Help on New Indoor Tanning Tax

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities

Help on New Indoor Tanning Tax

Postby wbond » Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:29 pm

Can anyone point me to details about this new tax?

I understand that in the new legislation there is to be a 10% tax on indoor tanning booth services.

I am wondering if this only applies – strictly speaking – to the tanning sessions or to all purchases? So, in other words, if I also buy eyeprotectors with a custom design and some sort of skin product then do I pay only the applicable sales tax on that portion of the bill? Also, is the 10% levied on the tanning charges before sales tax, or after? How about the sale of tanning beds for private use – do I pay only state sales tax, or also this additional federal 10% tax? Does this cover the use of UV as medical therapy in a dermatologist’s office (e.g. for psoriasis in some cases)?

Some of these places are a little shady. Who do I report them to if they don’t charge me the 10%?

Lastly, from a tax-planning standpoint I am looking to move for the biggest tax break and the most cost-effective, George Hamiltonesque, suntan. Of the states without a state income tax and with significant natural sunshine year-round, that would seem to leave Nevada, Texas, and Florida as the best candidates. Boglehead thoughts?
User avatar
wbond
 
Posts: 1017
Joined: 10 Dec 2008

Postby fishnskiguy » Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:37 pm

You want thoughts? I'll give you thoughts.

The tax will be used to pay for your melanoma treatment. :)

Chris
Trident D-5 SLBM- "When you care enough to send the very best."
User avatar
fishnskiguy
Moderator
 
Posts: 2519
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Location: Eagle, CO

Postby strafe » Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:38 pm

The answer depends on your Tanner stage and other factors. See the sticky post on how to determine your Tanner staging, format your available tanning options, and reconcile your need/ability/willingness to receive a tan.

In the absence of that information and ignoring the fungibility of money, I recommend against funding your tanning purchases with capital gains income to avoid double-taxation.
strafe
 
Posts: 518
Joined: 3 Mar 2007

Postby wbond » Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:47 pm

strafe wrote:The answer depends on your Tanner stage and other factors. See the sticky post on how to determine your Tanner staging, format your available tanning options, and reconcile your need/ability/willingness to receive a tan.

In the absence of that information and ignoring the fungibility of money, I recommend against funding your tanning purchases with capital gains income to avoid double-taxation.


Thanks for your reply. I'm a Tanner Stage V male. Are you saying that there's a discount for children? Perhaps we're not saying the same thing.

That is a good point about the capital gains income, however.

Evidently this starts tomorrow. Anyone know of any late-night tanning booths?
User avatar
wbond
 
Posts: 1017
Joined: 10 Dec 2008

Postby baw703916 » Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:19 pm

Anyone know of any late-night tanning booths?


I had always thought of tanning as more of a daytime activity, actually.

Brad
Most of my posts assume no behavioral errors.
User avatar
baw703916
 
Posts: 5339
Joined: 1 Apr 2007
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby Blue » Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:31 pm

Indoor tanning is a little like playing russian roulette.... every time you are in the bed you have to wonder is the UV ray that is going to cause the mutation that causes a fatal melanoma for you. Don't do it.

btw, despite the similarity in names, Tanner stage has zero to do with tanning.
User avatar
Blue
 
Posts: 959
Joined: 12 Jul 2008

Postby Rick Ferri » Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:40 pm

If this activity is so bad for us, why tax it? Why not just outlaw tanning? Make tanning illegal...it is for the good of the country. A win for the people of America! I heard that outlawing tanning would save $130 billion according to the CBO, and likely balance the budget by 2030!

This is a joke, Alex. Please don't ban me.

:roll:
User avatar
Rick Ferri
 
Posts: 7681
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Location: Home on the range in Medina, Texas

Postby Opponent Process » Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:43 pm

I think this only kicks in after you've purchased $200,000 worth of indoor tanning services. But then there's people that'd tell you that you just can't get by on less than $200,000 worth of indoor tanning in NYC.
30/30/20/20 | US/International/Bonds/TIPS | Average Age=37
User avatar
Opponent Process
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: 18 Sep 2007

Postby arthurdawg » Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:51 pm

Rick Ferri wrote:If this activity is so bad for us, why tax it? Why not just outlaw tanning? Make tanning illegal...it is for the good of the country. A win for the people of America! I heard that outlawing tanning would save $130 billion according to the CBO, and likely balance the budget by 2030!

This is a joke, Alex. Please don't ban me.

:roll:
\



former marine or not, i am reporting you ferri! this post was a disgrace to rules of this forum regarding politicial posts!


:lol: :lol: :lol:
TSM 20% / TIM 20% / TBM 20% / TIPS 20% / REIT 10% / SVC 10%
User avatar
arthurdawg
 
Posts: 716
Joined: 2 Jun 2008

Postby market timer » Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:52 pm

Rick Ferri wrote:If this activity is so bad for us, why tax it? Why not just outlaw tanning?


Tax can be more efficient than a ban:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
User avatar
market timer
 
Posts: 4957
Joined: 21 Aug 2007

Postby arthurdawg » Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:52 pm

Blue wrote:Indoor tanning is a little like playing russian roulette.... every time you are in the bed you have to wonder is the UV ray that is going to cause the mutation that causes a fatal melanoma for you. Don't do it.

btw, despite the similarity in names, Tanner stage has zero to do with tanning.


as a practicing oncologist, i heartily endorse tanning, smoking, ingestion of radioactive elements, etc. as good for my future business! keep it up america!
TSM 20% / TIM 20% / TBM 20% / TIPS 20% / REIT 10% / SVC 10%
User avatar
arthurdawg
 
Posts: 716
Joined: 2 Jun 2008

Postby Pacific » Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:58 pm

Some of these places are a little shady


Then not much tan, huh? :lol:
Pacific
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: 6 Mar 2007
Location: Lost in the middle of the Pacific

Postby Jack » Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:04 pm

I can see a bull market in tax-free spray-on tanning salons.
Jack
 
Posts: 3065
Joined: 27 Feb 2007

Postby Cloud » Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:09 pm

Rick Ferri wrote:If this activity is so bad for us, why tax it? Why not just outlaw tanning? Make tanning illegal...it is for the good of the country. A win for the people of America! I heard that outlawing tanning would save $130 billion according to the CBO, and likely balance the budget by 2030!

This is a joke, Alex. Please don't ban me.

:roll:


Tax is good. Ban is bad. Tax marijuana instead of banning it just like we tax cigarettes and alcohol. I don't want any tanning ban starting an underground market. LOL
User avatar
Cloud
 
Posts: 605
Joined: 12 Sep 2007

Postby Dale_G » Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:30 pm

Please note: If your adjusted gross income is less than 513% of the poverty level, you may be eligible for a refundable tax credit.

Will sunshine be next?

Dale
Volatility is my friend
User avatar
Dale_G
 
Posts: 1895
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Location: central Florida - on the grown up side of 76

Postby sommerfeld » Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:43 pm

Insider tanning: worse than insider trading?
sommerfeld
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: 12 Dec 2008

Postby MWCA » Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:26 am

Rick Ferri wrote:If this activity is so bad for us, why tax it? Why not just outlaw tanning? Make tanning illegal...it is for the good of the country. A win for the people of America! I heard that outlawing tanning would save $130 billion according to the CBO, and likely balance the budget by 2030!

This is a joke, Alex. Please don't ban me.

:roll:


Next thing you know they will want to tax away your salt!

Woah wait a minute... :twisted:
We are all worms. But I believe that I am a glow-worm.
MWCA
 
Posts: 2811
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Location: Golden State

Postby wbond » Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:19 am

Pacific wrote:
Some of these places are a little shady


Then not much tan, huh? :lol:


You are to be commended on your finely-tuned pun detector.
User avatar
wbond
 
Posts: 1017
Joined: 10 Dec 2008

Postby felixters » Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:38 am

Pacific wrote:
Some of these places are a little shady


Then not much tan, huh? :lol:


very well played.
felixters
 
Posts: 49
Joined: 1 Jul 2008

Postby bottlecap » Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:30 am

I detect an emerging identity crisis. But Ward Bond to George Hamilton?
User avatar
bottlecap
 
Posts: 3045
Joined: 7 Mar 2007
Location: Tennessee

Postby Jack » Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:35 am

arthurdawg wrote:
Blue wrote:Indoor tanning is a little like playing russian roulette.... every time you are in the bed you have to wonder is the UV ray that is going to cause the mutation that causes a fatal melanoma for you. Don't do it.

btw, despite the similarity in names, Tanner stage has zero to do with tanning.


as a practicing oncologist, i heartily endorse tanning, smoking, ingestion of radioactive elements, etc. as good for my future business! keep it up america!

Seriously though, it turns out that the tanning bed tax was proposed by the American Academy of Dermatology as a health care cost reduction measure. Indoor tanning increases the risk of skin cancer by 75%. The hope is that this will work the way the large increase in tobacco taxes has helped reduce smoking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/fashion/24Skin.html
Jack
 
Posts: 3065
Joined: 27 Feb 2007

Postby SP-diceman » Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:58 am

Jack wrote:
arthurdawg wrote:
Blue wrote:Indoor tanning is a little like playing russian roulette.... every time you are in the bed you have to wonder is the UV ray that is going to cause the mutation that causes a fatal melanoma for you. Don't do it.

btw, despite the similarity in names, Tanner stage has zero to do with tanning.


as a practicing oncologist, i heartily endorse tanning, smoking, ingestion of radioactive elements, etc. as good for my future business! keep it up america!

Seriously though, it turns out that the tanning bed tax was proposed by the American Academy of Dermatology as a health care cost reduction measure. Indoor tanning increases the risk of skin cancer by 75%. The hope is that this will work the way the large increase in tobacco taxes has helped reduce smoking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/fashion/24Skin.html


That sounds nice. However, the truth is someone else was taxed.
They complained about it (I guess they had more leverage) and
it was changed at the last minute to a tanning tax.

So they can make believe they care about skin cancer but
the truth is its just like smokes. As long as we get money from it
we dont care.

Hey, why not put tolls on every single street?
People die in car crashes.

Whats next?
The running with scissors tax?


Thanks
SP-diceman
SP-diceman
 
Posts: 3963
Joined: 5 Oct 2008

Postby mtl325 » Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:14 pm

It's really a tax targetted at Anthony Mozillo, it's a pigovian tax to dissuade subprime lending. Ta-Da, we fixed it.
mtl325
 
Posts: 255
Joined: 25 Nov 2008

Postby ryuns » Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:32 pm

mtl325 wrote:It's really a tax targetted at Anthony Mozillo, it's a pigovian tax to dissuade subprime lending. Ta-Da, we fixed it.


It's the UV making him that color? I thought he was just from another planet where that was a normal shade.
An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered; an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered. -- GK Chesterton
User avatar
ryuns
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: 7 Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA. Age: 29

Postby Penguin » Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:21 pm

Dale_G wrote:Please note: If your adjusted gross income is less than 513% of the poverty level, you may be eligible for a refundable tax credit.

Will sunshine be next?

Dale


Dale,

I think it is only fair to tax indoor tanning salon 10% as sunshine is already taxed 10%!
Jon
Penguin
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 3 Mar 2007

Postby Opponent Process » Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:22 pm

someone has to make pale cool again, like it was in ancient Egypt.
30/30/20/20 | US/International/Bonds/TIPS | Average Age=37
User avatar
Opponent Process
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: 18 Sep 2007

Postby ryuns » Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:33 pm

Opponent Process wrote:someone has to make pale cool again, like it was in ancient Egypt.


Me and fishnskiguy are doing our best. :beer
An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered; an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered. -- GK Chesterton
User avatar
ryuns
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: 7 Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA. Age: 29

Postby imagardener » Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:25 pm

I keep waiting for someone to say "April Fool"
imagardener
 
Posts: 665
Joined: 28 Dec 2009
Location: south of Sarasota FL

Postby Ron » Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:48 pm

Penguin wrote:
Dale_G wrote:Please note: If your adjusted gross income is less than 513% of the poverty level, you may be eligible for a refundable tax credit.

Will sunshine be next?

Dale


Dale,

I think it is only fair to tax indoor tanning salon 10% as sunshine is already taxed 10%!

Wait till they do oxygen/air. Failure to pay the tax will leave you breathless :lol: !!!

- Ron
User avatar
Ron
 
Posts: 5069
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Location: CCTV Building - Beijing CBD

Postby monkey_business » Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:17 pm

I'm officially raising the Pun-o-Meter level to orange, pun intended.
User avatar
monkey_business
 
Posts: 527
Joined: 21 Jan 2010

Postby peter71 » Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:21 pm

Has anyone in the know been following the sunshine/Vitamin D deficiency "debate"? I don't know anything about it, but all else equal I'm always intrigued by the side trying to overcome the entrenched recommendations . . . here's a couple stories just from the past two days.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/hea ... le1510334/

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/new ... -vitamin_d

All best,
Pete
peter71
 
Posts: 3769
Joined: 24 Jul 2007

Postby Opponent Process » Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:34 pm

peter71 wrote:Has anyone in the know been following the sunshine/Vitamin D deficiency "debate"?


yeah, I guess the story is that many more people die from the indirect effects of vitamin D deficiency (hard to quantify) than skin cancer. that's probably true, but I've also heard that getting something like ten minutes of sun a day is adequate. who isn't getting ten minutes of sun a day?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... s-say.html
30/30/20/20 | US/International/Bonds/TIPS | Average Age=37
User avatar
Opponent Process
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: 18 Sep 2007

Postby peter71 » Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:36 pm

Opponent Process wrote:
peter71 wrote:Has anyone in the know been following the sunshine/Vitamin D deficiency "debate"?


yeah, I guess the story is that many more people die from the indirect effects of vitamin D deficiency (hard to quantify) than skin cancer. that's probably true, but I've also heard that getting something like ten minutes of sun a day is adequate. who isn't getting ten minutes of sun a day?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... s-say.html


babies and canadians? :D
peter71
 
Posts: 3769
Joined: 24 Jul 2007

Postby wbond » Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:40 pm

peter71 wrote:Has anyone in the know been following the sunshine/Vitamin D deficiency "debate"? I don't know anything about it, but all else equal I'm always intrigued by the side trying to overcome the entrenched recommendations . . . here's a couple stories just from the past two days.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/hea ... le1510334/

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/new ... -vitamin_d

All best,
Pete


One, of course, doesn't need UV to increase Vitamin D levels - you can fortify milk and buy pills.

That said, the estimated lifetime mortality from melanoma is around .3%/caucasian persons. Non-melanoma skin cancers are much more common, but not fatal.

Osteoporosis, however, is a significantly more common cause of morbidity/mortality. There is data supporting a mortality benefit from adequate Vit D levels in osteoporosis - and even some suggesting that there is an extra-osteoporotic mortality benefit. There is conflicting data on Vitamin D as a novel cardiac risk marker. In the elderly, Vitamin D levels are associated not only with fewer fractures but also with fewer falls due to its effect on muscle function.

I don't have time to cite all sources here, but a quick search found this relatively OK news summary: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/709117

(Note that this is not the reason I typed the satirical OP, but interesting nonetheless).
User avatar
wbond
 
Posts: 1017
Joined: 10 Dec 2008

Postby wbond » Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:43 pm

Opponent Process wrote:
peter71 wrote:Has anyone in the know been following the sunshine/Vitamin D deficiency "debate"?


yeah, I guess the story is that many more people die from the indirect effects of vitamin D deficiency (hard to quantify) than skin cancer. that's probably true, but I've also heard that getting something like ten minutes of sun a day is adequate. who isn't getting ten minutes of sun a day?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... s-say.html


Using the new cutoffs the rate of Vitamin D deficiency is widespread, actually. Something like 60% of Europe is deficient by those standards.
User avatar
wbond
 
Posts: 1017
Joined: 10 Dec 2008

Postby peter71 » Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:48 pm

wbond wrote:
peter71 wrote:Has anyone in the know been following the sunshine/Vitamin D deficiency "debate"? I don't know anything about it, but all else equal I'm always intrigued by the side trying to overcome the entrenched recommendations . . . here's a couple stories just from the past two days.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/hea ... le1510334/

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/new ... -vitamin_d

All best,
Pete




One, of course, doesn't need UV to increase Vitamin D levels - you can fortify milk and buy pills.

That said, the estimated lifetime mortality from melanoma is around .3%/caucasian persons. Non-melanoma skin cancers are much more common, but not fatal.

Osteoporosis, however, is a significantly more common cause of morbidity/mortality. There is data supporting a mortality benefit from adequate Vit D levels in osteoporosis - and even some suggesting that there is an extra-osteoporotic mortality benefit. There is conflicting data on Vitamin D as a novel cardiac risk marker. In the elderly, Vitamin D levels are associated not only with fewer fractures but also with fewer falls due to its effect on muscle function.

I don't have time to cite all sources here, but a quick search found this relatively OK news summary: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/709117

(Note that this is not the reason I typed the satirical OP, but interesting nonetheless).


Ah, not a medscape member so can't follow the link . . . re supplements, is this then demonstrably one of those things where the supplement is just as good as the natural source? Years ago I remember Alan Alda on some PBS special talking about some experiment on (some sort of) supplements and telomeres saying that in that case the supplements didn't cut it . . .

I realize this is a bit like someone asking me, "where do things stand with people voting their pocketbooks these days?" but nonetheless . . .

All best,
Pete
Last edited by peter71 on Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
peter71
 
Posts: 3769
Joined: 24 Jul 2007

Postby Opponent Process » Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:49 pm

wbond wrote:Using the new cutoffs the rate of Vitamin D deficiency is widespread, actually. Something like 60% of Europe is deficient by those standards.


that is troubling. I've only been to Marseille, but the young women there seemed to be getting plenty of exposure. I mean that's what they told me.
30/30/20/20 | US/International/Bonds/TIPS | Average Age=37
User avatar
Opponent Process
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: 18 Sep 2007

Postby wbond » Wed Mar 24, 2010 5:18 pm

peter71 wrote:
wbond wrote:
peter71 wrote:Has anyone in the know been following the sunshine/Vitamin D deficiency "debate"? I don't know anything about it, but all else equal I'm always intrigued by the side trying to overcome the entrenched recommendations . . . here's a couple stories just from the past two days.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/hea ... le1510334/

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/new ... -vitamin_d

All best,
Pete


One, of course, doesn't need UV to increase Vitamin D levels - you can fortify milk and buy pills.

That said, the estimated lifetime mortality from melanoma is around .3%/caucasian persons. Non-melanoma skin cancers are much more common, but not fatal.

Osteoporosis, however, is a significantly more common cause of morbidity/mortality. There is data supporting a mortality benefit from adequate Vit D levels in osteoporosis - and even some suggesting that there is an extra-osteoporotic mortality benefit. There is conflicting data on Vitamin D as a novel cardiac risk marker. In the elderly, Vitamin D levels are associated not only with fewer fractures but also with fewer falls due to its effect on muscle function.

I don't have time to cite all sources here, but a quick search found this relatively OK news summary: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/709117

(Note that this is not the reason I typed the satirical OP, but interesting nonetheless).


Ah, not a medscape member so can't follow the link . . . re supplements, is this then demonstrably one of those things where the supplement is just as good as the natural source? Years ago I remember Alan Alda on some PBS special talking about some experiment on (some sort of) supplements and telomeres saying that in that case the supplements didn't cut it . . .

I realize this is a bit like someone asking me, "where do things stand with people voting their pocketbooks these days?" but nonetheless . . .

All best,
Pete


My apologies: like with the WSJ you can get there through google but not directly without the membership.

There is no evidence that I am aware of that how one obtains a normal D level matters. There is plenty of evidence that oral supplementation is helpful. I doubt there is any good data comparing meaningful outcomes with sunshine vs. pills.

Pills are recommended since the medical community cannot bring themselves to really recommend UV sun exposure.

Lastly, no major group is currently recommending screening routinely for D levels outside of patients with low bone density, but the assay is now widely available (it's the 25-OH-D, not the 1,25-OH D).

Cheers, wbond
User avatar
wbond
 
Posts: 1017
Joined: 10 Dec 2008

Postby wbond » Wed Mar 24, 2010 5:21 pm

Opponent Process wrote:
wbond wrote:Using the new cutoffs the rate of Vitamin D deficiency is widespread, actually. Something like 60% of Europe is deficient by those standards.


that is troubling. I've only been to Marseille, but the young women there seemed to be getting plenty of exposure. I mean that's what they told me.


It sounds like you may have a particular talent for identifying the 40%.
User avatar
wbond
 
Posts: 1017
Joined: 10 Dec 2008

Postby ryuns » Wed Mar 24, 2010 5:53 pm

Opponent Process wrote:
peter71 wrote:Has anyone in the know been following the sunshine/Vitamin D deficiency "debate"?


yeah, I guess the story is that many more people die from the indirect effects of vitamin D deficiency (hard to quantify) than skin cancer. that's probably true, but I've also heard that getting something like ten minutes of sun a day is adequate. who isn't getting ten minutes of sun a day?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... s-say.html


Agreed. A ridiculous debate in that sense. Be careful about the sun, just don't go nuts. If you're having a 20 minute walk after work, don't fret about a little exposure. If you're heading to the beach, then you can be careful.

That said, I think part of the problem is that dermatologists feel they have to oversell the message to get people to pay attention and be careful in the sun.

It's a little like a certain environmental issue (which will remain nameless). (This is an obtuse analogy, not a political talking point.) People who think it's a really big problem have been hitting their head against the wall for years trying to get people to take them seriously. In effect, they do a disservice to their ultimate message by risking oversimplification, misinterpretation, and losing credibility through scare tactics. A better case is made by trying to tell the whole story, IMO.

Ryan
An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered; an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered. -- GK Chesterton
User avatar
ryuns
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: 7 Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA. Age: 29

Postby arthurdawg » Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:30 pm

ryuns wrote:
Opponent Process wrote:
peter71 wrote:Has anyone in the know been following the sunshine/Vitamin D deficiency "debate"?


yeah, I guess the story is that many more people die from the indirect effects of vitamin D deficiency (hard to quantify) than skin cancer. that's probably true, but I've also heard that getting something like ten minutes of sun a day is adequate. who isn't getting ten minutes of sun a day?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... s-say.html


Agreed. A ridiculous debate in that sense. Be careful about the sun, just don't go nuts. If you're having a 20 minute walk after work, don't fret about a little exposure. If you're heading to the beach, then you can be careful.

That said, I think part of the problem is that dermatologists feel they have to oversell the message to get people to pay attention and be careful in the sun.

It's a little like a certain environmental issue (which will remain nameless). (This is an obtuse analogy, not a political talking point.) People who think it's a really big problem have been hitting their head against the wall for years trying to get people to take them seriously. In effect, they do a disservice to their ultimate message by risking oversimplification, misinterpretation, and losing credibility through scare tactics. A better case is made by trying to tell the whole story, IMO.

Ryan


A few thymine dimers wont hurt if you decide to get a little sun! A few years ago I was at an internal medicine meeting: the first speaker was a surgical oncologist specializing in melanoma, who was immediately followed by an endocrinologist specializing in Vit. D deficiency! It was pretty humourous. Vit D is probably equal as long as your levels are ok (easily checked with a blood test) and the route probably matters little.
TSM 20% / TIM 20% / TBM 20% / TIPS 20% / REIT 10% / SVC 10%
User avatar
arthurdawg
 
Posts: 716
Joined: 2 Jun 2008

Postby Taz » Thu Mar 25, 2010 8:31 am

I have a related question that someone might be able to shed some light on.

For those suffering from SAD (think Pacific NW for example), will they have to pay the medical devices tax on full-spectrum lights & light bulbs? :wink:
Last edited by Taz on Thu Mar 25, 2010 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
The destination matters.
User avatar
Taz
 
Posts: 196
Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Location: Florida

Postby rustymutt » Thu Mar 25, 2010 8:53 am

Rick Ferri wrote:If this activity is so bad for us, why tax it? Why not just outlaw tanning? Make tanning illegal...it is for the good of the country. A win for the people of America! I heard that outlawing tanning would save $130 billion according to the CBO, and likely balance the budget by 2030!

This is a joke, Alex. Please don't ban me.

:roll:


This is exactly what I though. Same with cigarettes, pop and other deadly products. Let’s put texting while driving in there to. Why this country waters down the truth is beyond me.
At the Very Least, Work Hard, Do Your Best, Know the Truth and the Facts and Always Be Honest!
User avatar
rustymutt
 
Posts: 2702
Joined: 7 Mar 2009

Postby Opponent Process » Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:27 am

rcasement wrote:
Rick Ferri wrote:If this activity is so bad for us, why tax it? Why not just outlaw tanning? Make tanning illegal...it is for the good of the country. A win for the people of America! I heard that outlawing tanning would save $130 billion according to the CBO, and likely balance the budget by 2030!

This is a joke, Alex. Please don't ban me.

:roll:


This is exactly what I though. Same with cigarettes, pop and other deadly products. Let’s put texting while driving in there to. Why this country waters down the truth is beyond me.


well, in the best cases the government empowers the consumer with information. so for example with the new law people will now know that that dinner at the Olive Garden had twice as many calories as a meal at McDonald's.
30/30/20/20 | US/International/Bonds/TIPS | Average Age=37
User avatar
Opponent Process
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: 18 Sep 2007

Postby Jack » Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:13 am

Taz wrote:I have a related question that someone might be able to shed some light on.

For those suffering from SAD (think Pacific NW for example), will they have to pay the medical devices tax on full-spectrum lights & light bulbs? :wink:

‘‘(b) INDOOR TANNING SERVICE.—For purposes of this section—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘indoor tanning service’ means
a service employing any electronic product designed to incorporate
1 or more ultraviolet lamps and intended for the irradiation
of an individual by ultraviolet radiation, with wavelengths
in air between 200 and 400 nanometers, to induce skin tanning.
‘‘(2) EXCLUSION OF PHOTOTHERAPY SERVICES.—Such term
does not include any phototherapy service performed by a
licensed medical professional.

The answer to your question would appear to be no.
Jack
 
Posts: 3065
Joined: 27 Feb 2007

Postby wbond » Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:33 am

Jack wrote:
Taz wrote:I have a related question that someone might be able to shed some light on.

For those suffering from SAD (think Pacific NW for example), will they have to pay the medical devices tax on full-spectrum lights & light bulbs? :wink:

‘‘(b) INDOOR TANNING SERVICE.—For purposes of this section—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘indoor tanning service’ means
a service employing any electronic product designed to incorporate
1 or more ultraviolet lamps and intended for the irradiation
of an individual by ultraviolet radiation, with wavelengths
in air between 200 and 400 nanometers, to induce skin tanning.
‘‘(2) EXCLUSION OF PHOTOTHERAPY SERVICES.—Such term
does not include any phototherapy service performed by a
licensed medical professional.

The answer to your question would appear to be no.


Aha, a loophole.

Strongwork, Jack. I am incredibly impressed by your ability quote new law.

P.S. Is that a parody, or the real thing?
User avatar
wbond
 
Posts: 1017
Joined: 10 Dec 2008

Postby Rick Ferri » Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:47 pm

(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘indoor tanning service’ means
a service employing any electronic product designed to incorporate
1 or more ultraviolet lamps and intended for the irradiation
of an individual by ultraviolet radiation, with wavelengths
in air between 200 and 400 nanometers, to induce skin tanning.


What would 199 or 401 nanometer's do to skin? :wink:
User avatar
Rick Ferri
 
Posts: 7681
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Location: Home on the range in Medina, Texas

Postby baw703916 » Thu Mar 25, 2010 9:31 pm

Rick Ferri wrote:
(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘indoor tanning service’ means
a service employing any electronic product designed to incorporate
1 or more ultraviolet lamps and intended for the irradiation
of an individual by ultraviolet radiation, with wavelengths
in air between 200 and 400 nanometers, to induce skin tanning.


What would 199 or 401 nanometer's do to skin? :wink:


401: make it look violet colored (the limit of visibility is right about 400 nm)

199: you really don't want to use that for tanning-very damaging to cells. In fact sunlight doesn't contain any wavelengths below about 290 (they get absorbed by ozone in the upper atmosphere). 193 is the wavelength used for lasik (there's a laser that operates at that wavelength). Wavelengths below 200 nm are absorbed by the oxygen in the air and make a nice ozone smell. :wink:

Brad
Most of my posts assume no behavioral errors.
User avatar
baw703916
 
Posts: 5339
Joined: 1 Apr 2007
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Help on New Indoor Tanning Tax

Postby paulob » Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:03 am

wbond wrote:Lastly, from a tax-planning standpoint I am looking to move for the biggest tax break and the most cost-effective, George Hamiltonesque, suntan. Of the states without a state income tax and with significant natural sunshine year-round, that would seem to leave Nevada, Texas, and Florida as the best candidates. Boglehead thoughts?


In a little known admendment, Senator Irving Orville Udle of the great state of Iraq, was able to receive a special lifetime exemption from the tanning tax. This has been referred to by even his fellow Sunnis' as the "Cornholer Kickback". Since the specialized tanning salons are designed to tan between the eyewear protection and the Burka, its basically a one bulb machine, and a de minimus test was applied. Per a direct quote from Senator I.O.Udle, "whats up with that?"
Paul
User avatar
paulob
 
Posts: 1408
Joined: 20 Feb 2007

Postby wbond » Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:14 pm

Will this tax result in any underground tanning? Any, if so, would it be fair to label it the shadow tanning system?

(OK, I'm done. My apologies).
User avatar
wbond
 
Posts: 1017
Joined: 10 Dec 2008

Next

Return to Personal Consumer Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 3CT_Paddler, bberris, Bing [Bot], Drelk3, DSInvestor, Grateful1, jjaster7, MooseandBear, OAG and 22 guests