We here at Founding Bloggers have been contemplating one of the first new Obamacare taxes to encumber our already-burdened economy, slated to take effect in July of this year, to wit: The Tanning Tax.
Now, there are, of course, exceptions to any rule or trend. That noted, we cannot help but also notice that the majority of tanning salon consumers fall into a particular demographic. Generally speaking, they are a) female, b) young, and c) pale.
And so, given that the majority of tanning salon consumers are female, would it be fair to characterize this Obamacare tax as a sexist tax?
And, given that the majority of tanning salon consumers are young, would it be fair to characterize this Obamacare tax as an ageist tax?
And, given that younger people tend, on average, to have less money and resources available to them than older people, would it be fair to characterize this Obamacare tax as a regressive tax?
And, given that the majority of tanning salon consumers are naturally pale, would it be fair to characterize this Obamacare tax as a racist tax?
Reasonable minds may certainly differ and may arrive at different answers to these questions. We maintain, however, that these questions are fair.
And what will this new tax mean to the Federal Treasury? A windfall in revenue? Probably not. It seems more likely that people will simply opt for natural sunshine, which has the double benefit of being tax-free and less efficient – this means people will simply expose themselves to radiation for longer periods of time to achieve that coveted golden hue. Not to worry, though, the price of sunscreen probably won’t go up all that much.
The likely long-term result of this ostensibly well-intended Statist health initiative will be more melanoma.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by chris. chris said: http://bit.ly/10jDj5 Is the Obamacare Tanning Tax Riddled with Isms? : Founding Bloggers http://bit.ly/cVn8C8 [...]
Of course. Everybody knows Barry Hussein hates women. Especially if they’re white…