Previous poll Next poll
Should a “Botax” be imposed on vanity procedures such as breast implants, face lifts, tummy tucks and Botox injections?
| Response | Percent | Votes | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 58% | 410 | |
| No | 37% | 261 | |
| Not sure | 3% | 26 | |
| Total | 697 | ||
Top ads RSS
- NAVY RESERVE Serve part-time. No military exp needed. Paid training ...
- RETIREMENT COMMUNITY Dining Services Cook/ Supervisor Dining Services Aide We ...
- IT Project Manager Lead large and medium IT projects/program from ...
- Research Assistant The High Throughput Screening Lab seeks a research ...
- Tonganoxie Nursing Center Is currently hiring for the following positions: ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Feminist author featured at Kansas NOW event February 14, 2012 · 33 comments
- Drug testing for Kansas welfare recipients proposed February 14, 2012 · 80 comments
- School consolidation working group won’t pursue specific closings February 14, 2012 · 41 comments
- Brownback administration supports bill that critics say could invalidate Lawrence anti-discrimination ordinance February 14, 2012 · 26 comments
- Two Lawrence police department employees suspended, pending investigation February 14, 2012 · 92 comments
- Statehouse Live: "Rubber stamp" incident over abortion bill generates more comment February 14, 2012 · 37 comments
- Property owner claims in lawsuit Overbrook man cut $50,000 worth of trees for firewood February 14, 2012 · 26 comments
- Blog: What Is The Matter With Liberal Kansans? February 13, 2012 · 45 comments
- On the street: Do you ever watch or listen to public broadcasting? February 10, 2012 · 73 comments
- Poll: Did you get a Valentine today? February 13, 2012 · 13 comments
- Town Talk: Minsky's to open in downtown Lawrence; renderings for 31st and Iowa apartments; East Lawrence coffee house up for approval February 14, 2012
- Toughened up, Jeff Withey ‘fabulous’ February 14, 2012
- Flory dairy farm selling equipment, taking on different work after 60 years February 12, 2012
- Two Lawrence police department employees suspended, pending investigation February 14, 2012
- Business dean talks customer service February 14, 2012
- Debate starts in Kansas Legislature on illegal immigration February 13, 2012
- Property owner claims in lawsuit Overbrook man cut $50,000 worth of trees for firewood February 14, 2012
- Sisters, family: Surviving Clutter daughters hope to preserve their parents' legacy April 4, 2005
- Jeff Withey named Oscar Robertson national player of the week February 14, 2012
- Notebook: Jeff Withey 1 block short of triple-double February 14, 2012
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
KUgrad09 (anonymous) says…
Just another way to tax the rich....
KS (anonymous) says…
Quit spending and quit taxing. Good grief folks.
sustainabilitysister (anonymous) says…
The rich need to be taxed more
OonlyBonly (anonymous) says…
"Tax the rich, feed the poor
until there are no rich no more"
Ten Years After
Then who do you tax?
workinghard (anonymous) says…
This tax seems to single out women, how about including a special tax for Viagra and other drugs like it also since they probably contribute to population growth. A bit of sarcasm here, don't get upset.
monkeyhawk (anonymous) says…
Though I am pro-choice, abortion is generally an elective procedure, so it seems hypocritical that in one of the latest bills it would be covered, not taxed.
Boeing (anonymous) says…
Why must we tax every single thing these days?
Hoots (anonymous) says…
I pay tax on food and clothing which are things I can't do without. Usually these things are done out of vanity and are a luxury. Usually luxury items are taxed. If someone needs a breast to be whole again that would be a totally different story.
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
This tax seems to single out beautiful people, how about including a special tax for ugliness??
or
This tax seems to single out Rich people, how about including a special tax for poor people.
or
This tax seems to single out People with complexion issues, how about including a special tax for people with clear skin
or
This tax seems to single out people with droopy cheeks, how about including a special tax for people with tight cheeks (on the face, we would never want to tax a person for having a nice Keister).
or
This tax seems to single out old wrinkly people, how about including a special tax for young tight skinned people?
mjwgoku (anonymous) says…
Tax people for making themselves look better? Just another way to hunt the rich. And who says the rich are getting these procedures?! What about those who are getting these procedures due to injuries or illnesses.
RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Ronaldo Ignacio) says…
This tax seems to single out old wrinkly people, how about including a special tax for young tight skinned people?
Don't worry, to pay for everything, the government will end up with a national sales tax in addition to income taxes, and the 11% excise tax I pay on ammo.
They got you covered.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
"Tax everything I don't personally approve of."
Isn't that what this is really about?
merrill (anonymous) says…
If these procedures are not necessary perhaps out of pocket payments would be best. Or buy insurance coverage to cover
procedures for folks who are not happy with the cards that they have been dealt.
Eliminating these procedures of choice is but one means that allows National Health Insurance to save billions of dollars.
Thus consumers could purchase HR 676 National Health Insurance which would cover every person 24/7 for all necessary medical care including:
*long term care such that cancer demands
*prescription drugs
* hospital
* surgical
* outpatient services
* primary and preventive care
* emergency services
* dental
* mental health
* home health
* physical therapy
* rehabilitation (including for substance abuse)
* vision care
* hearing services including hearing aids
* chiropractic
* durable medical equipment
* palliative care
* long term care.
A family of four making the median income of $56,200 would pay about $2,700 annually for all health care costs with National Health Insurance. The only best buy available.
National Health Insurance ends deductibles and co-payments.
National Health Insurance for All
http://www.healthcare-now.org/
Doctors for Single Payer
http://www.pnhp.org/
Organizations and Government Bodies Endorsing HR 676
http://www.pnhp.org/action/organizati...
Health Care In the USA
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/health...
National Health Insurance does not remove competition from the actual health care industry. It will be alive and well. Profits will be based on customer service and clinic performance based on the clients experience. This is my perception of competition.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
What's the difference between HR 676 and a peach pit lodged in a mandrill's bowels?
The peach pit has a chance of being passed.
MacHeath (anonymous) says…
I just want to make sure folks know that botox has other uses, other than cosmetic. Folks with severe spasticity get botox injections to relive the painful and crippling muscle cramps.
I know thats a little off-subject, but I had a friend question a neurologist's reasons for giving botox injections. He just did't know...
mjwgoku (anonymous) says…
Snap, you are on a roll today. Good stuff.
9070811 (anonymous) says…
no! What kind stupid tax is this? It's freaking body modification surgery. People aren't satisfied with their current bodies so we should tax them? It doesn't matter if you're against the whole idea of body modification. Hate it if you want. But a tax on it is outrageous. It doesn't make sense.
kmat (anonymous) says…
There are a lot of vain people with money that could pay a little more in taxes if they feel they need to have surgery to improve their looks. My grandmother-in-law in Cali has had numerous face lifts, boob lift, etc.... and is loaded. They should tax her for all of he cosmetic procedures.
People getting procedures done for medical reasons should be exempt (botox for migraines, breast implants after a mastectomy, etc....).
I don't understand how someone with money can go and get cosmetic work done and then have a problem paying a little tax so the more needy amoungst us can get basic health care services. Those that think basic health care is a privaledge and not a right have their heads screwed on wrong.
"Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers that you do unto me also."
AnnaUndercover (Anna Undercover) says…
This isn't already taxed? As if women's pocketbooks aren't getting nailed on everything beauty-related already, I'd like to see far more money channeled toward protecting and supporting the health and freedoms of women. We have "new" (or increasing) issues to better address, as well: violence against both genders perpetrated by women.
autie (anonymous) says…
If'n they gonna tax them cosmetic things I think it is only fair to impose a Smilin' Bob tax. People are stupid enough to buy those pills, they ought to be stupid enough to pay a huge tax on them.
Calliope877 (anonymous) says…
Why not just tax stupid people?
LloydDobbler (anonymous) says…
You mean stupid people who get botox treatments and tummy tucks? Yes, by all means. Tax the hell out of it.
Hallen (anonymous) says…
I agree kmat...
It's not about taxing the rich until they have nothing left, it's about those with more making a few sacrifices to help those with less. What happened to compassion for your fellow human?
thefisherman (anonymous) says…
Effing liberals and your taxes. If you want a system where everybody is on a level financial playing field, find a communist country to live in.
Where I come from, if you earn money, it's yours. People with more shouldn't be responsible for supporting those with less. We all pay our taxes (except strippers and wait staff, but that's another discussion). Should there be a special tax on big screen flat panel TV's, since people who buy them must have more money than everyone else? How about a special tax on steaks? Only rich people eat steak, right?
Who's to say the 'rich' people who get botox aren't already giving to charity? Oh, right, it isn't a charity you benefit from, I get it. Tax them, that way the money will be distributed 'fairly' through the system. Marxists.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
Perhaps they can tax my haircuts. I'm going to Italy next spring, tax my vacation, perhaps?
This is getting beyond ridiculous. Don't get me started on having to pay tax at the mechanic! Why the hell is the government benefiting from my misfortune? I'd like to know just how much it supposedly takes to fund our federal government, just the overhead. I'm tired of gettin......whoops.
Easy, easy, find a happy place.......
vinividivici (anonymous) says…
monkeyhawk (Anonymous) says…
Though I am pro-choice, abortion is generally an elective procedure, so it seems hypocritical that in one of the latest bills it would be covered, not taxed
.......in theory, one could also argue that giving birth is an elective procedure. So is chemotherapy, going to a psychiatrist, and getting dentures? There are alternatives to all of those; shall we tax those too?
ljreader (anonymous) says…
Make this tax retroactive, and Nancy Pelosi can pay off the national debt.