Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. -- Ronald Reagan
Navigate

Blog Home

NTU Home Page

Blog FAQs

About "Government Bytes!"

Support NTU

 
Subscribe
Sign up with NTU's Taxpayer Action Center





 
Blog Contributors
Aleksander Danilov
Guest Blogger

Andrew Moylan
Director of Government Affairs

Dan Barrett
Policy Analyst

David Keating
Senior Counselor

Demian Brady
Senior Policy Analyst

Elizabeth Terrell
Guest Blogger

Jeff Dircksen
Director of Congressional Analysis

Jordan Forbes
Federal Government Affairs Manager

Joshua Culling
State Government Affairs Manager

Kristina Rasmussen
Guest Blogger

Kristine Tuinstra
State Policy Analyst

NTU Gov
Government Affairs & Communications Associate

Paul Gessing
Guest Blogger

Pete Sepp
Vice President for Communications

Rachael Slobodien
Communications Manager

Ross Kaminsky
Blogger

Sam Batkins
Guest Blogger

Tom Horne
Policy Associate

Send to a Friend
Email:
Send to Friend
The Official Blog of National Taxpayers Union

Nip, Tuck, Tax

Posted by Jeff Dircksen - June 01, 2005

The Wall Street Journal (paid registration require) reports that a bad idea just won't die. (Here's a report from earlier this year.)
A number of states are considering taxing certain cosmetic surgery procedures, including face-lifts, tummy-tucks and Botox injections. The idea behind the taxes -- dubbed "vanity taxes" or "Botaxes" by some -- is to boost state coffers and raise revenue for government initiatives such as health care for poor children. The proposals have stoked the ire of plastic surgeons and their patients, who have been lobbying hard to keep their procedures tax-free.

New Jersey passed the first cosmetic surgery tax law last summer. Since then, lawmakers in states including Texas, Illinois, Washington, Arkansas, Tennessee and New York have introduced bills or budget proposals to install similar taxes, although none of those states has passed the taxes into law. Legislative sessions have just ended in many states, but efforts to reintroduce the tax bills are likely to be revived in some. Proponents of the efforts say that since the taxes are levied on elective procedures, they are relatively painless ways to raise money for state programs.

This little tidbit must have caused a number of furrowed brows in Trenton:
No one knows for sure how many New Jersey patients are declining surgery or are going out of state for treatment since the law was passed. The tax hasn't generated as much revenue as New Jersey originally hoped. When the tax was signed into law last June it was expected to generate $24 million this fiscal year. The state now thinks the tax will only generate $7 million this year.

How dare these people forego surgery in New Jersey. Don't they know that it's all about the children?

Thoughts?   Add Comment -


Scott Griffith said on Jun 01 2005 at 2:25pm
Shouldn't a tax be designed to pay for a particular problem that the action being taxed generates as not to spread the burden upon the rest of society?

What burden is cosmetic surgery?


Bob said on Jun 01 2005 at 7:43pm
New Jersey residents need merely go to nearby New York, Pennsylvania, or Delaware to avoid this tax. This is exactly why tax competition is a good thing, and why state's efforts to harmonize their sales tax regimes should be bitterly opposed.