Tanning salons burned by 10 percent 'tan tax' (Already costing economy jobs)

[LurkerNoMore]

Yawn.  More bullsh8t from you.  

Is there a math formula designed to calculate Bullshit squared?  Because I think he has just achieved it.

[LurkerNoMore]

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?

[Soul Crusher]

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.   

[240 is Back]

haha this thread is great, and I have no clue how i feel about the tanning issue.

[Soul Crusher]

haha this thread is great, and I have no clue how i feel about the tanning issue.

This thread is Lurkers' Waterloo.

 

[LurkerNoMore]

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.

[LurkerNoMore]

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.

[BM OUT]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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.   

[LurkerNoMore]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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. 

[LurkerNoMore]

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. 

[Soul Crusher]

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.   

[pro nitrousADRL]

liberals never loose,     they will spin , name call and deny  until you just let it go

[Soul Crusher]

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. 

[LurkerNoMore]

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....

[pro nitrousADRL]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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? 

[LurkerNoMore]

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.

[LurkerNoMore]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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. 

[LurkerNoMore]

That would probably cover the cost of the lobotomy and to get you up to second grade.

[Soul Crusher]

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.   

[Dos Equis]

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.   

[LurkerNoMore]

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.