logo
Make America Tan Again: 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Burns The Tanning Tax

Make America Tan Again: 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Burns The Tanning Tax

Forbes23-05-2025

After Obamacare slapped a 10% tax on tanning bed services, Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi launched her Sunless Tanning Collection. (She's shown here at a 2012 launch event.) Spray-on tans are exempt from the tax, which Republicans now want to repeal.
Tucked among the trillions of tax cuts in the House's just-passed 'big, beautiful bill' is the repeal of the tax on indoor tanning services. But before you rush to book a tanning bed appointment, remember that the Senate still has to act on this bill and that dermatologists are no fans of tanning.
The tanning tax, a 10% excise tax on indoor tanning services, dates back to 2010. It was part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—better known as Obamacare. When Congress wants to find money to pay for things that matter to them—like healthcare or tax cuts—they generally have to offset those costs. Sometimes, those offsets are in the form of reduced spending or benefit cuts, but more often than not, they show up as new or increased taxes. That's what happened here. The tax was intended to help pay for the new healthcare law.
You can think of an excise tax as being like a sales tax. When it comes to the tanning excise tax, the rules require salons and other businesses providing ultraviolet tanning services to collect a 10% excise tax on the applicable services. Spray-on tans and phototherapy services (those used for medical reasons) are exempt from the tax. And if services are bundled, the portion attributable to tanning is taxable. If, however, the service is part of a gym or other fitness center package that isn't separable, there's no tax payable.
The tanning tax was intended not only to raise revenue but also to discourage the use of indoor tanning beds. As a result, it was championed by health organizations, including the American Academy of Dermatology (AADA) and the American Medical Association (AMA).
In a 2018 letter to then-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the two joined dozens of other health organizations to oppose a planned repeal of the tanning tax, writing, 'The United States Department of Health and Human Services and the World Health Organization's International Agency of Research on Cancer panel have declared ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun and artificial sources, such as tanning beds and sun lamps, to be a known carcinogen (cancer-causing substance).' The letter went on to say that, 'Researchers estimate that indoor tanning may cause upwards of 400,000 cases of skin cancer in the U.S. each year.'
The attempted repeal in 2018 eventually failed, as did a previous effort to repeal the tax in 2015.
The repeals might have failed on public policy grounds, or more likely, revenue-related results. One of the interesting things about excise taxes that are intended to impact behavior is that if they are successful, the revenue portion shrinks. In other words, if the goal is to curb behavior (other taxes try to reduce smoking, for example) by taxing the behavior, as success rates go up, dollars go down. That's what happened here.
The tax was expected to raise $2.7 billion over the first decade. After five years, it had raised less than $500 million. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the feds only collected $92 million from the tax in 2014.
Champions of the tax say that's because the tax worked, effectively discouraging the use of tanning beds. But businesses cried foul, claiming that the tax ruined their business. According to IBISWorld, in 2011, there were nearly 85,000 tanning salon establishments operating in the U.S. By 2024, that number had shrunk to less than 21,000.
A 2023 National Institutes of Health study suggests that tanning bed behaviors were changing anyway. Concerns about aging and skin care, as well as the health risks, have resulted in a tilt towards self-applied sunless tanning products, such as lotion tanning and spray tanning.
Even pop culture caught on. The most-talked-about tanned celebrity of the early naughts—Snooki from MTV's now-defunct reality show, 'Jersey Shore'—lamented after the tax became law, 'I don't go tanning anymore because Obama put a 10% tax on tanning. And I feel like he did that intentionally for us.' Today, you can buy Snooki sunless tanning products online.
The planned repeal hasn't gotten a lot of attention. To be honest, I didn't even notice it when I first read through the bill—it's a couple of paragraphs about halfway through the text, stuck between new Form 1099 thresholds and exclusion of interest from income on certain rural and agricultural loans.
The bill passed the House earlier this week with the tanning tax repeal still intact. It now moves to the Senate.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump threatens to cut Musk government contracts amid agenda bill spat
Trump threatens to cut Musk government contracts amid agenda bill spat

UPI

time3 minutes ago

  • UPI

Trump threatens to cut Musk government contracts amid agenda bill spat

Tesla CEO Elon Musk and President Donald Trump hold a press conference in the Oval Office at the White House on Friday as Musk ends his tenure as director of the Department of Government Efficiency. Photo by Francis Chung/UPI | License Photo June 5 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump on Thursday threatened to cut Elon Musk's government contracts through Tesla amid his departure from his role cutting government spending and opposition to Trump's sweeping legislative agenda bill. Trump threatened to end all government contracts with the Musk-founded Tesla in a post on Truth Social and suggested that would be a fast way to reduce government spending. "The easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts," Trump wrote. Tesla share prices declined by more than 14% on Thursday and shed $152 billion in value from the EV maker. Trump on Thursday accused Musk of going "crazy" after the president canceled the federal electric vehicle mandate imposed by the Biden administration. "I took away his EV mandate that forced everyone to buy electric cars that nobody else wanted," Trump said in a Truth Social post on Thursday. "He just went crazy!" Trump said he asked Musk to leave his advisory position with DOGE, although Musk was scheduled to exit the position at the end of May. Musk earlier said Trump would not have won the Nov. 5 election without his help. He contributed an estimated $250 million to Trump's campaign effort. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk said Thursday morning in a post on X. Musk has criticized the proposed "one big, beautiful" federal government budget bill as increasing the nation's debt and negating his work with DOGE. The entrepreneur opposes the spending bill that the House has passed and is before the Senate because it removed tax credits and subsidies for buying EVs, Trump claimed. "I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done that months ago," Trump said in a subsequent Truth Social post on Thursday afternoon. "This is one of the greatest bills ever presented to Congress," he continued. "It's a record cut in expenses, $1.6 trillion dollars, and the biggest tax cut ever given." If the measure is not passed, Trump said it will trigger a 68% tax increase, "and things far worse than that." The president said the "easiest way to save money ... is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts" with Tesla. Later on Thursday, Musk in an X post said it is "time to drop the really big bomb" on the president. Trump "is in the Epstein files," Musk said. "That is the real reason they have not been made public." Musk did not say in what context Trump allegedly appears in the Epstein files, but ended his post with: "Have a nice day, DJT!" He made a subsequent post that asks: "Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?" Trump and Musk often appeared together at high-profile events in the first four months of the administration.

Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order

Associated Press

time8 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order

BOSTON (AP) — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially.' Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'

Trump's AI czar says UBI-style cash payments are 'not going to happen'
Trump's AI czar says UBI-style cash payments are 'not going to happen'

Business Insider

time18 minutes ago

  • Business Insider

Trump's AI czar says UBI-style cash payments are 'not going to happen'

Americans probably won't be getting a universal basic income as long as President Donald Trump's AI czar has a say in the matter. David Sacks, the cofounder of Craft Ventures and a member of the so-called " PayPal Mafia," which includes Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, is now a top White House policy advisor for AI. It's an important role as rapid advances in AI bring about generational changes in how the world lives and works. The technology is already reshaping the job market, as chatbots like ChatGPT begin to do the work of entry-level employees. Those at the forefront of the AI revolution have long warned about the risk AI poses to jobs, and have called for a universal basic income to soften the blow. A UBI is a government program that distributes no-strings-attached checks to all residents to spend how they please. Numerous cities and states are already experimenting with its humble cousin, a guaranteed basic income, which distributes checks to specific populations in need. The idea has a long history, and support for these kinds of programs has skyrocketed at the local level in recent years. Any consideration of a basic income at the federal level, however, will likely have to wait. Sacks is not a fan. The AI czar said on X this week that such government "welfare" is a "fantasy." "The future of AI has become a Rorschach test where everyone sees what they want. The Left envisions a post-economic order in which people stop working and instead receive government benefits," Sacks wrote. "In other words, everyone on welfare. This is their fantasy; it's not going to happen." Although reports from recipients who participate in basic income programs are overwhelmingly positive, they have faced political pushback. Last year, Republicans in Arizona voted to ban basic income programs in the state, and similar opposition efforts have gained traction in Iowa, Texas, and South Dakota. Lawmakers in several states have argued that the checks increase reliance on the government and dissuade recipients from working. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman helped fund one of the largest basic income studies, which found, in part, that it encouraged recipients to work harder. Elon Musk, who until recently was the face of Trump's effort to reduce government spending, has said a basic income will likely play a role in future economies as AI continues to rapidly develop. Sacks' comments came as another prominent AI leader, Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis, called for not just a universal basic income, but a "universal high income" at SXSW in London this week. When asked about AI's impact on jobs, Hassabis said there would be a "huge amount of change," but that "new, even better" jobs could replace affected positions and boost productivity. "Beyond that, we may need things like universal high income or some way of distributing all the additional productivity that AI will produce in the economy," Hassabis said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store