Introduced by Senator Paul, along with colleagues Ms. Ernst, Mr. Ricketts, and Mrs. Fischer, the bill aims to repeal a relatively lesser-known law: the excise tax applied to indoor tanning services. This tax, buried in the complex labyrinth of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Subtitle D, specifically), has had tanning businesses and their bronzed clientele reaching slightly deeper into their pockets.
Though we know taxes fund vital services and programs, it can be a daunting task to know them all. In essence, an excise tax is a tax charged on specific goods and services, like gasoline, alcohol, or in this case, indoor tanning services. For the sunlight-challenged community, this current proposal could bring about a reason to cheer – or at least possibly a slightly less expensive pathway to their desired tan.
However, like any proposed legislation, the “Tanning Tax Repeal Act” holds possibility not only of sunshine but also of shade. For fans of indoor tanning and salon owners, the elimination of this tax could mean both a lighter burden on their wallets and possibly a boost to a somewhat niche industry. Yet, critics might argue that the tax potentially encourages healthier behavior by discouraging indoor tanning, given the risks often associated in medical literature with repeated exposure to UV radiation.
The proposal doesn’t come with an attached dollar figure that quantifies its fiscal impact. Since taxation directly impacts the nation’s coffers, the question that remains is how the revenue gap left by this repeal will be filled. Will it be offset by reductions in government spending, an increase of tax elsewhere, or simply accepted as a loss in revenue?
As new as a freshly minted coin, the bill has only been recently introduced into the Senate. Its next port of call is the Committee on Finance. The members of this committee will debate, possibly amending the bill, before deciding whether it should proceed further down the legislative highway.
The wider picture on healthcare and taxation will unavoidably color this bill’s significance. The indoor tanning tax was initially enacted, partly as a ‘sin tax’ aimed at discouraging behavior believed to be hazardous (in this case, preventing potential skin cancers), and also partly to raise revenue for the implementation of the broader health reforms. If this tax is repealed, it may set a precedent for challenging other ‘sin taxes.’
In summary, the future is potentially looking up for lovers of artificial sun – assuming this bill passes in its current form. However, the bill’s future is by no means certain, facing a sunny uphill journey through the Committee on Finance and potential debates in both chambers of Congress before it could be signed into law. Only then could patrons of indoor tanning enjoy their moment in the sun or, more accurately, under the UV lamp, without the added cloud of the excise tax.
