. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is leading the way on the initiative, which would add a 5% tax on all elective cosmetic procedures.
...any procedure that is directed at improving the patient's appearance and does not meaningfully promote the proper function of the body or prevent or treat illness or diseases.
So, if you need a nose job to correct your breathing problems, you're probably fine—but it's unclear where this tax would draw the line. For example, if you're a burn victim, you don't technically
need the plastic surgery that could help alleviate your scars, but it certainly seems less frivolous than your typical breast augmentation.
NY Daily News interviewed one woman looking to get a tummy tuck for $6000 to $9000, to which the tax would add an extra $300 to $450.
That's kind of a lot of money, but advocates of the tax argue that people who can find thousands of dollars to nip and tuck the appropriate areas should have no problem coughing up an extra several hundred. Then again, a lot of plastic surgery patients are lower or middle class and have to save for years to afford their desired procedures.
The BoTax money would help fund the government's $848 billion health care bill. But if you think that's lame, check out the protest site at
www.stopbotax.org.
Do you think a BoTax is fair? Image Source
Comments (8)
I absolutely think it's fair. To put cosmetic surgery in the same class as as, say, an appendectomy is absurd. One is for looks, the other is to save a life. I think it's entirely reasonable for people who get cosmetic surgery to pay a tax that makes it possible for other people to pay less on the surgeries that are actually life-threatening, and in which they have no choice- except dying!
This kind of imbalance is all too common, and I support anything that puts it in better perspective. It's the same unfairness we see when paramedics, police officers, and firefighters get paid a measly 20K-40K a year, while entertainment and sports figures are raking it in by the millions... and getting cosmetic treatments as frequently as you and I see a dentist. It doesn't necessarily all have to be equal, but a little more focus on what's really important would be nice.
Well, yea. A lot of cosmetic procedures are a luxury not a necessity, but would this tax somehow hurt those who are transgender and seeking surgery? I hope not. :(
Congress wants to tax everything. The two comments above astound me. They take the pretense that some group has the inherent right to interfere in your life, make things more expensive, and out-right steal from you. Their's isn't the question of what government should be allowed to tax, but in what realms of existence are nice for the government to "allow" us to spend without their middle-men taking a cut. You're both slaves.
I do think it is fair. Other services are taxed, why should this not be for elective surgeries?
However, it is important to consider things like burn victims. Or even people who have their breast tissue removed because of breast cancer. Having reconstructive surgery is not necessary, but something that many women opt for. Should that surgery be taxed as well because it is elective?
Yes, I think its fair. However, I think that they need to tighten up the language of it a little more, so that its more obvious what is and is not considered elective. That language leaves way too much of a gray area for people to get screwed over.
I think it's fair.
And as for burn victims, you can argue that if they don't get scar tissues removed, then they will suffer psychological damage because other people will avoid them or make fun of them. Although, I guess that is a slippery slope...
Lace Wigs
Wedding Dresses
This tax propsoal is absurd. It would be impossible to administer since it would be a HIPPA violation for the state auditors to review patients charts. Collecting would cost more than it brings. This has been proven by New Jeresy a state that is currently trying to repeal the tax. think before you speak folks. This tax proposal is ill planned.