Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbones
I agree with most of what you say here, but what about the person who tans at the beach or in their backyard? It's still risky behavior, but they don't get taxed. How about a woman who who goes to a tanning booth a couple of times before her wedding to look nice for her big day. Is it fair that she has to pay because George Hamilton overdoes it? Some things that are unhealthy in excess are fine if done in moderation. This is selective taxation aimed at a group who isn't considered to be a serious threat. The government is going to continue picking and choosing who will pay more in taxes based on what they think won't hurt their re-election hopes.
|
I don't disagree with you, in that they will selectively pick and choose who gets taxed. I wouldn't doubt that a conversation occurred that discussed how wealthier people can afford to get tans, so they can afford to pay more for them.
If the tax on cigarettes has shown anything, it's that even if you tax something to the point in which the price doubles, people will still pay it. Also on cigarettes (and this is just an opinion), the number of smokers is down but I think it is more because it has become a social stigma as opposed to a price issue.