. . . and then they came for my tanning beds . . .

[Just_A_Guy]

Congress is contemplating a 10% tax on tanning salons.

I find it hard to get too worked up over this, but I thought it was interesting and mildly amusing.

[Taldarin]

No objections here. =)

[pam]

This comment on the article:

Let’s say that I approve of the very rough outline of this bill, but I am outraged at all the pork and obfuscation

Did a former member of the site post here? hahaha Sorry I couldn't resist.

But seriously..I don't use the services so doesn't bother me.

[NeuroTypical]

My crotchety old WWII vet dad hated tanning salons. He just couldn't for the life of him, understand how such a thin wispy girl could tan a deer hide.

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

Not that I've ever used one, or would ever want to, but I'm wondering if there's any point at all to this besides trying to tax people more.

[Dravin]

Not that I've ever used one, or would ever want to, but I'm wondering if there's any point at all to this besides trying to tax people more.

Is there ever? Maybe I'm cynical.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Dravin

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

Is there ever? Maybe I'm cynical.

Well, taxes that go into funding schools and etc. That makes sense.

[Dravin]

Well, taxes that go into funding schools and etc. That makes sense.

Well considering the current US debt increasing tax revenue makes perfect sense. Not that my hopes that the money will find its way anywhere near our lenders are particularly high. :)

[RachelleDrew]

Of course, the government taxes everything that I like to do. Why don't they tax something I hate for once? Like football or bad designer purse knockoffs?

Bah, humbug.

[MarginOfError]

What I don't understand is why the government isn't taxing black market sales. A 10% surtax on all black market sales would probably alleviate a lot of our problems. HellO-o!

</weak attempt at humor>

[Moksha]

Good thing I am over my tanning days. Hey did you know that stuff can give you cancer! Good to tax cancer causing agents.

[john doe]

Good thing I am over my tanning days. Hey did you know that stuff can give you cancer! Good to tax cancer causing agents.

Next up: A Sun Tax. Because we all know that the earth's relationship with the sun causes the climate to change. Okay, everyone except Al Gore.

[Dravin]

Good thing I am over my tanning days. Hey did you know that stuff can give you cancer! Good to tax cancer causing agents.

[boyando]

Here is a copy of an e-mail sent to local town councils. It is a rebutal to a Tribune article, that I can no longer find. I am posting the whole e-mail here, instead of linking too it, for security reasons. You may want to notice how Salt Lake County, cleverly called it a fee, so they could tax Churches.

Everyone,

There have been a lot of things being said out there in regard to the Unified Police District and the proposed fee to be assessed to the homeowners and businesses of the unincorporated areas. Some of it is true. A lot of it was presented with no context as to how UPD came up with this fee, or why a fee is being used in lieu of assessing a property tax. Given many of the concerns I’ve heard today have everything to do with this lack of context, I’ve prepared this information in hope of giving those of you who read it the necessary information to understand where we have been, why things look the way they look; and why the UPD chose this path to get itself funded.

Overview

Under the old funding structure, we paid for our policing services through the municipal services fund. The fund received its revenues from the local option sales tax and the property tax. If you go back far enough (prior to UFA), we used to pay for our fire protection from this fund, too. In 2004, by request of the public and contract cities, we moved fire out of the competition with the other municipal services and gave it its own dedicated funding stream with the establishment of UFA. Due to a robust economy, the property tax increment needed to fully fund UFA was transferred from the municipal services fund. There was no tax increase to notice; and no funding discussions to be had.

The establishment of UPD is the next step towards completing the move of our emergency services away from the competition for funds with other county municipal service departments; and away from the effects of the economic and political volatility of sales tax. In the long run, we will all benefit from this transition as the service area inevitably grows, costs are further spread to reduce the cost to homeowners, emergency services are better allocated during times of need; and crime fighting is done on a more unified platform.

Even though you may not believe it right now, the transition to UPD has already saved us 6% over 2009’s costs. By the sheer reduction in administrative costs for setting up the contracts with the cities that were contracting with the Sheriff, and will now be contracting with the UPD, the Sheriff and the board were able to realize a 6% cost reduction with no reduction in our level of service. This reduction in costs was calculated into overall costs and formulas that were used to come up with the fee. The fee was spread evenly across the contracts; so the cities are going to be paying the same prices we are and will be served by the same level of service model that we are served under.

Now to answer the question…

• Q - Why the fee and so high?

• A- The fee being proposed is the lowest cost of the funding options that were available. The old funding system of the municipal services fund was heavily reliant on the use of sales taxes to pay for our policing services. Over the last 2 years, the Mayor and Council have used some of the reserves in the municipal services fund to fill the funding gaps in our services and maintain our level of service. This was not an option for them for 2010. If we had stayed on the old funding structure, we would have paid more than the proposed fee (around $300 on a $262,000 house for 2010), due to the loss of sales tax revenues. Given the forecasts and challenges to sales taxes for the municipal services fund for the next 5 years; the choice to use a mixed funding stream (sales tax / property tax) was not a viable option.
• The fee will save us hundreds of dollars a year and has the following reasons for savings:

i. The fee is spread over everyone. Unlike property taxes that have exemptions for non-profits, governmental entities, churches and the like, this fee will be paid by all which helps reduce the costs to homeowners.

ii. The fee is distributed disproportionately. To minimize the costs to individual homeowners, the fee was spread heavier to those businesses and housing types who tend to use the services more. Multiple unit housing, and business types who generate the calls will be paying a higher fee. The Trib article outlines their costs.

iii. In the overall scheme of things, our costs for our services will still be lower than the cities. I don’t know if this can be said enough - an increase was coming – the question was where and now we know. I know I’ve tried for the last year and a half to prepare you for this reality. In the short run, it may look like some of the cities are going to have lower costs; but don’t let the here and now fool you. The cities haven’t had the discussions we are having now. When it comes to increases, we (the unincorporated county) got to have this discussion first. The cities will not have their budget discussions until late April and into May. Given many of the sale tax funding reports I’ve seen from the cities over the last 12 months, every last one of them is going to be having a more expensive discussion for their residents than this one. All of them have been using their reserves – just like us, to fund their operations; and they don’t have the money in the well to go back there again for 2010-2011. They will be passing increases. There will be no exceptions and some of their increases will be considerably higher than this increase we are having considered by the UPD board.

iv. The UPD board is working on a fee abatement process for those homeowners who cannot afford to pay the fee. The board realizes there are a significant number of folks out there to whom this fee is a fiscal non-starter. In short, they simply don’t have the income to pay it. This is why the board is working to set up a program where the fee can be reduced or eliminated for these people.

To say we walked into an economic disaster to kick this off would be an understatement. How we fund going forward is a point of discussion you can have with the UPD board at their meeting on Wednesday January 6th at the Sheriff’s Administration Building (Southeast corner of 3300 South and 900 West) at 6:00PM.

I hope this helps answer the questions. If you have additional questions, let me know.

Thanks

Greg Schulz

West Township Representative

Serving the Townships of Copperton, Kearns, Magna, and White City

[Guest]

But seriously..I don't use the services so doesn't bother me.

It should if it bothers you for services you DO use.

That's the problem we're encountering with HR669. Most people do not care for snakes so they don't care about the bill either. They don't realize the impact this is going to have on the pet trade as a whole. That's what Congress is banking on - that they can start on something that not many people care about to get it snuck in and get a foot-hold.