Do you think it's fair for the United States to impose a 10% tax on indoor UV tanning salons in the new healthcare bill?

Topic:
Health Debates

18 Contributors
in this discussion.

Yes
72% of users

  • I believe it is fair for the United States to impose a 10% tax on indoor UV tanning salons, because they have been shown to cause skin cancer.

    The use of tanning salons has led to a dramatic increase in skin problems, such as premature wrinkling and aging. But, it has also increased the incidents of skin cancer, especially among teenagers. Young people may think they look better being tanned, but they are at great risk for melanoma. The United States has a right to impose a tax on those who provide activities that lead to greater medical costs.

    Yes ShiveringGerard

  • Tanning is a luxury service, and it is not important to daily life.

    Unlike food or school supplies, indoor tanning is not a necessity for everyday life. It is a luxury service, and it is one that could pose some health drawbacks. The tax is just as fair as taxes on cigarettes and alcohol are. While there are some unfair tax proposals out there, this is not one of them.

    Yes MarriedRudy

  • Yes, since the government taxes cigarettes, which cause cancer, they should also tax tanning salons.

    I believe that, since the government taxes cigarettes, then they should also be able to tax tanning salons. It has been proved that there is no such thing as safe indoor tanning, and that the use of these salons causes serious damage to the skin. Therefore, the government should tax these salons due to the negative effect they have on people's health.

    Yes SilentIgnacio

  • As tanning salons are an unnecessary luxury, and potentially highly cancerous, it is fair to impost a 10% tax to compensate later health costs.

    Tanning salons are an unnecessary luxury, and can contribute heavily to skin cancers, such as melanoma. It is, therefore, fair to impose a 10% tax on them, in order to help cover the costs of treating skin diseases and cancer caused by frequent tanners, when they develop problems later in life.

    Yes EminentBennett93

  • I do believe that imposing a 10% tax on indoor UV tanning salons is fair because it's unnatural and unnecessary.

    When you use a UV tanning salon, it's just a quick solution to vanity. People are just looking for the fastest way to tan, which isn't a need- it's a want. There's nothing wrong with sitting outside and catching a few rays of natural sun! UV tanning has also been linked to cancer.

    Yes 5hm03Hans

  • I support a tax on indoor tanning because it would help to pay for medical costs incurred by the use of tanning beds.

    UV light and indoor tanning have been linked to increased incidences of skin cancers. The money raised from the tax on tanning beds would help to offset costs incurred in treatment of these cancers. Also, tanning is done for purely cosmetic purposes; there is no medical reason for it. People who engage in an activity with known medical risks purely to improve some aesthetic ideal should have to bear some of the burden that their choice engenders.

    Yes everthedev

  • Yes, if people are knowingly exposing themselves to a harmful environment.

    The risks from tanning bed and salons are huge, and people are made aware of this fact. So, if people are going to knowingly expose themselves to these dangers, then they ought to be taxed, just like smokers are taxed when they buy cigarettes. It increases the likelihood of getting skin cancer, it would be like a Sin Tax.

    Yes PinkMych

  • A 10% tax on indoor UV tanning salons is totally warranted when the cancer risks are factored in.

    The best way to stop people from doing something that is unhealthy for them is to raise the price of that product or service. UV indoor tanning beds are a proven cancer risk and the 10% tax on them is a small way to recoup some of the health care costs that the indoor UV tanning salons cause to their customers.

    Yes F Clayton

  • I agree with the addition of a 10% tax on indoor UV tanning salon usage in the new healthcare bill because these salons cause known health risks in their users.

    There are many scientific reports stating the health risk of using UV tanning beds particularly to children and teenagers. These risks include an increased risk for skin cancer, as well as other skin diseases. By using a tanning bed individuals are greatly increasing their risk of developing these diseases. Imposing the 10% tax on these services is helping to pay for the benefits these same people will need in the future due to the damage they are causing to themselves. Therefore I think it is fair to charge a tax just as we do on cigarettes and other carcinogenic products to help offset the cost of future care.

    Yes VampireShu

  • Since it is a known cancer risk, then by all means tax it.

    Because it is a known skin cancer risk, commercial indoor tanning should be taxed if not prohibited. It only makes sense to target the known causes of health problems, whether that is a chemical plant spewing poisons, a drug maker selling something with dangerous side effects, or a tanning salon whose products increase the incidence of a preventable cancer. Plus is is a source of tax revenue for health care.

    Yes Th4Fire

  • It's fair for the United States to impose a tax on indoor UV tanning salons in the new healthcare bill because they create expenses for the healthcare system.

    The World Health Organization recognizes that there is growing evidence suggesting that the radiation from tanning beds can damage skin and even lead to skin cancer. Therefore, we must recognize that these tanning beds are going to lead to a higher rate of skin cancer, which will end up putting more of a strain on the healthcare system and cost more money. The tax on these salons is designed to outweigh the cost to the healthcare system that they represent. This is one of the reasons the federal government taxes cigarettes.

    Yes OIusIucy

  • Tanning salons are harmful to people's health and should be taxed.

    Artificial tanning under UV lights is extremely harmful to one's health and can lead to serious health complications later in life such as skin cancer. The government cannot afford to pick up the tab for people who make unhealthy decisions and just as cigarettes are taxed, so too should tanning salons to make up for the added costs of caring for those people later in life.

    Yes NatBIab

  • I agree because tanning is very dangerous to people's health.

    I am a very fair skinned person and know from family experience how dangerous skin cancer can be. Too many young and older people are putting their health at risk by going into indoor tanning. I think if a 10% tax was imposed, more people would be discouraged to go tanning.

    Yes balletpics
Voice Your Opinion
No
28% of users

  • I feel that Americans should not get penalized by this tax, simply for doing something that they have a right to do, even though it is not good for their health.

    I do not like indoor tanning booths, but do not think people should get penalized by higher taxes if they like to use them. It is dangerous and can cause skin cancer, but the outdoor sun can also cause skin cancer, if the person does not have sunscreen on. They can not tax Americans for going outside in the sun, which poses the same risks of getting skin cancer as an indoor UV tanning bed.

    No SneakyBryant

  • Tanning booths should not be subject to a tax.

    It is not fair for the United States to impose a 10% tax on indoor UV tanning salons as part of the new health care bill. There are many unhealthy behaviors that people take part in that cause many of the health care costs. Yes, tanning is a cause of skin cancer which leads to medical bills and death. But obesity is also a serious health risk, and there is no tax on ice cream.

    No TedieDelight

  • We get to choose how we destroy ourselves.

    I believe in flat rate taxes. Tanning salons do indeed cause skin cancer. I would never go tanning, nor suggest anyone else do it. However the government does not get a say in how I treat my body. I shouldn't be punished financially because of the choices I make. Many things are extremely hazardous to my health. They are not additionally taxed. The government cannot pick and chose what they want to tax and what they don't.

    No KKinney

  • It is not fair to impose a 10% tax on indoor UV tanning salons as it may reduce the number of their customers.

    The cosmetic methods involved are usually not related to the healthcare industry. This new tax policy will increase the bill amount of many customers and hence will decrease the frequency of their visits. If needed, 5% of tax will be acceptable. Although it is estimated that this policy will be able to collect 2.7 billion dollars within the next ten years, it will definitely decrease the tanning salon customers to a great extent.

    No ShowIand

  • It's not the salons' fault that people are ridiculous and want to suck up cancerous UV rays.

    People who get the tans should be taxed instead. All the salons are doing is exploiting people's stupidity, and good for them. They should not be punished for making money off people's obsession with tanning. Ridiculous people getting cancer from this stupid practiced should be punished instead. Maybe shipped to Australia.

    No 4uncLife
Voice Your Opinion

Related Debates

Debate Topics

 
 
Do you think it's fair for the United States to impose a 10% tax on indoor UV tanning salons in the new healthcare bill?
Top of Page
© 2010 Juggle, LLC
All Rights Reserved
Encyclopedia & Reference Resource