Earlier this month, it became public knowledge that in its health-care reform discussions, the Senate was considering an indoor tanning tax – along with the much-debated “Bo-Tax” of 5 percent for those who undergo elective cosmetic surgery.
This weekend, those discussions became reality, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid nixed the Bo-Tax and instead, targeted indoor tanning with a 10 percent tax. Critics are up in arms at the last-minute provision, the timing of which leaves the industry scant opportunity to organize and respond prior to the expected vote on the final bill later this week.
The American Medical Association is largely to thank for getting the Bo-Tax consideration removed, on the grounds of potential discrimination against the predominant users of plastic surgery – middle-aged women. Ironically, a tanning tax holds even more grounds for discrimination, as females of Anglo descent are most likely to obtain tanning services.
Lawmakers are anticipating the tax to net approximately $2.7 billion in the next decade. That’s less than half the revenue that was expected from the elective cosmetic surgery tax.
“It is not surprising that one primarily cosmetic business is trying to throw another under the bus by transferring a tax from rich doctors and their wealthy customers to struggling small businesses,” says John Overstreet, executive director of the Indoor Tanning Assocation. “The irony is that ultraviolet light at least has proven health benefits, where botox treatments have none.”
It’s been suggested that the tanning tax took center stage due to health concerns related to the use of tanning equipment.
The bill excludes “phototherapy by a licensed medical professional,” which doesn’t help the average salon owner.
Related Article:
New Indoor Tanning Tax in the Works
Sources:
The Wall Street Journal: Senate Bill Removes ‘Botax,’ Adds Tanning Tax
Los Angeles Times: Senate plan would tax tanning services
