Could a Tanning Tax Be on the Horizon?

December 9, 2009

Even though we all suspected that tanning beds were bad for us, ever since the World Health Organization officially confirmed them to be carcinogenic back in July, we were truly certain of the risks. Recently, the FDA put out a warning against the dangers of tanning-induced ultraviolet exposure in its article, Indoor Tanning: The Risks of Ultraviolet Rays, and this has the Senate talking.

We've seen some states toy around with the idea of banning under-18 tanning before, and now, a potential tanning tax is being talked about by the Senate in relation to recent health bill discussions. The general concept, which is only in the beginning stages of consideration, would require an excise tax on tanning services, like sunlamps and tanning beds available for home purchase, as well as salon walk-ins. What do you think about this possible excise tax?

Source: Flickr User Whatsername?

Tanning Beauty Byte

20 Comments

3 years 20 weeks

I know tanning is bad for you, but walking outside is bad for you! I enjoy tanning! It feels good and is gives my extremely pale skin a little color. Should I be penalized for something I enjoy doing!? NO!! Our government is taking over our country people and there is nothing we can do about it! Won't be long before we cant do anything and not be taxed and its just not fair

Bettye Wayne 3 years 22 weeks

Okay, first off, let me say that I am drunk, so if I don't quite make perfect sense, blame vodka.Second, anonymous mdizzle, I do believe in freedom. I believe in the freedom I have to vote. Democracy is a me vs you system. That pretty much means, if I vote (and win) for a congressman/senator who then in turn votes to tax tanning, you have to kiss my sexy ass and deal with it. That means, if I vote (and win) to tax you, you either pay the extra or do without it. Don't like it? Leave the country then. And if you 'win,' I guess I have to kiss your ass then, don't I?And as far as taxing "fast food, soda, then beef," etc., why haven't we yet? Actually I know the answer to that... it has been proposed to tax only chocolate or only soda, but that's not scientific or logical. What I- in my infinite wisdom- think we should do, is figure out a standard to tax by. As in, 25% or more of your carbs/saturated fat/sodium = tax; something like that. So your double-cheeseburger will be taxed, but you side-salad won't.Also- assuming you live in the US- we don't have nationalized health-care yet. KEY WORD- YET. I don't smoke cigarettes, I drink moderately (today, in excess) and I eat relatively healthy- and you think my taxes should go to support overweight smokers and tanners and the extra tax dollars their life style will cost in terms of medical care? No fucking way. That $.75 you pay every time you make an unwise health choice, that's going to save your life 30 years from now. If $.75 every two or three days isn't worth saving your life, what are you living it for anyway?"The sky is the limit and it will happen." That's right, it will happen; the majority of Americans know the difference between right (healthy) and wrong (unhealthy) and they know that consuming fatty foods/smoking/tanning, etc. is unhealthy.Also, "The role of government is to protect you from others who infringe upon your right to life, liberty and property." By limiting your access to fatty foods/smoking/tanning, etc., the government is protecting YOU from YOURSELF and your ability to shorten your own life. The government is also protecting MY PROPERTY (aka MY TAX DOLLARS) from being wasted on YOUR unwise lifestyle decisions. "It is not to protect you from yourself." Shouldn't it be? If you're doing physical damage to yourself, you should at least be discouraged if not stopped completely. Destruction of health isn't a freedom.

Bettye Wayne 3 years 22 weeks

Okay, first off, let me say that I am drunk, so if I don't quite make perfect sense, blame vodka. Second, anonymous mdizzle, I do believe in freedom. I believe in the freedom I have to vote. Democracy is a me vs you system. That pretty much means, if I vote (and win) for a congressman/senator who then in turn votes to tax tanning, you have to kiss my sexy ass and deal with it. That means, if I vote (and win) to tax you, you either pay the extra or do without it. Don't like it? Leave the country then. And if you 'win,' I guess I have to kiss your ass then, don't I? And as far as taxing "fast food, soda, then beef," etc., why haven't we yet? Actually I know the answer to that... it has been proposed to tax only chocolate or only soda, but that's not scientific or logical. What I- in my infinite wisdom- think we should do, is figure out a standard to tax by. As in, 25% or more of your carbs/saturated fat/sodium = tax; something like that. So your double-cheeseburger will be taxed, but you side-salad won't. Also- assuming you live in the US- we don't have nationalized health-care yet. KEY WORD- YET. I don't smoke cigarettes, I drink moderately (today, in excess) and I eat relatively healthy- and you think my taxes should go to support overweight smokers and tanners and the extra tax dollars their life style will cost in terms of medical care? No fucking way. That $.75 you pay every time you make an unwise health choice, that's going to save your life 30 years from now. If $.75 every two or three days isn't worth saving your life, what are you living it for anyway? "The sky is the limit and it will happen." That's right, it will happen; the majority of Americans know the difference between right (healthy) and wrong (unhealthy) and they know that consuming fatty foods/smoking/tanning, etc. is unhealthy. Also, "The role of government is to protect you from others who infringe upon your right to life, liberty and property." By limiting your access to fatty foods/smoking/tanning, etc., the government is protecting YOU from YOURSELF and your ability to shorten your own life. The government is also protecting MY PROPERTY (aka MY TAX DOLLARS) from being wasted on YOUR unwise lifestyle decisions. "It is not to protect you from yourself." Shouldn't it be? If you're doing physical damage to yourself, you should at least be discouraged if not stopped completely. Destruction of health isn't a freedom.

3 years 22 weeks

Its is not the role of the government to protect us from ourselves. If people want to tan, then so be it. What is wrong with you? Dont you believe in freedom? If you think tanning sucks, then don't do it. If you don't like cigarettes, don't smoke. But don't tell me I can't do it or that I should be made to pay a fee to the government to do so? Your lack of understanding of freedom and the origin of this nation have given us nationalized healthcare. Now every aspect of our lives is subject to regulation in the name of healthcare. Now bureaucrats in Washington will decide what you can eat, drink, breathe, drive, watch, buy - because whatever they want to contol can be said to affect the 'cost' of the government provided 'care'. Let smokers be taxed, and now tanners. Then fast food, soda, then beef, then then people who work in offices, then people who watch tv, then... you get the point. The sky is the limit and it will happen. The role of government is to protect you from others who infringe upon your right to life, liberty and property. It is not to protect you from yourself. The only way to guarantee your own freedom in the US is to protect the freedom of others.

Jemma84 3 years 23 weeks

Yes, tax it! Incidences of preventable cancers like skin cancer make health care costs go up for all of us. Put it all towards healthcare... The new healthcare bill adds a 5% tax to cosmetic surgery too and I support that as well. And this is coming from someone who used to tan (NEVER again! I'm embracing my fair complexion these days) and has had elective cosmetic surgery. I support a ban for those under 18 too, and I do not think minors should be able to tan with parental consent either. We don't let minors buy cigarettes with parental consent! I have a friend who was diagnosed with skin cancer at the age of 18 after years of abusing tanning beds. Her mother and older sister have had it too and they are all tanners. She is 20 now and she keeps having to go back to have more spots removed. Sooo horrible...

Jemma84 3 years 23 weeks

aubrey214 3 years 23 weeks

I agree with the 3 comments above me... Its not going to stop tanners from tanning. Maybe a few, but not the whole tanning population. I think there are many other things that could/should be taxed that include more users but hey, all in good time I guess.

Yogaforlife 3 years 23 weeks

I say tax it! My state already has a rule for minors - only with parental consent - the parents must be present and sign a release form. I didn't reven realize people bought cartons of cigarettes anymore until the other day, there was this 50 year old lady with the deepest smokers voice every - tons of wrinkles, buying three cartons of cigarettes. She even counted out a few dollars in change to pay for it. All in all, I think the cigarette tax has been effective in forcing people to cut back on the number of packs a day or in encouraging people who only smoke occassionally to give it up completely. You definitely can't buy a pack anymore with the change from your glove compartment of the car.

Yogaforlife 3 years 23 weeks

I say tax it! My state already has a rule for minors - only with parental consent - the parents must be present and sign a release form.I didn't reven realize people bought cartons of cigarettes anymore until the other day, there was this 50 year old lady with the deepest smokers voice every - tons of wrinkles, buying three cartons of cigarettes. She even counted out a few dollars in change to pay for it.All in all, I think the cigarette tax has been effective in forcing people to cut back on the number of packs a day or in encouraging people who only smoke occassionally to give it up completely. You definitely can't buy a pack anymore with the change from your glove compartment of the car.

mcjx3 3 years 23 weeks

Even though I think it might not stop people from tanning, it's one of those products that you should be paying more for because of the risk involved.

jenni5 3 years 23 weeks

Why not! But it won't stop people from tanning. Just like the cigarette taxes. $9 a pack and people still smoke.

OoOThisIsMeOoO 3 years 23 weeks

go for it! it's kind of like when they had more taxes on cigerettes...its dangerous and if ur dumb enough to pay a lot of money for it & still do it when you know all the risks then that's your problem

Bettye Wayne 3 years 23 weeks

I went to a tanning salon once, and that was only because this guy I had a crush on asked me to go with him! In his defense, he was going to Key West to celebrate his March birthday and didn't want to hit the beach Cleveland-winter-white. Nowadays, I'll get a gentle natural tan in the summer, just enough to keep me from looking pale, and I always slather on the SPF no matter what.Tax them!! YES!! The way this country is, we need all the money we can get! As far as banning for under 18s, maybe let them tan only with parental consent.

Bettye Wayne 3 years 23 weeks

I went to a tanning salon once, and that was only because this guy I had a crush on asked me to go with him! In his defense, he was going to Key West to celebrate his March birthday and didn't want to hit the beach Cleveland-winter-white. Nowadays, I'll get a gentle natural tan in the summer, just enough to keep me from looking pale, and I always slather on the SPF no matter what. Tax them!! YES!! The way this country is, we need all the money we can get! As far as banning for under 18s, maybe let them tan only with parental consent.

3 years 23 weeks

meanwhile, here in Brazil, tanning beds were recently banned for cosmetic purposes. IMO, overtanned people are just tacky, whether it's from a bed or a bottle. some tan is nice though. (however, I have a thing for pale girls)

xgreenfairyx 3 years 23 weeks

Tax or no tax, tanning beds are a great way to cull the population. If you're silly enough to use tanning beds fully aware of the dangers, your eventual death from skin cancer could only be seen as a good thing.

bonchicbongenre 3 years 23 weeks

Good idea.

bonchicbongenre 3 years 23 weeks

Good idea.

Hello890 3 years 23 weeks

I wish they would have had this tax when I was younger (and very stupid). I used to tan ALL the time and I'm naturally brown already!! Maybe it would have made me think twice if it were more expensive? However, I don't know if this is really a solution to the problem. If I couldn't get into tanning beds then, I would probably just lay out by the pool more often.

3 years 23 weeks

I'm all for it. Tanning is just stupid. Why can't people just be happy with the skin tone they were born with.

Link Love

20 Comments

You Might Also Like