Maybe you have direct experience of the interest paid by the State of New Jersey has been in cosmetic procedures. New Jersey, plastic surgeons and patients know very well that this 6% tax applies to things like Botox ® treatments, procedures, liposuction and cosmetic surgery. Did you know that this tax also applies to things like cosmetic dentistry, teeth whitening and hair removal, and affects physicians' offices, spas, salons and electrolysis?
In September 2004, in New Jersey had the dubious distinction of being the first State of the Union legislative placed in charge of 6% on all elective cosmetic procedures -. "Cosmetic procedure tax," Deputy Joseph Cryan introduced the bill, believing that is so simple and easy to bring some much-needed revenue for the state. Unfortunately, research and analysis of the tax preparation proved to be a bit 'out of place. The actual amount of revenue that the tax component of the State has proved much less of all initial estimates suggested. In addition, logistics and administrative aspects involved in the implementation of this tax has been very costly. What was the outcome? For every $ 1.00 of this tax is estimated that the state had actually lost $ 3.39 in total income!
The identification of these unintended consequences and undesirable economic, member of the Assembly Cryan began work only two years later (in 2006), repealing the tax laws. Since then, repeated efforts to get this tax repealed have failed. Why? There are many possible "answers". Could it be that government officials truly believed at one point or another, were the ways in which administrative costs may be reduced. But this is not a practical reality. Another possibility is that state officials expected that eventually more tax revenue, which should get a. However, the initial recovery (already much lower, analysts say - $ 7,000,000 against $ 24,000,000 provided) was then followed by a steady stream of small over the next five years.
It was no surprise that in 2004 the collection was low for a year followed by a strong economically weaker, and the decline of the economy into recession, have only recently begun to turn around. However, the point is that New Jersey "cosmetic Tax Procedure" was actually cost New Jersey millions of dollars each year rather than increase state revenues - and is still in force today!
In addition, a clear economic disadvantage, a growing number of medical organizations (eg AMA and the American College of Surgeons) are strongly opposed to this type of tax in New Jersey and the United States as a whole. Taxing cosmetic procedures concluded that these procedures are only a "luxury" or "luxury" - to undermine and demean the value of cosmetic procedures and the different ways these procedures can improve mental health on a daily basis. The correct application of the tax itself often seems to be a matter of interpretation and difficult to define. With so many cosmetic procedures for corrective in nature and many reconstructive procedures are more aesthetic result of most of the target.
This problem has become much larger, is more and more public attention, when the federal government has begun to consider such a tax. In 2010, after much debate, the Senate rejected a proposal to give the federal version of a tax cosmetic procedure. "New Jersey experience," clearly played a role in decision making. Along the way, many other states have also considered and ultimately rejected those proposals to the conclusion that the disadvantages would outweigh the potential benefits and over-represented (eg, Arkansas, Illinois, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and New York). Perhaps New Jersey at the end to follow a lot of advice was offered to everyone but himself, and to repeal the ill-fated "cosmetic procedure tax."
How these complex issues to be properly analyzed as a "passive", "non-taxable" or more importantly "should not be imposed?" If a procedure to help a child born with a facial deformity corrected by surgery to look more normal "tax"? If a woman with debilitating back pain relieved by breast reduction "tax"? If a patient should consider proceeding on the basis of comfort and trust with the doctor of their choice, or on the basis of the status line is?
In September 2004, in New Jersey had the dubious distinction of being the first State of the Union legislative placed in charge of 6% on all elective cosmetic procedures -. "Cosmetic procedure tax," Deputy Joseph Cryan introduced the bill, believing that is so simple and easy to bring some much-needed revenue for the state. Unfortunately, research and analysis of the tax preparation proved to be a bit 'out of place. The actual amount of revenue that the tax component of the State has proved much less of all initial estimates suggested. In addition, logistics and administrative aspects involved in the implementation of this tax has been very costly. What was the outcome? For every $ 1.00 of this tax is estimated that the state had actually lost $ 3.39 in total income!
The identification of these unintended consequences and undesirable economic, member of the Assembly Cryan began work only two years later (in 2006), repealing the tax laws. Since then, repeated efforts to get this tax repealed have failed. Why? There are many possible "answers". Could it be that government officials truly believed at one point or another, were the ways in which administrative costs may be reduced. But this is not a practical reality. Another possibility is that state officials expected that eventually more tax revenue, which should get a. However, the initial recovery (already much lower, analysts say - $ 7,000,000 against $ 24,000,000 provided) was then followed by a steady stream of small over the next five years.
It was no surprise that in 2004 the collection was low for a year followed by a strong economically weaker, and the decline of the economy into recession, have only recently begun to turn around. However, the point is that New Jersey "cosmetic Tax Procedure" was actually cost New Jersey millions of dollars each year rather than increase state revenues - and is still in force today!
In addition, a clear economic disadvantage, a growing number of medical organizations (eg AMA and the American College of Surgeons) are strongly opposed to this type of tax in New Jersey and the United States as a whole. Taxing cosmetic procedures concluded that these procedures are only a "luxury" or "luxury" - to undermine and demean the value of cosmetic procedures and the different ways these procedures can improve mental health on a daily basis. The correct application of the tax itself often seems to be a matter of interpretation and difficult to define. With so many cosmetic procedures for corrective in nature and many reconstructive procedures are more aesthetic result of most of the target.
This problem has become much larger, is more and more public attention, when the federal government has begun to consider such a tax. In 2010, after much debate, the Senate rejected a proposal to give the federal version of a tax cosmetic procedure. "New Jersey experience," clearly played a role in decision making. Along the way, many other states have also considered and ultimately rejected those proposals to the conclusion that the disadvantages would outweigh the potential benefits and over-represented (eg, Arkansas, Illinois, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and New York). Perhaps New Jersey at the end to follow a lot of advice was offered to everyone but himself, and to repeal the ill-fated "cosmetic procedure tax."
How these complex issues to be properly analyzed as a "passive", "non-taxable" or more importantly "should not be imposed?" If a procedure to help a child born with a facial deformity corrected by surgery to look more normal "tax"? If a woman with debilitating back pain relieved by breast reduction "tax"? If a patient should consider proceeding on the basis of comfort and trust with the doctor of their choice, or on the basis of the status line is?
0 comments:
Post a Comment