Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#17065 Jan 1, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. Far leftists like Che Che only see the world in one way--the liberal way. They can't put the shoe on the other foot and then ask how they feel about something. It's impossible when you're that far gone.
So lets say that we had a white President with a suspected racist in a key position who placed a tax on basketballs. Che Che would be the first here to scream racism. And if we pointed out that white people play basketball too, it would fall on deaf ears and he would continue to scream racism.
This is the party that includes members who frequently hinted or openly said that if you disagree with DumBama, it's because of race. The very same people who claim that harsher prison sentences for crack users than cocaine users is racist. What? White people don't use crack?
See what I mean? But a tax on tanning salons or skis racist? How could anybody think that way? LOL!
It is amazing that you believe you have the ability to speak for other people.
Duke for Mayor

United States

#17066 Jan 1, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. Far leftists like Che Che only see the world in one way--the liberal way. They can't put the shoe on the other foot and then ask how they feel about something. It's impossible when you're that far gone.
So lets say that we had a white President with a suspected racist in a key position who placed a tax on basketballs. Che Che would be the first here to scream racism. And if we pointed out that white people play basketball too, it would fall on deaf ears and he would continue to scream racism.
This is the party that includes members who frequently hinted or openly said that if you disagree with DumBama, it's because of race. The very same people who claim that harsher prison sentences for crack users than cocaine users is racist. What? White people don't use crack?
See what I mean? But a tax on tanning salons or skis racist? How could anybody think that way? LOL!
Ummmm..yes Virginia...since its invention, crack cocaine has always been more popular in urban areas, specifically because of its low cost. The disparities in sentencing impacted those using crack rather than powder: mostly poor, minorities in urban areas. This isn't mere speculation...its fact.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows...

woof
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#17067 Jan 1, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems to have been placed as a deterrent to consuming a dangerous product while working to offset some of the healthcare costs associated with it. It's a fairly common practice with items like alcohol, tobacco, recreational drugs where legal and etc.
The two stated goals of the tax are to reduce the use of tanning services due to the associated rise in cancer risks and to offset some of the costs of the affordable care act.
Sounds like a lot of bull to me. It may cause skin cancer, but so can the natural sun. Why didn't they put a tax on beaches?

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

Long-term exposure to artificial sources of ultraviolet rays like tanning beds (or to the sun's natural rays) increases both men and women's risk of developing skin cancer. In addition, exposure to tanning salon rays increases damage caused by sunlight because ultraviolet light actually thins the skin, making it less able to heal. Women who use tanning beds more than once a month are 55 percent more likely to develop malignant melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer.

According to the National Cancer Institute, more than one million people are diagnosed with non-melanoma skin cancer in the United States every year. In fact, non-melanoma skin cancer is the most common type of cancer in the country. Forty to 50 percent of Americans who live to age 65 will have this form of skin cancer at least once. These are startling statistics for a cancer that can, for the most part, be prevented.

WHO IS AT RISK?

Almost everyone who frequents a tanning salon or exposes themselves to the sun is putting themselves at risk for skin cancer. The risk is greatest for people with fair skin; blonde, red, or light hair; and blue, green, or gray eyes. Artificial tanning can also be more dangerous for those who burn easily, have already been treated for skin cancer, or have a family member who has had skin cancer. In addition, women have a higher risk of contracting skin cancer on their legs, and men have a higher risk of getting it on their backs.

http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/entertainmen...
Duke for Mayor

United States

#17068 Jan 1, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like a lot of bull to me. It may cause skin cancer, but so can the natural sun. Why didn't they put a tax on beaches?
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
Long-term exposure to artificial sources of ultraviolet rays like tanning beds (or to the sun's natural rays) increases both men and women's risk of developing skin cancer. In addition, exposure to tanning salon rays increases damage caused by sunlight because ultraviolet light actually thins the skin, making it less able to heal. Women who use tanning beds more than once a month are 55 percent more likely to develop malignant melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer.
According to the National Cancer Institute, more than one million people are diagnosed with non-melanoma skin cancer in the United States every year. In fact, non-melanoma skin cancer is the most common type of cancer in the country. Forty to 50 percent of Americans who live to age 65 will have this form of skin cancer at least once. These are startling statistics for a cancer that can, for the most part, be prevented.
WHO IS AT RISK?
Almost everyone who frequents a tanning salon or exposes themselves to the sun is putting themselves at risk for skin cancer. The risk is greatest for people with fair skin; blonde, red, or light hair; and blue, green, or gray eyes. Artificial tanning can also be more dangerous for those who burn easily, have already been treated for skin cancer, or have a family member who has had skin cancer. In addition, women have a higher risk of contracting skin cancer on their legs, and men have a higher risk of getting it on their backs.
http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/entertainmen...
You really are dense, aren't you?

woof

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#17069 Jan 1, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like a lot of bull to me. It may cause skin cancer, but so can the natural sun. Why didn't they put a tax on beaches?
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
Long-term exposure to artificial sources of ultraviolet rays like tanning beds (or to the sun's natural rays) increases both men and women's risk of developing skin cancer. In addition, exposure to tanning salon rays increases damage caused by sunlight because ultraviolet light actually thins the skin, making it less able to heal. Women who use tanning beds more than once a month are 55 percent more likely to develop malignant melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer.
According to the National Cancer Institute, more than one million people are diagnosed with non-melanoma skin cancer in the United States every year. In fact, non-melanoma skin cancer is the most common type of cancer in the country. Forty to 50 percent of Americans who live to age 65 will have this form of skin cancer at least once. These are startling statistics for a cancer that can, for the most part, be prevented.
WHO IS AT RISK?
Almost everyone who frequents a tanning salon or exposes themselves to the sun is putting themselves at risk for skin cancer. The risk is greatest for people with fair skin; blonde, red, or light hair; and blue, green, or gray eyes. Artificial tanning can also be more dangerous for those who burn easily, have already been treated for skin cancer, or have a family member who has had skin cancer. In addition, women have a higher risk of contracting skin cancer on their legs, and men have a higher risk of getting it on their backs.
http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/entertainmen...
Because beaches aren't a pay per use, consumable vanity product?

This seems fairly easy to understand.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#17071 Jan 1, 2013
Go Away Che wrote:
BTW, you can get your own Mensa card. Just do the following:
"Membership of Mensa is open to persons who have attained a score within the upper two percent of the general population on an approved intelligence test that has been properly administered and supervised."
You forgot "Pay the money"
They only require a 140 IQ, XX. That is not a genius. Oh, and pay the money. ;-)

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#17072 Jan 1, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
A. Using one is not a necessity, its an activity driven by vanity.
B. Using one is is unhealthy, and raises health care costs over time with increasing use.
C. Because its not a necessity, its an activity almost exclusively engaged in by those with expendable income.
D. The people who would oppose the tax are not likely to effectively organize to achieve defeating its passage in the legislature.
See how easy that is?
woof
Yep. Like Smoking, XX.
Woof, woof.

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#17073 Jan 1, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Because beaches aren't a pay per use, consumable vanity product?
This seems fairly easy to understand.
Oh really?

http://www.thetrustees.org/places-to-visit/no...
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#17074 Jan 1, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
It is amazing that you believe you have the ability to speak for other people.
why not...you do it daily.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#17075 Jan 1, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Because beaches aren't a pay per use, consumable vanity product?
This seems fairly easy to understand.
we need to tax spoons 4000% because they make people fat raising the healthcare costs for the rest of us, by having to have fattie on all kinds of medication.
swxxxt

Ellwood City, PA

#17076 Jan 1, 2013
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#17077 Jan 1, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are dense, aren't you?
woof
Why? Do you see me making ridiculous excuses for every single thing my politicians do in the federal government?
Duke for Mayor

United States

#17078 Jan 1, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
Guess you missed the phrase "consumable vanity product".

woof
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#17079 Jan 1, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Because beaches aren't a pay per use, consumable vanity product?
This seems fairly easy to understand.
Then why not swim wear? How many go to the beach in jeans and a tee shirt? Come to think of it, shorts should have been taxed as well.

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#17080 Jan 1, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Guess you missed the phrase "consumable vanity product".
woof
In both cases people are paying for access to a place to expose themselves to UV radiation.
Nobody needs to go to a beach any more than a tanning salon.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#17081 Jan 1, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Guess you missed the phrase "consumable vanity product".
woof
like glasses?

sneakers?

jeans?

shoes?

hairspray?

toothpaste?

shaving cream?

perfume?

hair straightener?

all above.....500% tax using your flawed ignorant theory.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#17082 Jan 1, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Guess you missed the phrase "consumable vanity product".
woof
so happy that beginning today I earn ZERO income in the USA; and just live here.

Raise the tax to 100%....my income is ZERO. Won't apply....all I have is expenses.

guess you will have to find another stooge to feed you now.

PS: over the past 60 days over 1000 corporations have moved HQ out of the states.

Best get busy raising taxes on the poor because all those with money are leaving.

PS: notice France changed their mind on tax rate after they lost the population with the money.
too late....they already left.

reap what you sow......nothing.
Duke for Mayor

United States

#17083 Jan 1, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? Do you see me making ridiculous excuses for every single thing my politicians do in the federal government?
No, because you ask a ridiculous rhetorical question involving beaches that has nothing to do with the logical reasons why legislators might decide to enact a tax on tanning bed usage.

Assuming that you really are that dense, I will further explain:

The sun comes up every single day, and shines upon nearly all portions of the Nation for nearly 1/2 of each day. Nobody can control that.

Research has shown that exposure to sunshine is well known and documented to have both beneficial and detrimental effects upon human health.

People living within the borders of the Nation are either within the physical confines of structures, or are not, each day. Structures offer protection from the sun's harmful effects, one of which is known to be skin cancer from overexposure to the sun's rays. People in this nation have a fundamental right to travel which offers them the ability to either be outside, or inside a structure, generally.

Some people enjoy going to the beach as a recreational activity. Some people who engage in this activity also go there for the purpose of "tanning" "naturally", in the sun. The exact same tanning effects could also be obtained anywhere outdoors, and tanning naturally need not be done at a beach to achieve those effects. Some beaches charge a fee for use, but those beaches represent a miniscule portion of beaches available to the public, and the fees charged are not used to fund any governmental interest in reducing or addressing the health risks or costs of tanning.

Some people instead choose to use modern technology to tan, paying a fee for the use of that technology to private owners. Tanning in this manner is quicker than tanning naturally, but it also imposes the same sort of risks to individual health as naturally tanning does. Typically, the people who use these services are those with expendable income who feel that they look better with a tan, and don't have time to do it naturally.

Recognizing that there are public health costs associated with the risks involved in tanning, and looking for revenue streams to address those risks, legislators look at the practicalities involved in taxing those who tan, either naturally, or using tanning beds.

Recognizing that recreational use of beaches or other places outdoors involves a multitude of other beneficial activities beyond the purposeful exposure to harmful rays to bronze one's skin, the legislators decline to tax the use of beaches as a means of addressing the public health risks of tanning.

Instead, recognizing that the use of tanning beds is a vanity driven activity that is performed solely for the purpose of tanning, and has no other beneficial purpose, legislators decide to tax it as a means of addressing the increased health risks related to tanning.

There. All of that, simply because you pretend to be dense.

woof

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#17084 Jan 1, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
we need to tax spoons 4000% because they make people fat raising the healthcare costs for the rest of us, by having to have fattie on all kinds of medication.
While your example is slightly juvenile in scope, there have been several proposals to target foods which contribute heavily to the obesity epidemic for taxes with an eye to shaping behaviour in the same way that taxes on smoking (or tanning) have!
Duke for Mayor

United States

#17085 Jan 1, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>In both cases people are paying for access to a place to expose themselves to UV radiation.
Nobody needs to go to a beach any more than a tanning salon.
You're as stupid as X and Bubba. You should all stay inside, under adult supervision, for your own protection.

woof

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Recount Collapses 9 min Seriouslady 27
Lesbifriends: Corporate Success 9 min rowdy01 8
Carson appointed to cabinet 15 min Seriouslady 3
Trump TOUR 19 min Reality Speaks 14
Religion in our schools..... 23 min d pants 54
Trump the Crook/Liar 39 min 404 not found 219
Roadhouse strip club (Jan '14) 2 hr Decent Woman 43

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages