lipton instant stroganoff noodles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

same here with deer and Canadian Geese .
Goose L'Orange beats Lipton instant stroganoff noodles.

And boar goes great in Zatarain's Caribbean Rice!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

I don't have any good advice .Maybe some solice in that they are not alone . Tanning salons are mom and pop operations . Much larger corporations who have larger impacts on society are going to feel the pain and have a bigger impact.

Already heavy equipment makers John Deere and Caterpillar have announced to deaf ears how this law will impact their businesses.
Both companies ;US export success stories ,and major employers, have announced huge increases in operating expenses directly due to the law's impact. $100 million in increased costs for 2011for Caterpillar and $150 million in increased costs for 2010 for John Deere.

Worse still is these increases will continue to rise as these companies expand hiring if this country ever comes out of this economic downturn giving them a huge disincentive to hiring more employees.

update : the Dems in Congress and the administration are just a bit touchy over these companies not towing the party line about Obamacare .

Quote:

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke took to the White House blog to write that while ObamaCare is great for business, "In the last few days, though, we have seen a couple of companies imply that reform will raise costs for them." In a Thursday interview on CNBC, Mr. Locke said "for them to come out, I think is premature and irresponsible."

Meanwhile, Henry Waxman and House Democrats announced yesterday that they will haul these companies in for an April 21 hearing because their judgment "appears to conflict with independent analyses, which show that the new law will expand coverage and bring down costs."

In other words, shoot the messenger.Black-letter financial accounting rules require that corporations immediately restate their earnings to reflect the present value of their long-term health liabilities, including a higher tax burden. Should these companies have played chicken with the Securities and Exchange Commission to avoid this politically inconvenient reality? Democrats don't like what their bill is doing in the real world, so they now want to intimidate CEOs into keeping quiet.

The ObamaCare Writedowns - WSJ.com

Quote:

On top of AT&T's $1 billion, the writedown wave so far includes Deere & Co., $150 million; Caterpillar, $100 million; AK Steel, $31 million; 3M, $90 million; and Valero Energy, up to $20 million. Verizon has also warned its employees about its new higher health-care costs, and there will be many more in the coming days and weeks.

When companies lose money, they either go broke, raise prices or lower the quality of their benefits because they are not in business to lose money.

Who will end up suffering? Consumers, taxpayers, employees and their families.

I wonder how long before we start hearing talk of more bailouts... but not for tanning salons.