I would tax these. Hard.
If you are vain, or know someone who is, then this story might affect you. Personally, I’m against the latest proposal to tax breast implants, tummy tucks, wrinkle-smoothing injections and other elective cosmetic surgeries if for no other reason than because some smarmy columnist had the bright idea to coin it the “Botax” and now we all have to live with that smug pun. Second, we seem to have reached a point in society where they’re just making up s*** to tax. And lest you think I’m being cynical, I quote from Senator Harry Reid’s spokesman, Jim Manley, as to the origins of such a random tax, “We needed money to make the bill work.”
I have to say, the cosmetic surgeons aren’t exactly putting up a compelling fight. Their argument is basically that the point of the Democratic proposal is to hit ”wealthy, suburban Republican women” the hardest but the Senators misunderstand that those aren’t the surgeons’ primary clientele. Rather, one should pity the “many newly jobless women [who] look for ways to make themselves more marketable to prospective employers…They’re competing with people 10 to 15 years younger than them and they want to look better.” So says Dr. Phil Haeck, president-elect of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. These are, after all, challenging economic times, and “These women come in, they’ve lost their jobs, they don’t have the money for a facelift.”
It makes me sad to think that someone who just lost her job might be able to scrape together $5,000 from her rainy-day fund to afford a facelift ($5,031 average cost: link opens directly to a .pdf) but somehow couldn’t possibly scrounge up another $250 if pressed; but it makes me even sadder that a newly-unemployed individual with $5,000 in his or her pocket would think his or her next best move in life would be to walk past the job re-training office and instead seek out the nearest plastic surgeon.
The good news is that the original plan was for a 10% tax, so we can all breathe a sigh of relief that the measure currently being debated is only 5%. It would provide an exemption for deformities and injuries, but does include procedures such as face lifts, liposuction, cosmetic implants, and teeth-whitening (from what I can tell, 90% of all internet advertising is for teeth-whitening, so if you wanted to tax something, tax those freaking ads!). I’m unimpressed with the amount projected to be raised: $6 Billion over 10 years. At just $600M per year, that barely makes a blip on our Official Ledger here at PopEconomy! but I give them points for trying.
(I will have to decide whether or not to enter this item into the Ledger, since the “Tit Tax” is specifically proposed to offset the cost of HealthCare Reform, whereas I am attempting to pay down the Federal Deficit. I am also aware, lest anyone point it out before I do, that you can’t necessarily straight-line these costs over 10 years. In other words, it’s not particularly accurate to state that the “Tit Tax” will raise exactly $600M each and every year for 10 years. It may start very small, and accelerate, or vice-versa. The CBO will have that level of detail, and I haven’t seen it yet for this section of the Bill. If you want to go that deep, you can find them at www.cbo.gov. But really, come on. Relax. Scroll up and look at those boobs again. Isn’t that a better use of your time?)
