facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up

Sorry, no featured jobs currently.

- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

Burning up over tanning tax



Published: Fri, November 19, 2010 @ 12:00 a.m.

Burning up over tanning tax

The new health-reform act surprised many Americans with the institution of a tax on tanning. That tax that took effect in July will harm consumers, damage business owners, hurt employees and disrupt families.

The tanning tax has raised the normal Ohio sales tax of 6.5 percent to an extreme high of 16.5 percent on all tanning packages. This affects small businesses, causing many to close or lay off employees. According to Joseph Levy from the Smart Tan Network, 9,000 jobs and 1,000 salons are in jeopardy. (CNN, 2010)

In the Mahoning Valley alone, several tanning salons have been forced to close for good because of the decline of business caused by this extra tax.

Not only does it raise prices, but it also affects the business owners, employees and families of both. With loss of revenue and loss of employee hours, families aren’t able to survive as they have in the past. This is exactly what our already fragile economy does not need.

The unfair tax bypassed the regular legislative process. The original tax was supposed to be for laser cosmetic surgeries, but at the last minute legislators changed it to target the indoor-tanning industry. There was nothing fair about changing this provision at the last possible second, and no one was able to fight it considering very few knew about it.

In an effort to save salons, several salon owners and employees have started petitions to urge Congress and President Obama to change their minds. Please take a minute of time to email your senators and congressman. Contact email and phone information is available at www.repealtantax.com.

Stacey Vickers, Niles

Beware of the change

Everyone voted for change and that is what we’ll get. What the people who voted for change don’t realize is that the change we are about to see will not be good.

This area will not see any help from Columbus. It will be a long time before Mr. Kasich ever steps foot in Mahoning, Trumbull or Columbiana counties. I would advise all counties to begin planning their cutbacks now; it wont be long before they will have to be implemented.

If the people who voted for change think Mr. Kasich will have any interest in the struggles of this Valley, I think they will be mistaken. This will more than likely happen on the national level as well.

We will once again be the forgotten Valley.

Tom Clark, Youngstown


Comments

1peacelover(791 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Don't worry Stacey, now that John Boehner is in charge, I am sure he'll be initiating measures to repeal the tanning tax.

Suggest removal:

2ebernays(1 comment)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Ms Vickers addresses the concerns of small business owners and the implementation of a 10% user fee. But what she did not convey was the compelling, irrefutable scientific evidence that shows that use of indoor tanning beds can increase your risk for skin cancer.

Melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, is increasing faster in young women than in young men - and a major difference in behavior is that women are more likely to use indoor tanning beds.
Indoor tanning is associated with a 75 percent increase in the risk of melanoma. Melanoma is now the most common form of cancer for young adults 25-29 years old, and it is the second most common form of cancer for adolescents and young adults 15-29 years old.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has stated UV radiation from the sun and artificial sources, such as tanning beds and sun lamps, is a known human carcinogen. And, the World Health Organization has called to prohibit minors from indoor tanning because of the danger of skin cancer.

The indoor tanning user fee is an important step in reducing the use of indoor tanning, which can ultimately prevent future skin cancers.

Current scientific belief indicates that spray-on/mist tans are not harmful. Small business owners can offer a different type of tanning service, which is not harmful - and many of them already do.

Also, a 10% user fee on a $10 indoor tanning session is only $1. Hard to believe that this is breaking the banks of users and salon owners.

Suggest removal:

3Nonsocialist(710 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

When you elect a government with a voracious appetite for your money, stuff like this happens. If you've voted for a Democratic-Socialist, then you've actively sought these transfers of wealth and power from the people to the government.

Other crazy taxes that need to go bye-bye:

-Tax for dying (aka estate tax, to be reinstated in 2011 by the Democratic-Socialists)

-Marriage Penalty Tax

-Penalty for working (aka the Federal Income Tax)

Suggest removal:

4Springman(235 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Non-Socialist, where were you when the unfunded Medicare Part D and the unfunded costs of the Iraq war were instituted?

Most of our tax dollars go to the military. All the other stuff amounts to peanuts and you are promoting even greater disparity of wealth distribution and goverment by and for the landed gentry.

The income tax was actually promoted by former Secretary of the Treasury Andrew K. Mellon to ensure that the new rich could never become as wealthy as he was. If we have to support the government, the initial idea, devised by Alexxander Hamilton, was high tarriff and excise taxes.

In any event, what we need is growth before we start cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Suggest removal:

5peacelover(791 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Actually there is a growing group of millionaires who don't view paying federal income tax as a "punishment" or "penalty"-- they call themselves the Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength. Here is their web site.
http://www.fiscalstrength.com/

Suggest removal:

6dcheck(9 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Springman, you stated "Most of our tax dollars go to the military. All the other stuff amounts to peanuts ......". Are you kidding me? Where did you get these figures? Our military budget is a large piece of the pie, but according to Government web site Medicare isn't far behind the TOTAL Defense Budget. Add Social Security and Medicare together and the total Defense Budget isn't even close. Then add all the other social programs, and other parts of the budget and to say the Military budget is "Most of our tax dollars" is just simply not true. Care to site your sources of information?

You want growth? Solution: Cut taxes, control spending. Smaller government. Problem with this solution-difficult to get our government to do it.

Suggest removal:

7rocky14(735 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

600 Billion for the Defense Dept.
400 Billion for the Pentagon.
That's 1 Trillion for the military.
You want growth by cutting taxes? Bush did it.
How did that work out???

Suggest removal:

8Springman(235 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Dcheck. I don't know why this is such a revelation, but the cost of the wars have been off budget. Starting in 2003, defense spending was 50% of discretionary spending and has increased every year since then.

This is widely reported, but look at
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnew...
Also, Wheeler, Winslow T. (February 18, 2009). America's Defense Meltdown: Pentagon Reform for President Obama and the New Congress (Kindle ed.). Stanford University Press.

Meanwhile, SSA is fully funded until approximately 2040. Its revenue comes from a separate fund from a separate tax and is treated off budget, even though we know that they use the money under “pay as you go.” Likewise Medicare comes under a separate fund, but is already in the red.

Please note the pie chart attached. I think that "human resoources" also includes a lot of civilian salaries that are related to the military.
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/pie...

I am a veteran and do not belong or support the organization that put this out, but facts are facts.To his credit, Secretary Gates has recognized the fact that the military is boated, --probably more so than the rest of government put together.

Right now, I'd estimate that we are supporting approximately 300,000 troops overseas and supporting the countries where they are stationed as military pay and logistical support goes into the local economy.

Please note the controversy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11...

Suggest removal:

9Stan(9923 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

The main staple , crack cocaine , which sustains life in the ghetto is still tax free !

Suggest removal:

10Nonsocialist(710 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Springman,

The subject of the article as well as my post were about taxes.

Your post was about spending. You refer to non-military, entitlement spending as "peanuts." You post as supporting evidence links to war resisters.com and the Soros-funded HuffPo.

I've posted the government's own 2010 budget by department. Please compare the DOD budget to HHS and SSA. Yes, there are supplemental appropriations made for both defense and non-defense spending.

The Federal debt has increased $3 trillion since the Democratic-Socialists fiat began in January 2009. The spending orgy needs to stop, and in my opinion it is already too late.

After reviewing the Federal budget, you will learn that even massive cuts in military spending will not balance the budget. Entitlement reform is vital to the continued existence of this country.

It is best to review the evidence before reaching conclusions. The truth is freedom. Many libs search places like Soros's HuffPo and war resisters.com for incomplete and often false information in attempts to justify their support for America's arson.

Join the firefighters and leave the arsonists behind.

http://www.usaspending.gov/agency-tab...

Suggest removal:

11Stan(9923 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Military spending is a necessity ! That is until we become a third world country . At that point we don't have to worry obout any country trying to plunder us for our wealth !

Suggest removal:

12Springman(235 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

"The subject of the article as well as my post were about taxes. ...Your post was about spending."

Hand and glove, pal. Meanhile, you continually exaggerate the tax bite. Everyone, including you, got a huge tax break under Obama's watch. Maybe that's why the deficit increased. I'm not saying he was totally responsible, as both parties supported it.

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/investing/...

The Bush tax cuts had a negative effect. At the bottom, those making less than $100,000 spend the money. But those at the top save the money or worse, invest overseas. We gave huge multinationals who pay no taxes windfalls in tax rebates. I assume you are for that!

You are good at casting aspersions and blame, but not so good at real facts: military spending dwarfs everything else.

Meanwhile items such as the VA are not considered to be defense spending, but are a direct result of sending people like me overseas. I'd also estimate that half of the people in the state department and in several other agencies work almost exclusively on defense projects. One of my former classmates, who works for the USDA, spent a year in Iraq and is set to go to Afghanistan as an advisor. Hundreds of thousands of private contarctorrs, many of whom are not even Americans, are employed in projects in Iraq, Afghanistan and in other countries all over the world, paid for by the same people who rail against taxes on the basis that it is used for social programs.

"...transfers of wealth and power from the people to the government." Actually the transfer has been to a select few hight end "earners." People like Paulson, who was able to lay off most of the billions he earned on Wall Street, while he was Secretary of the Treasury.

http://www.zimbio.com/Secretary+Hank+...

I guess this is the kind of government you want.

As to Stan, we already have been plundered. Try Youngstown Sheet and Tube, for example. Many of the machines that used to be in our factories are still in operation -- in countries like China, South Korea, Brazil and even Mexico and Canada.

Suggest removal:

13dcheck(9 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

First, I have a great deal of respect for all current & former service men and women. Thank you, Springman, for your service! I mean that sincerely. And thanks to all active service men/women, and veterans we are safe and free. Free to post on this blog and do anything we want within the laws of the USA. I sincerely appreciate that freedom. Not nearly enough respect is given to current and former service-people for their part in keeping us safe & free. We live in the greatest country in the world, and we owe a great deal to our past & present military. They are always in my thoughts and prayers.

I went to the web sites you linked to. I am open minded and love to learn. I've been wrong before, and have been persuaded to see things differently. I try to look at all sides. I found the pie chart "The Government Deception" on “War Resisters League” web site interesting. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about it. Agree or disagree?

Would it be wrong to view the US Budget as every dollar they collect for any purpose? Congress controls it all, they make the budget.

If we narrowly look at the Federal Government as the “War Resisters League” site suggests, excluding all the social programs etc., why do we need the Federal Government for more than Defense and Judicial? And, shouldn't defense be a big part of our budget because of it's importance?

I respectfully disagree with your statement that the Bush tax cuts had a negative effect. Tax cuts in general should always have a positive effect. I am in the lower income brackets, and my paycheck has been reduced because of cut backs the past 2-3 years. I work 2 jobs along with side work to make ends meet. I still feel pick-pocketed every time I look at the taxes withheld from my pay. Add up your tax burden sometime. Payroll taxes out of your paycheck, property tax, sales tax, gasoline (42 cents a gallon last I heard), taxes buried in the cost of everything you purchase, etc. It might surprise everyone how much they contribute to Fed, State and Local Uncle Sams. In my humble opinion, we ALL are over taxed.

Suggest removal:

14cambridge(3109 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

dcheck.....The United States has 4.5% of the worlds population and 43% of the worlds military budget. I'd say that's a little out of whack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...

Suggest removal:

15dcheck(9 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

cambridge: I understand your mathematics, but explain your point better-why do you only consider the population when you say "that's a little out of whack". Isn't our US economy the largest in the world? Our GDP is one of the highest in the world, if not the highest. What numbers do you want to factor in? The countries most at risk? The countries with the highest GDP? The countries that value their freedom the most? Just what do we want to factor into the pie chart?

Personally, I like my freedom. I don't mind putting a few more of my tax dollars into it. No one else in the world cares about us. Do they? So we have to defend ourselves. And sometimes go to other places to keep the bad guys from coming here. Iraq isn't the first time we went somewhere else to keep our country safe.

As our discussion drifts away from the point of the vindy article (taxes) tax rates have gotten out of control. I believe analyzing and deciding tax rates are much like a business pricing a product for sale. Set your price it too high and sales are lost, price it too low and not enough profit is made to cover costs. Both scenarios could ruin a business. Tax rates have a similar influence on income to the Treasury. Tax rates too high and business slows, lowering income to Treasury, too low and it has an similar effect. Finding that magic number is not Rocket Science. If the goal is to maximize Treasury income lowering taxes has proven to accomplish this.

Wikipedia that

Suggest removal:

16cambridge(3109 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

dcheck.....You claim we went to Iraq to "keep our country safe." Safe from what? What threat was Iraq to the United States?

bush's bungled war in Afghanistan and unnecessary war in Iraq has cost the American tax payer three trillion dollars, thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and the world is not a safer place for it.

Suggest removal:

17Traveler(606 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

I dont mind spending on the military but why do we have to pay to protect everyone else. We still have troops in Europe protecting Europe from what? Europe is down sizing their military and they can because we have our troops in their country protecting them. Why sould my taxes dollar go to protect countries that can do it themself.

Why did we every have to go in to Bosnia its Europeans back yard why didn't they deal with it becuase they USA like a sucker is always willing to spend the money and blood fighting other peoples wars.
When will we learn from the Vietnam war. Why do we bare the cost to defend people that don't want to do it them self.

Suggest removal:

18Springman(235 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Dcheck. I probably pay more in tax than you make..

However, I don't resent that I have to pay, rather I resent tax cheats and tax protestors and antediluvian hypocrites who claim they are deficit hawks then spend our money on unfunded wars and other misadventures. That’s why we are sinking fast.

The first chapter in my economics textbook was "the allocation of resources." What we learned is if we spend money on guns, we’ll have less left for butter.

By defending the Bush tax cuts, you are defending the "all guns," no butter position. The math is simple. We lost millions of jobs and the stock market was down to about 6000 when he left office. The money spent in Iraq went down the commode.

When we spend money here, it circulates.

At the same time, for 8 years, we accelerated a shift to outsourcing.

You can blame it on bubbles or on people like me, but unless you make more than $250,000 you have been slitting your own throat, extending the deficits by arguing to extend cuts to high earners.

Suggest removal:

19Nonsocialist(710 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

A study released from the US Congress in 1996:

"The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis."

Such findings are consistent with the Laffer curve. When you raise taxes, government revenues decline. When you cut taxes, government revenues increase.

When you raise taxes on the high earners, you reduce that persons likelihood of: increasing hiring, providing raises or improved benefits, purchasing goods or services, or reinvesting in the corporation. It is good when your employer is doing well.

The current broken system does not tax wealth, but rather income. The current system does not "screw the rich" as many wish for who have bought the liberal attempts to divide Americans. If you want to "screw the rich", than you tax net worth or consumption.

As predicted, Federal revenues increased dramatically after both of the so-called "Bush tax cuts." Because the economy tanked due to government intervention in the subprime lending scandal, that has no reflection on the benefits of the separate issue of tax cuts.

If you want to balance the budget, two things must occur:

-Tax cuts for all Americans who work

-A drastic reduction in the size of government.

A smaller government is a more efficient one. With a more efficient government, you could reduce the military budget and increase US military might.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-gr...

Suggest removal:

20cambridge(3109 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

More jobs were created during the Clinton administration than the reagan administration and Clinton created more jobs than both bush's combined.

Suggest removal:

21Woody(452 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Springman,

Where in the US Constitution does it say the government is required to buy butter?

I can find where it talks about having a military. And last I checked, militaries need guns. (Article 1, Section 8)

Suggest removal:

22dcheck(9 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

cambridge:
When are you going to give us something to back up your opinions? Without some supporting evidence of what you say your opinions are baseless and have no credibility. Check out the link Nonsocialist has provided. His argument is very compelling. Nonsocialist has listed many facts that can be verified. Anyone can say what you are saying, but that does not make it true. You say "More jobs were created during the Clinton administration than the reagan administration and Clinton created more jobs than both bush's combined." Point me to some evidence please.

Anyone can bash a president and make baseless emotional statements, but you won't convince me or anyone until you back up your opinions.

Suggest removal:

23dcheck(9 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Springman
You state "I probably pay more in tax than you make.." That's quite possible. I've been a controller/general manager at a local small business for 33 years. The past 2-3 years have been a tremendous struggle for our business. I am involved with the "nuts & bolts" and see the taxes a business is forced to fork over. It takes enormous amounts labor just to deal with all the different taxes, let alone pay them. I believe, like many, taxes are strangling the economy. Not the wars. If a tax cut increases revenue to the Government, how is a tax cut bad? There eventually has to comes a point where taxes are too high slowing tax revenue. Isn't it possible we have reached that point?

You said "By defending the Bush tax cuts, you are defending the "all guns," no butter position." This is an unfair assumption about me or anyone supporting the Bush tax cuts. I in no way support unnecessary wars. And I don't necessarily support the Bush tax cuts, but I do support tax cuts in general when targeted to the right area. The right area is the debate. The "tax cuts for the rich" statement narrowly stereotypes anyone making over $250,000 as of no value to our economy. So tax them into oblivion. Many of the "Rich" own businesses and create jobs.

Our economy, and the world economy is very complicated. I by no means claim to completely understand it. I have a business degree, but that doesn't make me an expert on anything. Some of the best education I have gotten came through "the school of hard knocks". For instance, my personal experience: I have a small low risk mutual fund that I have put $50 month into for the past 25 years, and in 1998 I had to pay capital gains tax on it even though it was worth 37% less than the prior year. And I have never made anywhere near $250,000. I could have bought my wife a nice gift with the tax I had to pay.

Suggest removal:

24Nonsocialist(710 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Since the gold standard was dropped, the value of your money is worth only what people think it is.

Another domino falls....

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/20...

Suggest removal:

25cambridge(3109 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

dcheck....The link below is proof that Clinton created more jobs than reagan and more jobs than both bush's combined. It's not my opinion it's a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_cre...

Below are links showing the tax increases by reagan and how he tripled the national. Not opinion, just the facts.

http://factcheck.org/2009/03/debtor-n...

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/...

Suggest removal:

26Nonsocialist(710 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

The US Congress has the "power of the purse."

From 1995 through the end of the Clinton Presidency (1993-2000), both houses of Congress were under GOP control.

After the "Republican Revolution" of 1994, even Clinton himself governed from a more centrist/less liberal perspective.

During this period of time was the "tech bubble",
which grew the economy and was unrelated to the President's actions.

It would seem necessary to ignore the mechanisms of government in order to give Clinton more credit than the GOP Congress for the economic growth of the 1990s.

Sadly, during these years we realized we had a sexual predator as President.

Suggest removal:

27cambridge(3109 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Clinton had consensual sex with an adult. That makes him an adulterer not a sexual predator. There's a difference.

A sexual predator would be someone like George H. W. Bush who had sex with minors provided by the Franklin Republican Child Prostitution Ring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin...

The video below is one of the victims telling about Bush with teenage boys from the 5:30 part on. That would be a predator, along with Barney Frank and everyone else involved..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRXyEQ...

Suggest removal:

28Nonsocialist(710 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Multiple women have under sworn testimony detailed how Clinton assaulted them against their will (Wiley, Jones, Broderick). In the Jones case, the Clinton administration hid evidence and obstructed justice. Clinton himself was found guilty of perjury and his Arkansas law license was revoked. Monica Lewinsky's affair with Clinton is the only one amongst these than could be described as consensual.

The wikipedia article does state that members of the administration were involved, but not Bush himself. The video is disturbing, and if enough evidence (other witnesses from the party, etc) is available, than Bush should be prosecuted.

Barney Frank is the poster boy for electoral reform. He is perhaps the most culpable individual for the subprime lending crisis, and he wins re-election with ease.

Suggest removal:

29Springman(235 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Woody, we're talking GDP. We've been spending exhorbuitant amounts overseas, the money stays offshore, and does not circulate back to us.

"I've been a controller/general manager at a local small business for 33 years."

Dcheck Capital gains in 1998 were not 38%. Ordinary income above about $200,000 was. If tyour mututal fund was tax deferred (like an IRA or 401K) and you drew it out, you would have had to pay 38% as it was NOT a capital gain.

As for health care, many big companies wanted the Canadian system, to lay off their medicare exposure to the government and their employees. Guess you guys missed that.

Here is the resolution: compromise.
http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/pres...

Does your company have government contracts? Tax breaks? Does your company write off ALL of its expenses? Health care?

Have a nice Thanksgiving. Take an Indian to lunch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ESaZS...

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes