PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues 'Tan tax' discussions include allegations of reverse racism


petegz28
07-08-2010, 09:59 PM
Mention the new "tan tax" in a major news outlet and cries of discrimination and reverse racism often follow.

The complaint surfaced on reader comment boards to blogs and news Web sites back in December, when it became clear that the levy -- a 10 percent surcharge on the use of ultraviolet tanning beds -- was likely to be included in the new health-care overhaul bill. Since then, it's been repeated by conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Doc Thompson, a fill-in host for Glenn Beck who intoned in March, "I now know the pain of racism."

When an article about the fallout from the tax -- which took effect last week -- appeared on the Washington Post's Web site Wednesday, dozens of commenters questioned the tax's legality.

The case can seem deceptively simple: Since patrons of tanning salons are almost exclusively white, the tax will be almost entirely paid by white people and, therefore, violates their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

But does the argument have any merit? Not remotely said Randall Kennedy, a professor at Harvard Law School specializing in racial conflict and law.

"There is no constitutional problem at all, because a plaintiff would have to show that the government intended to disadvantage a particular group, not simply that the group is disadvantaged in effect," he said.

Kennedy said that this is why courts have upheld a raft of other laws that also happen to have a disproportionate impact on particular groups. For example, laws that impose higher penalties for possession or trafficking of crack cocaine as opposed to powder cocaine resulted in far harsher sentences for African Americans compared to whites. And laws that offer preferential treatment for veterans are much more likely to benefit men than women. But in both cases judges ruled that, because lawmakers did not intend to disadvantage black people or women when drafting those laws, they are legal.

What would it take to prove that President Obama or members of Congress intended to discriminate against white people when they included the tan tax in the health-care law? There would have to be some record of direct or indirect comments by the officials involved, Kennedy said. Or there would have to be no possible alternate reason for adopting the tan tax.

But the levy's supporters argued from the start that it had a dual purpose: to raise funds to cover some of the cost of extending health coverage to the uninsured and to discourage a habit that scientific studies have linked with increased risk of cancer.

"To say that this health rationale was a mere pretext for wanting to stick it to white people is completely implausible," Kennedy said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/08/AR2010070804488_pf.html

petegz28
07-08-2010, 10:00 PM
I post this not so much to focus on the tax but on how idiotic the media and a lot of our society have become.

There is no such thing as "reverse racism". Racism is racism is racism.

JFC!

healthpellets
07-09-2010, 07:22 PM
raise taxes on fried chicken. see how that goes over.

Pioli Zombie
07-09-2010, 08:35 PM
raise taxes on fried chicken. see how that goes over.
I never see Black people eating fried chicken. Whenever I go to a KFC,Churches,Popeyes,or Go Chicken Go its always fat white people.

healthpellets
07-09-2010, 08:46 PM
I never see Black people eating fried chicken. Whenever I go to a KFC,Churches,Popeyes,or Go Chicken Go its always fat white people.

point made. it's a health issue.

ISUJeff
07-09-2010, 09:42 PM
raise taxes on fried chicken. see how that goes over.

Or maybe on Newports???

And I admit stealing the stereotype from the Chappelle Show

Lzen
07-09-2010, 10:09 PM
raise taxes on fried chicken. see how that goes over.

Fuck that. Who the heck doesn't like fried chicken?

healthpellets
07-09-2010, 10:53 PM
**** that. Who the heck doesn't like fried chicken?

hey, who doesn't like tanning? but it's a health concern. so is eating fried chicken. pay the tax.

ClevelandBronco
07-10-2010, 12:44 AM
I was wondering when they were going to figure out a way to tax only white people.

I was kidding. I swear.

Bwana
07-10-2010, 07:32 AM
Heh, I know a local lady that owns a tanning business and a crap load of tanning beds. She WAS a Barry fan and voted for the tool. At this point she has lost her love for Berry. I just love telling her, "I told you so."

Baby Lee
07-10-2010, 07:48 AM
But does the argument have any merit? Not remotely said Randall Kennedy, a professor at Harvard Law School specializing in racial conflict and law.

"There is no constitutional problem at all, because a plaintiff would have to show that the government intended to disadvantage a particular group, not simply that the group is disadvantaged in effect," he said.

Kennedy said that this is why courts have upheld a raft of other laws that also happen to have a disproportionate impact on particular groups. For example, laws that impose higher penalties for possession or trafficking of crack cocaine as opposed to powder cocaine resulted in far harsher sentences for African Americans compared to whites. And laws that offer preferential treatment for veterans are much more likely to benefit men than women. But in both cases judges ruled that, because lawmakers did not intend to disadvantage black people or women when drafting those laws, they are legal.

What would it take to prove that President Obama or members of Congress intended to discriminate against white people when they included the tan tax in the health-care law? There would have to be some record of direct or indirect comments by the officials involved, Kennedy said. Or there would have to be no possible alternate reason for adopting the tan tax.

How the fuck does this tard hold a position at Harvard Law. De facto and de jure discrimination is like Civil Rights 101.

De facto does have a higher level of scrutiny than de jure, and yes it refers to 'intent.' But the standard has been relegated from strict scrutiny to disparate impact with a fact intensive balancing test, including "the impact is so “stark and dramatic" as to be unexplainable on non-racial ground." The examples weren't rejected because opponents couldn't prove intent, they were rejected because the reasoning underlying the law outweighed its disparate effects. That is, there are legitimate [or at least plausibly legitimized] policy reasons for the laws.

Garcia Bronco
07-10-2010, 09:48 AM
There is no such thing as reverse racism. It's either racist or it isn't.

Pioli Zombie
07-10-2010, 11:44 AM
This is the Whites whining about Black people forum.

WoodDraw
07-10-2010, 03:55 PM
There is no such thing as reverse racism. It's either racist or it isn't.

Reverse racism, or reverse discrimination, refers to the discrimination of a group in the majority. It's a qualifying word. Obviously it's still racist, or discriminatory, or the person would presumably have used a different word.

For example, if I say that "structural discrimination is a way of life for many countries in the Middle East", yes it's still discrimination. But "structural discrimination" means something different, or is more descriptive at least, than simply "discrimination".

Pioli Zombie
07-10-2010, 04:21 PM
I like to go through the KFC drive in and if its an attractive female voice I ask for two large breasts. Gets a smile every time.

googlegoogle
07-10-2010, 07:07 PM
Tax on rap music.

Would pay for all inner city crime.

go bowe
07-10-2010, 07:38 PM
Tax on rap music.

Would pay for all inner city crime.hell, we could use it to fund our schools...

healthpellets
07-11-2010, 06:54 PM
hell, we could use it to fund our schools...

i'd prefer not to pay a tax on my music to fund schools my children won't attend.

Saul Good
07-11-2010, 07:04 PM
At this point she has lost her love for Berry. I just love telling her, "I told you so."

Did she want us to go with Clausen instead, or was she looking for a Left Tackle?