Stop the Anti-Anti-Aging Tax Now or Suffer Wrinkles

By Marlys Harris | Nov 24, 2009 |

Our future if we don't stop the botax

Buried in the Senate’s health care bill is a provision that will slap a 5% excise tax on plastic surgery and other cosmetic procedures including tummy tucks, botox injections, face lifts, nose bobs and even teeth-whitening.(The law won’t apply to surgery for a deformity or injury.) The “botax” is supposed to raise $6 billion or so over the next ten years to help pay for the overhaul of the nation’s health insurance system.

The proposal has sparked outrage across America, and even as I write, a strange coalition of tea-baggers — those who put them on their eyes to reduce puffiness — is preparing to converge on Washington to protest. Among them:

Women of a certain age who argue that the new tax is discriminatory. (Females comprise 86% of plastic surgery patients.) The Senate, they claim, would never, ever levy a tax on a men-only product, like, say, Viagra. Health plans, which often deny birth-control coverage to women, freely dole out erectile dysfunction drugs, often to men who merely want to be “ready.” The cost: about $3.8 billion a year. If men get their Viagra subsidized, they say, why should women have a tax liposucked out of them?

Manufacturers of wrinkle reducers, who took in more than $2 billion last year, say that the tax is a punitive strike against people who want to look good. As they point out, it’s more important to look good than to feel good.

Plastic surgeons who complain that they’ve been hard-hit by the recession. Imposing a botax will nip and tuck their incomes from the average $300,000 to $791,510 they earned in 2008. If the government imposes the new tax, they threaten, they will abandon their practices to take up more lucrative careers, maybe something at Goldman Sachs.

Baby boomers who say that they will never be able to get or keep a job without getting a little work done (on their faces, stomachs and elsewhere). And who can argue? Sure, the great majority of Americans under age 60, 50, or 40 (depending how you define non-elderly) extoll seniors for their sagacity, their endearing little anecdotes and their utter cuteness. But hire somebody with a face that looks like a prune? No way!

Seriously, this is almost as bad as those death panels that Sarah Palin was yapping about a few months ago. (Do you suppose she’s had any work done?) After all, if you can’t look younger, you may as well let the government put you to sleep.

 
Reply to Story

MoneyWatch TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    Milton F.

    11/24/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Stop the Anti-Anti-Aging Tax Now or Suffer Wrinkles

    Sigh.

    5%.
    Has the $.05 bottle deposit in New York, Connecticut, Maine, or Michigan put a dent in beer or soda consumption, even with most consumers not claiming the refund? No. And that's a 6-10% excise tax.

    Have the various gasoline taxes imposed by states actually reduced consumption at all? No. And most of those are well over 5%.

    And last, has anyone ever not bought a car, or a computer, or any reasonably pricey consumer good because of a 4-10% sales tax? Millions of Europeans "suffer" under the VAT and yet, they still buy a lot of stuff.

    If the boomers really believe that botox, boob jobs and rhinoplasty are keeping them employed, they will continue to spring for it, which will keep plastic surgeons happily employed and will keep the modern day snake oil peddlers of wrinkle cream in their sales territories. They might lose some small portion of their sales, but really, there has been no upper limit to what people will pay for this stuff to date, so 5% for the federal government will not stifle demand.

    PS- my heart shatters for the plastic surgeon who will be forced to live on $300K a year.

  •  
    2

    Milton F.

    12/02/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Stop the Anti-Anti-Aging Tax Now or Suffer Wrinkles

    My very small violin continues to play very tinny sad music for the plastic surgeons forced to muddle through on $300K a year. But after some serious thought, There are two possible outcomes of this excise tax, neither one of which I find all that unappealing.

    1- Demand for face lifts, tummy tucks, botox and regenerist is completely inelastic, in which case, there will be no millionaire plastic surgeon left behind. Well, some folks might run up a tad more on their credit card, but that never worried them before.

    2- Demand for this is highly elastic, and demand drops massively. And what happens. These plastic surgeons find they cannot support themselves on plastic surgery, so some of them take their non-specialized MD degrees and go work on medicine of a touch more social import. I'm not saying that there aren't plastic surgeons who do important work for society. There are. I know one. I watch TLC sometimes too. But what if plastic surgery and snake oil wrinkle removers were priced out of the market. Maybe we'd have more doctors tending to patients with ailments, rather than body image issues. And that might drop the doctor cost portion of medical cost. The horror. And what else. Maybe, in the absence of walking talking airbrush photos, we as a society, might go back to valuing something more like nature and less like plastic when it comes to beauty. Scary.

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here

Marlys Harris

Marlys Harris has been covering personal finance at least since the time of the Pharaohs, first in 12 years at Money and then as finance editor at Consumer Reports. She has written and edited stories on just about everything having to do with money, from workers comp to marrying for money.

Marlys Harris

track your portfolio