If you're considering Botox to erase frown lines or liposuction to get rid of love handles, you might want to move fast. The "botax" may be on the way.
The $848 billion health care bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., unveiled Wednesday includes a 5 percent tax on cosmetic procedures and surgeries. The tax, which would take effect in January, would raise an estimated $5 billion over the next decade to help pay for extending health care coverage to millions of Americans.
Plastic surgeons decried the proposal, saying the recession has battered their practices and they're just beginning to recover.
About 12 million cosmetic procedures and surgeries — which insurance typically doesn't cover — were performed last year, at a total cost of $10.3 billion, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. The vast majority, 10.4 million, were minimally invasive services such as Botox injections and chemical peels. The most common surgeries were breast augmentation, liposuction and tummy tucks, but all those procedures declined at double-digit rates last year.
New Jersey, where a 6 percent levy on cosmetic procedures and surgeries took effect in 2005, is the only state with such a tax. Doctors there say many patients go to neighboring New York or Pennsylvania for the most expensive procedures to avoid the tax, which has brought in about $11 million a year, only about half as much as expected.
More @ linkIf you're considering Botox to erase frown lines or liposuction to get rid of love... more
Taxing medical marijuana sales is an idea worth considering, not because it is a potential cash cow for fiscally constrained governments, but because it could raise revenue needed to cover the services the flourishing businesses will require.
But caution is in order. There are some dominoes that need to fall first.
The topic came up again last week, as Denver City Council members Chris Nevitt and Charlie Brown publicly expressed support for imposing a city sales tax on medical marijuana sales. "We've got to tax this damn thing at the city rate, which is 3.62 percent," Brown told us. "We're talking millions of dollars here."
And that may be. But some questions about legality of taxation and the future of medical marijuana have to be answered first. And we think that overall, cities such as Denver ought not look to the emerging industry as a windfall that could close budget gaps.
First, the legality of taxing the commodity is up in the air.
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers is researching the issue, and his decision will turn on whether the substance is deemed a prescription or something more like an herbal remedy.
The latter seems more likely, since marijuana isn't a drug that has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. And herbal remedies are already taxed.
Second, we don't think governments ought to take advantage of the medical marijuana laws in the way that so-called "ganjapreneurs" have been doing.
Meaning, governments would be just as wrong to reap great wads of cash from back-door legalization efforts as are the mass dispensaries, some of which are just barely pretending to be serving the most infirm among us.
Amendment 20, which passed in 2000, did not approve the legalization of marijuana in Colorado, despite the wishful thinking of some.
Furthermore, legislators are poised to address the medical marijuana issue in the upcoming session, which begins in January, and their decisions could seriously affect how medical marijuana is delivered in Colorado. (See Alicia Caldwell's article from today's Perspective section.)
If their decisions shrink the number and reach of distributors, then a basic sales tax should be enough.
But if lawmakers create a structure that encourages a broader distribution model — with attendant regulatory and service requirements — then other fees and taxes would be worth contemplating.
It would seem prudent, we think, to wait until the shape of medical marijuana is more clearly defined before settling on a taxing structure.
It's smart to get ahead of the game and contemplate the tax and revenue-generating alternatives. But we hope governments will exhibit some foresight and restraint before they make decisions they might have to revise once the medical marijuana landscape is clearly defined.
Washington lobbyists have been enjoying a multi-million-dollar sugar rush from the food industry.
Soft drink makers, supermarket companies, agriculture and the fast-food business have poured millions into campaigning against what they fear could be a burgeoning national movement to raise money for health care reform by taxing sweetened beverages.
During the first nine months of 2009, the industry groups stepped up their lobbying in Congress. They have spent more than $24 million on the issue of a national excise tax on sweetened beverages and on other legislative and regulatory issues, according to an examination of lobbying reports filed with the Senate Office of Public Records. The review shows that 21 companies and organizations reported that they lobbied specifically on the proposed tax on sugar-sweetened beverages - which among other things would include sodas, juice drinks and chocolate milk.
About $5 million of the money was spent on a national advertising campaign aimed at Capitol Hill lawmakers and promoting a newly formed coalition called Americans Against Food Taxes . The group bills itself on its website as a coalition of "responsible individuals, financially-strapped families, [and] small and large businesses" but its 400-plus membership list is dominated by industry heavyweights such as Burger King Corporation, Coca Cola, Pepsico and Domino's Pizza.
Many health officials and advocacy groups have argued for years that sugary drinks, particularly those with high-fructose corn syrup, have been key contributors to a rise in obesity rates in the United States, especially among children. Some argue that the time is right for a soda tax, which they say could not only cut consumption but also generate revenue to close state budget gaps and pay for new health care programs.
A proposal for a national excise tax on soft drinks surfaced in a May funding policy options paper during the Senate Finance Committee's deliberations on health care reform. Food lobbyists attacked then and continued their efforts in July when President Obama raised the possibility of a soda tax in an interview with Men's Health magazine. The proposal has not emerged in any of the health care reform bills still in play on Capitol Hill.
But the issue may be gaining traction in some key states. This week, California lawmakers are holding a high-profile hearing in Los Angeles to examine the link between childhood obesity and sugary drinks. In New York, Gov. David Paterson has revived the idea of a sugared beverage tax after a previous proposal was shot down by the legislature earlier this year in the face of industry opposition.
Iraqi and U.S. officials have expressed concerns about the traffic of weapons and drugs across the country's porous borders, but there is also an older and more surprising commodity being smuggled into Iraq — cadavers.
For centuries, Shiite Muslims from all over the world have sought to be buried in what might be the world's largest cemetery, in the holy city of Najaf. During the past 30 years of rebellions, invasion and war with Iran, the traffic of the dead was halted. But it is now a big business once again.
Starting Sunday, cash-strapped California will dig deeper into the pocketbooks of wage earners -- holding back 10% more than it already does in state income taxes just as the biggest shopping season of the year kicks into gear.
Technically, it's not a tax increase, even though it may feel like one when your next paycheck arrives. As part of a bundle of budget patches adopted in the summer, the state is taking more money now in withholding, even though workers' annual tax bills won't change.
Think of it as a forced, interest-free loan: You'll be repaid any extra withholding in April. Those who would receive a refund anyway will receive a larger one, and those who owe taxes will owe less.Working Link:... more
Oct. 26, 2009 | Here's the latest bold new idea for reconciling the costs of national defense with the need to avoid adding to federal deficits or raising taxes. A bipartisan coalition of "New Democrats" and moderate Republicans has proposed buying weapons for the U.S. military through the IRS rather than the Pentagon. Here's how it would work. Instead of being paid to deliver planes, missiles and tanks, defense contractors would receive "weapon supply tax credits" (WSTC). The defense contractors would be able to reduce the taxes they owed the federal government by the prices of the weapons they delivered. Because the tax credit would be refundable, if the prices exceeded a firm's annual tax liability, the IRS would send a check to the firm in the amount of the difference. In this way, the federal government could finance a massive military buildup -- and because tax credits aren't counted as part of the federal budget, for official purposes the cost of the buildup would be zero!
I had you going there for a minute, didn't I? The "weapons supply tax credit" is a joke. It was proposed some years ago by the late David Bradford, a Princeton economist who worked in the Ford and George H.W. Bush administrations. Bradford's purpose was to ridicule the growing reliance of Congresses and presidents on tax credits and other so-called tax expenditures as an alternative to ordinary spending programs funded by ordinary taxes.
The weapons supply tax credit is no crazier than the major tax expenditures that shape -- no, make that disfigure -- the political economy of early 21st century America. Instead of raising taxes to pay for universal healthcare, as many other nations do, the federal government grants a $250 billion a year tax break to employers to give them an incentive to buy healthcare for their employees. Hey, that approach really worked out well, didn't it?
And then there's America's biggest antipoverty program, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). By means of the EITC, the federal government "tops up" the wages of full-time workers who are trapped in poverty. Needless to say, this is also a massive subsidy to employers who pay poverty wages to their workers, and to consumers who buy goods and services produced by poverty-wage workers. You'd think the more straightforward approach would be to ensure that anybody who works 40 hours a week doesn't need to rely on welfare, with entry-level public employment mopping up most remaining unemployment. You'd think.Oct. 26, 2009 | Here's the latest bold new idea for reconciling the costs of national... more
State Alcohol Law Enforcement agents seized 929 gallons of moonshine Wednesday and arrested a Wilkesboro man, authorities said Friday.
Roger Lee Nance, of 1117 Shew Ridge Mission Road, was charged with possession of non-tax paid liquor, possession of non-tax-paid liquor for the purpose of selling, and possession of equipment and ingredients intended for the use in the manufacture of an alcoholic beverage.
“This is one of the biggest seizures of white liquor I’ve seen come out of the mountains in my career,” ALE Director John Ledford said in statement.
The arrest follows a two-month investigation by ALE agents, assisted by the state Highway Patrol. In addition to the liquor, large amounts of sugar and other items were seized during a search of Nance's property, authorities said.State Alcohol Law Enforcement agents seized 929 gallons of moonshine Wednesday and... more
New article in Rigzone explains how 1031 exchanges from Accruit can generate significant cash flow benefits for companies across the O&G industry.New article in Rigzone explains how 1031 exchanges from Accruit can generate... more
My answer is neither. Do the research yourself, then decide.
As for my opinion, because I know you are all so interested in it, it is a TAX that will greatly increase the pain of this recession for the majority of citizens.Which Carol Browner should we believe?
My answer is neither. Do the research... more
Case study illustrates tax and cash flow benefits of 1031 exchange for corporate and commercial real estate.Case study illustrates tax and cash flow benefits of 1031 exchange for corporate and... more
an Helfeld interviews Senator Harry Reid about redistributive taxes. Reid maintains redistributive taxes are not a problem because people are not forced to pay taxes. He says taxation is voluntary…..this is not a joke.an Helfeld interviews Senator Harry Reid about redistributive taxes. Reid maintains... more
A FL anti-abortion group wants to make the pill illegal, police in TX and ID are taking blood on the side of the road from DWI suspects, the Downsizer Dispatch, Maine outlaws all forms of distracted driving, Americans don't trust the news, and Scotland thinking about taxing bicycles for use of the road.
Several of the nation's leading health experts are calling for a tax on soda as a means of curbing America's obesity-epidemic.
Their paper, appearing in the most recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, calls for a tax on "sugar-sweetened" drinks in order to reduce the consumption of the drinks and lower health costs as well as fund government-run health programs.
"A tax on sugar-sweetened beverages is really a double-win," said Dr. David Ludwig, a co-author of the paper and director of the Optimal Weight for Life program at Children's Hospital, Boston.
"We can raise much-needed dollars while likely reducing obesity prevalence, which is a major driver of health care costs, the paper states. "Ultimately the government needs to raise more money to cover the deficit, and in terms of ways of raising that revenue, a tax on sugar sweetened beverages is really a no-brainer."
Such a tax has been proposed in the past. In a perspectives article in the New England Journal this past April, Kelly Brownell of Yale University, one of the current paper's authors, along with then-New York City health commissioner Dr. Thomas Frieden, co-authored an article advocating a tax on "sugared beverages."
Frieden has since become head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A spokesman for the CDC noted that taxing sweetened beverages is not part of the current administration's position. However, in at a conference on obesity in July of this year, Frieden responded to a question on the issue saying:
"I think anything that increases the availability and decreases the relative price of healthy foods and anything that decreases the availability and increases the price of unhealthy foods is likely to be effective. The challenge, I think, is a political one of getting that approved as well as there are very important administrative and operational issues with implementation of such a tax."
Frieden's successor in New York, Dr. Thomas Farley, is one of the authors of the current paper.
Ludwig noted that the authors focused exclusively on beverages that contained sugar, and not diet substitutes for sugar.Several of the nation's leading health experts are calling for a tax on soda as a... more
Stupidity and greed favor no political party. The Democrat’s skeleton du jour is Rep. Charlie Rangel. He’s failed to report large sums on his taxes and solicits funds on his House letterhead. Democrats shouldn’t and can’t afford to look away if the allegations are true.Stupidity and greed favor no political party. The Democrat’s skeleton du jour is... more
Writedowns of £8.9m on the value of sites pushed the company £8.6m into the red in the six months to the end of June. This compares with the profit of £9.5m this time last year. However, stripping out writedowns and other exceptional items, the housebuilder reported a £1.2m profit before tax, down from £11.7m.Writedowns of £8.9m on the value of sites pushed the company £8.6m into the red in... more
Probably not the best reason to endorse health care, but hell, opposing forces are using scary words. Titties is a nice word!Probably not the best reason to endorse health care, but hell, opposing forces are... more
President Barack Obama remains committed to not raising taxes on U.S. families earning less than $250,000 despite some conflicting statements from senior members of his economic team, the president's spokesman said Monday.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs restated the assurance after Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers appeared to leave open the possibility Obama would tap middle-class Americans' income.
"I'm going to deal with this and I'll do this one more time," Gibbs said after repeated questions from reporters about the differences between the economists and Obama. "The president was clear. He made a commitment in the campaign. That commitment stands."
Geithner and Summers sidestepped questions on Obama's intentions about taxes. Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to reduce the federal deficit; Summers said Obama's proposed health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere.
"There is a lot that can happen over time," Summers said, adding that the administration believes "it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what."
During his presidential campaign, Obama pledged "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime" and repeatedly said middle-class families would not be effected.
But the simple reality remains that his ambitious overhaul of how Americans receive health care — promised without increasing the federal deficit — must be paid for.
"If we want an economy that's going to grow in the future, people have to understand we have to bring those deficits down. And it's going to be difficult, hard for us to do. And the path to that is through health care reform," Geithner said. "We're not at the point yet where we're going to make a judgment about what it's going to take."
Those comments dominated Gibbs' daily meeting with reporters.
"The president was clear during the campaign about his commitment on not raising taxes on middle-class families," Gibbs said. "And I don't think any economist would believe that in the environment that we're in raising taxes on middle-class families would make any sense, and the president agrees."
Geithner appeared on ABC's "This Week." Summers appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" and CBS' "Face the Nation."President Barack Obama remains committed to not raising taxes on U.S. families earning... more
The recession is starving the government of tax revenue, just as the president and Congress are piling a major expansion of health care and other programs on the nation's plate and struggling to find money to pay the tab.
The numbers could hardly be more stark: Tax receipts are on pace to drop 18 percent this year, the biggest single-year decline since the Great Depression, while the federal deficit balloons to a record $1.8 trillion.
Other figures in an Associated Press analysis underscore the recession's impact: Individual income tax receipts are down 22 percent from a year ago. Corporate income taxes are down 57 percent. Social Security tax receipts could drop for only the second time since 1940, and Medicare taxes are on pace to drop for only the third time ever.
The last time the government's revenues were this bleak, the year was 1932 in the midst of the Depression.
"Our tax system is already inadequate to support the promises our government has made," said Eugene Steuerle, a former Treasury Department official in the Reagan administration who is now vice president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.
"This just adds to the problem."The recession is starving the government of tax revenue, just as the president and... more
