Do you think it's fair for the United States to impose a 10% tax on indoor UV tanning salons in the new healthcare bill?
The risks from tanning bed and salons are huge, and people are made aware of this fact. So, if people are going to knowingly expose themselves to these dangers, then they ought to be taxed, just like smokers are taxed when they buy cigarettes. It increases the likelihood of getting skin cancer, it would be like a Sin Tax.
The use of tanning salons has led to a dramatic increase in skin problems, such as premature wrinkling and aging. But, it has also increased the incidents of skin cancer, especially among teenagers. Young people may think they look better being tanned, but they are at great risk for melanoma. The United States has a right to impose a tax on those who provide activities that lead to greater medical costs.
I believe that, since the government taxes cigarettes, then they should also be able to tax tanning salons. It has been proved that there is no such thing as safe indoor tanning, and that the use of these salons causes serious damage to the skin. Therefore, the government should tax these salons due to the negative effect they have on people's health.
I am a very fair skinned person and know from family experience how dangerous skin cancer can be. Too many young and older people are putting their health at risk by going into indoor tanning. I think if a 10% tax was imposed, more people would be discouraged to go tanning.
The World Health Organization recognizes that there is growing evidence suggesting that the radiation from tanning beds can damage skin and even lead to skin cancer. Therefore, we must recognize that these tanning beds are going to lead to a higher rate of skin cancer, which will end up putting more of a strain on the healthcare system and cost more money. The tax on these salons is designed to outweigh the cost to the healthcare system that they represent. This is one of the reasons the federal government taxes cigarettes.
Tanning salons are an unnecessary luxury, and can contribute heavily to skin cancers, such as melanoma. It is, therefore, fair to impose a 10% tax on them, in order to help cover the costs of treating skin diseases and cancer caused by frequent tanners, when they develop problems later in life.
When you use a UV tanning salon, it's just a quick solution to vanity. People are just looking for the fastest way to tan, which isn't a need- it's a want. There's nothing wrong with sitting outside and catching a few rays of natural sun! UV tanning has also been linked to cancer.
Unlike food or school supplies, indoor tanning is not a necessity for everyday life. It is a luxury service, and it is one that could pose some health drawbacks. The tax is just as fair as taxes on cigarettes and alcohol are. While there are some unfair tax proposals out there, this is not one of them.
There are many scientific reports stating the health risk of using UV tanning beds particularly to children and teenagers. These risks include an increased risk for skin cancer, as well as other skin diseases. By using a tanning bed individuals are greatly increasing their risk of developing these diseases. Imposing the 10% tax on these services is helping to pay for the benefits these same people will need in the future due to the damage they are causing to themselves. Therefore I think it is fair to charge a tax just as we do on cigarettes and other carcinogenic products to help offset the cost of future care.
Because it is a known skin cancer risk, commercial indoor tanning should be taxed if not prohibited. It only makes sense to target the known causes of health problems, whether that is a chemical plant spewing poisons, a drug maker selling something with dangerous side effects, or a tanning salon whose products increase the incidence of a preventable cancer. Plus is is a source of tax revenue for health care.
The best way to stop people from doing something that is unhealthy for them is to raise the price of that product or service. UV indoor tanning beds are a proven cancer risk and the 10% tax on them is a small way to recoup some of the health care costs that the indoor UV tanning salons cause to their customers.
UV light and indoor tanning have been linked to increased incidences of skin cancers. The money raised from the tax on tanning beds would help to offset costs incurred in treatment of these cancers. Also, tanning is done for purely cosmetic purposes; there is no medical reason for it. People who engage in an activity with known medical risks purely to improve some aesthetic ideal should have to bear some of the burden that their choice engenders.
Artificial tanning under UV lights is extremely harmful to one's health and can lead to serious health complications later in life such as skin cancer. The government cannot afford to pick up the tab for people who make unhealthy decisions and just as cigarettes are taxed, so too should tanning salons to make up for the added costs of caring for those people later in life.
I do not like indoor tanning booths, but do not think people should get penalized by higher taxes if they like to use them. It is dangerous and can cause skin cancer, but the outdoor sun can also cause skin cancer, if the person does not have sunscreen on. They can not tax Americans for going outside in the sun, which poses the same risks of getting skin cancer as an indoor UV tanning bed.
It is not fair for the United States to impose a 10% tax on indoor UV tanning salons as part of the new health care bill. There are many unhealthy behaviors that people take part in that cause many of the health care costs. Yes, tanning is a cause of skin cancer which leads to medical bills and death. But obesity is also a serious health risk, and there is no tax on ice cream.
The government should stop infringing on the rights of individuals and businesses. If it is known that tanning (in any form) causes skin cancer than people should be personally responsible for their actions and suffer consequences if they do not take precautions to protect themselves. The government needs to stay out of the lives of individuals and allow people to live without conforming to these ridiculous laws! Imposing a tax will not cure cancer, just give the government more money to spend on lavish trips to Las Vegas using our money.
People who get the tans should be taxed instead. All the salons are doing is exploiting people's stupidity, and good for them. They should not be punished for making money off people's obsession with tanning. Ridiculous people getting cancer from this stupid practiced should be punished instead. Maybe shipped to Australia.
I believe in flat rate taxes. Tanning salons do indeed cause skin cancer. I would never go tanning, nor suggest anyone else do it. However the government does not get a say in how I treat my body. I shouldn't be punished financially because of the choices I make. Many things are extremely hazardous to my health. They are not additionally taxed. The government cannot pick and chose what they want to tax and what they don't.
The cosmetic methods involved are usually not related to the healthcare industry. This new tax policy will increase the bill amount of many customers and hence will decrease the frequency of their visits. If needed, 5% of tax will be acceptable. Although it is estimated that this policy will be able to collect 2.7 billion dollars within the next ten years, it will definitely decrease the tanning salon customers to a great extent.