Doesn't matter if you are rich, middle class or poor. 5% no matter what. And your doctor has to collect it from you, or else the doctor is on the hook for it.

Because those poor and middle class people get unnecessary cosmetic surgery all the time, right?

Doesn't matter if you are rich, middle class or poor. 5% no matter what. And your doctor has to collect it from you, or else the doctor is on the hook for it.

So much for Obama's promise not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000.

It's elective surgery, dumbass.

And he pledged to not raise income taxes, double-dumbass.

I an outraged! I can't wait to vote Republican in 2010 so that I don't have my taxes raised (but will keeping spending the same if not more).

Is there anything there that exempts reconstructive surgery? Burn victims, breast cancer patients, people who are badly scarred?

Why don't we just skip to the end shall we?

Let's just tax everything that's not yet taxed and increase taxes on everything that's already taxed.

People who have money clearly don't deserve it.

Larry Mahnken: Doesn't matter if you are rich, middle class or poor. 5% no matter what. And your doctor has to collect it from you, or else the doctor is on the hook for it.

So much for Obama's promise not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000.It's elective surgery, dumbass.

And he pledged to not raise income taxes, double-dumbass.

"I pledge to you that under my plan, no one making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not income tax, not capital gains taxes, not any kind of tax."

Double dumbass on you

DeaH: Is there anything there that exempts reconstructive surgery? Burn victims, breast cancer patients, people who are badly scarred?

FTA:

(B) Cosmetic surgery defined.- For purposes of this paragraph, the term "cosmetic surgery" means any procedure which is directed at improving the patient's appearance and does not meaningfully promote the proper function of the body or prevent or treat illness or disease.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: DeaH: Is there anything there that exempts reconstructive surgery? Burn victims, breast cancer patients, people who are badly scarred?

FTA:

(B) Cosmetic surgery defined.- For purposes of this paragraph, the term "cosmetic surgery" means any procedure which is directed at improving the patient's appearance and does not meaningfully promote the proper function of the body or prevent or treat illness or disease.

So, no?

DeaH: Is there anything there that exempts reconstructive surgery? Burn victims, breast cancer patients, people who are badly scarred?

Read the article n00b!
jk, yes there is.
So basically if you can afford new bewbs or a younger face you can give a little back. I like this a lot.

DeaH: The_Six_Fingered_Man: DeaH: Is there anything there that exempts reconstructive surgery? Burn victims, breast cancer patients, people who are badly scarred?

FTA:

(B) Cosmetic surgery defined.- For purposes of this paragraph, the term "cosmetic surgery" means any procedure which is directed at improving the patient's appearance and does not meaningfully promote the proper function of the body or prevent or treat illness or disease.

So, no?

Um, that passage from the IRC states that cosmetic surgery, the type that is seeing the tax increase, is the elective procedures, not the procedures that "meaningfully promote the proper function of the body or prevent or treat illness or disease."

Burn victims, not sure. Breast reconstruction after cancer would have a viable cause to be exempted from the tax increase. If the bad scarring is from an illness or disease, I would say that I would attempt to have it exempted under that provision.

Isn't the source the same guy who was obsessed with mustardgate?

OH NOES, how will the bootstrapping rugged individuals afford breast implants now?!

ScouserDuck: Why don't we just skip to the end shall we?

Let's just tax everything that's not yet taxed and increase taxes on everything that's already taxed.

People who have money clearly don't deserve it.

You're so smart! I totally agree, taxing something that has no necessity but is a large industry regardless totally leads to taxing everything! Like with tobacco and booze, other completely necessary items that went down the same slippery slope.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Larry Mahnken: Doesn't matter if you are rich, middle class or poor. 5% no matter what. And your doctor has to collect it from you, or else the doctor is on the hook for it.

So much for Obama's promise not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000.It's elective surgery, dumbass.

And he pledged to not raise income taxes, double-dumbass.

"I pledge to you that under my plan, no one making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not income tax, not capital gains taxes, not any kind of tax."

Double dumbass on you

If you're making less than 250,000 a year and choose to have cosmetic surgery done as a purely elective procedure, then you can afford 5% more in order to do it. I made around 28k last year and will not be getting any plastic surgery in the near future.

As an avid Obama supporter, I had no issue with this until I realized something...

THEY'RE GOING TO TAX BIGGER BOOBIES!!!!!

Revolution now!!!

The_Six_Fingered_Man: "I pledge to you that under my plan, no one making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not income tax, not capital gains taxes, not any kind of tax."

Double dumbass on you

The fact income is mentioned pretty much qualifies the kind of tax.

If you're really wanting to fault here, you can fault him for a nonsensical statement -- becasue at the time he was already promising to raise taxes on things that had nothing to do with income.

Or, you can make the obvious assumption, he's talking about taxes related to how much you earn.

Anyway, it's B.S. anyway, we need tax reform and no one is willing to spend the political capital to do it.

Ballsy McSack: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Larry Mahnken: Doesn't matter if you are rich, middle class or poor. 5% no matter what. And your doctor has to collect it from you, or else the doctor is on the hook for it.

So much for Obama's promise not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000.It's elective surgery, dumbass.

And he pledged to not raise income taxes, double-dumbass.

"I pledge to you that under my plan, no one making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not income tax, not capital gains taxes, not any kind of tax."

Double dumbass on you

If you're making less than 250,000 a year and choose to have cosmetic surgery done as a purely elective procedure, then you can afford 5% more in order to do it. I made around 28k last year and will not be getting any plastic surgery in the near future.

What other things can we tax that you disagree with?

DarnoKonrad: The_Six_Fingered_Man: "I pledge to you that under my plan, no one making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not income tax, not capital gains taxes, not any kind of tax."

Double dumbass on you

The fact income is mentioned pretty much qualifies the kind of tax.

If you're really wanting to fault here, you can fault him for a nonsensical statement -- becasue at the time he was already promising to raise taxes on things that had nothing to do with income.

Or, you can make the obvious assumption, he's talking about taxes related to how much you earn.

Anyway, it's B.S. anyway, we need tax reform and no one is willing to spend the political capital to do it.

You can say that it qualifies it by mentioning income, but I don't see it that way. "Any form of tax increase" means any. It doesn't mean "Any form of federal income tax increase." If it did, he should have said that and not gone further in the next sentence to say "not any kind of tax."

The_Six_Fingered_Man:
You can say that it qualifies it by mentioning income, but I don't see it that way. "Any form of tax increase" means any. It doesn't mean "Any form of federal income tax increase." If it did, he should have said that and not gone further in the next sentence to say "not any kind of tax."

You're right, he should have. At the time it was already known that he was going to sign SCHIP which had a cigarette tax increase as the primary funding mechanism, so obviously at least some people under $250k would be paying more taxes, albeit voluntarily.

The point of the pledge was that he was going to keep Bush's tax cuts for all but the top bracket, and not raise income taxes. He embellished it on the stump as politicians often do. You're right to call him on it, but the basic intent of his policies has held up I think.

Ballsy McSack: DeaH: Is there anything there that exempts reconstructive surgery? Burn victims, breast cancer patients, people who are badly scarred?

Read the article n00b!
jk, yes there is.
So basically if you can afford new bewbs or a younger face you can give a little back. I like this a lot.

I don't want to get in the way of your being tough and trying to appear experienced (because you're an ADORABLE widdle toughy, yes you ARE!) but the article's language is not clear. Does removing a scar treat an illness? Does it promote the proper function of the body?

Racht: The_Six_Fingered_Man:
You can say that it qualifies it by mentioning income, but I don't see it that way. "Any form of tax increase" means any. It doesn't mean "Any form of federal income tax increase." If it did, he should have said that and not gone further in the next sentence to say "not any kind of tax."

You're right, he should have. At the time it was already known that he was going to sign SCHIP which had a cigarette tax increase as the primary funding mechanism, so obviously at least some people under $250k would be paying more taxes, albeit voluntarily.

The point of the pledge was that he was going to keep Bush's tax cuts for all but the top bracket, and not raise income taxes. He embellished it on the stump as politicians often do. You're right to call him on it, but the basic intent of his policies has held up I think.

You know, we go back and forth, you and I, but I'm going to put you up on the list of lefties I can at least have a rational discussion with. You, and Obdicut. (Not calling you out here Obi)

DeaH: Ballsy McSack: DeaH: Is there anything there that exempts reconstructive surgery? Burn victims, breast cancer patients, people who are badly scarred?

Read the article n00b!
jk, yes there is.
So basically if you can afford new bewbs or a younger face you can give a little back. I like this a lot.

I don't want to get in the way of your being tough and trying to appear experienced (because you're an ADORABLE widdle toughy, yes you ARE!) but the article's language is not clear. Does removing a scar treat an illness? Does it promote the proper function of the body?

As a tax preparer and Enrolled Agent, I would have to look at the specifics of the treatment and then make a decision with the client as to whether or not they should have paid the 5% excise tax. I would think that some cases would be black and white, some aren't, as is always the case when talking about Federal taxation.

If that scar was causing additional pain and suffering, I would try to get it exempted under a medically necessary reason. It would also depend on the client's profession as well.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: I'm going to put you up on the list of lefties I can at least have a rational discussion with.

Same with you. I do what I can to raise the level of rational discussion.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: You can say that it qualifies it by mentioning income, but I don't see it that way. "Any form of tax increase" means any. It doesn't mean "Any form of federal income tax increase." If it did, he should have said that and not gone further in the next sentence to say "not any kind of tax."

Then it is a pretty nonsensical assertion.

DarnoKonrad: The_Six_Fingered_Man: You can say that it qualifies it by mentioning income, but I don't see it that way. "Any form of tax increase" means any. It doesn't mean "Any form of federal income tax increase." If it did, he should have said that and not gone further in the next sentence to say "not any kind of tax."

Then it is a pretty nonsensical assertion.

I agree. It is not one he should have made, knowing that he was going to sign a tax increase if elected. I chalk it up to being on the campaign trail and embellishing a bit, but words have consequences when made as a campaign promise.

He needed to specify income taxes, but he didn't. He left it ambiguous, which is never good.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: DeaH: The_Six_Fingered_Man: DeaH: Is there anything there that exempts reconstructive surgery? Burn victims, breast cancer patients, people who are badly scarred?

FTA:

(B) Cosmetic surgery defined.- For purposes of this paragraph, the term "cosmetic surgery" means any procedure which is directed at improving the patient's appearance and does not meaningfully promote the proper function of the body or prevent or treat illness or disease.

So, no?

Um, that passage from the IRC states that cosmetic surgery, the type that is seeing the tax increase, is the elective procedures, not the procedures that "meaningfully promote the proper function of the body or prevent or treat illness or disease."

Burn victims, not sure. Breast reconstruction after cancer would have a viable cause to be exempted from the tax increase. If the bad scarring is from an illness or disease, I would say that I would attempt to have it exempted under that provision.

Yes, I read that. And the examples I mentioned do not fit. The scarring comes after the illness is cured. Some goes for the missing breast. Removing the breast treated the illness. Putting a new one in does not. One could make the argument that there is psychological welfare involved, but what plastic surgery recipient doesn't believe that psychological welfare isn't involved?

Anyway, as for the actual article, for some reason the guy only quotes half of the relevant section. Here's the whole thing:

'(b) COSMETIC SURGERY AND MEDICAL PROCEDURE.-For purposes of this section, the term 'cosmetic surgery and medical procedure' means any cosmetic surgery (as defined in section 213(d)(9)(B)) or other similar procedure which- '(1) is performed by a licensed medical professional, and '(2) is not necessary to ameliorate a deformity arising from, or directly related to, a congenital abnormality, a personal injury resulting from an accident or trauma, or disfiguring disease.

So, yeah, burn victims and breast reconstructive surgery are not subject to this tax, just purely elective stuff.

Ballsy McSack: If you're making less than 250,000 a year and choose to have cosmetic surgery done as a purely elective procedure, then you can afford 5% more in order to do it. I made around 28k last year and will not be getting any plastic surgery in the near future.


Let's put a 5% tax on beer....it's not a necessary product, and you can afford it, right?

DeaH: The_Six_Fingered_Man: DeaH: Is there anything there that exempts reconstructive surgery? Burn victims, breast cancer patients, people who are badly scarred?

FTA:

(B) Cosmetic surgery defined.- For purposes of this paragraph, the term "cosmetic surgery" means any procedure which is directed at improving the patient's appearance and does not meaningfully promote the proper function of the body or prevent or treat illness or disease.

So, no?

Seriously, read better. Right before it mentions that, it states that the procedures of that nature are not effected by the tax.

The_Sponge: Ballsy McSack: If you're making less than 250,000 a year and choose to have cosmetic surgery done as a purely elective procedure, then you can afford 5% more in order to do it. I made around 28k last year and will not be getting any plastic surgery in the near future.


Let's put a 5% tax on beer....it's not a necessary product, and you can afford it, right?

Beer is already taxed for pretty much that exact reason.

Racht: Anyway, as for the actual article, for some reason the guy only quotes half of the relevant section. Here's the whole thing:

'(b) COSMETIC SURGERY AND MEDICAL PROCEDURE.-For purposes of this section, the term 'cosmetic surgery and medical procedure' means any cosmetic surgery (as defined in section 213(d)(9)(B)) or other similar procedure which- '(1) is performed by a licensed medical professional, and '(2) is not necessary to ameliorate a deformity arising from, or directly related to, a congenital abnormality, a personal injury resulting from an accident or trauma, or disfiguring disease.

So, yeah, burn victims and breast reconstructive surgery are not subject to this tax, just purely elective stuff.

This just means they will have to get script from their doctor stating their small boobies or big nose is causing them psychological distress and now it is paid for with no tax.

The_Sponge: Ballsy McSack: If you're making less than 250,000 a year and choose to have cosmetic surgery done as a purely elective procedure, then you can afford 5% more in order to do it. I made around 28k last year and will not be getting any plastic surgery in the near future.


Let's put a 5% tax on beer....it's not a necessary product, and you can afford it, right?

We should tax the internet too. It isn't essential, and you probably shouldn't be on it all the time. Doesn't seem healthy.

Same with fatty foods, television, comic books...really anything I don't necessarily approve of.

DarnoKonrad: Beer is already taxed for pretty much that exact reason.


My point is that we need to stop placing additional taxes on goods and services just because "they can afford it". A new tax on plastic surgery just doesn't affect wealthy surgeons and rich biatches from Beverly Hills. If demand goes down, what happens to medical supply companies who provide products to plastic surgery offices?

Obama needs to realize that you don't increase taxes during a recession. Unfortunately, 500 people in Tampa learned that lesson the hard way when they lost their jobs.

The_Sponge: Ballsy McSack: If you're making less than 250,000 a year and choose to have cosmetic surgery done as a purely elective procedure, then you can afford 5% more in order to do it. I made around 28k last year and will not be getting any plastic surgery in the near future.


Let's put a 5% tax on beer....it's not a necessary product, and you can afford it, right?

Right. Absolutely. I don't think it's a problem. May suck a bit, but at no point in my life have I NEEDED beer. Hell tax my videogames too. I'm ok with that too. Especially when our country is in such excellent financial times like now.

The_Sponge: DarnoKonrad: Beer is already taxed for pretty much that exact reason.


My point is that we need to stop placing additional taxes on goods and services just because "they can afford it". A new tax on plastic surgery just doesn't affect wealthy surgeons and rich biatches from Beverly Hills. If demand goes down, what happens to medical supply companies who provide products to plastic surgery offices?

Obama needs to realize that you don't increase taxes during a recession. Unfortunately, 500 people in Tampa learned that lesson the hard way when they lost their jobs.



No we need to change our attitude and stop looking for ways to hide the taxes we're politically incapable of paying for the services people demand.


Until people start paying income taxes again -- and voting for leaders that advocate sensible taxation, we'll contiue to come up with regression targeted fees and taxes to make up for the revenue we don't have.

It's pretty much insane the way we do things in this country.

Racht: Anyway, as for the actual article, for some reason the guy only quotes half of the relevant section. Here's the whole thing:

'(b) COSMETIC SURGERY AND MEDICAL PROCEDURE.-For purposes of this section, the term 'cosmetic surgery and medical procedure' means any cosmetic surgery (as defined in section 213(d)(9)(B)) or other similar procedure which- '(1) is performed by a licensed medical professional, and '(2) is not necessary to ameliorate a deformity arising from, or directly related to, a congenital abnormality, a personal injury resulting from an accident or trauma, or disfiguring disease.

So, yeah, burn victims and breast reconstructive surgery are not subject to this tax, just purely elective stuff.

Thank you. I did not search the whole bill - bad on me. The truth is that I loath wading through those things. I've done it on occasion, but there are people who are way better at parsing those things than I am.

Frankly, I do feel much better about this. I had some nasty scarring after a cyst was removed from an artery on my neck. I am very glad that it's gone. I, personally, do not consider my plastic surgery an elective, but I knew people who did.

atomsmoosher: The_Sponge: Ballsy McSack: If you're making less than 250,000 a year and choose to have cosmetic surgery done as a purely elective procedure, then you can afford 5% more in order to do it. I made around 28k last year and will not be getting any plastic surgery in the near future.


Let's put a 5% tax on beer....it's not a necessary product, and you can afford it, right?

We should tax the internet too. It isn't essential, and you probably shouldn't be on it all the time. Doesn't seem healthy.

Same with fatty foods, television, comic books...really anything I don't necessarily approve of.

I approve of everything you've listed so far, and taxing them is fine. In the case of the "internet" and "television" If you look at your bills for those things, at some point you are in most cases taxed on them. Cell phones too.

Hillary will not be pleased either.

The_Sponge: DarnoKonrad: Beer is already taxed for pretty much that exact reason.


My point is that we need to stop placing additional taxes on goods and services just because "they can afford it". A new tax on plastic surgery just doesn't affect wealthy surgeons and rich biatches from Beverly Hills. If demand goes down, what happens to medical supply companies who provide products to plastic surgery offices?

Obama needs to realize that you don't increase taxes during a recession. Unfortunately, 500 people in Tampa learned that lesson the hard way when they lost their jobs.

The medical supply companies should do a bit better if we're able to get every one some form of health care. How often do you honestly think that 5% is going to be the deal breaker for people getting completely elective cosmetic surgery?

Ballsy McSack: Let's put a 5% tax on beer....it's not a necessary product, and you can afford it, right?

I live in PA and pay a whole lot more that 5% tax on my beer (when I am not too lazy to drive to Delaware to buy it)

Nemo's Brother: Hillary will not be pleased either.

Good! She shouldn't be. If people are going to rely on things like looking good (arguably, in every female politician's case) to stay marketable then they may have to pay the price for it.

In other news, we should keep a large military on hand at all times, use them to get resources like oil, give it to big companies, give them tax shelters, and then oooooh oooh I also want my guvment to make sure I have access to lots of basic things like safe prescription drugs, oooh and protection from those terrible brown people that bring drugs in...oh and terrorists, and I want all of that, oh and I want a way to keep brown people out of my Merica, but I don't want to pay taxes on it, I also want ways to avoid paying taxes! I don't want to be taxed in Merica, but I want lot's of stuff from my guvment!

alt-explode: OH NOES, how will the bootstrapping rugged individuals afford breast implants now?!

breaststraps

// bra straps?

To all those saying "beer is already taxed", why don't we tax it more? If people are still buying it at current tax rates, it means they still have too much disposable income and we can still squeeze more tax money out of them, right?

monoski: Ballsy McSack: Let's put a 5% tax on beer....it's not a necessary product, and you can afford it, right?

I live in PA and pay a whole lot more that 5% tax on my beer (when I am not too lazy to drive to Delaware to buy it)

Yeah exactly! Although some how you managed to only attribute the parts of that I didn't write to me.

GanjSmokr: To all those saying "beer is already taxed", why don't we tax it more? If people are still buying it at current tax rates, it means they still have too much disposable income and we can still squeeze more tax money out of them, right?

No, this is wrong. Slippery Slope thinking will get slippery.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Larry Mahnken: Doesn't matter if you are rich, middle class or poor. 5% no matter what. And your doctor has to collect it from you, or else the doctor is on the hook for it.

So much for Obama's promise not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000.It's elective surgery, dumbass.

And he pledged to not raise income taxes, double-dumbass.

"I pledge to you that under my plan, no one making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not income tax, not capital gains taxes, not any kind of tax."

Double dumbass on you

He broke that pushing for a tax increase on cigarettes, alcohol, fatty foods and soda.

TheJoeY: Doesn't matter if you are rich, middle class or poor. 5% no matter what. And your doctor has to collect it from you, or else the doctor is on the hook for it.

Because those poor and middle class people get unnecessary cosmetic surgery all the time, right?

Yes. Breast augmentation. Nose jobs. Tattoo removal. Speaking of which, I wonder if getting tattooed would constitute "cosmetic surgery"? Seems like it fits the definition.

monoski: Racht: Anyway, as for the actual article, for some reason the guy only quotes half of the relevant section. Here's the whole thing:

'(b) COSMETIC SURGERY AND MEDICAL PROCEDURE.-For purposes of this section, the term 'cosmetic surgery and medical procedure' means any cosmetic surgery (as defined in section 213(d)(9)(B)) or other similar procedure which- '(1) is performed by a licensed medical professional, and '(2) is not necessary to ameliorate a deformity arising from, or directly related to, a congenital abnormality, a personal injury resulting from an accident or trauma, or disfiguring disease.

So, yeah, burn victims and breast reconstructive surgery are not subject to this tax, just purely elective stuff.

This just means they will have to get script from their doctor stating their small boobies or big nose is causing them psychological distress and now it is paid for with no tax.

Oh. So? We already have similar situations, like a governor attempting to charge the state for travel to and from her home. Like doctors writing bogus scripts for OxyContin, Viagra, weed (in CA), Ambien, etc.

If there are people abusing the system, they will either win or lose. If they lose, the IRS (and by extension, the rest of us) wins. If they win, they win. C'est la vie.

GanjSmokr: To all those saying "beer is already taxed", why don't we tax it more? If people are still buying it at current tax rates, it means they still have too much disposable income and we can still squeeze more tax money out of them, right?

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles of taxation.