In 2010, a federal 10 percent tax on indoor tanning went into effect. The goal was to deter users from exposing themselves to the UV lights on tanning beds. Researchers from the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago recently revealed that although about 80 percent of clients oppose the tax, just as many of them continue to frequent tanning salons, despite the fact that indoor tanning has been proven to lead to skin cancer.
The researchers surveyed salons and only about one in four of them have seen a drop in business since the tax went into effect, implying that maybe the extra 10 percent just doesn’t matter to clients.
Meanwhile, New Jersey (a state associated with indoor tanning thanks to reality shows like The Jersey Shore) repealed its 2004 cosmetic medical procedures tax last week when Governor Chris Christie signed a bill to phase out the tax so that the procedures, including breast augmentations, Botox injections and others, will be tax-free starting in July 2013. The stated goal of the bill is to alleviate the financial and administrative burdens associated with the tax.
Is the government sending mixed messages on whether taxes should be implemented on aesthetic treatments and services? Should taxes be used to deter citizens from tanning services or plastic surgery? Please share your comments.
Find a Doctor
Find a NewBeauty "Top Beauty Doctor" Near you