Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Tax time headache?
Let us crunch the numbers

Tanning Beds – Major Parties Destroy another Small Business

By Steven Bailey 25 September 2014 40

tanning-bed-stock-240914

We’re all going to die, actually, many of us already have. In fact, I think my life is going to be rather short compared to others but regardless of that, Betty Gobin owns a small tanning salon business.

One day it was worth $280,000, now, after last year’s announcement to ban commercial tanning salons in the ACT, it’s worth nothing. Now before all of the do-gooders get up on their high horses, let me explain the situation.

Betty is the sole income provider for her family, and has invested her life and money into her business. She has paid her own way in life, is not reliant on Government, and has paid a lifetime of taxes. Betty is a senior citizen, and now her retirement has been taken away from her… swiftly and without compensation.

Since 2010 numerous regulations have been imposed on the industry in the ACT, and in the interests of public health and safety, of course, this is an industry that needs to be regulated. Betty has willingly complied with Government imposed regulations at her own expense. In order to comply, Betty has borrowed thousands of dollars, and as with any small business, she has complied with imposed regulations on the understanding and assurance that her trade would be able to continue. If the ban is to take effect as planned by the end of the year, Betty will have no way of paying for her lease, to which she is bound until November 2015.

In a cold letter written to Betty, reminding her of the ‘impending ban on commercial tanning units’, the ACT’s Director of Health Protection Service John Woollard has stated that Betty may be eligible for a payment of $1,000 for each tanning bed surrendered; Betty has paid on average about $11,000 per tanning bed, and she owns five of them. Furthermore, the letter states that Green Sheds Pty Ltd holds a ‘license to dispose of tanning units, and offers free removal of tanning units’. After making four separate enquiries today to Green Sheds Pty Ltd, it is clear that they are completely unaware and unclear of Woollard’s claims. And what would they do with them – sell them somewhere else?

mrs-betty-june-gobin

Tanning yourself to a crisp is bad for you – I get it. But saying that there is no safe level of exposure to tanning beds is like saying there is no safe level of exposure to the sun. Are the prohibitionists going to ban the sun? I’m sure they would if they could.

When Governments prohibit the behaviour of personal choice, instead of opting to tax and regulate, the consequences are almost always the opposite to the intent of the policy. As most Governments move towards the prohibition of the small industry, tanning beds are being sold privately like hotcakes across Australia. It isn’t illegal to have a tanning bed in one’s house.

So once again, in the great Australian tradition of politicians trying to alter personal freedoms, Governments will create an unregulated and underground market. If you look hard enough on the internet you will find young girls who have regular tanning parties in their homes. Is it the Government’s policy to have children and people with fair skin using tanning beds? Well, if it isn’t, don’t prohibit the industry. Or, is it the Government’s plan to waste police resources on hunting down and punishing the little grilled goblins?

There are always casualties with freedom, but there are always more casualties with prohibition.

It’s the do-gooding b*stards that believe they champion oppressed minorities, when in fact they are running society and restricting the liberties of a supposedly free citizenry.

I say to the decision makers of the ACT, if you are hell-bent on prohibiting yet another business, at least give Betty some decent compensation.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
40 Responses to
Tanning Beds – Major Parties Destroy another Small Business
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Maya123 1:07 pm 20 Oct 14

dkNigs said :

Personally I use tanning beds occasionally to treat depression, vitamin D boosts my mood substantially. I come out feeling like a million bucks.

Guess I’ll just have to go spend an hour in a park laying in the sun rotating myself instead. That’ll surely be better for me Govco? Oh wait, except like most young people working casual jobs and studying I spend nearly every waking hour inside working, and don’t get nearly enough sunlight.

Have you tried a light box to improve your mood? Likely less dangerous than a tanning bed.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/seasonal-affective-disorder/in-depth/seasonal-affective-disorder-treatment/art-20048298

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_therapy

dkNigs 11:22 am 20 Oct 14

Personally I use tanning beds occasionally to treat depression, vitamin D boosts my mood substantially. I come out feeling like a million bucks.

Guess I’ll just have to go spend an hour in a park laying in the sun rotating myself instead. That’ll surely be better for me Govco? Oh wait, except like most young people working casual jobs and studying I spend nearly every waking hour inside working, and don’t get nearly enough sunlight.

carnardly 4:43 pm 19 Oct 14

Steven Bailey said :

carnardly said :

Tillies01 said :

Betty imposes strict guidelines around her beds. She screens each persons skin type and would never allow someone who wasn’t suitable for solarium beds to tan. .

Wow – so this solarium owner is a qualified dermatologist….

that’s irony for you…

The ONLY people who can assess skin correctly are dermatologists. That is what they spend 7-9 years learning.

Do you think someone should be assessed by a gastroenterologist before drinking alcohol? Betty adheres to guidelines prescribed to her by the Department of Health.

Social and small amounts of alcohol aren’t likely to kill you. However, as you’ll find on any health website, there is NO such thing as a safe solarium tan. And if she’s earning money from these suckers, is she really going to turn too many away?

Not if she’s still claiming that used beds that cost her $11,000 each are still worth that? She obviously had the choice to stay and run her business in 2010 or get out. She can’t complain now that ‘she didn’t know’ or its all too hard. Let her sell the cancer beds to the private suckers then so the idiots can kill themselves privately.

So are you her son, or her husband? or brother…?

Steven Bailey 4:03 pm 19 Oct 14

Masquara said :

Steven Bailey said :

Masquara said :

I was wondering why the Sex Party rep would be so concerned about the welfare of a tanning salon at the expense of public health – but I guess the Eros Foundaiton’s business very much depends on head-to-toe tans!

Another insightful comment Masquara, but I don’t mind responding to it. I choose who I defend based on my values. People from the major parties don’t have that freedom. You will see nothing but consistency in my stance on issues such as these. My position is that regulation is a better mechanism than prohibition when balancing the freedoms of people to do what they want with their own bodies and the risks to their health.

In order to protect young people’s health, you’d find that the “regulation” you are vaunting would have to pretty much “regulate” the tanning business out of existence in any case. So your distinction is an irrelevancy and doesn’t go to anything material.
And here, have a gratuitous pointer on English expression: if someone gives an insightful comment, there should be no “but” – it’s “and” you are happy to respond (unless you were being sarcastic).

I would never be sarcastic to you Masquara.

Masquara 3:42 pm 18 Oct 14

Steven Bailey said :

Masquara said :

I was wondering why the Sex Party rep would be so concerned about the welfare of a tanning salon at the expense of public health – but I guess the Eros Foundaiton’s business very much depends on head-to-toe tans!

Another insightful comment Masquara, but I don’t mind responding to it. I choose who I defend based on my values. People from the major parties don’t have that freedom. You will see nothing but consistency in my stance on issues such as these. My position is that regulation is a better mechanism than prohibition when balancing the freedoms of people to do what they want with their own bodies and the risks to their health.

In order to protect young people’s health, you’d find that the “regulation” you are vaunting would have to pretty much “regulate” the tanning business out of existence in any case. So your distinction is an irrelevancy and doesn’t go to anything material.
And here, have a gratuitous pointer on English expression: if someone gives an insightful comment, there should be no “but” – it’s “and” you are happy to respond (unless you were being sarcastic).

Steven Bailey 9:09 am 18 Oct 14

Masquara said :

I was wondering why the Sex Party rep would be so concerned about the welfare of a tanning salon at the expense of public health – but I guess the Eros Foundaiton’s business very much depends on head-to-toe tans!

Another insightful comment Masquara, but I don’t mind responding to it. I choose who I defend based on my values. People from the major parties don’t have that freedom. You will see nothing but consistency in my stance on issues such as these. My position is that regulation is a better mechanism than prohibition when balancing the freedoms of people to do what they want with their own bodies and the risks to their health.

pajs 10:36 am 16 Oct 14

If the only reason someone needs to use a tanning bed is medical, then they only need to put the beds in medical facilities. Not that complicated. Melanoma is too serious to muck about with.

Steven Bailey 9:31 am 16 Oct 14

carnardly said :

Tillies01 said :

Betty imposes strict guidelines around her beds. She screens each persons skin type and would never allow someone who wasn’t suitable for solarium beds to tan. .

Wow – so this solarium own is a qualified dermatologist….

that’s irony for you…

The ONLY people who can assess skin correctly are dermatologists. That is what they spend 7-9 years learning.

Do you think someone should be assessed by a gastroenterologist before drinking alcohol? Betty adheres to guidelines prescribed to her by the Department of Health.

carnardly 7:34 pm 15 Oct 14

Tillies01 said :

Betty imposes strict guidelines around her beds. She screens each persons skin type and would never allow someone who wasn’t suitable for solarium beds to tan. .

Wow – so this solarium own is a qualified dermatologist….

that’s irony for you…

The ONLY people who can assess skin correctly are dermatologists. That is what they spend 7-9 years learning.

Masquara 5:23 pm 15 Oct 14

I was wondering why the Sex Party rep would be so concerned about the welfare of a tanning salon at the expense of public health – but I guess the Eros Foundaiton’s business very much depends on head-to-toe tans!

CraigT 5:17 pm 15 Oct 14

Tillies01 said :

Using the beds has helped me hugely with my eczema and I no longer get it.

I took up cigarettes to help me with my asthma, maybe I should be moaning about the stupid amount of tax that is levied on those to stop me from indulging in my right to smoke?

Tillies01 1:33 pm 15 Oct 14

I go to Bettys solarium around once a fortnight and I am really saddened that her business been forced to close. Anyone that goes there knows how much this business means to her and it really is her life. It isn’t as simple as just looking into other business options of makeup, spray tans ect. The beds are the main income for Nefetari and without them the business would cease.

Betty imposes strict guidelines around her beds. She screens each persons skin type and would never allow someone who wasn’t suitable for solarium beds to tan. You are only permitted a maximum of 20 minutes and you must have a day in between each tanning session. I guarantee closing solariums will create an underground business were young girls are using solarium beds at home incorrectly and without guidelines. I agree with the above statement that moderation is key. Without beds being in a controlled environment there will be no moderating of usage.

I think everyone should be able to make a decision for themselves – we are adults – if we want to continue using solariums it should be by choice. Using the beds has helped me hugely with my eczema and I no longer get it. I know the dangers of the beds and I have chosen to continue to use them as is my right, I have yearly checks with my doctor for any new skin spots or moles. Will the government impose bans on smoking (how many people die from smoking a year), drinking (alcohol fuelled violence), junk food (obesity)? It seems we are heading this way and we are now living in a nanny state where everything is monitored and there are regulations in place on everything we do and it is impacting these small businesses.

HenryBG 3:21 pm 01 Oct 14

Antagonist said :

HenryBG said :

Masquara said :

Someone mentioned 2011 – solariums have actually been on notice since 2007 that the industry would be closed down – following the death of young melanoma victim Claire Oliver. Betty has effectively had seven years to adjust to this reality.

Not to mention she’s had 7 years to depreciate these assets of hers which are almost certainly not worth a fraction of the $11,000 she is trying to hit up the ACT ratepayer for.

Did anybody bail out Kodak when digital cameras took over?
What about all the VHS video rental shops – did they get bail outs when they went out of business?

Come on Henry. You cannot compare a change in technology to a change in legislation.

I beg to differ: medical science has advanced, it is now known (and has been for some time) that tanning salons are a health risk.

Just like mining asbestos or manufacturing thalidomide became obsolete business practices following improvement in medical knowledge.
(And I sincerely hope the taxpayer never compensated Wittenoom or Grünenthal for having to shut up shop, although I note Australian coal companies are demanding government handouts following the start of the end of the obsolescent coal industry).

Antagonist said :

Maybe she is seeking more compensation than is reasonable, but the current offer of compensation is insulting.

She should get nothing, and her valuation of her assets is suspiciously fantastical.

jadestarr 10:25 am 01 Oct 14

as a person who uses a solarium to not only get a healthy glow, but to treat several skin conditions and increase my vitamin D, I am shattered that my only solution is being taken away from me. I myself am a qualified spray tanner and i opt to use a solarium, and I love it!! it make me feel healthy and it actually heals my skin conditions. I am greatly confused as to why the government would ban solariums as they are being used in a very controlled environment at the moment, once banned there is no more controlled environment for them as anyone can own one and anyone can use them as often and for as long as they want, not to mention the different skin types that should not use them at all…
Its overall ridiculous what small business’s are having to go through because of the small minds of the parties! at the end of the day, most things these days care cancer causing aren’t they?? the key is moderation!

Steven Bailey 3:59 pm 29 Sep 14

Masquara said :

Steven Bailey said :

Masquara said :

Someone mentioned 2011 – solariums have actually been on notice since 2007 that the industry would be closed down – following the death of young melanoma victim Claire Oliver. Betty has effectively had seven years to adjust to this reality.

No, other than the argument being more complicated than that, for the reasons I’ve outlined in the article, that is incorrect Masquara.

How can you argue that any tanning salon owner wasn’t aware that post Claire Oliver’s death, solariums were inevitably going to be banned? How exactly is it “more complicated”? I knew back in 2007 and I’ve never been near a tanning bed! For a solarium owner not to be abreast of the biggest news in the industry’s history means it is their lookout, sorry!

No need to apologise Masquara. I could outline how the argument is more complicated but then I would be stating the obvious and insulting those people who have read the article properly. Perhaps you could try to read the article again.

Masquara 2:48 pm 29 Sep 14

Steven Bailey said :

Masquara said :

Someone mentioned 2011 – solariums have actually been on notice since 2007 that the industry would be closed down – following the death of young melanoma victim Claire Oliver. Betty has effectively had seven years to adjust to this reality.

No, other than the argument being more complicated than that, for the reasons I’ve outlined in the article, that is incorrect Masquara.

How can you argue that any tanning salon owner wasn’t aware that post Claire Oliver’s death, solariums were inevitably going to be banned? How exactly is it “more complicated”? I knew back in 2007 and I’ve never been near a tanning bed! For a solarium owner not to be abreast of the biggest news in the industry’s history means it is their lookout, sorry!

Steven Bailey 2:31 pm 29 Sep 14

Antagonist said :

HenryBG said :

Masquara said :

Someone mentioned 2011 – solariums have actually been on notice since 2007 that the industry would be closed down – following the death of young melanoma victim Claire Oliver. Betty has effectively had seven years to adjust to this reality.

Not to mention she’s had 7 years to depreciate these assets of hers which are almost certainly not worth a fraction of the $11,000 she is trying to hit up the ACT ratepayer for.

Did anybody bail out Kodak when digital cameras took over?
What about all the VHS video rental shops – did they get bail outs when they went out of business?

Come on Henry. You cannot compare a change in technology to a change in legislation. Maybe she is seeking more compensation than is reasonable, but the current offer of compensation is insulting. If a change to the legislation not only forces her out of business, but also leaves her with additional costs, then she should be compensated accordingly.

* I have never used a tanning salon, and love to laugh and point at the orange spray tan Oompa Loompas.

Good point Antagonist. Perhaps we should call you Protagonist! 😉

Antagonist 12:02 pm 29 Sep 14

HenryBG said :

Masquara said :

Someone mentioned 2011 – solariums have actually been on notice since 2007 that the industry would be closed down – following the death of young melanoma victim Claire Oliver. Betty has effectively had seven years to adjust to this reality.

Not to mention she’s had 7 years to depreciate these assets of hers which are almost certainly not worth a fraction of the $11,000 she is trying to hit up the ACT ratepayer for.

Did anybody bail out Kodak when digital cameras took over?
What about all the VHS video rental shops – did they get bail outs when they went out of business?

Come on Henry. You cannot compare a change in technology to a change in legislation. Maybe she is seeking more compensation than is reasonable, but the current offer of compensation is insulting. If a change to the legislation not only forces her out of business, but also leaves her with additional costs, then she should be compensated accordingly.

* I have never used a tanning salon, and love to laugh and point at the orange spray tan Oompa Loompas.

HenryBG 10:02 am 29 Sep 14

Masquara said :

Someone mentioned 2011 – solariums have actually been on notice since 2007 that the industry would be closed down – following the death of young melanoma victim Claire Oliver. Betty has effectively had seven years to adjust to this reality.

Not to mention she’s had 7 years to depreciate these assets of hers which are almost certainly not worth a fraction of the $11,000 she is trying to hit up the ACT ratepayer for.

Did anybody bail out Kodak when digital cameras took over?
What about all the VHS video rental shops – did they get bail outs when they went out of business?

Steven Bailey 9:35 am 29 Sep 14

Masquara said :

Someone mentioned 2011 – solariums have actually been on notice since 2007 that the industry would be closed down – following the death of young melanoma victim Claire Oliver. Betty has effectively had seven years to adjust to this reality.

No, other than the argument being more complicated than that, for the reasons I’ve outlined in the article, that is incorrect Masquara.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site