
The most interesting thing about this new tax is that there are some who argue that the tax is "reverse racism" against white Americans. They appear to be making this argument because most of those who use tanning salons are white, so this tax is more likely to affect whites than blacks.
Rush Limbaugh even jumped in, along with Doc Thompson, who fills in for Glenn Beck. Other conservative commentators across the nation seem to have made the tan tax a rallying cry in what they've now interpreted to be their own battle against oppression and discrimination. Thompson, in response to the tax even said, "I now know the pain of racism."
Some can see the argument being made, to a point. Of course, we know that Thompson was being melodramatic by comparing the pain of a tan tax to 400 years of slavery and oppression. But he may have a good legal argument, given that it's clear that the tax would almost exclusively affect white people, unless you count non-white people who own tanning salons as potential victims. This is an argument similar to the one that's been used to fight the recent immigration law in Arizona, since the law mostly affects Hispanic Americans.
Another argument can be made as well. The law does affect white people, yes. However, comparing this to the sting of serious racism that occurs in our society is at best inaccurate, and at worst, just kind of silly. Most of President Obama's detractors will look for any and every reason to criticize him, even on something like a tax that will save lives and help pay for health care.
President Obama may be right to continue on his current path. This doesn't mean that his plans are going to work perfectly for everyone. But if Obama does waver at this point, it will only make his enemies push that much harder to distract him. At this point, they will do anything to get him out of office -- even cry racism when they don't know what racism really is.
What do you think? Is the tanning tax racist? Leave your comments below!
Lawrence Watkins is the Founder of Great Black Speakers. He is also the owner of speakers' bureaus dedicated to Hispanic speakers and Christian motivational speakers. His book 'Frame Your Future: 8 Principles to Effectively Focus on the Future and Not Dwell in the Past,' will be released in August. If you would like Lawrence's articles delivered directly to your e=mail, please click here.

Comments: (29)
Add a comment
By: Victorious on 7/17/2010 8:13AM
You're damn straight this tax is racist! As far as your comments go about just getting rid of tanning beds....because they're dangerous...hmm, well lets see....guess we better get rid of cigarettes, booze (including WINE), sun screen (which is known to cause skin cancer), jet skiis, boats, cars & trucks of all sorts, ATV's, airplanes, trains, bicycles, motorcycles, scooters, hair color, makeup, red meats, sugary & fatty foods, anything containing caffiene, all surgeries, all doctors & their magic potions for all the illnesses they create (i.e. ADD, ADHD, Anxiety, etc.)in order to push the pills for the pharmecutical companies, which means more $$$ for good ole' Doc (as though they don't already rip us off enough), etc....etc.....etc. Those things are ALL supposedly DANGEROUS too!!! I could go on with this list for the rest of my life! Or better yet, why not just crawl under a rock and live your life in fear of things that you're told are DANGEROUS! Give me a break people!!!!! Live your lives the way you choose, let others live theirs the way they want to. We are not FREE in this country....regardless of what is said. We are controlled in everything we do...from what foods we put into our mouths to what we choose as our pleasure....You know how? With our hard earned money that should only be meant for us to enjoy while we are alive. For god sakes....they even TAX us when we're DEAD!!! Pretty soon you'll be taxed to take a shit if you don't start speaking up about what is being taken from the American people DAILY by our government..... I am ashamed of what this country has become. GREED....that's all it is! Simply GREED...... Keep eating up their reasoning behind all the money they essentially STEAL from us in "TAX" form.....YOU are the fools. OPEN YOUR EYES AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: maxi timmons on 7/17/2010 3:17PM
I just call it irony. We've paid because of the color of our skin, now they have to pay to get it.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: msmack500 on 7/17/2010 5:34PM
Snookie look like she is Black or from India to be that dark. I know she must really bake at those tanning salons to get that color. And IMO this is not different from taxing cigarettes since Blacks unfortunately have higher tobacco usage rates.
Interesting how in the most racist country in the world, you know, the only one that had folks committing treason by waging war on their own country to continue their perverse color and ethnicity based institution of slavery, that there would be such a pro-tanning outcry.
These two girls would have been on the auction block in the Antebellum South.
Report This
By: GaryTodd17 on 7/17/2010 8:15PM
No. It's NOT racist. It's SMART as far as I'm concerned. Has anyone heard of the term "Luxury Tax"? It's the higher tax applied to items deemed excessively opulent or somewhat over-the-top if you will. You can buy a regular Ford, Chevy, Honda or Mazda and expect to pay the average tax applicable. However, purchase a Mercedes, Range Rover or even Bentley and it's determined 1) ...a luxury automobile which not eveyone can afford so you MUST be able to AFFORD a higher tax since a Ford would do as good of a job as a Benz for all practical purposes, and 2) ...not NECESSARY. Therefore, why not tax those who have enough, eh hem, disposable income to routinely artifically darken there God given pigmentation simply for reasons of vanity and being trendy or cool? LOL! Again, I think it's smart, thoughtful and funny as OH HELL! LOLOLOLOLOLOL! I mean really, why do they WANT to do so anyway? You are constantly hearing on the news how very easy it is for them to get skin cancer from those things anyway so it's amazing to me to no end. And the downright outrage that some whites are popping off about really makes me smile. Karma will getcha honey!
Peace.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: bianca.simone on 7/18/2010 12:07AM
"Reverse racism" is a silly term that people should not use. Whether it's racist against the majority or the minority, it's still racism.
That being said, this bill is not racist. There are people of all shades who go to the tanning salon. Just like there people of all shades sit out in their backyards to "get some rays".
Unhealthy behaviors should be taxed. Why do you think cigarettes and alcohol have taxes?
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: gridster on 7/23/2010 7:59PM
Struggling small businesses already getting robbed by their health insurance companies now have to charge their customers a 10% shake down tax collected by the IRS then forwarded to --- you guessed it--- health insurance companies! This health care bill is a fraud and only tightens the screws on small business. A smart single payer system would have freed us from this tyranny but both Democrats (with this bill) and Republicans (through their neglect) have sold us out.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: L on 7/24/2010 11:00PM
SUNLIGHTS IS RADIATION LARGE DOSE OF RADIOACTIVE
DOE KILLS
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Nick on 7/31/2010 9:18AM
In order for any Bill to be turned into a Law, it is required to win the voting approval of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate. Only after getting their approval does the President get to sign (or veto) the Bill into Law.
The Racial Statistics for the US House and US Senate are as follows:
Racial Composition of the 110th Congress
-----------------------------------------------
U.S. House
*********
White: 332
Black: 42
Jewish: 30
Hispanic: 25
Asian: 5
Native American: 1
U.S. Senate
**********
White: 81
Black: 1
Jewish: 14
Hispanic: 2
Asian: 2
As you see, the Congress is overwhelmingly White with 413 of 535 members of Congress being White (77%). Therefore, you cannot claim this is racist as it was obviously voted for by a white majority Congress.
racial discrimination - discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race
Now, taking the definition of racial discrimination and applying it to this situation is simply incorrect. Firstly, the definition requires that the white majority congress would have to be acting in a discriminatory or abusive way against another racial group. As it is a white majority congress taxing something which everyone keeps claiming is used predominately by whites (statistics please?), this cannot apply. A racial group cannot act in a racially discriminatory way against itself.
Please think about the implications of what you are saying in context.
Sources:
www.thisnation.com...
www.thefreedictionary.com...
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Nick on 7/31/2010 9:19AM
In order for any Bill to be turned into a Law, it is required to win the voting approval of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate. Only after getting their approval does the President get to sign (or veto) the Bill into Law.
The Racial Statistics for the US House and US Senate are as follows:
Racial Composition of the 110th Congress
-----------------------------------------------
U.S. House
*********
White: 332
Black: 42
Jewish: 30
Hispanic: 25
Asian: 5
Native American: 1
U.S. Senate
**********
White: 81
Black: 1
Jewish: 14
Hispanic: 2
Asian: 2
As you see, the Congress is overwhelmingly White with 413 of 535 members of Congress being White (77%). Therefore, you cannot claim this is racist as it was obviously voted for by a white majority Congress.
racial discrimination - discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race
Now, taking the definition of racial discrimination and applying it to this situation is simply incorrect. Firstly, the definition requires that the white majority congress would have to be acting in a discriminatory or abusive way against another racial group. As it is a white majority congress taxing something which everyone keeps claiming is used predominately by whites (statistics please?), this cannot apply. A racial group cannot act in a racially discriminatory way against itself.
Please think about the implications of what you are saying in context.
Sources:
http://www.thisnation.com/congress-facts.html
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racial+discrimination
Reply to this Comment | Report This