http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/health/policy/30cosmetic.html Now, I am all for this tax as I think a large portion of these procedures are ridiculous and should not be covered whatsoever by insurance in the first place. This is the part that really gets me though: This argument really made me stop and do a double take. The reason that women need no tax on Botox is so they can get a job? Please, and if that's the case isn't there a huge underlying societal issue here? It seems to me that line of reasoning is self defeating, what do you think?
I think they're talking out of their backsides. A tax on anything that's a "luxury" should be standard. But obviously in the case of alcohol that's discriminatory against men, because some of them need it to get laid.