• Tweet

• Tweet

Well, Ben Franklin said it best, but I’ll say it again: the only things certain in life are death and taxes.  Since I love to write about personal finance and all things money related, let’s get down to talking about taxes.  Instead of regaling you again with advice and money-saving ideas for next April’s tax season, let’s analyze some of the recent lifestyle-related changes in taxation and how they might affect you.

I think I’m going to be hard-pressed to find someone that responds “no,” but do you adore foods like pizza?  How about soft drinks (or pop to us Midwesterners)?  Enjoy the sun?  If you answered “yes” to any of the above, you may notice a slight drain in your savings in the future.

As a disclaimer, when I said sun, I was referring to the artificial type that is often associated with the cast of Jersey Shore.  If you’re a tan-aholic, chances are you’ve probably noticed the recent spike in indoor bronzing prices (unless you’re one of the 8 members of the fist-pumping and hair gel crazed aforementioned crew).

But where did this all originate?  And why tanning?  It stems from the Obama administration’s $940 billion health care overhaul as a signal from the government that we should take our well being a tad bit more seriously (and of course, to raise a little money towards that massive chunk of change I mentioned).  The imposed 10% tax on indoor tanning is expected to generate $2.7 billion over a period of ten years, bearing in mind the average salon customer spends $15-20 per visit.  The government says tanning is unhealthy, so if we want to treat ourselves to looking less than pasty we’ve got to cough up the dough.

If you haven’t learned about the harmful effects of tanning, listen up: baking under the lights can lead to skin cancer, melanoma, and premature aging (yes, even if you don’t typically burn).  Now I’ll admit to paying numerous visits to the tanning shop (it’s not too easy to keep a tan in the Michigan winter), but I’ve vowed to not step foot in one during the upcoming chilly season because I’m nervous about the consequences.  There are plenty of great self-tanning products that won’t set you back more than $10, which is much less than a membership at a salon (and the price of the health concerns)!

You’re still wondering how delicious junk food and soft drinks come into this equation, right?  While advances have been made to tax butter, milk, cheese, pizza, meat, oil, and processed food in Denmark, legislation for a 10% tax is currently under serious consideration in thriving areas like New York City and Philadelphia.  Once again, it’s part of an initiative to improve health and reduce the percentage of obese Americans, which currently weighs in at 64%.

In 2009, Alabama instated a penalty for its state workers, requiring those considered obese by sanctioned BMI screenings to fork over an additional $25 in monthly health insurance premiums.  Is it fair to impose these costs on those who are overweight?  And how are genetic circumstances factored in?  There are many questions since it’s still a debatable topic in the southern state, but officials believe it will increase awareness of risk factors for heightened cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose levels.

It may seem silly to tax things that we should be able to indulge in as we please, yet the government has already been applying excise taxation on items like alcohol and tobacco for decades.  At the time, it likely came off as an invasion of American’s basic rights, but by now we’re well versed in the harmful effects of tobacco and alcohol on the body.  Between 1981 and 1998, five studies showed that drinking declined as the price of alcohol increased.  Additionally, a 1988-1993 study on tobacco use in California found that the tax decreased use by 27%.

Imagine the drop in sedentary lifestyles, childhood obesity, and risk for disease the nation would see if the tanning and junk food taxes produced a similar outcome.  Researchers believe that an 18% tax on considerably fattening food and drinks has the propensity to reduce daily intake by 56 calories per person, leading to a five-pound drop in weight per year.

I suppose the taxation on junk foods and tanning won’t directly affect everyone.  I mean, if I really want to eat some fries from McDonalds, then go get a tan immediately after, I’m going to do so regardless of a little bit of tax added on top of my bill.  The government is rallying to convince us otherwise, but sometimes the juice is worth the squeeze, or in this case the tacos (or tanning) might be worth the tax.

What else do you think the government should consider taxing?  What’s your stance on the debate?  Tell us your thoughts!

Stephanie Koske is a writer for Quicken Loans, an amazing place to work. Find out more about being a part of our team at Quicken Loans and learn how we Amaze our clients.

 Printer Friendly Version