Today the first of President Barack Obama’s 21 tax hikes to
pay for his massively expensive health care law takes effect,
levying a 10 percent tax on tanning salons. With this tax, the
president once again breaks his promise not to raise taxes on
Americans making less than $250,000 per year. In addition, this
time he’s targeting largely women-owned small businesses.
If you don’t think taxes matter, look no further than
Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi, a star on the hit MTV reality show
Jersey Shore. The notably bronzed celebrity made
headlines by saying, “I don’t go tanning anymore, because Obama
put a 10 percent tax on tanning.” She added, “I feel like he did
that intentionally for us. McCain would never put a 10 percent
tax on tanning.” Sen. John McCain responded on Twitter, stating,
“u r right, I would never tax your tanning bed! Pres Obama’s
tax/spend policy is quite The Situation but I do rec wearing
sunscreen!”
The tax wasn’t even in the health care bill until it became
a ninth-inning replacement for the equally unfair “botax,” which
would have placed a 5 percent tax on elective cosmetic surgeries.
Just as subsidies and targeted tax credits are handed out to
favored businesses, targeted tax hikes take aim at narrowly
defined targets. Both are political instruments subject to
intense lobbying, not sound fiscal policy.
The tanning tax will have its greatest effect on women, who
are not only more likely to use tanning beds but also own 67
percent of the nation’s indoor tanning businesses, according to
The International Smart Tan Network. The Congressional Joint
Committee on Taxation estimates the tax will raise $2.7 billion
over 10 years. That is just a drop in the ocean compared with the
expected cost of the health care bill, now a staggering $1.053
trillion over 10 years. The negligible revenue the tanning tax
will bring in makes the fundamental unfairness of this and other
“sin” taxes even more obvious.
Although a wide array of legal products and services can be
harmful if used in excess, that doesn’t justify government
wresting more money from taxpayers under the guise of promoting
public health. The tanning tax was created strictly to bring in
more revenue for the health care bill, and it won’t be of much
use in that regard.
Just as alcohol and tobacco taxes haven’t satisfied the
appetites of big-government advocates who want ever-more revenue,
neither will new en vogue taxes on plastic bags, soda, and
tanning beds. All these taxes really do is hand the government
more control over individuals’ decisions and their money.
When government uses tax policy to discriminate against
legal products, it unjustly manipulates a market already rich
with an abundance of healthy and less healthy choices.
Ultimately, higher taxes on selected “sin” items, such as tanning
salons, are just another example of politicians taking away more
of our personal and financial liberties.
