We Are Sunshine

Tell Harry No Tan Tax!

Tuesday, January 12th, 2010

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was part of the back-room midnight deal that put the proposed 10 percent “Tan Tax” into the senate version of health care reform. Want to let Harry know how you feel about that? We suggest you tell him.

Got a Facebook account? Click here and let Harry know how you feel.

2010-01-12 Tan Tax copySmart Tan issued this statement about The Tan Tax: Regardless of your stance on health care reform, a tax on indoor tanning services will hurt more people than it helps, unfairly targets women and women-owned businesses, was proposed with no due-diligence whatsoever and makes no sense at all in this bill. Specifically:

  • This tax unfairly targets lower- and middle-class female consumers with a 10 percent tax, as compared to the “Bo-tax” which would be a 5 percent tax on wealthy consumers.
  • This tax unfairly targets female business owners. An estimated 67 percent of tanning facilities are owned and operated by women.
  • The math does not add up — the proposal overestimates tanning revenues by 40-50 percent. It was poorly studied and will not raise the revenues the government says it needed.
  • This will cost every community in America jobs and tax revenue. In a weak economy, this large, double-digit tax will hurt thousands of small, largely female-owned businesses, forcing many to close and/or lay off employees.
  • Dermatology lobbyists insisted that cosmetic phototherapy procedures in their offices — which use the same equipment as tanning businesses – be exempted from the tax. By targeting indoor tanning salons, they are attempting to drive 1.5 million phototherapy clients back into their businesses.
  • This was a back-room deal. This tax was added into the bill without studying its affect at all when those who sell Botox injections, phototherapy procedures and cosmetic surgery lobbied lawmakers to remove a much-better studied 5 percent tax on cosmetic surgery procedures from the bill — a tax that would have had less of an impact on society and would have raised more revenue to pay for this bill.