Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on July 07, 2010, 05:35:31 AM
-
Tanning salons feel burned by 10 percent 'tan tax'
By N.C. Aizenman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 7, 2010; 5:19 AM
________________________ ________________________ ___
The sun hasn't exactly set on Solar Planet, but anxiety over the fate of the Arlington tanning salon has been running high ever since a "tan tax" took effect Thursday.
Tanning salons feel burned by 10 percent 'tan tax'
One of the less publicized measures in the new health-care law, the tax imposes a 10 percent surcharge on the use of ultraviolet indoor tanning beds.
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.
But outraged tanning salon owners worry that the levy could deal a death blow to an industry already reeling from the recession.
"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."
According to the Indoor Tanning Association, an industry trade group, most of the nation's 19,000 tanning salons are small businesses owned and staffed by women. Shortnacy said all but two of his several dozen employees are women. With business so slow, he opted against hiring the 10 to 15 seasonal workers he normally adds during the spring high season.
Even the Arlington salon, Shortnacy's most successful location because of its proximity to sun-deprived Pentagon workers and Northern Virginia mall shoppers, is suffering. Appointments have dropped from 300 per day to about 160.
How much further the tan tax will drive down those numbers is hard for Shortnacy to predict, however. And the early signs during a recent afternoon at the salon were mixed.
Like many customers, Lisa Haggett, 48, who recently retired from the Air Force and tans several times a week, said she made a point of buying her next package of sessions before July 1 so she could avoid the tax. After she's used up the package, she said, she may need to cut back. Unlimited monthly passes at the salon run about $50, noted Haggett, whose visits have toasted her to a medium shade of brown.
"This is something that makes me feel good," Haggett said. "The reality is it's a luxury. It's not a need."
Dane Ellington, 49, a health-care consultant whose deep bronze color spoke to a lifetime of indoor tanning, expressed annoyance at being singled out. Why not tax people who sunbathe outdoors? Or binge on cheeseburgers? Or, for that matter, who use Botox injections -- which were originally slated to be taxed under the law until a last-minute frenzy of lobbying prompted lawmakers to substitute the tan tax.
"I understand that the money [for the health-care overhaul] needs to come from somewhere," Ellington said. "But this doesn't seem like the appropriate place. It's just silly."
Still, plenty of other customers said they had no quarrels with the tax -- particularly those who supported the health-care law in general.
"I know I shouldn't be tanning, but I do it because it makes me feel better," said Karie Apicella, 34, a patent examiner whose fair skin had acquired a honey-hued glow. "So I guess I understand the idea behind the tax, and I'm willing to pay it."
"It's almost like when your parents tell you that you shouldn't drink and you sort of know it's true, but you do it anyway," said a laughing 29-year-old Marine officer who declined to give her name because she felt sheepish about divulging her tanning habits to those under her command.
"Some people pay $6 for a latte because it's their way of relaxing or treating themselves," added the officer. "Well, this is my latte, and I'm not going to stop ordering it."
________________________ _________________
This article is a perfect example of the lunacy of liberal policies.
This idiotic policy is costing the economy jobs, will result in less revenue to the govt, and will being supposedly justified to fund obamaCare, which it wont.
Obama - destroying private sector jobs by the second.
-
It cuts down future skin cancer patients, thus saving $$ from unnecessary treatment and clogging the Obamacare system.
::)
"This is something that makes me feel good," Haggett said. "The reality is it's a luxury. It's not a need."
I suppose you are going to complain about the luxury taxes on yachts next?
Still, plenty of other customers said they had no quarrels with the tax -- particularly those who supported the health-care law in general.
Gee.... done in by your cut-n-paste job aren't you?
Back to the 'Ol Crrrrrryyyyyyyyyiiiiiiii nnnnnnggggggg Board for you.
-
It cuts down future skin cancer patients, thus saving $$ from unnecessary treatment and clogging the Obamacare system.
::)
"This is something that makes me feel good," Haggett said. "The reality is it's a luxury. It's not a need."
I suppose you are going to complain about the luxury taxes on yachts next?
Gee.... done in by your cut-n-paste job aren't you?
Back to the 'Ol Crrrrrryyyyyyyyyiiiiiiii nnnnnnggggggg Board for you.
Yes, luxury taxes on Yachts are a complete fraud and harm who Lurker: The middle class.
1. Who build the boats? Middle class workers.
2. Who maintains and drives these boats - middle class workers.
3. Who supply the parts to build the yachts and keep them going - middle class workers.
The Luxury Tax killed the industry and put many people out of work.
YOU = UNEDUCATED, UNINFORMED, AND IGNORANT ON 99% OF ISSUES.
________________________ ________________________ ____________
Devastation of Luxury Tax Captured in New Video - 06/24/2009
Send to a Friend Printer Friendly
Report Highlights:
•Viking Yachts
•Viking Yachts History
•10% Luxury Tax on Boats
•Luxury Tax
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new documentary will be airing in New Jersey this week called “The Rising Tide” which captures how the 1991 10% Luxury Tax nearly put Viking Yachts out of business, and did put over 100 boat builders and related companies under. In the process 25,000 direct jobs were lost in the marine industry and an estimated 75,000 more were lost due to the indirect impact of the tax. Congress pretended to be soaking the rich to distract the attention of the media and Joe Six-Pack from the fact that it was also lowering the long term capital gains rate from 33% to 15%. There were conga lines on Wall Street. The high-profile boating industry was sacrificed by Congress to act as camouflage for the biggest payday the rich had gotten in 30 years. America had been a net exporting nation of large yachts and three years later it was a net importing nation, and that has never changed.
The first President Bush promised “No New Taxes” then proceeded along with the Democratic Party led by Rep. Dan Rostenkowski to impost a 10% Luxury Tax on boats.
See a video trailer for “The Rising Tide” --
A Rising Tide is the story of Bill and Bob Healey, who in 1963 set out to find their fortune in the real estate market. Through fate, the purchase of a parcel of land next to the failing Petersen Viking Boat Works, in New Gretna, NJ landed a prime parcel of water front property and an opportunity to take control of a bankrupt boat builder. Success followed and by 1989, Viking Yachts was the number one sport fishing yacht in the USA employing 1400 people and housed in two manufacturing locations. Then in 1990, newly elected President George Herbert Walker Bush reneged on his campaign promise of “Read My Lips, No New Taxes.”
Brothers Bob and Bill Healey own Viking Yachts, the largest big boat builder in America.
The Ax of the Tax
Congress placed a 10% Luxury Tax on all new boats sold with a price over $100,000. The effect was to kill off virtually all large recreational boat building in the U.S. Bill and Bob decided to fight to save their business, which had shrunk to 68 employees. Placing their profit sharing plan on the line to keep their doors open, the Healeys spent the next three years fighting in Washington DC to repel of the Luxury Tax.
After the tax was repealed in 1993 Viking yacht began rebuilding and by the early 2000s was back on top of their class of yachts, employing 1500 plus and building pride and integrity into each boat that came off their production line.
The Healeys are Honored
In 1997, Bill and Bob were honored by the marine manufacturing industry for the work they did for boat builders across America when they decided to go up against the federal government.
In recognition of their dedication to the industry, both in defending it from harmful government regulation and helping to attract new talent, Bill and Bob in 2001 were awarded the 23rd Annual Chapman award by NMMA at the Miami International Boat Show. Their support of the industry and willingness to “get involved” in major issues helps explain why Viking has consistently increased sales and expanded its market reach since the luxury tax was repealed.
Bill Healey still works in the plant every day.
Bill Healey ends just about every work day at his Viking Yacht Co. headquarters in New Gretna, N.J., by extending a farewell greeting to plant employees as they leave for the day.
“I’ve been doing it since we started,” Healey said. “My dad used to do it in his business.” It harkens back to a philosophy of business that Healey learned from his father. Treat people the way you want be treated, and they’ll usually respond in kind.
The company celebrates its 40th birthday on April 1, 2009 and Healey is quick to hand much of the praise for Viking’s longevity to a core group of hard working, dedicated managers and employees who’ve been with the company through much of its history.
Where to Find “The Rising Tide”--
http://www.boattest.com/Resources/view_news.aspx?NewsID=3482
-
Again Lurker - don't test me - I win every time.
________________________ ________________________ ___
by Robert A. Peterson
Shipwrecked In New Jersey
January 1994 • Volume: 44 • Issue: 1 • Print This Post • 1 comment
Mr. Peterson is headmaster at The Pilgrim Academy in Egg Harbor, New Jersey.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/shipwrecked-in-new-jersey/#
I grew up in a town where yacht-making was the chief industry. Indeed, boat-building has been a South Jersey specialty for hundreds of years. The first ships were built with cedar from local cedar swamps, then dragged down nearby streams to be launched on the Mullica, Maurice, and Great Egg Harbor Rivers. By 1776, the Delaware Valley, including South Jersey, was the nation’s leading shipbuilding area, outstripping even New England. In the 1900s entrepreneurs like Charles Leek started making pleasure crafts and sport-fishing yachts for the wealthy. Within a 20-mile radius, four major boat companies emerged: Pacemaker (now Ocean Yachts), Post Marine, Viking Yachts, and Egg Harbor Yacht. Thirty miles distant was another major boat- builder, Silverton Yacht.
As children, we benefited from the yacht companies’ presence in many ways. Sure, many of our parents worked there, but more important to us was the discarded wood pile. We could go there and pick out pieces of teak, mahogany, and other expensive woods to build our tree houses, clubhouses, and go-carts. Even the five o’clock whistle served us, telling us it was time to end our play in the fields and go home for dinner. And of course we were all excited when one of our favorite comedians, Jerry Lewis, came to town to pick out his own yacht. I didn’t understand it at the time, but essentially what Lewis was doing was employing about 30 South Jersey blue-collar workers—paying their insurance bills, feeding their children, and paying their mortgages—for over a month. Lewis, in turn, had made his money by mass-marketing his acting skills, bringing laughter and relaxation to some of those same blue-collar workers who watched him on television at night.
As I grew older, I came to realize more and more the important role the boat-building industry played in our area. In the 1960s, the Pacemaker Yacht Company employed more people than the electric company. Thus, a product that only the rich could afford was fueling the better part of our local economy.
Many local people got their first work experience in a boat factory. Here they learned a trade without having to burden the taxpayer in a job-training program or publicly supported vocational school.
The boat companies also fulfilled a crucial role in training future entrepreneurs and businessmen. Not everyone wants to spend his life working for someone else; millions of Americans want to go out on their own and create their own businesses. But in order to do that, they need start-up money, marketable skills, and solid work experience. For years, the boat companies have provided those goods. The owner of Anchor Custom Upholstery, for example, learned his trade at a boat factory. P. J. Reinhard, a local carpenter’s shop, first made cabinets for yachts. They have since expanded into other mill work. Kauffman-Wimberg Insurance, a 40-year-old insurance firm, got its start when it obtained the insurance contract for one of the boat companies shortly after the insurance firm was started. Many local electricians, plumbers, and other skilled workers picked up their first tools and learned their trades at the boatyard. Today, they are independent businessmen in their own right—spin-offs from the yacht-making industry. Other businesses were either created or prospered as they served the needs of the people who worked on the boats. My father has an independent auto repair shop, and many of his customers over the years were boat-builders. Money in their pockets meant money in my father’ s pocket. And that meant money in my pocket, which I used to help pay for college.
Trickle-Down Philanthropy
Money from the wealthy who bought Egg Harbor-built yachts trickled down in many other ways. Jack Leek, who owns Ocean Yachts, has been a one-man charitable foundation. Sharing the profits made by selling his yachts all over the world, he has donated generously to his church, to Rutgers University, to the Atlantic City Medical Center (where he paid for the emergency room), to the community athletic association, and to Ducks Unlimited.
The physical plants themselves have provided the community with tools and capital equipment that have often been used to help local civic and charitable organizations. At churches and schools, podiums, benches, and other furniture were made by boat carpenters who had permission to stay after work and use some of the big equipment.
Thirty years ago, our church had to expand its main sanctuary. But how could we duplicate the large beams on the ceiling so that the new section would look the same as the original sanctuary? The only place in town that had the equipment to make such a beam was one of the boat factories. Fortunately, one of our church members, a master carpenter, got permission to use the equipment and the beams were replicated. Even the curtains in the private school where I teach were made by school mothers from discontinued bolts of cloth that were once used on some of the world’s finest yachts. When I teach my economics course, I’m continually reminded of the benefits of “trickle-down economics.”
In addition to sponsoring Little League teams, the presence of the boat factories made it easy to conduct fund drives for local charities as well as organize people for the Red Cross blood drive. Ocean Yachts and Egg Harbor Yacht, for example, would let their workers go home early if they agreed to give blood that afternoon. In the early 1980s, the Red Cross typically received 250 pints of blood at each drive. Last year, with the boat factories almost at a standstill, it collected only 60 pints of blood.
With so many benefits “trickling down” to middle-class and poor Americans, it’s hard to understand why Congress would seek to destroy the boat-making industry. Yet that’s exactly what it did in 1990 when, according to a Wall Street Journal report, “Congressional Democrats [were] eager to show they were being tough on the rich.” A ten percent tax was added to the cost of luxury yachts. Since a yacht today costs anywhere from $100,000 to $200,000, this means that at least $10,000 had to be paid to the government before a potential buyer could get his first whiff of salt air. With the economy already heading for trouble, this was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Ocean Yachts in Weekstown trimmed its workforce from 350 to 50. Egg Harbor Yachts entered Chapter Eleven bankruptcy, going from 200 employees to five. Viking Yachts dropped from 1,400 to 300 employees. According to a Congressional Joint Economic Committee Study, the boat industry nationwide lost 7,600 employees within one year. As Bob Healy, president of Viking Yachts explained on NBC News, “Every six or seven years, you have a down cycle. You might be off 20 percent, 30 percent, or 40 percent at maximum. Our industry is off 90 percent nationally.”
Despite all the talk about stimulating the economy, and the clear evidence that both the luxury taxes and higher taxes in general have pretty much destroyed the yacht-making industry, the tax did not generate any significant revenue, and has only cost taxpayers money by forcing workers onto the government dole. Congress originally estimated that the luxury tax on boats, aircraft, and jewelry would raise $5 million in taxes a year. Instead, the Treasury has lost $24 million through lost income-tax revenues and higher unemployment and welfare payments.
It’s important to realize that yacht-making has been—and could be once again—one of America’s premier industries. It’s something that we Americans do well. South Jersey, crisscrossed by rivers and surrounded by water on three sides, has a comparative advantage in yacht-building. Not only do South Jerseyans have a long heritage of boat-building, but the South Jersey launching docks are close to such major population centers as Philadelphia and New York City. A prospective buyer can leave New York in the morning, take a test drive on the Atlantic Ocean at noon, and be back in New York for dinner that night. Many yachts are exported overseas, as both wealthy Japanese and Europeans acknowledge the skill of our South Jersey craftsmen. This is not an obsolete buggy-whip making industry that needs government subsidies to exist, but a high-tech industry that should be able to thrive as long as men go down to the sea in ships. (The technology involved in making fiber-glass yachts with state-of-the-art navigational equipment and creature comforts destroys the notion that there are certain key high-tech firms that should be targeted for government help. Today, high-tech is involved in everything from making better potato chips to making a safer yacht.)
It should also be noted that jobs traditionally created by South Jersey’s boat-making entrepreneurs are exactly the kinds of jobs that today’s government officials would like to create, but can’t. A teenager with no college education can go to a boat company and get a job that provides full benefits as well as on-the-job training. He’s also in an industry that promises employment well into the future and has and can adapt to changing technology. As a “light industry,” yacht-making represents little threat to the environment; in fact, the invention of the fiber-glass hull years ago makes using tropical woods like mahogany no longer necessary or cost-effective. Finally, it’s an industry that could expand and hire more workers if more people could afford to buy yachts—which is indeed what would happen if we became a low-tax, high- growth society. Just before the luxury tax was passed, Ocean Yachts had opened up a research and development division to build smaller yachts. The idea was to make it possible for more upwardly mobile companies and individuals to afford an Ocean Yacht; once hooked, they would eventually trade up to Ocean’s larger yacht. Today, thanks to high taxes, that research and development building stands idle.
It’s been over three years since the luxury tax was passed, and the boat industry is still reeling from excessive taxation and government-induced recession—a casualty of the socialist rhetoric that “trickle-down economics doesn’t works.”
The 1993 budget finally repealed the luxury tax, but it was the result of a political deal rather than an acknowledgment of what really makes the economy work. At the same time Congressmen and Senators were voting to repeal the luxury tax, they were voting in new taxes against the rich. Since the repeal of the luxury tax was a political deal rather than an economic one, look for continued attacks against America’s most productive citizens.
The story of the destruction of South Jersey’s yacht-making industry poignantly illustrates what happens when policy-makers try to apply the socialism they learned in college to real world situations. Not just the yacht-making industry—but all American industry—would benefit from lower taxes and less government intervention. Until then, boat-builders and other workers will continue to be shipwrecked here in America.
-
Lurker - tell me when you are ready to cry uncle.
Bitch.
________________________ ________________________ _______
Taxes: Tempest in a Yacht
By Bernard Baumohl;S.C. Gwynne/Washington and Laura Myers/Miami Monday, Jul. 01, 1991
Source: Time Magazine
The levy has been labeled the Robin Hood tax by one economist because it helps transfer money from the rich to the poor. Not everyone sees it that way, however. A rare chorus of blue-chip retailers and blue-collar workers denounces it as a disaster tax. At issue is the six-month-old "luxury tax" that Congress adopted last year as part of a comprehensive deficit-reduction plan. The new 10% excise tax was tacked onto such goods as pleasure boats, private airplanes, jewelry and fur. While the tax bite is not particularly severe -- a minuscule $25 million is expected to be raised in fiscal 1991 -- the levy has outraged businessmen and workers who produce and sell these items.
The boating industry claims to have been especially hard hit. Dealers point to the new tax as the main reason that sales have tumbled 88%, to $8 million, in South Florida during the first quarter. The recession no doubt contributed to the slowdown, but boat sellers complain that shoppers have escaped the tax by buying yachts in the Bahamas. "It's a question now of how long we can hold out until the tax gets repealed," says Werner Kuhnke, a Miami-based Bertram Yacht dealer. Another consequence of the tax, contends the National Marine Manufacturers Association, has been the layoffs of thousands of skilled boatbuilders. "In a nutshell, this tax has been devastating," says Carl Herndon, president of Blackfin Yacht in Fort Lauderdale. "The rich are still rich. But the people who are on the unemployment rolls are blue-collar workers."
Since the tax threshold on cars is $30,000, most of the affected models are foreign, but U.S. dealers are complaining all the same. "It's killed us," laments Norman Scott, a Mercedes-Benz dealer in Houston. "Those guys in Washington are crazy." Consumers seeking to avoid the levy are switching to cars whose prices fall just below $30,000. Mercedes and Lexus sales have plummeted 27% and 10%, respectively, in the first quarter, but Acura dealers report no major dent in sales.
Some economists argue that the luxury tax acts as a drag on consumer spending just as the economy is struggling to get out of recession. Moreover, the tax may be grossly inefficient. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the tax will generate $1.5 billion in revenues over five years. But Peter Scott, a former Internal Revenue Service official who now works for the accounting firm Coopers & Lybrand, contends the tax will cost about twice that much just to enforce.
Four resolutions have been introduced in Congress seeking to repeal or change the luxury tax, and the Bush Administration said last weekend that it wouldn't object to getting rid of the levy. But Washington insiders say the odds of killing the tax are still very low, since it was part of a delicately balanced package. If the tax is eliminated, it could unravel a budget compromise that took months to hammer out. Says a staff member on the House Ways and Means Committee: "Once you allow the process to start, you just don't know where it is going to stop."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973305,00.html#ixzz0t083dui1
-
I think lurker's ass is bleeding.
-
It cuts down future skin cancer patients, thus saving $$ from unnecessary treatment and clogging the Obamacare system.
::)
"This is something that makes me feel good," Haggett said. "The reality is it's a luxury. It's not a need."
I suppose you are going to complain about the luxury taxes on yachts next?
Gee.... done in by your cut-n-paste job aren't you?
Back to the 'Ol Crrrrrryyyyyyyyyiiiiiiii nnnnnnggggggg Board for you.
You have spoken like a true totalitarian.
-
Think about what is happening here folks.
Think about what will happen next unless Obamacare is struck down as unconstitutional.
Tanning is sunlight trapped in a lightbulb. Sunbathing also contributes to skin cancer. If the interstate commerce rationale can be used without boundaries or limits, it won't be long before beachgoers have to pay a sun tax, or purchase suntan lotion upon entering the beach or be denied admission. Everyone will be forced to wear sunglasses, beaches will be closed during the hours in which the sunlight is most intense, adults will have to sign health waivers before taking their children out in the sun.... and on and on and on. And how will the sun regulation program be financed? You guessed it! With our tax dollars. The benefit of such a program? Not existant. The revenue? Nil.
Taxing tanning is stupid for many reasons-- the least of which is that it harms the businesses that have tanning beds. If tanning is a luxury item, and the wealthy can afford it anyway, what is a tanning tax really doing? It's ensuring that the wealthy continue to be tanned, while normal people have to pay through the nose for the priviliege. It's the same thing with the cigarette tax increase that just passed in NY. You trickle down economic idiots that are all about taxing the wealthy and those big bad corporations fail to realize that the only winner is the government and the only loser is the middle class.
-
Lurker - where did you go moron?
All you are have to do is say "33, you owned me on this" and your beating will stop.
________________________ ________________________ _______
Luxury-Tax Repeal Encourages Sellers
By PENNY SINGER
Published: October 3, 1993
www.nyt.com
LAST month, Thomas G. Caruso, owner of Total Marine Ltd. in Mamaroneck, sold a 37-foot Phoenix convertible sports fishing boat for $400,000. "It's a beauty," he said. "Sleeps six. Has everything, including air-conditioning, a microwave and two big diesel engines."
Mr. Caruso added that negotiations for the sale had begun earlier in anticipation of the repeal of the 10 percent excise or luxury tax on boats costing more than $110,000 and on other expensive items like jewelry and furs, but not on automobiles. "The customer told me he would have never bought the boat if he had had to pay the luxury tax, which would have added $30,000 more to the purchase price," Mr. Caruso said.
The 10 percent excise tax on expensive boats was imposed three years ago as a way to generate new revenue from the rich. The tax, say those in the boating industry, began having an immediate impact on sales as buyers adopted a wait-and-see attitude.
After waging a two-year battle that eventually led to the Congressional repeal of the tax in August, the boating industry now expects the repeal to have an immediate impact on sales, production and work-force levels, said Jeff W. Napier, president of the National Marine Manufacturer's Association, the principal trade group of the recreational marine industry. Recouping Losses; Not a Victory
Mr. Caruso said: "It will certainly help our industry, where activity doesn't start in the factory but on the showroom floor. Sales of boats at the retail level give manufacturers the incentive to produce. Our sales are starting to pick up a bit. And despite the recession we were not hurt too badly overall this year. Luckily, we are in an affluent area so the revenues we didn't generate in sales we were able to pretty much make up in service. And our marina was 100 percent occupied, so this season turned out to be a pretty good one for us."
But, Mr. Napier said, manufacturers don't view repeal so much as a victory as a chance to return to where they were before enactment of the tax.
"It's hard to be elated when our own government activity created a loss of 30,000 American jobs and destroyed dozens of companies in the process," Mr. Napier said. "And the revenues weren't there. For every dollar that was collected on the luxury tax, we estimated the Federal Government paid out $5 for each dollar collected in unemployment benefits and other costs caused by layoffs. Then, too, a contracting economy brought sales that were subject to the tax to a virtual standstill, causing unemployment, plant closings and foreclosures in the marine industry."
In addition, he said, big-boat sales were down from peak levels in 1988 to a historic low.
Edward Tomanek, manager of the Nichols Yacht Yard in Mamaroneck, said: "The tax certainly hurt the industry, no doubt about it. But we phased out our sales department sometime before the tax was enacted so it didn't affect us directly. Our revenues come from our marina. We have 170 slips and our service department." Major Recovery Expected
At Shongut Marine in Rye, the manager, Thomas Consolazio, said that although he knew the tax had had a severe impact on the marine industry, causing unemployment and hardship, his company was not adversely affected.
"One major reason is that we don't carry those very expensive boats," Mr. Consolazio said. "Our top price is $70,000, with the average boat we sell costing about $26,000. In fact, we had a good year. Our sales of new and used boats were up 12 to 13 percent, the highest it has been since the early 80's, and the service department was extremely busy."
Mr. Napier said the industry's feeling is that boat sales and jobs will now make a significant recovery.
"We think the pent-up demand from customers who refused to pay the tax will help the boat builders re-employ 5,000 workers within six months," Mr. Napier said. He also observed that renewed boat sales would help American manufacturers regain their competitive position in world markets. Middle Class Also Affected
People who earn their living in the jewelry and fur industries are also encouraged by the repeal of the luxury tax, which hurts their businesses, too. Barbara Greenberg, manager of H. L. Gross and Brothers, a jewelry store in the Galleria in White Plains, is also the immediate past president of the New York State Jewelry Association, a trade group.
"The association and I worked hard for two years to get that ill-conceived tax repealed," Mrs. Greenberg said. "It was extremely detrimental to us. Even before the tax was enacted, the jewelry industry was hit hard by the recession. Business has not been good across the board, and the tax certainly hurt us when we needed help the most."
The tax, aimed at the wealthy, actually hurt the middle class, Mrs. Greenberg said.
"We had to collect 10 percent luxury tax on all items that carried a price tag of more than $10,000," she said. "This actually affected middle-class customers, those who had saved up, for instance, to buy an engagement ring or an expensive watch for a once-in-a-lifetime occasion. They were the ones who hesitated and did not buy because the 10 percent tax on top of the sales tax just put them too far over the edge."
Although Mrs. Greenberg said that she was delighted to see the tax repealed and that she hoped sales during the coming holiday season will show an improvement, she said the paperwork required for refunds of the tax, retroactive to Jan. 1 this year, is formidable. Impact Hard to Trace
"We will have to contact every customer who paid the tax over the past two years and refund the money to them. Only then will we be reimbursed in turn, by the Government, and you can imagine how long that will take."
Danny Fusco, a furrier who has a business in Mamaroneck, said that the impact of the tax on his business could not be accurately defined.
"I really didn't directly feel the effect, but on the other hand I don't know how much it hurt me," Mr. Fusco said, adding that he will never know how much the tax cost him in lost sales and potential business.
"The tax was mainly applicable to sable coats, Russian lynx and Russian broad-tail coats that are in the $18,000 to $44,000 range," Mr. Fusco said. "We don't normally sell quantities of those coats. Minks are a staple, and most of those were priced so they weren't affected by the luxury tax."
Photo: Luxury boats at Total Marine Ltd. in Mamaroneck. After waging a two-year battle that led to Congressional repeal of the luxury tax in August, the boating industry expects an immediate impact on sales and work-force levels. (Photographs by Susan Harris for The New York Times)
-
I think lurker's ass is bleeding.
But, that ain't 333386's fault.
-
well hussein had to find a way to add taxes, but in a way that wouldnt affect his brothers and sisters. tanning tax is perfect, it only affects the white devils :-\
-
well hussein had to find a way to add taxes, but in a way that wouldnt affect his brothers and sisters. tanning tax is perfect, it only affects the white devils :-\
Sadly it will since tanning salons will close down, meaning less part time jobs, less need for cleaning services, less service on the machines, less rental income for the landlords, etc.
-
well bam bam doesnt think that far ahead
-
Neither do most deluded leftists who never owned a business or have any real education in how business and economics works.
-
wrote about this in a class of mine, what I dont understand is why they are levying this tax with the passing of obamacare...
if the thinking is like lurker said it causes cancer and will help cut down on cost then why force these ppl to have insurance? youre forcing these ppl to have insurance or pay a penalty which could be looked at as paying a premium to the govt and your going to tax them for something that should be covered under the insurance they are buying? REALLY???
also are you going to start taxing health club memberships? alot of injuries happen in health clubs, sprains, strains, henias, herniated discs, back problems of all sorts...are you going to start taxing everything to help pay for the potential medical costs?
THATS WHAT INSURANCE IS FOR!!!!!!!!!!!!! to pay for POTENTIAL costs...
if youre going to make everyone buy insurance or pay a penalty why levy a tax?
-
To fund those who are not going to pay a damn thing and get freebies from the other taxpayers!
-
BUMP FOR LURKER!
-
What a beat down.
The leftists can only respond with insults and opinionated youtube clips by their saviors on MSNBC while the guys on the right like 333 respond with articles and hard evidence.
-
What a beat down.
The leftists can only respond with insults and opinionated youtube clips by their saviors on MSNBC while the guys on the right like 333 respond with articles and hard evidence.
I can't believe Lurker brought up the boating industry and the luxury tax since I thought it was common knowledge what a devastating impact it had on marine related jobs, etc.
-
I can't believe Lurker brought up the boating industry and the luxury tax since I thought it was common knowledge what a devastating impact it had on marine related jobs, etc.
I'm guessing he has no clue about anything the talking heads on MSNBC haven't mentioned.
-
I'm guessing he has no clue about anything the talking heads on MSNBC haven't mentioned.
I guess I know more about this issue since have been around boating most of my life and remember this issue and looked into it.
Think about it, you are hitting someone extra for a tax, on top of the existing sales tax (Which is already going to result in a huge amount of money for the govt based on the size of the purchase), and said money means less $$ for service, less money for upgrades, etc, all of which would have generated a sales taxs for the state as well.
So the stupid luxury tax is actually harmful not only in terms of less people purchasing the boats to avoid the tax, but less down-line revenue from activities that would have generated taxes related to boating such as sales taxes, fuel taxes, employment taxes from people working on the boats, etc.
-
I think lurker's ass is bleeding.
Hardly the case.
-
Again Lurker - don't test me - I win every time.
You are more stupid and beyond delusional than I ever suspected. I took your very own article, dashed the contents with sarcasm and you actually think you "won" something?
"Hysterical".
Tell me something, did you practice a lot to get this stupid?
-
You have spoken like a true totalitarian.
I think you meant the person quoted in his cut and paste article.
Had you actually read it, you would have known.
::)
-
I can't believe Lurker brought up the boating industry and the luxury tax since I thought it was common knowledge what a devastating impact it had on marine related jobs, etc.
You really are stupid x 2 aren't you? Again, did reaching this level require much practice?
-
BUMP FOR LURKER!
Here is your bump you little crybaby. The fact you obviously didn't read the whining cut and paste job you did (typical) should be evident to anyone with half a brain cell.
I didn't know sarcasm was such a complex thing that it had to be broken down into little words and spoon fed to you.
But hey... you "won" something right? ::)
Another retard award is all.
-
You really are stupid x 2 aren't you? Again, did reaching this level require much practice?
Again - no factual rebuttal to what I wrote = you lose.
-
Here is your bump you little crybaby. The fact you obviously didn't read the whining cut and paste job you did (typical) should be evident to anyone with half a brain cell.
I didn't know sarcasm was such a complex thing that it had to be broken down into little words and spoon fed to you.
But hey... you "won" something right? ::)
Another retard award is all.
Just admit you got embarrassed and take it like a man. Oh that's right . . . . . .
-
Again - no factual rebuttal to what I wrote = you lose.
Factual rebuttal? To what?
Did my original post NOT contain exact content exerts from your little whack job? Yes, it did. Did my original content not contain sarcasm directed at those specific quotes I included. Yes it did.
Are you beyond stupid as usual. Yes, you are.
Try harder tard and come back with something that doesn't showcase your dazzling stupidity by failing to understand the obvious.
::)
-
Just admit you got embarrassed and take it like a man. Oh that's right . . . . . .
Embarrassed by your flagrant stupidity? I think not.
Try again fatty Crytalian.
-
I'm happy with a tan tax. Sun tanning causes cancer, we tax cigarettes which also cause cancer. Why not tanning? It should help pay for it's burden on the healthcare industry.
-
Factual rebuttal? To what?
Did my original post NOT contain exact content exerts from your little whack job? Yes, it did. Did my original content not contain sarcasm directed at those specific quotes I included. Yes it did.
Are you beyond stupid as usual. Yes, you are.
Try harder tard and come back with something that doesn't showcase your dazzling stupidity by failing to understand the obvious.
::)
Stop making the beatdown I dished out to you that much worse.
-
I'm happy with a tan tax. Sun tanning causes cancer, we tax cigarettes which also cause cancer. Why not tanning? It should help pay for it's burden on the healthcare industry.
And when these people no longer tan, who is going to pay for the new welfare bs that its projected revenue is based upon?
Again - liberal economics = nonsense.
-
Stop making the beatdown I dished out to you that much worse.
I am beginning to understand when you are single and childless. Mother Nature has obviously decided to rid the gene pool of intellectual bottom feeders like you.
Again, you can't refute my original post because plain and simple YOU DIDN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT!
LOL. Talk about a complete stupid ass.
Welcome to Failsville.
Population = YOU.
-
I am beginning to understand when you are single and childless. Mother Nature has obviously decided to rid the gene pool of intellectual bottom feeders like you.
Again, you can't refute my original post because plain and simple YOU DIDN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT!
LOL. Talk about a complete stupid ass.
Welcome to Failsville.
Population = YOU.
Bro - you didnt even make a point. you tried to hurl names and insults cause you have nothing else to say.
Again - stop making your beatdown that much worse. You brought up the boating industry, and I utterly and completely embarassed you, which is very easy to do.
Just quit now troll and go back to the lgbt boards where you lurk.
-
And when these people no longer tan, who is going to pay for the new welfare bs that its projected revenue is based upon?
Again - liberal economics = nonsense.
I don't want them to tan, it's going to be more cost effective for the country that they don't. However, if you do want to tan outside of the normal 'sit under the sun' then they should pay a 'real' price for it. Otherwise it's you and me who get's saddled with the cost of all these skin cancer patients who decided it was fun to look orange.
Hey if that's your deal go with it, but don't expect me to have my healthcare dollars pay for your stupidity. If you get cancer genetically it's one thing, if you get it because you wanted to look good or cool, well then you should pay the tax so i don't have to. It's the same deal with smoking.
-
And when these people no longer tan, who is going to pay for the new welfare bs that its projected revenue is based upon?
Wow. Already covered this with the luxury tax comment in the second post on this thread. But you didn't get that did you because simple sarcasm is above your comprehension ability huh? And to think, I even bolded the part the sarcasm was directed at.
"This is something that makes me feel good," Haggett said. "The reality is it's a luxury. It's not a need."
Since you can't pull an extra brain cell out of your ass, let me give you another BIG hint. "Middle class".
I guess next time we will have to give you a compass, a GPS, an Indian guide, and your mommy to hold your hand while you play Nancy Drew and reach the evident conclusion of such a complicated foreign language that was spoken.
::)
-
Bro - you didnt even make a point.
You really put a lot of effort into defending your stupidity don't you?
Seriously, does the state of NY allow you to drive or operate heavy machinery? And here we go with your typical gay comments. ::) This cements the fact you got nothing else to come up with. It is always your last resort fall back when your little bullshit smoke and mirrors have failed. Project much? Or just simply a fat fag? Which is it?
-
By the way blaming a tax unequivocally is rather foolish. You've said yourself the economy and jobless are not in great shape. Who then is going to pay for the luxury of tanning? Certainly not the recently laid off worker. 10% or not they aren't going to pay for external tanning unless it's important to them, then 10% is not going to matter one bit. Also the world health organization came out last year and stated that tanning in salons leads to cancer and is a health risk, that's a pretty big warning and would lead many to stop doing it, adding less people to the pool of clients. Throw in good weather negating the need for a salon and you have more than a few reasons why people have stopped tanning and none of those are related to a paltry 10% tax.
8)
-
Wow. Already covered this with the luxury tax comment in the second post on this thread. But you didn't get that did you because simple sarcasm is above your comprehension ability huh? And to think, I even bolded the part the sarcasm was directed at.
Since you can't pull an extra brain cell out of your ass, let me give you another BIG hint. "Middle class".
I guess next time we will have to give you a compass, a GPS, an Indian guide, and your mommy to hold your hand while you play Nancy Drew and reach the evident conclusion of such a complicated foreign language that was spoken.
::)
Lurker - you lost this debate get over it. And get used to losing every other argument you choose to engage me in.
-
Lurker - you lost this debate get over it. And get used to losing every other argument you choose to engage me in.
Again, you think you "won" something? Other than another retard award for failing basic comprehension I don't know what it could be. I mean, your reputation as the board idiot was already cemented and secure long before this.
Again x 2 - do you project your homosexual self loathing much or are you just a fat fag? Which is it? All these gay comments have to come from somewhere inside you.
-
By the way blaming a tax unequivocally is rather foolish. You've said yourself the economy and jobless are not in great shape. Who then is going to pay for the luxury of tanning? Certainly not the recently laid off worker. 10% or not they aren't going to pay for external tanning unless it's important to them, then 10% is not going to matter one bit. Also the world health organization came out last year and stated that tanning in salons leads to cancer and is a health risk, that's a pretty big warning and would lead many to stop doing it, adding less people to the pool of clients. Throw in good weather negating the need for a salon and you have more than a few reasons why people have stopped tanning and none of those are related to a paltry 10% tax.
8)
KC - have you or Lurker ever run a business? Or for that matter Obama/Biden/Pelosi/Reid et al
ANSWER - NO
You guys are so clueless and ignorant is laughable to read your posts as UE keeps going up, more are jobless, etc as you clowns hold to your idiotic views on economics.
-
By the way blaming a tax unequivocally is rather foolish. You've said yourself the economy and jobless are not in great shape. Who then is going to pay for the luxury of tanning? Certainly not the recently laid off worker. 10% or not they aren't going to pay for external tanning unless it's important to them, then 10% is not going to matter one bit. Also the world health organization came out last year and stated that tanning in salons leads to cancer and is a health risk, that's a pretty big warning and would lead many to stop doing it, adding less people to the pool of clients. Throw in good weather negating the need for a salon and you have more than a few reasons why people have stopped tanning and none of those are related to a paltry 10% tax.
8)
Should we ban drinking, smoking, Micky D's, KFC, etc?
-
KC - have you or Lurker ever run a business? Or for that matter Obama/Biden/Pelosi/Reid et al
ANSWER - NO
You guys are so clueless and ignorant is laughable to read your posts as UE keeps going up, more are jobless, etc as you clowns hold to your idiotic views on economics.
Yawn. More bullsh8t from you. Hey blame taxes for everything then rather than look at the whole picture.
-
Yawn. More bullsh8t from you. Hey blame taxes for everything then rather than look at the whole picture.
Like what?
If you want to claim that we should tax all harmful activities, why not KFC, Burger King, Harley Davidson, Rock Climbing, etc?
-
This thread is a bloodbath.... :o
-
This thread is a bloodbath.... :o
I didn't mean it to be, its just that Lurker though he would be cute and try his usual factually deficient insults and name calling.
The fact is that luxury taxes don't work, and never do. He decided to bring up yachts and I used his idiotic example to show him for the complete idiot he is.
You would think that after being shown for the moron and uneducated idiot he is he would have stopped, but no, he decides to even make more a fool of himself.
Its ok. If he wants to discuss luxury taxes that's cool. If he wants to still call names, well he should prepare for an even worse beat down thatn I have already given him.
-
I didn't mean it to be, its just that Lurker though he would be cute and try his usual factually deficient insults and name calling.
The fact is that luxury taxes don't work, and never do. He decided to bring up yachts and I used his idiotic example to show him for the complete idiot he is.
You would think that after being shown for the moron and uneducated idiot he is he would have stopped, but no, he decides to even make more a fool of himself.
Its ok. If he wants to discuss luxury taxes that's cool. If he wants to still call names, well he should prepare for an even worse beat down thatn I have already given him.
Short-sighted idiots always yelling "tax the rich, they can afford it" but never stop to think who actually creates jobs and income for others.
good example, in the small town I grew up in a very wealthy guy bought a wood floor manufacturing business and massively upgraded it, hired a bunch of locals and business was thriving. After a couple of years he asked for some type of tax break from the town, the local democrats tried to use it as a battle-cry against the wealthy and guess what? He just moved the majority of the operation to a neighboring town that was accomodating and of course the only people who got screwed were the guys working for him.
-
I didn't mean it to be, its just that Lurker though he would be cute and try his usual factually deficient insults and name calling.
Once again you defend your stupidity with even MORE stupidity. But hey... if continuing to do so is the only defense for missing a simple point, so be it.
The fact you couldn't understand a simple post is all the clarification anyone needs that you are indeed, the board idiot.
If by showcasing your homosexual desires and self loathing project is to be consider "a worse beat down", then please continue.
You are beyond a doubt the most delusional intellectual challenged crybaby on the board. That is a fact. Live with it.
-
Most far leftists exist in a echo chamber. Lurker, Mons, Blacken, Straw et al are perfect examples of this. They don't read, have no education whatsoever beyond what the whiners tell them, and certainly have little or no private sector experience.
They would be best served starting here.
-
Yawn. More bullsh8t from you.
Is there a math formula designed to calculate Bullshit squared? Because I think he has just achieved it.
-
They don't read,
But you CAN'T read. Or CAN'T comprehend simple things you did read. As evident by the previous two pages of this thread.
How much more bullshit you got in the tank for today?
-
Keep it up. Your display of idiocy in this thread provides material for at least a few months to come.
Again - you tried to claim that i would be a cry baby for discussing the luxury tax on boats. When it it was pointed out to you that said tax, akin to the tanning tax you champion under ObamaCare, results in lost jobs, less revenue, less economic activity, etc, you have nothing else to resort to than insults and name calling.
Bro - just give it up, you lost this one. No harm no foul. Just send me a pm thanking me for educating you on the error of your ways and all is fine.
-
haha this thread is great, and I have no clue how i feel about the tanning issue.
-
haha this thread is great, and I have no clue how i feel about the tanning issue.
This thread is Lurkers' Waterloo.
-
Keep it up. Your display of idiocy in this thread provides material for at least a few months to come.
Again - you tried to claim that i would be a cry baby for discussing the luxury tax on boats. When it it was pointed out to you that said tax, akin to the tanning tax you champion under ObamaCare, results in lost jobs, less revenue, less economic activity, etc, you have nothing else to resort to than insults and name calling.
Bro - just give it up, you lost this one. No harm no foul. Just send me a pm thanking me for educating you on the error of your ways and all is fine.
LOL @ You still not understanding a simple post.
I bolded the part about the person in your own article talking about tanning being a luxury. Then I used sarcasm to compare tanning bed use being a "luxury" as the person stated and tanning beds being taxed as a sarcastic comparison to the luxury tax already established on other items to highlight this. Just as the nod to skin cancer and Obamacare was sarcasm as well.
But an idiot like you can't understand simple sarcasm can they? What's the excuse? Lack of brain cells? Too many tears in the eyes? Too busy surfing the NAMBLA website to try to understand something you read? Which is it?
LOL x 2 for me even having to spoon feed you this in small words.
Being an idiot must be hard work. Because you put a lot of effort into it everyday.
-
This thread is Lurkers' Waterloo.
Only an idiot would think that.
Oh wait... I guess that is why you did.
This thread is proof you lack a middle school education.
-
I'm happy with a tan tax. Sun tanning causes cancer, we tax cigarettes which also cause cancer. Why not tanning? It should help pay for it's burden on the healthcare industry.
Thats amazing!!Ive had about 8 surgeries over the last few years.NOT ONE!!!!Has been paid for by the stupid ass government.I paid for them with my company provided insurance.How about we tax tanning for those who have health insurance given by the government or cigarettes get taxed only if those buying it are a burden to the tax payer.This idea of taxing "dangerous things" is insane.
-
Only an idiot would think that.
Oh wait... I guess that is why you did.
This thread is proof you lack a middle school education.
How about you defend the luxury tax on yachts that you brought up?
Until then, spare me your petty childish indults. Everyone on this thread knows you got destroyed, so deal with it.
-
How about you defend the luxury tax on yachts that you brought up?
Until then, spare me your petty childish indults. Everyone on this thread knows you got destroyed, so deal with it.
I don't HAVE to defend it. That is the entire point of using sarcasm to highlight the foolishness of some other principle. DUH!!!
The entire comment about luxury tax was a direct jab at one person saying tanning is a luxury and Obama taxing it as if it were indeed a luxury item on the same scale as a yacht.
You are completely beyond stupid, you know that? Well you probably don't, as you don't seem to know a damn thing. Now continue on with your typical bullshit whining and crying while only highlighting the fact you lack basic reading skills.
-
I don't HAVE to defend it. That is the entire point of using sarcasm to highlight the foolishness of some other principle. DUH!!!
The entire comment about luxury tax was a direct jab at one person saying tanning is a luxury and Obama taxing it as if it were indeed a luxury item on the same scale as a yacht.
You are completely beyond stupid, you know that? Well you probably don't, as you don't seem to know a damn thing. Now continue on with your typical bullshit whining and crying while only highlighting the fact you lack basic reading skills.
You brought up the luxury tax on yachts, not me.
If you are not prepared to defend the statements you make, don't make them in the first place.
-
You brought up the luxury tax on yachts, not me.
If you are not prepared to defend the statements you make, don't make them in the first place.
Why yes I did bring it up. Imagine that! And once again had to break it down and spoon feed it to you. Imagine that! Which once again, you failed to understand. Imagine that! Not surprising though.
One doesn't need to defend sarcasm. That is the entire point of sarcasm. Having to defend it doesn't make sense at all. Neither does your continued struggling with inability to grasp a simple concept. "Hysterical" at having to repeat this yet again. Guess you are a slow learner after all.
Perhaps you should start wearing water wings when you post so you can keep your head above the rising level of bullshit you find yourself in.
-
Why yes I did bring it up. Imagine that! And once again had to break it down and spoon feed it to you. Imagine that! Which once again, you failed to understand. Imagine that! Not surprising though.
One doesn't need to defend sarcasm. That is the entire point of sarcasm. Having to defend it doesn't make sense at all. Neither does your continued struggling with inability to grasp a simple concept. "Hysterical" at having to repeat this yet again. Guess you are a slow learner after all.
Perhaps you should start wearing water wings when you post so you can keep your head above the rising level of bullshit you find yourself in.
So again, you don't defend you post bringing up the yacht tax.
Lurker - in life, you win some, lose some. On this one, you lost, BIG TIME. Just take your lumps and deal with it.
-
liberals never loose, ::) they will spin , name call and deny until you just let it go
-
liberals never loose, ::) they will spin , name call and deny until you just let it go
I would prefer a discussion on the merits or lack thereof, of a luxury tax, as Lurker brought up, but he is intent on name calling.
You would think that having been proven so utterly wrong on this, he would have thanked me for correcting the error of his thinking, but I guess not. Oh well.
-
So again, you don't defend you post bringing up the yacht tax.
LOL!!! I don't HAVE to.
Then again I have explained exactly why I don't right here :
One doesn't need to defend sarcasm. That is the entire point of sarcasm. Having to defend it doesn't make sense at all.
And right here :
I don't HAVE to defend it. That is the entire point of using sarcasm to highlight the foolishness of some other principle. DUH!!!
And now having to explain this all over again....
LOL x 2 You = Beyond Stupid.
Want another shovel? Because that one you have now isn't going to last while you dig your little hole all the way to China.
LOL x 3 You thinking you "won" something. I guess Crytalians never really learn even when it is explained to them over and over and over again....
-
Well just look at the libs in congress, they file charges on AZ. cause they know AZ. will do a better job at securing the boarder than the feds, and we cant have that now. That would mean the feds were wrong. Along with that the feds did what to the bill? Spun it to the public and name called. Its just how libs are. :D
-
LOL!!! I don't HAVE to.
Then again I have explained exactly why I don't right here :
And right here :
And now having to explain this all over again....
LOL x 2 You = Beyond Stupid.
Want another shovel? Because that one you have now isn't going to last while you dig your little hole all the way to China.
LOL x 3 You thinking you "won" something. I guess Crytalians never really learn even when it is explained to them over and over and over again....
As for winning anything, I'll send you my paypal info and you can wire me about 50k ok?
-
I would prefer a discussion on the merits or lack thereof, of a luxury tax, as Lurker brought up, but he is intent on name calling.
You would think that having been proven so utterly wrong on this, he would have thanked me for correcting the error of his thinking, but I guess not. Oh well.
The only thing I can thank you for is proving that your depth of stupidity goes much further than I first realized. Perhaps in the future one should make a sarcasm disclaimer notice to post before hand so you don't get so lost.
LOL @ thinking I was proven wrong when my entire original did nothing but validate the hypocrisy of the tanning tax in the first place.
-
As for winning anything, I'll send you my paypal info and you can wire me about 50k ok?
Is that what you thought you "won"?
Somehow I don't think 50K is going to cover the amount of time that Sylvan is going to require to help you achieve the intellectual average of a sixth grader.
-
Is that what you thought you "won"?
Somehow I don't think 50K is going to cover the amount of time that Sylvan is going to require to help you achieve the intellectual average of a sixth grader.
Fine, then make it 100k.
-
That would probably cover the cost of the lobotomy and to get you up to second grade.
-
That would probably cover the cost of the lobotomy and to get you up to second grade.
What level of education have you completed Lurker?
I graduated Summa Cum Laude in College and Cum Laude in Law School and got in the top .05% of bar exam takers first time I took it.
-
Tanning salons feel burned by 10 percent 'tan tax'
By N.C. Aizenman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 7, 2010; 5:19 AM
________________________ ________________________ ___
The sun hasn't exactly set on Solar Planet, but anxiety over the fate of the Arlington tanning salon has been running high ever since a "tan tax" took effect Thursday.
Tanning salons feel burned by 10 percent 'tan tax'
One of the less publicized measures in the new health-care law, the tax imposes a 10 percent surcharge on the use of ultraviolet indoor tanning beds.
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.
But outraged tanning salon owners worry that the levy could deal a death blow to an industry already reeling from the recession.
"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."
According to the Indoor Tanning Association, an industry trade group, most of the nation's 19,000 tanning salons are small businesses owned and staffed by women. Shortnacy said all but two of his several dozen employees are women. With business so slow, he opted against hiring the 10 to 15 seasonal workers he normally adds during the spring high season.
Even the Arlington salon, Shortnacy's most successful location because of its proximity to sun-deprived Pentagon workers and Northern Virginia mall shoppers, is suffering. Appointments have dropped from 300 per day to about 160.
How much further the tan tax will drive down those numbers is hard for Shortnacy to predict, however. And the early signs during a recent afternoon at the salon were mixed.
Like many customers, Lisa Haggett, 48, who recently retired from the Air Force and tans several times a week, said she made a point of buying her next package of sessions before July 1 so she could avoid the tax. After she's used up the package, she said, she may need to cut back. Unlimited monthly passes at the salon run about $50, noted Haggett, whose visits have toasted her to a medium shade of brown.
"This is something that makes me feel good," Haggett said. "The reality is it's a luxury. It's not a need."
Dane Ellington, 49, a health-care consultant whose deep bronze color spoke to a lifetime of indoor tanning, expressed annoyance at being singled out. Why not tax people who sunbathe outdoors? Or binge on cheeseburgers? Or, for that matter, who use Botox injections -- which were originally slated to be taxed under the law until a last-minute frenzy of lobbying prompted lawmakers to substitute the tan tax.
"I understand that the money [for the health-care overhaul] needs to come from somewhere," Ellington said. "But this doesn't seem like the appropriate place. It's just silly."
Still, plenty of other customers said they had no quarrels with the tax -- particularly those who supported the health-care law in general.
"I know I shouldn't be tanning, but I do it because it makes me feel better," said Karie Apicella, 34, a patent examiner whose fair skin had acquired a honey-hued glow. "So I guess I understand the idea behind the tax, and I'm willing to pay it."
"It's almost like when your parents tell you that you shouldn't drink and you sort of know it's true, but you do it anyway," said a laughing 29-year-old Marine officer who declined to give her name because she felt sheepish about divulging her tanning habits to those under her command.
"Some people pay $6 for a latte because it's their way of relaxing or treating themselves," added the officer. "Well, this is my latte, and I'm not going to stop ordering it."
________________________ _________________
This article is a perfect example of the lunacy of liberal policies.
This idiotic policy is costing the economy jobs, will result in less revenue to the govt, and will being supposedly justified to fund obamaCare, which it wont.
Obama - destroying private sector jobs by the second.
Another tax on small business? Shocking. ::)
-
What level of education have you completed Lurker?
I graduated Summa Cum Laude in College and Cum Laude in Law School and got in the top .05% of bar exam takers first time I took it.
MHA as I already stated.
Good thing basic reading and sarcasm was not on the bar exam or you would have been sunk.
-
MHA as I already stated.
Good thing basic reading and sarcasm was not on the bar exam or you would have been sunk.
I guess so, but when it comes to tax law and policy, you are a little short of the mark bro.
-
Hardly so.
Then again, my post was not about tax or policy but the irony of both under the guise of how it will be (attempted) to be justified.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2011-10-13/federal-tanning-tax-shortfall/50754314/1
Underdone: Tanning tax revenue falls short of estimates
By Kevin McCoy, USA TODAYUpdated 2h 36m ago Comments 30 Reprints & PermissionsThe IRS got red-faced trying to collect the new tanning tax, burning a hole in estimates on how much the levy would bring in to federal coffers, a new report said Thursday.
By Rob Engelhardt, for USA TODAY
A new federal tax on indoor tanning services isn't bringing in as much revenue as hoped, a report says.
EnlargeCloseBy Rob Engelhardt, for USA TODAY
A new federal tax on indoor tanning services isn't bringing in as much revenue as hoped, a report says.
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration said the IRS developed outreach plans to notify tanning salons the 10% federal tax would be due on ultraviolet light services paid for as of July 1, 2010.
But, while the agency also updated tax forms and tax return processing systems to prepare for the new levy, the IRS had difficulty determining the actual number and contacts for businesses required to collect the new tax from customers.
MORE: IRS Q-and-A on indoor tanning tax
Using an April 2010 Indoor Tanning Association estimate, the IRS initially projected the tax would be due quarterly from roughly 25,000 stand-alone tanning salons, plus spas, health clubs and beauty parlors.
But the inspector general report found that actual tax returns filed for the first three quarters through March 31 averaged just above 10,300.
Tanning tax receipts for that nine-month period totaled $54.4 million, the report found. That was below projections by the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, which had estimated the tax would raise $50 million in the last three months of fiscal year 2010 and $200 million for the full 2011 fiscal year.
The report blamed the problem on the IRS' apparent use of incomplete information in its effort to identify taxpayers covered by the levy. It also said the IRS should have acted faster to collect. By the time notices were issued, tax returns had been due for three quarters.
"The IRS quickly implemented the tanning tax under a tight deadline," said J. Russell George, who heads the inspector general's office. "Since this was a brand new tax imposed on a group of businesses and taxpayers with no previous experience with excise taxes, the IRS should have done more to inform taxpayers of their filing responsibilities and bring them into compliance in a timely manner."
The inspector general's office recommended the IRS analyze the data sources it used for the tax, including records with incomplete address information, to determine whether some tanning businesses weren't notified about the levy. The agency should also determine whether other data sources are needed to identify tanning salons.
Agreeing with the recommendations, Faris Fink, head of the IRS Small Business/Self-Employed Division, wrote in a Sept. 7 response that the tax agency has "compared the list of taxpayers who have already filed returns with the broader list that we have collected, and have sent explanatory notices to businesses who have not yet filed."
"Once this analysis is complete, we will have a better sense of how many of the businesses who have not yet filed are actually subject to this new excise tax," Fink said.