Tanning Tax on Track to Collect Less than Half of Projected Revenue

by Tom Steward

It’s that time of year again.  Thousands of Minnesotans begin implementing evacuation plans to temporarily relocate somewhere south and warm.  Before embarking, many make a preemptive appointment in a tanning facility to ramp up their exposure to ultra violet (UV) rays in advance. This winter, however, traveling tanners will have to look harder for a place to catch some rays — and not just in the frozen north.

Fourteen percent of indoor tanning facilities in Minnesota have gone out of business since 2009, according to the Indoor Tanning Association (ITA).  The number of professional indoor tanning salons registered with ITA in Minnesota has plummeted from 477 to 419 in less than two years. In the industry’s view, it’s no coincidence the store closures and layoffs came so soon after the federal government targeted tanning salons for tax hikes. “Once again we have our government trying to control our behavior,” said John Overstreet of the Indoor Tanning Association.  “You can’t just pick out an industry because someone views them some way and try to tax them into submission. That’s just crazy.”

While the economic downturn has undercut consumers’ discretionary spending, the industry places more blame on the ten percent excise tax imposed as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  The one—two punch of the untimely health care act tax and sour economy wiped out 16 percent of tanning parlors nationwide — a loss of 3,100 businesses and 24,000 jobs.  Three-quarters of tanning operations are owned by women which is three times the national average for other businesses.

“Basic economics tells you that you can’t tack ten percent on your prices without affecting demand. They’ve seen people cancel their packages, it’s definitely impacted demand and the number of customers and profitability of these businesses,” Overstreet told the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota. The tanning tax took effect in July 2010, the first tax imposed under the Obama administration’s health care reform legislation with 81 new IRS agents to enforce it. Congress estimated the excise tax on the estimated 25,000 professional tanning salons in business back then would generate $2.7 billion in revenue over ten years. The tax has raised about $37 million in the first half of the current fiscal year, putting it on course to generate less than half the $200 million in revenue projected by the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation for the first full year of collections.

Read the rest here.

Previous Posts by chessNwine

8 Responses to Tanning Tax on Track to Collect Less than Half of Projected Revenue

T-Bird says:

God forbid, we tax something that massively increases the chances of somebody getting skin cancer (and subsequently costing tax payers more money when they get sick on medicare).

What’s next, massive taxes on cigarettes?!

Woodshedder says:

T-bird, you can tax whatever you want. The point is, it doesn’t work. It has never worked. People find ways to avoid the taxes, or the businesses just close down. This is a good case in point. The tanning tax will never collect what the gov’t projected, and the lost revenue to support Obamacare will have to be gotten from somewhere else, likely another tax.

I suppose you would not be opposed to tax equal to a percentage of the time they spend outside?

T-Bird says:

My point is that, I personally do not have a problem with sin taxes. I wasnt refering to where the revenue goes. People are always going to drink, gamble, smoke, etc. But if their behavior ultimately costs government and society more, then we should make them carry more of a burden in the form of a (moderately higher) tax.

You can still choose to go to a tanning bed, I dont want them outlawed or anything crazy, just be willing to pay more if you go. Tanning Salons cause cancer, I have no smypathy if they go under because of a tax. They sell bullshit.

Woodshedder says:

Where does it stop, T-Bird? One person’s sin may be sanctity to another person.

If we are now going to tax people based on whether their behavior costs government and society more, then why don’t we tax going to the beach? How about hiking in Wilderness areas? What about people who eat a lot of candy?

fake amish says:

no shit wood. the nanny state asshats will always find a “sin”. it will never stop. obviously these idiots have never run a business or ever intended too.

T-Bird says:

So people cant figure out how to tax things differently? Does that mean you are in favor of a flat income tax?


Major US US Futures Europe Asia Commodities 2yr Euro Yields 10yr Euro Yields Oil
  • DOW 15,567.70 0.14%
  • NASDAQ 3,579.27 -0.59%
  • S&P 500 1,692.39 -0.19%
  • VIX 12.66 3.01%
  • SPX 500 (CFD) 1,693.90 0.09%
  • DOW (CFD) 15,578.00 0.07%
  • NASDAQ 100 3,046.10 0.48%
  • EURUSD 1.319 -0.21%
  • UK 6,597.44 -0.39%
  • GERMANY 8,314.23 -0.20%
  • FRANCE 3,923.09 -0.43%
  • SPAIN 8,073.70 1.35%
  • H. KONG 21,931.00 0.07%
  • JAPAN 14,737.00 -0.28%
  • KOREA 1,912.08 0.42%
  • SHANGHAI 2,031.88 -0.59%
  • NAT GAS 4.16 -0.46%
  • GOLD 1,230.50 0.07%
  • SILVER 18.65 0.31%
  • COPPER 3.07 0.79%
  • FRANCE 2YR 0.19 -10.90%
  • GERMAN 2YR 0.14 34.65%
  • ITALIAN 2YR 2.18 27.59%
  • SPAIN 2YR 2.81 8.21%
  • FRANCE 10YR 2.21 1.10%
  • GERMAN 10YR 1.55 -0.32%
  • ITALIAN 10YR 4.37 1.30%
  • SPAIN 10YR 4.69 1.69%
  • WTI 107.17 -0.06%
  • BRENT 108.28 -0.13%
  • WTI/BRENT 1.11