tanning tax
Posted on 19. Jul, 2010 by molly in lifestyle
words > MOLLY MARTIN
Is tanning a sin?
According to federal coffers, the answer is yes. Starting July 1, the cost of UV tanning now includes a 10 percent federal tax, joining the ranks of alcohol, tobacco, candy, and soda that all have sin taxes of their own.
Sin or no sin, Wichita tanning salon owners are not happy. No, they’re actually pretty upset.
Jennifer Chambers, owner of Caribbean Sun Tanning, said she sees the tax as the federal government’s attempt to control Americans’ behavior.
“As of today we have no information on how this is going to work or what we are supposed to do,” Chambers said. “This is a very sloppy addition to the healthcare reform.”
The new tax was included in the healthcare reform bill and is expected to raise roughly $2.7 billion in the next decade. It was also designed to discourage tanning and consequently lower tanning-related medical costs over time. The cost for skin cancer treatments was the major health concern for supporters of the tax.
Jennifer Szenay, the owner of an airbrush studio named Glisten Sunless Tan, said the tanning industry needs bans and regulations, especially because the younger generation does not understand the effects of UV tanning.
“I support the knowledge that’s coming from the tax,” Szenay said.
Szenay said people have turned away from sunless tanning because of experiences inside a spray-tan booth or from a store-bought cream that turned their skin orange, but she said the new generation of tanning will be UV-free as people become better informed of how to take care of their skin.
Some people, however, use UV tanning as a skin-care treatment, Chambers said. For example, she said that elderly people who have had joint replacements enjoy tanning because of the warmth the UV light provides.
“Tanning isn’t just about getting dark,” Chambers said; “There are so many reasons people tan, such as depression, skin irritation, or acne.”
Kay Waite, owner of Tan Do, 550 N. Rock Rd., said that the tax isn’t fair.
“If they’re going to tax small business owners, they need to tax dermatologists too,” Waite said.
Both Waite and Chambers have been trying to fight the tax by contacting their elected officials with consistent emails. Waite said the only feedback she has received have been prewritten, “blanket” responses. Chambers also emailed her customers about the tax and asked them to join her in a petition. All of the people who sent in their petitions received a free week of tanning.
“I have had roughly 800 respond since I started,” Chambers said.
As much as Chambers is disappointed with the tax, she believes the small business owners will prevail.
“People will still tan and we will just adapt to the changes as best we can,” she said.
Even Szenay, a supporter of UV-free tanning, doesn’t think the tax will hurt the popularity of the tanning bed.
“There’s a tax on cigarettes and that hasn’t stopped people from smoking,” Szenay said.
5 Responses to “tanning tax”
Leave a Reply
Super Tanner
20. Jul, 2010
Luxury taxes like these will definitely hurt small businesses. Unlike cigarette taxes, people will stop tanning because it isn’t a necessity to their lives.
Goldwater
21. Jul, 2010
Yeah…more hope and change for everyone. Ain’t it great! You poor saps who voted for this clown should have to foot the bill for his garbage.
Snow White
23. Jul, 2010
If you are referring to Obama, just what exactly is “his garbage”? Why should my insurance premiums be susceptible to possible increases due to the costs of covering tanners that end up with skin cancer and require extensive treatment? Why should the rest of us have to “foot the bill” when others make health choices that are directly related to higher costs in health care?
Shanna_Sexyton
31. Jul, 2010
@Snow White: I definitely agree! Besides if people just can’t give up the addiction of tanning that’s their problem. This tax will make people think twice about their health and their skin.
D3forU
17. Aug, 2010
It is a shame that this Congress is doing everything backwards. moderate and controlled non-burning exposure to Sunshine would reduce Health Care costs, not add to it.
Vitamin D is produced in Human skin when exposed to UV rays, whether they come from the sun or an indoor sunbed.
There are millions of Americans who get burned, literally, from casual outdoor exposure on a daily basis. a recent study shows that up to 36% of US burn every year. There are no “Sunburn Police” at the local pools or beaches all summer, but every day you can see numbers of “Lobster Red” people after a day outside.
http://xr.com/36burn
The studies that make headlines recently do not bother to delve deeper into the numbers to see that those that work outdoors, or spend regular time outside actually reduce their risk for melanoma, a skin cancer mainly in Males and indoor workers.
People that use sunbeds are shown to have 90% higher levels of Vitamin D, 18% lowered PTH levels, and higher Bone density than those who do not.
http://xr.com/TangVitD
The actual numbers in melanoma are infinitesimal in relation to the bigger picture from under exposure to Nature’s own “Sunshine Vitamin” The health consequences of NOT having high Vitamin D levels can be up to measured in BILLIONS of DALY’s vs Millions from even today’s exposure levels.
UVR exposure is a minor contributor to the world’s disease burden, causing an estimated annual loss of 1.6 million DALYs; i.e. 0.1% of the total global disease burden. A markedly larger annual disease burden, 3.3 billion DALYs, might result from reduction in global UVR exposure to very low levels.
http://xr.com/LessD
Melanoma Mortality Rates have remained steady for Women for the past 30 years at a rate of 2/100,000 while Men have risen two-threefold in the same time frame. Women frequent tanning salons at a ratio of 4:1, shouldn’t the rate be reversed?
http://xr.com/30AllAge
In the most recent headline, the media neglected to see past the flash and see the study showed Lifetime routine exposure, outdoor activities, and outdoor jobs actually lowered the risk of melanoma, while use of chemical sunscreens raised the risks.
What stood out in this report was the fact that those with many moles the risk was raised 1,281%, having very fair skin raised the risk 450%, and Red hair raised the risks 253%. These are all characteristics of a Skin Type 1 which would not and should not look for additional sun exposure, indoors or outside.
http://xr.com/hysteria
Humans evolved under the sun. Mother Nature played a cruel joke in that the same UVB that produces vast amounts of Vitamin D in the skin can also burn and/or damage it with overexposure. Sunscreens have been in use for the past 40 years, and not surprisingly, by blocking Natures’ own protection, we may have caused many of the melanomas being seen.
http://xr.com/SSMel
Interestingly, the same sun that may cause melanoma may actually protect against the most serious cases.
A little bit of anything is usually good for us, but an overabundance may cause harm. Moderation is the key. Get regular sun exposure on as much body surface for a short period of time outdoors when you can, between the hours of 10A and 2P, when the sun is above 45°, typically between April and November at a line from Boston to Sacramento (40°N Lat).
If that’s not practical, Indoor tanning salons offer time controlled UV exposure that doesn’t vary with the time of day, season, cloud cover, ozone layer, or many other factors.