Health Care Tax Threatens Tanning Bed Industry
As part of the recently passed federal health care overhaul, a 10 percent tax on tanning bed use starts nationwide this July. Before I go any further, I want to clearly state that I have never used a tanning bed in my life, and I don’t intend to ever use one. Accordingly, my opinions are based purely on my beliefs of right and wrong and are not influenced by money or financial burdens in any way. Put bluntly, I have no financial stake in the taxation of tanning bed use.
The new tax will add anywhere from 90 cents to a couple dollars for a single tanning session, depending on the machine. The tanning business has already slowed in the past few years. Health warnings about the skin cancer risks of tanning beds, combined with consumers forgoing nonessentials in this recession, have the nation’s estimated 18,000 tanning salons on hard times.
Congressional tax writers project the tax will raise about $2.7 billion to help expand health coverage to uninsured Americans over the next decade, and they’re betting that indoor tanners won’t stop because of a few extra dollars of taxes. I don’t know what kind of imaginary world these people live in, but even basic economics courses teach that demand will decrease if price increases. A new tax on tanning bed use could diminish the number of people who actually use the service, possibly leading some or many tanning businesses to go out of business.
But let’s look beyond the fact that government officials don’t care about consumers having to pay more in taxes or businesses closing and people having to be laid off. There are far more general questions that need to be addressed. What does tanning have to do with health care in the first place? Why was this industry specifically targeted in the health care legislation? Why should people who decide to use a tanning beds be subject to paying an extra tax that will help subsidize the new federal health care plan?
And just because tanning is a luxury, does that make it okay for the government to tax it for no other purpose than to raise revenue? Just because the people who tan have a little extra money in their pockets and perhaps can afford to pay a few extra dollars, does that legitimize the tax and redistribution of that money to people who cannot afford health care?
Just because someone is able to afford more in taxes does not mean that they should have to pay more money to the government in order to subsidize others. This idea of taking of money from the assumed wealthy and frivolous users of tanning beds and redistributing that money to those who cannot afford health care is a clear example of socialism. In his Critique of the Gotha Program, Karl Marx stated the now famous phrase, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” This is a concrete example of the government implementing the ideas of the father of communism into American society. This must stop immediately.
It is not right to tax certain items or services simply for the purpose of getting more money for the government. What makes the use of tanning beds any different than any other services? If politicians are okay with taxing this one service, what is to stop them from taxing many other services in the near future in order to pay for unnecessary pet projects?
The government needs to stop implementing new taxes simply to increase revenue. Any taxes that are imposed on the people should be done so for absolutely essential reasons, such as public safety or needed infrastructure. Taxes should not be imposed simply to reallocate resources from the haves to the have-nots. This is not a difficult concept. Why do so many elected officials have a problem understanding this?
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
CA Democratic Legislators Seek to Tax Internet Sales and Sodas
Thursday seemed to be a banner day for Democrats in the California State Senate to attempt to raise people’s taxes. On the very same day, a tax on sodas was proposed, and a bill to tax Internet sales was passed in the state’s upper house.
State Senator Dean Florez (D-Shafter) proposed taxing sodas sold in California at a rate of a penny per teaspoon of sugar. For the average can of soda, that would add an extra nine or 10 cents to the amount that consumers would have to pay. The idea is to take the extra money, estimated at $1.5 billion per year, and divert it to help fund prevention programs.
Apparently, Mr. Florez does not believe in the California Constitution. Article XIII, Section 34 states:
Neither the State of California nor any of its political subdivisions shall levy or collect a sales or use tax on the sale of, or the storage, use or other consumption in this State of food products for human consumption except as provided by statute as of the effective date of this section.
To me, this seems to suggest that such a tax on soda would be illegal. But the legality of an issue seems to have absolutely no bearing on whether Democrats will attempt to pass bad legislation. So, let’s look at the basic notion behind the tax.
The idea is that sugary sodas lead to increased weight gain on the part of people in California. Clearly, the Democrats don’t want people to be obese. (Democrats don’t like fat people.) They feel that it is the proper role of government to step in and attempt to dictate what people choose to eat. Instead of trusting in individuals to make rational choices on their own, they seem to feel like the average citizen is either ignorant or too stupid to be able to decide what they want to put into their bodies. Remember, we are not talking about illegal drugs or anything like that here. We are talking about soda. Democrats are acting like the government is so smart that they should be in the business of regulating what foods and beverages people consume. They understand that they cannot outright ban sodas (or at least, doing so would not be politically popular), so they want to impose a sin tax on it, making it more expensive. They believe that making soda more expensive will cause fewer people to buy it, thus achieving their dream of limiting what sorts of “unhealthy” foods that people eat.
Quite frankly, I don’t think that government officials are very smart. I would be hard pressed to point at anything that the government does well. With such a poor track record, why should I start believing that an all-powerful, omnipotent government will make the right decisions for me? I believe in allowing citizens to choose which legal products they wish to consume. If they want to eat healthy, good for them. If they want to eat unhealthy foods, that fine as well. But don’t try to infringe on my right to choose what I want to consume. Part of the beauty of America is that, as long as we don’t hurt others, we have the liberty to do what we want.
On the same day that Florez proposed his tax on soda, the California Senate passed a bill that would require online retailers to charge sales tax on purchases in California. Such a tax on internet sales is expected to raise $107 million a year for the state. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vowed to veto the measure when Democrats proposed it last year, and it stalled in committee. But Democrats reintroduced on Thursday in a tax enforcement bill that was part of a $5 billion budget package moving through the Legislature.
The ironic thing in all of this is that the Democrats always claim to be on the side of the “little guy”. But both the soda tax and the internet tax will hurt lower and middle class people more than the rich. An extra couple of cents for a can of soda or having to pay sales tax on internet purchases can easily be managed by those with large incomes. It is the people in the poor and middle class who will feel the pinch of these new taxes the most. When you are already scrimping and saving just to make ends meet, every penny counts. How the Democrats can continue to claim to be looking out for the interests of the poor and middle class and, at the same time, propose additional taxes that will hurt those very same people astounds me.
It seems like I have already made an endless number of blog posts about how much California legislators love to increase taxes. But I need to hammer home the point that, if California voters continue to elect Democrats into office, that will only serve to increase the amount of taxes that residents of the Golden State will have to pay. I don’t know about you, but I like money. I like earning money, and I want to be able to keep the money that I earn. Whenever the government decides to raise taxes, that irritates me.
If the Legislature is having a difficult time balancing the state’s budget, the answer is not to continually devise new ways of taxing people. Instead, cut spending in non-essential programs. At the same time, implement programs (reduced regulations, lower taxes) that will revitalize business within the state and spur economic growth. Increased economic activity will lower the state’s unemployment rate and increase tax revenue flowing into California’s coffers.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
Assemblymember Torrico Proposes Tax on Oil Producers
Let’s see if two recent newspaper articles that included Assemblymember Alberto Torrico’s (D-Newark) name are correct. If not, I’m sure I’ll hear from him.
Torrico is currently the Assemblymember representing the district in which I live, California’s 20th Assembly District (Fremont, Newark, Union City, Milpitas). Since he will be termed out of office soon, he has decided to run for Attorney General. I am currently running to fill the Assembly seat that Torrico will be vacating at the end of 2010.
According to a Bay Area News Group article, Assembly Bill 656, proposed by Torrico, initially would have taxed companies 12.5 percent for oil and gas extracted in California. The proceeds would then be divided among the state’s three public systems of higher education: community colleges, the California State University system, and the University of California system. AB 656 hit a snag because there was controversy on exactly how the money would be divided up between the three public education systems.
“We didn’t have the votes in the Assembly,” Torrico said. The lawmaker has since gone back to the drawing board on the bill, but he said he plans to bring back the original proposal soon.
It seems like this is yet another example of Democrats coming up with every possible sort of plan to increase taxes in California. In this case, Torrico is trying to portray himself as the good guy who is looking out for higher education by taxing the “evil” oil industry. Enough is enough. We need to stop demonizing companies that are putting out a product that people both need and want and are employing tens of thousands of workers throughout the state and country.
And we all know that increased taxes on businesses ultimately wind up getting passed along to consumers. So, basically, Torrico’s plan would wind increasing the amount of money that every person in California would wind up paying at the pump. (In fact, there is no reason why the additional fees would not be passed on to consumers throughout the nation.) Instead of finding new ways to squeeze more money out of the pockets of citizens, Torrico should focus on cutting the waste involved in public education. Furthermore, if the Legislature were to enact business-friendly policies (fewer regulations, lower taxes, etc.), the entire economy of the state will gain momentum. A rising tide raises all ships. More business will lead to increased sales tax revenue for California. Increased business will also lead to the hiring of more workers, lowering the unemployment rate, and increasing payroll taxes that go to the government. That is the proper course that we should all be working towards.
For the moment, we can take solace in the fact that it takes a two-thirds vote by the Legislature to enact a new tax. Right now, it looks like the votes for such a tax on companies that extract oil and gas in California simply are not there. But we cannot rest on our laurels. We must understand that every single seat in the Assembly is important. Right now, the Democrats are only a few seats short of a two-thirds majority in the Assembly. Every one of those seats is up for re-election in November 2010. And every one of those seats that gets filled by a person who supports limited government is another vote to prevent the Democrats from being able to raise taxes whenever they want. If I get elected to the California State Assembly, I firmly pledge to take a stand against needless tax increases.
A different newspaper article, out of the Sacramento Bee, talked about all of the candidates who are running for the California Attorney General post that will be opening up when Jerry Brown finally makes his run for Governor official. Apparently, Torrico has already raised more that $1 million for his campaign for Attorney General. That is a whole lot of money that is flowing through Torrico’s hands. In these tough financial times, for them to contribute more than $1 million to his campaign, one has to wonder exactly what sorts of assurances are being made to organizations and special interest groups about the benefits they can expect to receive if Torrico were to win the Attorney General position.
It should also be noted that Fremont City Council Member Bob Wieckowski, who shares a law practice with Torrico, is running as a Democrat for the Assembly District 20 seat. With a close friend like Torrico, it should be no surprise, then, that Wieckowski is also raising significant amounts of money in his campaign for Assembly. In fact, I remember reading last summer that Friends of Alberto Torrico had contributed $3,900 to Wieckowski’s campaign fund. (I haven’t yet had an opportunity to view the most recent campaign finance disclosure forms to see whether any additional money has flowed from Torrico to Wieckowski.) Again, one must wonder what political promises of personal gain are being made to people in order for them to contribute so much money to Wieckowski’s campaign.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com