Health care reform includes 10 percent tax on tanning
Bronze Bay Tanning employees, biology freshman Aspen Stanton, left center, and psychology senior Gwen Jaede, talk to two customers, human biology sophomore Laura Leslie, far left, and political science freshman Ferrin Lovely, at Bronze Bay Tanning, 109 E. Grand River Ave. Salon owner Sarah Munkacsy is afraid the new tax on tanning will affect business, with 98 percent of her customers being students.
Tweet
The indoor tanning industry might need some aloe for the burn of a 10 percent tax on the service included in the nation’s health care overhaul.
The provision, which has ignited the tanning industry’s ire in what it considers an unfair and targeted tax, will raise about $2.7 billion throughout 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Sarah Munkacsy, owner of Bronze Bay Tanning, 109 and 617 E. Grand River Ave., said the tanning industry was hindered by not having a strong Washington, D.C., lobby, which left the business susceptible to the tax that will take effect July 1.
“There are other things that can be seen as a carcinogen, so why weren’t they singled out?” she said.
But Kristen McAlpine, an education senior, said the tax made sense considering other elective activities detrimental to personal health — such as cigarettes and alcohol — already are taxed.
“I can see that as a logical reason to tax it and be like, ‘You know, if we’re going to be paying for health care and putting money toward it, we don’t want to spend more money when you all are making yourself sick,’” McAlpine said.
Munkacsy said many of her customers come for ultraviolet, or UV, ray treatment of skin disorders — which she says is less expensive at her establishment than seeing a dermatologist — and for a dose of vitamin D.
Michelle Randall, a pediatrician dermatologist at Messenger Dermatology, 1515 Lake Lansing Road, in Lansing, said eating vitamin D-fortified foods such as milk and yogurt can replace the UV rays at tanning salons. She also said the lower-grade UV bands at such places do not synthesize vitamin D as well as natural sunlight.
Although Randall said using UV rays for treating skin disorders is legitimate, many who use indoor tanning do not go for such practices and possibly use the service too frequently.
“The risk of skin cancer increases if you’ve experienced any indoor tanning,” she said. “It’s all cumulative, so over your lifetime the amount of UV rays you get … definitely increases your risk of skin cancer, especially melanoma.”
Munkacsy said she will have to pass the cost onto the customer when the tax takes effect July 1.
She said her business already is down 25 percent to 30 percent, and she worries financially feeble college students won’t be able to stomach the price increase.
Munkacsy might not have a reason to be concerned, though. When Lindsay Yax, a special education junior, calculated the tax into her monthly tanning expenses, she discovered it raised the total by $2 and said it will not deter her from the tanning bed.
“It’s just a bummer that I’ll have to pay more,” she said. “But it won’t be that bad then.”
Possibly related:
More in City:
- Competition over Mich. increases for upcoming presidential election
- Family Aquatic Center to open for Memorial Day weekend
- Construction on E.L. car charging stations coming soon
- Council allows more time for City Center II lenders to be revealed
- Lansing celebrates Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month at Capitol
Commentary
Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed
SigP226
(03/26/10 9:20am)Report
“No new taxes on anyone under $250,000.”
This is what they do, folks.
Tax, tax, tax.
PD
(03/26/10 9:50am)Report
This is just a smoke screen. It is a minor excise tax and will raise $2.7billion over 10 years, which is a joke considering the cost of the bill over the course of 10 years.
Wait until the middle class gets eviscerated by taxes.
Uncle Sam
(03/26/10 10:11am)Report
Finally!
Tax a practice that everyone knows causes cancer. This is no different than a cigarette tax.
Please don't tan
(03/26/10 10:19am)Report
To be honest, I wish they would tax it higher. If people won’t use common sense to avoid a cancer causing agent, maybe hitting them in the pocketbook will work. Using tanning beds before the age of 35 increases one’s risk for melanoma by 75%. Melanoma is now the most common form of cancer for young adults 25-29 years old, and is the second most common form of cancer for people 15-29 years old. Melanoma is not simply an inconvenience, it can be deadly!
SigP226
(03/26/10 10:30am)Report
People with cancer will die sooner and most likely won’t collect social security.
We should be encouraging them to tan. And smoke while doing it.
GASP!
(03/26/10 11:32am)Report
Oh no, don’t tax my frivolous, middle-class amenities! OBAMAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! This is just more sin tax, and I am all for it.
Garret
(03/26/10 2:35pm)Report
Uh, hello? What about Equal Protection?? The law appears to be facially neutral as to race, but it clearly has a discriminatory impact! People of color generally do not go to a tanning bed. This law is impacting the white population.
Arclight
(03/26/10 3:59pm)Report
Many times the same people that are for taxing bad behavior are in favor of subsidizing bad behavior – publicly funded abortions, immigration amnesty, expansion of welfare benefits, etc…
Sparty86
(03/26/10 4:17pm)Report
That is why we have geniuses like Pelosi and Reid decide what behavior’s to promote and discourage. We are too stupid to make the correct choices. Duh
SigP226
(03/26/10 4:30pm)Report
Did you notice how GASP! targeted “middle-class amenities”?
So, now, it’s a war on the “middle class”? What happened to just going after the “fat cats”, the “wealthiest among us”, or the “top earners”? The fact is, they want to target EVERYBODY and nobody is safe from their predations.
They want it, you have it.
KJ Green
(03/29/10 1:03pm)Report
It is interesting that the “Botox tax” was removed from the bill before passage. Especially since it was projected to raise twice as much revenue as the tanning tax and more likely to impact wealthier Americans.
Oh that’s right, the Botox tax would negatively impact Pelosi.
I might be more supportive of legislation coming out of Washington if the royalty (i.e., politicians) weren’t passing laws with a “do what I say, not what I do” philosophy. These hypocrites are great at spending other people’s money but not so aggressive with their own situations.
Case in point: thousands of federal workers who are delinquent in paying their income taxes (hundreds who work in or in support of the House and Senate).
Case in point: Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner underpays taxes by $34,000 and decides to pay when it comes to light (“It was an oversight” Yah, right.) No penalty incurred.
Case in point: Sacramento car wash owner is visited by two IRS agents demanding payment on a 4 cent tax debt in spite of receiving letter in 2009 that the business “has filed all required returns and addressed any balances due.” Penalties have raised his bill by over $200. (I believe Congress calls that usury, others call it loan sharking.)
Conveniently, the IRS isn’t commenting “due to privacy and disclosure laws.”