Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

  Final thoughts on the material we discussed yesterday.  I no longer identify as an anarcho-capitalist, or even as a libertarian, so I will not affect outrage over the very existence of an excise tax on tanning services.  I will say, though, perhaps with the old instincts kicking in, that there seems to have been an underlying notion when the tax was conceived that the transaction is a suspect one, for public health reasons, and that if some of it is deterred in this way ... well and good. And I still dislike that sort of attitude.  I suspect the general public is well aware that tanning -- at a beach or in a salon -- carries risk of skin cancer.  An adult patronizing a salon is making an informed choice, "yes I am somewhat increasing the risk of cancer, but I'm gonna look really good!"  One is or ought to be free to make that choice. One is or ought to be free to sell services to people who have made that choice. So ... I can see value in Senator Rand Pau...

This seems odd, but no more odd than so much else that is going on around us.  The tanning salon tax may seem a rather small piece in the giant jigsaw of US fiscal issues, but it may prove monumental this year.  It was also only a rather small piece of the legislation in which it first arose, the Affordable Care Act, passed by Congress in 2010 and signed by President Barack Obama. Pne provision there requires that tanning salons using ultraviolet lamps pay an excise tax. The real reason for this was that the guesstimated revenue from that tax made the numbers come out right. The purported reason was that salons cause skin cancer so it is fair to use the proceeds from such a tax to support healthcare programs.   The tax, 10% of the charge, is imposed on consumers by the shops in the same manner as a state sales tax, and the salon pays it to the US Treasury quarterly.      The Trump budget bill, in the firm in which it was unveiled by the Ways and Means ...