Tax tanning, kill businesses

The 10% tax was slapped on ultraviolet indoor tanning services by the ObamaCare bill because it was expected to raise so much money. See WaPo article:

Supporters -- including the Obama administration, congressional Democrats and dermatologists -- have argued that the tax will raise an estimated $2.7 billion toward the cost of expanding health coverage to the uninsured, while discouraging a practice that increases the risk of skin cancer by as much as threefold in frequent users, according to scientific research.

Well, let's review a lesson so widely understood that they don't even bother teaching it in school: raise the price on a non-necessity and chase away customers.

And so we learn from that same WaPo article:

"In 26 years of business, this is the worst I've seen it," said Scott Shortnacy, owner of the Arlington Solar Planet as well as six other branches in the Washington area. "Normally for people who tan, it's a part of their lifestyle. They keep doing it even in a recession. But everybody has been looking for ways to cut back on those areas. . . . Our sales are down 20 to 30 percent."

Could ObamaCare have been over-promised?

Via Joseph Henchman who also notes: "The tax is in a long line of excise taxes on 'luxuries' (the telephone excise tax and automobile excise taxes started out that way too)."

Comments

[englander]

There were two stated reasons (which you youeself quoted) for introducing the tax, one was to raise money, the other was to deter people from using these patently dangerous machines. So it worked.

[Geo]

You could be right, englander. But they did tell us they expected to raise $2.7 billion.