Political Forums
Forum Notice

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Business & Industries

Business & Industries Discuss things going on in the corporate world, individual companies and corporate practices.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 24th, 2010, 03:17 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,742
Tanning Agencies Sue to Declare Healthcare Law Discriminatory

(AP) Dennis Bruce, Staff Writer



Five tanning center industry groups have vowed to file lawsuits over whether the new healthcare bill's tanning tax is discriminatory.



"This tax focuses exclusively on white Americans, as they are almost exclusively the only customers of tanning centers. This is a war on white Americans by President Obama," said Mindy Spritz, owner of a Tarzana, California tanning salon.



The lawsuits will focus on the argument that this tax has a disparate impact on one racial group - white Americans. "Would we condone a tax on afro combs or tamales?" said Maurice Dubois, another Tarzana tanning salon owner.



Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, expressed her disagreement with Ms. Spritz. "While most members of our community do not use tanning services, they certainly can use them."
leighredf is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 24th, 2010, 03:44 PM   #2
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
Sounds like one of those "Only In America" stories!
garysher is offline  
Old March 24th, 2010, 05:53 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 16,079




well, at least the taxpayers won't have to foot the bill for this loser case
tristanrobin is offline  
Old April 15th, 2010, 08:34 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1
I recently read this article, and I found that most of the people disagree in the implementation of 10% tax in tanning. However, I agree if that tax has a dynamic rule in the development in our country.
AceMile is offline  
Old April 15th, 2010, 08:40 PM   #5
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,586
The tax isn't any more discriminatory than a tax on alcohol or cigarettes. Tanning causes skin cancer. It is bad for you and the government hasevery right to tax that.
waitingtables is offline  
Old April 15th, 2010, 09:44 PM   #6
Nomad
 
fxashun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ga
Posts: 23,113
So "cancer" is your litmus? I guess that "soda tax" might be next, that dreaded sugar. Diabetes is a killer too. I wonder would they tax sweet tea too?

But then again, perhaps we should tax hamburgers. Cholesterol and fat are killers.

Why not tax all steak houses? All that meat is unhealthy.

Not to mention let's levy cars just a bit more, cause' lotsa people are killed by cars. Let's get some Obamacare tax on that.



I'm sorry "sin tax" is one thing, but I bet this, like the mandate, are just trial balloons to see just what they can get away with. Tanning, something people can do outside anyway, is hardly a "sin". The tax may be constitutionally sound, but it does not set a good precedent.
fxashun is offline  
Old April 16th, 2010, 04:07 AM   #7
man
 
onthefence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: laying on the fence
Posts: 5,824
Damn always trying to keep the white man white. There should be a beach towel and suntan oil tax too, the coconut scented crisco not sun block (sun block keeps whitey white after all)



I am thinking taxing flip flops would be good too, double the tax if you are a dude wearing them with jeans. or maybe just put them to death (just to beat PN to that punchline )
onthefence is offline  
Old April 16th, 2010, 04:55 AM   #8
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
So "cancer" is your litmus? I guess that "soda tax" might be next, that dreaded sugar. Diabetes is a killer too. I wonder would they tax sweet tea too?

But then again, perhaps we should tax hamburgers. Cholesterol and fat are killers.

Why not tax all steak houses? All that meat is unhealthy.

Not to mention let's levy cars just a bit more, cause' lotsa people are killed by cars. Let's get some Obamacare tax on that.



I'm sorry "sin tax" is one thing, but I bet this, like the mandate, are just trial balloons to see just what they can get away with. Tanning, something people can do outside anyway, is hardly a "sin". The tax may be constitutionally sound, but it does not set a good precedent.


It's the same as taxing cigarettes and alcohol. If it is also a carcinogen, then it should be taxed as well. Why not? And why not tax soda and crappy sugar foods more? Especially when poor people with diabetes and insured people with diabetes contibute so much costs on to the system? Seriously? Things that are very bad for you shouldn't be left cheap and easy to afford. Tax them. Why the hell not? People pay a lot of tax on cars. And fees. And we have insurance to cover the risks of accidents and that keep the costs from accidents and dangers from driving lower. And people don't pay to tan outside, so it wouldn't be taxed. Tanning booths are contributing to people getting skin cancer, do you deny that it causes skin cancer?
waitingtables is offline  
Old April 16th, 2010, 04:59 AM   #9
man
 
onthefence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: laying on the fence
Posts: 5,824
who are they kidding anyway, it's just going to get passed on to the consumer.



yeah and I'm gonna stop buying beer when the tax goes up again
onthefence is offline  
Old April 16th, 2010, 05:00 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Catus Felidae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by onthefence

I am thinking taxing flip flops would be good too, double the tax if you are a dude wearing them with jeans. or maybe just put them to death (just to beat PN to that punchline )


Taxing flip flops is a great idea! We need a whole 'fashion police' department.



Honestly, there was a woman at the symphony last Saturday night in flip flops!

Catus Felidae is offline  
Old April 16th, 2010, 05:02 AM   #11
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,586
It really doiesn't matter OTF, if it is passed onto the consumer. It should be, if they want to take those health risks, then the tax is the consequence. If they don't stop the behavior, then it creates revenue. I have no problem with it.
waitingtables is offline  
Old April 16th, 2010, 07:50 AM   #12
Nomad
 
fxashun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ga
Posts: 23,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables
It's the same as taxing cigarettes and alcohol.
No it's not. There's nothing about those taxes that was brought about by "health risk".



Quote:
If it is also a carcinogen, then it should be taxed as well. Why not? And why not tax soda and crappy sugar foods more? Especially when poor people with diabetes and insured people with diabetes contibute so much costs on to the system?
Why don't you just tax the poor people? Oh, that's right, that's not "fair".



Quote:
Seriously? Things that are very bad for you shouldn't be left cheap and easy to afford. Tax them. Why the hell not?
Damn, what country do you live in? Cause it's certainly not this one.



Quote:
People pay a lot of tax on cars. And fees.
None of the taxes or fees in my state are for health concerns. Although we just had a bill pass that adds a surcharge on certain speeding tickets to fund a trauma initiative.



Quote:
And we have insurance to cover the risks of accidents and that keep the costs from accidents and dangers from driving lower.
But that's not a official "tax" like the one we are discussing in this thread. Nor is revenue from this "tax" supposed to help only the people that pay it. Bullshit.



Quote:
And people don't pay to tan outside, so it wouldn't be taxed. Tanning booths are contributing to people getting skin cancer, do you deny that it causes skin cancer?
In excess, probably. But then again if you are prone, just working outside can cause it. It may increase the chances, but it's not necessarily "gonna give you cancer".

WHO: Tanning Beds Cause Cancer

The UV light from a tanning bed is equivalent to UV light from the sun, which has had a (carcinogenic) classification since 1992. Some other items in this category are red wine, beer, and salted fish. The ITA has always emphasized the importance of moderation when it comes to UV light from either the sun or a tanning bed.”



So maybe they should close beaches, especially the public ones, for being a health risk. We gotta keep those costs low.
fxashun is offline  
Old April 16th, 2010, 09:46 AM   #13
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
No it's not. There's nothing about those taxes that was brought about by "health risk".



Oh really? So why are they taxed so highly? And why couldn't other unnecessary things be taxed the same way?



Why don't you just tax the poor people? Oh, that's right, that's not "fair".



Who do you think buys and eats the majority of crappy food in this country? The rich people? Not!!





Damn, what country do you live in? Cause it's certainly not this one.



Sure I do. There isn't a damn thing wrong with higher taxes for shit that is unhealthy and dangerous.





None of the taxes or fees in my state are for health concerns. Although we just had a bill pass that adds a surcharge on certain speeding tickets to fund a trauma initiative.





But that's not a official "tax" like the one we are discussing in this thread. Nor is revenue from this "tax" supposed to help only the people that pay it. Bullshit.



I never said it was a tax. I said that it isn't taxed because we have insurance that minimizes the costs for the state or any injured party die to automobiles. SO your bulshit claim is off the mark and doesn't even touch on what I was actually talking about. Duh.



In excess, probably. But then again if you are prone, just working outside can cause it. It may increase the chances, but it's not necessarily "gonna give you cancer".

WHO: Tanning Beds Cause Cancer

The UV light from a tanning bed is equivalent to UV light from the sun, which has had a (carcinogenic) classification since 1992. Some other items in this category are red wine, beer, and salted fish. The ITA has always emphasized the importance of moderation when it comes to UV light from either the sun or a tanning bed.”



So maybe they should close beaches, especially the public ones, for being a health risk. We gotta keep those costs low.


Public beaches aren't free. And if the government wanted to tax the use of public beaches, so what? And yes, tanning can cause skin cancer. Sorry if you don't believe me, but it does. No one said anything about closing anything, we are talking about taxes. Again, duh.
waitingtables is offline  
Old April 16th, 2010, 01:50 PM   #14
Nomad
 
fxashun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ga
Posts: 23,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables
Oh really? So why are they taxed so highly? And why couldn't other unnecessary things be taxed the same way?
You tell me. Are any of the federal taxes going to a "health" fund?



Quote:
Who do you think buys and eats the majority of crappy food in this country? The rich people? Not!!
A majority of the country isn't rich. I bet they eat their fair share.

Quote:
Sure I do. There isn't a damn thing wrong with higher taxes for shit that is unhealthy and dangerous.
Everything in excess is unhealthy or dangerous. You can drink too much water. I guess we need a "unhealthy" label on that too?



Quote:
I never said it was a tax. I said that it isn't taxed because we have insurance that minimizes the costs for the state or any injured party die to automobiles. SO your bulshit claim is off the mark and doesn't even touch on what I was actually talking about. Duh.
But we ARE talking about taxation for things that are dangerous. you have yet to point out a single tax, such as this one, that is brought about due to health concerns. Even the recent increases in the cigarette tax are thinly veiled money grabs, and just use "health" as a smoke screen.

So you are the one pitching the bullshit here.



Quote:
Public beaches aren't free.
Where aren't they? And if they aren't in your neck of the woods, I bet it's a state issue and has nothing to do with the Feds.



Quote:
And if the government wanted to tax the use of public beaches, so what? And yes, tanning can cause skin cancer. Sorry if you don't believe me, but it does. No one said anything about closing anything, we are talking about taxes. Again, duh.
Again, I'm glad I don't live in your United States of Hypocrisy. Where you have a mantra, "Pursuit of Happiness" but in practice it'll be OK to tax anybody or anything that the government doesn't deem worthy of freebees.

I don't know which place would suck more, PN's "Kill em all" country or yours.
fxashun is offline  
Old April 16th, 2010, 02:08 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 16,079
I just don't get the "discriminatory" thing - are black people who go to a tanning salon not going to be taxed?
tristanrobin is offline  
Old April 16th, 2010, 02:11 PM   #16
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin
I just don't get the "discriminatory" thing - are black people who go to a tanning salon not going to be taxed?




The premise is that only white people want or need to use tanning salons so it discriminates against them.



Ever see a black person or a latino in a tanning salon??
garysher is offline  
Old April 16th, 2010, 02:53 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 16,079
Ever see a white person buying black hair products? They still get taxed. Why doesn't the black community start a discriminatory case about that?



Black or Latino people are not banned from using the tanning salons - if they choose not to, that's their choice (a wise one, IMO, but that's irrelevant).



This tax is appropriate - and hardly discriminatory.
tristanrobin is offline  
Old April 16th, 2010, 02:54 PM   #18
Nomad
 
fxashun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ga
Posts: 23,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin
Ever see a white person buying black hair products? They still get taxed. Why doesn't the black community start a discriminatory case about that?



Black or Latino people are not banned from using the tanning salons - if they choose not to, that's their choice (a wise one, IMO, but that's irrelevant).



This tax is appropriate - and hardly discriminatory.
Is there a special "hair care products" tax by the feds? I've never heard of that.





Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin
I just don't get the "discriminatory" thing - are black people who go to a tanning salon not going to be taxed?
Damn dude, Black people at a tanning salon? About as rare as a baby who eats baby food made out of meat right out of the womb.





A baby's best food is mother's milk, or if that is not possible, formula. Newborns really should not be eating cereal or any other baby foods until they are around four to six months old.

For at least the first six months, a baby's nutrient needs are best met by mother's milk or formula. Human milk contains the right balance of nutrients plus antibodies that help protect the newborn's health. Mother's milk changes as her growing baby's nutritional needs change.






It's a good thing gay male couples can't have "offspring". LOL.
fxashun is offline  
Old April 16th, 2010, 02:57 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 16,079
you dimwitted dishonest creature - I already stated that newborns only have milk or formula as infants.



your attempt at condescending derision is hampered by your inherent dishonesty
tristanrobin is offline  
Old April 16th, 2010, 02:58 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 16,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun

Damn dude, Black people at a tanning salon?


are you suggesting that all black people are as dark as you?
tristanrobin is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Business & Industries

Tags
agencies, declare, discriminatory, healthcare, law, sue, tanning


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PA Judge: Photo ID Law ‘Reasonable,’ ‘Non-Discriminatory' Jimmyb Current Events 47 August 21st, 2012 08:37 PM
Ill. Kills Discriminatory Adoption Bill PaperAlchemist Gay and Lesbian Rights 2 April 13th, 2011 01:23 PM
Chrysler to declare bankruptcy CNN Current Events 2 April 30th, 2009 07:01 AM
Mccain Urges End To Discriminatory Cell Phone Taxes AZSQUID Taxes 8 October 3rd, 2006 05:29 AM
Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat hevusa Warfare 26 September 28th, 2006 06:08 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.