The BoTax – Taxing Plastic Surgery by 10%?

According to which accounts you read, the U.S. Senate may be considering a 10% tax on plastic surgery to help pay for the massive costs of an expanded government health care plan. Most sources report that it’s a likely no-go, especially given the fact that the amount of money it would raise would be neglible compared to the estimated costs of expanding government-provided health care.

Should plastic surgery be considered for a “sin tax,” like cigarettes and alcohol? I don’t think so. Unlike cigarettes and alcohol, plastic surgery does not worsen people’s health and create a burden on the health care system. In fact, the vast majority of people who have plastic surgery are healthy and stay that way. If the government wants to tax companies that contribute to poor health, then they should consider taxing fast food, vending machines, soda pop companies, potato chip manufacturers, Pizza Hut, Panda Express, and all-you-can-eat buffets. These contribute more to obesity and poor health than a pair of fake breasts!

Thanks for reading.
Michigan-based Plastic Surgeon
Anthony Youn, M.D.

Posted in: Plastic Surgery News


Responses:

  1. Totally agree!

    Comment by Anonymous on August 2, 2009 at 5:09 pm

  2. You are so right about people who have PS being generally healthier and therefore less of a burden on the system. Good looks and good health are a tie-in.

    Comment by Rosina at Middle Ageless on August 2, 2009 at 7:01 pm

  3. Washington is completely out of control

    …all they want to do is tax everyone

    Comment by Anonymous on August 2, 2009 at 7:43 pm

  4. I totally agree here that it should not be considered as "sin tax".Cosmetic Surgery makes people healthier and it should not be treated as a burden on the healthcare system.

    Comment by Cosmeticsurgeryguide on August 4, 2009 at 8:29 am

  5. There are 2 motivations converging here: trying to provide health care on the cheap; and, punishing people for unauthorized,selfish and unpious behavior. Instead of accepting that everyone should pay for a common good, we try to force some group of "unworthy" people to shoulder the burden. I'm already peeved that we levy cigarette taxes to fund health care for children, and I am not a smoker. Winston Churchill said that you can depend on Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities. Proper funding of health care is another case in point.

    Comment by Witch Hazel on August 4, 2009 at 10:52 am

  6. I think we should apply a special tax on the manufacturers of foods that don't meet some minimum nutrient content threshold.

    Comment by Anonymous on August 5, 2009 at 7:27 pm

  7. I wouldn't consider this tax a sin tax. It could be an attempt to make sure higher income taxpayers are paying more taxes (to the extent that those with higher incomes are more likely to have plastic surgery.)

    Comment by cheddar on August 5, 2009 at 11:25 pm

  8. Consider this: The Botax is a sexist tax. Women are the primary recipients of cosmetic enhancement procedures. Women make less money per dollar than men for the same jobs performed. This tax is really a double whammy for women who will be paid less at work and taxed more for these procedures.
    Perhaps we should tax something used equally by men and women???

    Comment by BubsPinkTaco on August 6, 2009 at 12:42 pm

  9. Dr. Youn, I hope you are working on a transdermal Botox so we can just buy the stuff ourselves and not have to get injections. You would be a mega bazillionaire if you developed this product.

    Comment by Anonymous on August 14, 2009 at 8:55 pm

  10. Unfortunately, taxing junk food would amount to a disproportionate tax on the poor. It's been tried in the past in California and didn't last.

    Comment by V McIntyre on August 22, 2009 at 1:47 am

Leave a response